Last modified Mon Feb 19 19:00:56 GMT 1996
Note that according to Rule 205, the voting period is one week from *transmission*, so there is no conflict with 118 and 220, which specifically state *submit*.
Reasoning: [paraphrased - mycroft]
I am unsure whether midnight on a day is the first minute of the day or the last. So the Nomic Week could be from Monday to Monday or from Tuesday to Tuesday.
There is no definition of midnight in the Rules. Neither Game Custom nor the Spirit of the Game, as I understand them, have anything to say one way or the other. So I attempted to apply "other standards" (Rule 217).
I looked up the ISO standard (well sort of - the file I found is A Summary of the International Standard Date and Time Notation) for displaying times. Here's what it has to say about midnight:
As every day both starts and ends with midnight, the two notations 00:00 and 24:00 are available to distinguish the two midnights which can be associated with one date. This means that the following two strings refer to exactly the same point in time:So there are two conclusions I can draw.
1995-02-04 24:00 = 1995-02-05 00:00
In case an unambiguous representation of time is required, 00:00 is usually the prefered notation for midnight, which is also what most digital clocks display.
Reasoning: Email, (all bow down to the net.gods) is significantly faster than snail- mail (can you imagine us trying to run a Nomic game through Canada Post?) However, there is still a delay between the time Player X hits "send" or it's equivalent and the time the Speaker's machine receives it. Supposing that in that timespan was the Nomic Week Changeover? Do the proposals count against the new week or the old week?
While it is impossible to reliably prove the "send" time, there is reliable proof that the message has left (been submitted). There is a timestamp attached to every mail message (Actually several, as it passes through each machine). Here is an example:
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Feb 19 20:56:14 1996 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (email@example.com [220.127.116.11]) by novice.uwaterloo.ca (8.6.12/8.6.12UW) with ESMTP id UAA27422 for
; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:56:13 -0500 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (firstname.lastname@example.org [18.104.22.168]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id UAA14478 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:55:49 -0500 Received: (ag746@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.6.12/NCF-Sun-Client) id U AA11401; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:55:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:55:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199602200155.UAA11401@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: email@example.com (Andrew Archibald) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] 307 - 30 Mutable Rules to be In Effect Reply-To: email@example.com Status: RO
The submission date, should the judgment be TRUE, for this message would be Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:55:46 -0500 (or 20 Feb 1996 01:55:46 UTC), the earliest of the machine-supplied dates.
It is impossible to prove when someone hit the "send" key, but so there must be some standard for when a document is submitted, so e-mail sent near the deadline can be either counted or discounted. It is possible to show when the mail goes through different machines. With e-mail, the submission is not instantaneous, but I don't think that anyone will be unfairly punished. I happen to have a very slow connection, with everything going to Ottawa before going out, but I still have rarely had my e-mail arrive more than an hour after sending it.
Point being, we must have a standard, and this one seems both fair and objective.
[COMMENTS] Rule 107 does not state when "the form it was voted on" is to be fixed; in fact if some Player or Players had already voted on the Proposal, Rule 107 explicitly forbids this. In practical terms, what do we do with the votes that get submitted before the amendment? We need rules here; I hope to Propose some soon.
Speaker's comment: As I said before, I don't know how to handle amendments. As I read rule 213, I'm supposed to be the first Judge selected. However, as I instigated the discussion, and am intimately involved in the answer, I refuse the job. (Now I'll be told I'm not following the Rules - and if I did take the Judgement, I'd be told I'm in conflict of interest. DIYD, DIYD).
Distributed: Thu Mar 7 05:39:07 UTC 1996
Rule 107 does not allow a Rule to come into effect different than it was voted on, although I disagree with the reasoning that because of this a proposal can not be modified after it is submitted. All I infer is that the vote must be somehow retaken if the proposal is amended.
However, I'm now thinking that in the spirit of the game, it would complicate things greatly if we could all amend the proposals without having a Rule to guide how it would work. So I make my judgement.
[Speaker's note: On 313 - the only proposal to which this Judgement applies - the only Voter of note to not vote was Andrew. If he had voted AGAINST, it still would have passed (even if I hadn't consented, which I would have liked to not) - Tim just would be one point down from where he is. I'm not going to worry about that - unless anyone else does.]
Distributed: Thu Mar 7 06:42:23 GMT 1996
The general priciple which seems (to me) to best remove the ambiguity is: when a period of time that has length T is used as an interval beginning at time t, then the effect in question takes place at the next period (of the same kind) end after t+T. In other words, round up to the nearest period. If the period is a one-time thing, well, that's another Judgement.
I feel this resolves some ambiguity about not only this rule but a few others that seem to use periods and intervals interchangeably.
Reasoning: If the rule says it is not a proposal, is it really not a proposal? Or is the word submit important?
Distributed: Fri Mar 8 20:39:10 UTC 1996
Reasoning: (Example, really) Rule 309 states "It may be a Rule, it...but it is not a Proposal." Rule 118 states "No Player may submit more than 3 Proposals per Nomic Week". If it isn't a Proposal, then it isn't covered by Rule 118.
Counterexample: If a Rule stated: "A Proposal which [meets certain criteria] is declared Invalid and automatically fails, irrespective of Voting", then my opinion would be that it counted as one of the 3, as it was still a proposal.
Musing: What status does the fourth proposal attempted to be submitted by a Player in a Nomic Week have?
The Speaker is ensuring that the Voters are educated, which seems to be in accordance with the Spirit of the Game. On the other hand, the Speaker is taking advantage of information not available to the other Players in order to manipulate the results.
Request: the Reverend
Distributed: Fri Mar 8 23:09:11 UTC 1996
Reasoning: If a Voter at one point votes, then in a private discussion with another Voter decided that e was voting with erroneous information, and corrects eir vote, not only would that be legal, but point-for-point comparable with this Statement (as the Voters are taking advantage of information not available...manipulate the results, too).
Comments: Thought I'd nip this in the bud...
Request: the Reverend
Distribution date: Thu Mar 21 22:28:32 UTC 1996
Distribution date: Thu Mar 21 22:29:42 UTC 1996
[COMMENTS] The rule specifies that Dave Savitt's Player Name shall be "?": "...becomes a Player according to the norms specified _in_the_communication_" (emph. added). In the communication emitted by the Speaker (the only one that has any official standing at all), the Player Name was referred to as "?". Thus, this is the new Player's name.
[Speaker's Comment: Well, as I feel somewhat unqualified to Judge this <:-) I am refusing judgement. Judgement then goes to...wait for it... well, you can read it soon. Until the results of this Judgement come in, I shall refer to the Player in question with the Name that e has requested. I can g/s/r with little problem, if necessary.]
Distribution date: Thu Mar 21 22:47:53 UTC 1996