From windrant@n... Tue Feb 29 15:33:56 2000Received: (qmail 21930 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 23:33:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Feb 2000 23:33:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 23:33:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 9890 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 23:34:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.153) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 23:34:18 -0000 Reply-To: To: Subject: NOMIC: V2 (New Proposals) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:38:41 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" *****NOTES: Please submit proposals and votes to windrant@n... Any discussions should be posted to on_discussion@onelist.com Please submit your votes by the date listed in "Voting Period." In this case, there are 2 proposals, please clearly indicate how you vote on EACH proposal! Thanks! *****PROPOSALS: Proposal # 301 Voting Period: March 7th, 2000 Proponent: Matt Keppel Text of Proposal: "THE HEAD NEEDS A BODY" It should be recognized that in the infancy of our game, we are governing without having anyone to govern. Therefore, let there be the creation of a city-state, 'Nomicsylvania', by which all future laws and amendments will have influence over, and we, the governing players, shall rule over like kings, damn-hell-ass kings! Comments from Proponent: None Proposal # 302 Voting Period: March 7th, 2000 Proponent: Devon Jacobs Text of Proposal: AMENDMENT TO R204: - In the first line, after the word shall, insert the word "only". - In the first line, after the word speaker insert the words: "in the form of an e-mail message to em at the address: windrant@n...". The amended rule to read: 204. A proposal shall only be made by submitting it to the Speaker in the form of an e-mail message to em at the address: windrant@n.... Only Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a proposal, the Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and distribute the proposal along with its number to all players Comments from Proponent: To alleviate the confusion brought about by the interpretation of initial instructions, and use of multiple e-mail addresses by both speakers and voters, I propose to amend R204. This amendment will standardize the proposition procedure. In addition, it will serve to insure that most submissions are from the party that they claim to be from, insomuch as the Speaker may at eis discretion check the originating e-mail address of the sender to determine authenticity. Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From mattkeppel@y... Tue Feb 29 17:11:06 2000Received: (qmail 24884 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 01:11:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 01:11:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web220.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.120) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 01:11:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20000301011103.16811.rocketmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.102.209] by web220.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:11:03 PST Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] NOMIC: V2 (New Proposals) To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel My fellow voters: While I generally support Mr. Jacobs proposed ammendment to R204, it does raise some questions. >From my understanding of the current rules of Nomic, the winner of this initial game will be designated as the Speaker of game #2, with Mr. Henry joining the ranks of the voters. If this is how we are to play, I feel it would be against our best interests to include Chuck's e-mail address directly into any ammendment. This will prevent us having to make ammendments every time a new Speaker is chosen. Instead, may I suggest the change in text to the following: "in the form of an e-mail message to em at their most current e-mail address." The amended rule to read: 204. A proposal shall only be made by submitting it to the Speaker in the form of an e-mail message to em at their most current e-mail address. Only Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a proposal, the Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and distribute the proposal along with its number to all players How does everyone else feel on this? Respectfully submitted, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From LilBoof624@a... Tue Feb 29 19:35:34 2000Received: (qmail 30614 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 03:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 03:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 03:35:37 -0000 Received: from LilBoof624@a... by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.be.1b179f8 (4510) for ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:34:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:34:58 EST Subject: Re: [on_discussion] NOMIC: V2 (New Proposals) To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 42 X-eGroups-From: LilBoof624@a... From: LilBoof624@a... Good call Matt on the interpretations of the rules. I would agree that since Chuck will not always be Speaker that the rule should read as "in the form of an e-mail message to em at their most current e-mail address." Not only will this help alleviate any changes in Speaker, but also any changes in e-mail addresses should anyone change their e-mail address. From djacobs@n... Tue Feb 29 21:09:58 2000Received: (qmail 11884 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 05:10:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 05:10:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 05:10:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 11675 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 05:10:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO djacobs) (198.175.11.150) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 05:10:19 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000301001743.0080d2e0@a...> X-Sender: djacobs@a... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:17:43 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Prop 302 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} Thanks for the insight on prop 302, I have decided to edit the proposition to include the address on_discussion-owner@onelist.com instead of Chuck's personal e-mail address. This address will mail the current owner of the listmail. when Speakership is handed over to a new party, the internal e-mail address for the listmail will be changed and the global on_discussion-owner@onelist.com address will continue to be used thus eliminating the problem of having to later amend the rules. to avoid confusion, I have withdrawn prop 302. consider it null and void. an official statement from Speaker Henry should follow shortly. the revised proposition will be posted with the next scheduled mailings. This brings up another good point as well, now that we've already jumped right into things. It may be a good idea to post proposals to the mailing list for debate for a short period before submitting them to the speaker in their final form. This would cut down alot of editing and rescheduling of polling dates. -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From jands1@f... Tue Feb 29 21:14:55 2000Received: (qmail 24935 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 05:14:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 05:14:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO node15.cwnet.frontiernet.net) (209.130.129.205) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 05:14:58 -0000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by node15.cwnet.frontiernet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24862 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 00:14:56 -0500 Received: from 209-130-220-47.nas1.roc.gblx.net(209.130.220.47), claiming to be "oemcomputer" via SMTP by node15.frontiernet.net, id smtpdcZEWEa; Wed Mar 1 00:14:52 2000 To: Subject: RE: [on_discussion] NOMIC: V2 (New Proposals) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 00:16:46 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF8313.6E86AB80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Julie & Scott" From: "Julie & Scott" ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF8313.6E86AB80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I may put in my two cents worth, I think there are a couple of issues here. While the rules state that any of us as future speakers can be designated to distribute the proposals via this listserv, only Chuck can post the proposals to his own website. (I doubt he wants to give us the password!) So, perhaps the way to go here is to ammend R204 as follows: 204. A proposal shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker in the form of an e-mail message to em at their most current e-mail address. Only Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a proposal, the Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and distribute the proposal along with its number to all players via the discussion list. The proposal will also be carbon copied to windrant@n... to be posted on the official website. Obviously, I borrowed from others in the discussion, but I wondered if anyone else noticed this angle! -Scott Morgan ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF8313.6E86AB80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If I = may put in my=20 two cents worth, I think there are a couple of issues here.  While = the=20 rules state that any of us as future speakers can be designated to = distribute=20 the proposals via this listserv, only Chuck can post the proposals to = his own=20 website. (I doubt he wants to give us the password!) So, perhaps the way = to go=20 here is to ammend R204 as follows:
 
204. A proposal shall be made by = submitting=20 it to the Speaker in the form = of an=20 e-mail message to em at their most current e-mail = address. Only=20 Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a = proposal, the=20 Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and distribute the proposal = along=20 with its number to all players = via the=20 discussion list. = The=20 proposal will also be carbon copied to windrant@n... to = be posted=20 on the official website.
 
Obviously, I=20 borrowed from others in the discussion, but I wondered if anyone else = noticed=20 this angle!
 
-Scott=20 Morgan
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF8313.6E86AB80-- From djacobs@n... Tue Feb 29 22:01:57 2000Received: (qmail 24466 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 06:01:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 06:01:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 06:01:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 26357 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 06:02:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO djacobs) (198.175.11.150) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 06:02:15 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000301010939.007fb270@a...> X-Sender: djacobs@a... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:09:39 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com, Subject: RE: [on_discussion] NOMIC: V2 (New Proposals) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} Scott: I thought of that earlier.... but then it occurred to me that Chuck is already a member of the listserv, so he gets a copy anyway.... in the new version of the amendment (see previous note on Prop 302) the props are sent to whoever is the speaker via a universal e-mail address, and when received by the speaker it is CC:'d to the entire listserv as an official proposal. Chuck gets a copy of all the official stuff at the same time we do, and can put it on his website in a timely fashion. This is pretty much the same way it works now. In the event that Chuck ever quits the game and thus is removed from the listserv, it is most likely that he will also no longer be available to run the web site, and will likely throw the whole thing on a zip disk and let the current governing body of the Nomic deal with it. Of course, being the founder of Our Nomic I don't see him ditching unless the thing dies, but hey you never know..... -Devon At 12:16 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Julie & Scott wrote: >>>> From: "Julie & Scott" < ArialIf I may put in my two cents worth, I think there are a couple of issues here. While the rules state that any of us as future speakers can be designated to distribute the proposals via this listserv, only Chuck can post the proposals to his own website. (I doubt he wants to give us the password!) So, perhaps the way to go here is to ammend R204 as follows: Arial204. A proposal shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker in the form of an e-mail message to em at their most current e-mail address. Only Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a proposal, the Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and distribute the proposal along with its number to all players via the discussion list. The proposal will also be carbon copied to <windrant@n... to be posted on the official website. ArialObviously, I borrowed from others in the discussion, but I wondered if anyone else noticed this angle! Arial-Scott Morgan ---------- < ---------- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: on_discussion-unsubscribe@onelist.com <<<<<<<< -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From mattkeppel@y... Wed Mar 01 05:22:53 2000Received: (qmail 26549 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 13:22:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 13:22:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web222.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.122) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 13:22:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20000301132129.26700.rocketmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.120.11] by web222.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 01 Mar 2000 05:21:29 PST Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 05:21:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Prop 302 To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel A few thoughts: First, it seems that we need to separate and dissect Chuck's duties. While the role of speaker will eventually pass from person to person, the maintainance of the web site will not. The question is how do we separate the two? Later today, I plan on submitting a proposal, creating the title of Court Historian/WebGnome, to be conferred upon Chuck. With this title, he can continue running the web site regardless of who the Speaker may be. To accomplish this in the most efficient manner, I believe it's necessary that for any game where Chuck is not speaker, any proposal must be simultaneously submitted to both the speaker and court historian. The only possible conflict I see in this is that as court historian, Chuck gets first peek at all new proposals before the rest of the voters. However, I do not see this giving Chuck any unfair advantage over the rest of the voting body. Secondly, in regards to submitting proposals directly to the discussion list, bypassing the speaker, I feel this would ultimately be chaotic. The speaker has the two very important duties of assigning a proposal number and setting a voting date. It is important to designate exactly what we are voting on. For example, if Devon originally submitted his proposal directly to the group, which version do we vote on? His original proposal? My personal revision of it? Steve's revision? All revisions? As designated proposal 302, we know what we're voting on. Granted, this opens it to a lot of discussion, but that's what law making is all about. I say that we vote on the original proposal. If it passes, we can amend it. If it fails, it can be reworded and resubmitted. The important thing is we realize the impact of each proposal and develop a sense of where we want to go with it. Geez, this was quite the soapbox rant, wasn't it? I'll get down now :) Keep the thoughts and ideas flowing! Respectfully submitted, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From djacobs@n... Wed Mar 01 12:04:20 2000Received: (qmail 7034 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:04:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 20:04:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:04:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 636 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:04:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO djacobs) (209.2.153.146) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:04:34 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000301150747.007f88f0@a...> X-Sender: djacobs@a... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 15:07:47 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Prop 302 In-Reply-To: <20000301132129.26700.rocketmail@w...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} I may have worded that poorly.... it was like 1:30am.... the idea was to post the text of a proposal to the discussion group for *debate*. to enable the writer to consider other's ideas and take care of the major editing BEFORE it comes to a vote.... like the first proposal I submitted.... there were several things that were pointed out that I didn't take into consideration when I originally wrote the thing. now I have to find a way to edit a proposal that hasn't been voted on (which would cause all kinds of logistical nightmares) or withdraw it and submit a new one. either is a pain in the arse for both myself and the speaker. don't mind my ranting....I'm not really anal.... I just want to make sure the thing runs smoothly if we get more than our little core of players.... anyway... on with the fun..... -Devon At 05:21 AM 3/1/00 -0800, you wrote: >>>> Secondly, in regards to submitting proposals directly to the discussion list, bypassing the speaker, I feel this would ultimately be chaotic. The speaker has the two very important duties of assigning a proposal number and setting a voting date. It is important to designate exactly what we are voting on. For example, if Devon originally submitted his proposal directly to the group, which version do we vote on? His original proposal? My personal revision of it? Steve's revision? All revisions? As designated proposal 302, we know what we're voting on. Granted, this opens it to a lot of discussion, but that's what law making is all about. I say that we vote on the original proposal. If it passes, we can amend it. If it fails, it can be reworded and resubmitted. The important thing is we realize the impact of each proposal and develop a sense of where we want to go with it. Geez, this was quite the soapbox rant, wasn't it? I'll get down now :) Keep the thoughts and ideas flowing! Respectfully submitted, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. <http://im.yahoo.com ---------- < ---------- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: on_discussion-unsubscribe@onelist.com <<<<<<<< -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From windrant@n... Wed Mar 01 12:05:29 2000Received: (qmail 9887 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 20:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:05:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 1284 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:05:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.161) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:05:34 -0000 Reply-To: To: Subject: An issue of discussion Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:09:56 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000301005437.007ffaa0@a...> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Now I chime into the discussion! I think what Devon was suggesting wasn't that we post the proposals DIRECTLY to the discussion and expect me to grab them and number them and ask for a vote. It's just that he ran into a problem. He submitted a proposal that he realized needed to be reworded before it was written into a formal proposal. He submitted it as a formal proposal before he realized the imperfection. He was afraid that you folks would vote into law something he felt was less than perfect. That left him with 2 choices: 1) Ask to withdraw the proposal. (Which there is no legal precedent...) 2) Allow it to be voted in or out. If it was voted in then he could propose an amendment. He saw this and suggested a way to prevent this in the future. That's what DRJPROP2 is. However, might I suggest that a proposal which is not formally entered into record be called something else?!? Maybe call it a "proposition." And then just follow Devon's suit... use initials and the number that you have chosen. And then state before the proposition the date in which the "copy protection" expires. In Devon's case it would be: >Proposition DRJ2 > >Expires: March 8th, 2000 > >Proposition: >(text here) This would allow Devon to get suggestions on the prop as written and avoid having to withdraw the proposal. At the end of 7 days Devon then could submit what he thought the proposal should be and let you folks decide the outcome. This is just a suggestion... If in fact, a system is set up like this it would not have to be mandatory. If you wanted the advice on the prop you could submit it to the discussion continuum as a proposition and then listen to the advice roll in... the decision of what the final proposal would be would be yours. If you merely wanted it voted upon without discussion ("damn the torpedoes!") then submit to it the Speaker as a proposal. Getting people to vote on it would be your diplomacy skills and the merit of the proposal only. I can't write a proposal that would set this system up... open to anyone for the writing. -Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} [mailto:djacobs@a...] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:55 AM To: on_discussion-owner@onelist.com Subject: DRJPROP2 Proposal: At any time a proposal may be submitted to all members of the on_discussion mailing list for debate before submission to the speaker for voting. A proposal submitted for the purpose of debate must be e-mailed to all members of the on_discussion mailing list and have the following as the first line of the body of the e-mail. PROPOSAL FOR DEBATE A proposal submitted for debate in this manner will be protected in that no player may officially submit for voting the same proposal, or a differently worded proposal that causes the same result as the proposal originally posted for debate for a period of 7 days from the time the original proposal was posted for debate in the appropriate manner. If the proposal is not officially submitted for voting within the 7 day period, no player may repost for debate the same proposal, or a differently worded proposal that causes the same result as the proposal originally posted for a period of 7 days. In either case, the Speaker will be the sole judge of whether any proposal submitted for voting or debate causes the same result as a proposal previously submitted for debate. -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From windrant@n... Wed Mar 01 12:29:21 2000Received: (qmail 6143 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:29:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 20:29:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:29:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 15035 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:29:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.161) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:29:32 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: 1st Feminine Proposal Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Greetings Lawmakers! I will set forth the first effort by a female to join this testosterone crazed, rule-making frenzy and encourage our other female members not to be intimidated. Upon following the discussion brought about by Matt, Devon, and Scott, and upon further contemplation of the rule set I offer a new proposition. If we were to consider granting our present speaker the position of "historian", as proposed by Matt, then perhaps we shall also reconsider the role of speaker itself. 218. In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the rules, the Speaker shall have the following duties: -register new players -maintain a list of all players and their current scores, and make such a list available to all players -maintain a complete list of the current rules, and make such a list available to all players -make a random determination whenever such determination is required by the rules It appears to me that duties that begin with the word "maintain" could be readily fulfilled by this possible historian who is already supplying our webpage with information for us to access. The word maintain implies an ongoing duty that encompasses a larger time frame than the span of one speaker. **I feel that the role of speaker should be to facilitate the discussion and grant points when needed. This would also allow a broader spectrum of group members to fulfill the role of Speaker in the future.** -Jen From mattkeppel@y... Wed Mar 01 14:47:04 2000Received: (qmail 19649 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 22:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 22:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web207.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.107) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 22:47:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 10235 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Mar 2000 22:47:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000301224706.10234.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.50.3] by web207.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:47:06 PST Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:47:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] 1st Feminine Proposal To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel I can see! I can see! (as I fall into the pit...) Thank you Devon for clearing up what you wrote. It makes more sense to me now. Proposals should be fine tuned before submitting and the discussion group is a fine way of doing so. While we are attempting to define the Speaker's duties and such, there is one aspect that seems unclear to me. Why can't the speaker vote? I know Chuck has expressed disappointment over his unability to do so, and I can see no reason why he should not be allowed. Finally, may I add; welcome to the frenzy Jen! A litlle estrogen never hurt anyone! (wait, too much information...) Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From windrant@n... Wed Mar 01 19:10:19 2000Received: (qmail 3817 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2000 03:10:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Mar 2000 03:10:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2000 03:10:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 1502 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2000 03:10:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.211) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2000 03:10:35 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC V3 (Proposals) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:14:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" *****NOTES: Devon Jacobs has withdrawn Proposal 302 from voting. (Tue 2/29/00 11:57 PM) All votes for Pro. 302 will be ignored. *****PROPOSALS: Proposal # 303 Voting Period: March 8th, 2000 Proponent: Devon Jacobs At any time a proposal may be submitted to all members of the on_discussion mailing list for debate before submission to the speaker for voting. A proposal submitted for the purpose of debate must be e-mailed to all members of the on_discussion mailing list and have the following as the first line of the body of the e-mail: PROPOSITION ($$$PROP#) FOR DEBATE where $$$ represents the author's initials and # represents the number of propositions submitted by this author. (e.g. DRJPROP3) A proposition submitted for debate in this manner will be protected in that no player may officially submit for voting the same proposal, or a differently worded proposal that causes the same result as the proposition originally posted for debate for a period of 7 days from the time the original proposition was posted for debate in the appropriate manner. If the proposal is not officially submitted for voting within the 7 day period, no player may repost for debate the same proposition, or a differently worded proposition that causes the same result as the proposition originally posted for a period of 7 days. In either case, the Speaker will be the sole judge of whether any proposal submitted for voting or debate causes the same result as a proposition previously submitted for debate. -The Speaker From windrant@n... Mon Mar 06 03:50:17 2000Received: (qmail 18307 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 11:50:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Mar 2000 11:50:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 11:50:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 8241 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 11:50:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.136) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 11:50:37 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: A friendly reminder! Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 06:54:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Hello! Just a reminder... Proposal 301 and 303 are due for voting this week. 301 => March 6th (Mardi Gras!) 303 => Marth 7th You can vote on these by submitting an email to on_discussion-owner@onelist.com Thanks! Hope you you a great week! -C Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From mattkeppel@y... Mon Mar 06 08:42:15 2000Received: (qmail 6811 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 16:42:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Mar 2000 16:42:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web214.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.114) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 16:42:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 29152 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Mar 2000 16:42:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000306164216.29151.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.120.112] by web214.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:42:16 PST Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:42:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] A friendly reminder! To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel Ah yes, it would help to vote, wouldn't it? Therefore, allow me to cast: PROPOSAL 301 : Yeah PROPOSAL 303 : Nay In addition, I would like to submit the following proposals: "CHUCK THE WEB GNOME" Whereas it is of vital importance that there be accurate records available to all players on the current status of the game, and whereas Chuck has been kind enough to provide a web site to provide this information, let there be the creation of the position of Historian. This title shall forevermore be conferred upon Chuck. As Historian, it will be Chuck's duty to maintain the web site and serve as list moderator for the discussion list serve. Furthermore, all proposals submitted must henceforth be simultaneously submitted to both the designated Speaker and Historian in order to maintain continuity. "E WHO SMELT IT, DEALT IT" At anytime a Voter submits a proposal, it shall be assumed that said Voter will likewise vote for its acceptance. Therefore, let the submission of a proposal be automatically recorded as a vote by the submitter in favor of the proposal. I found this last one on another Nomic site and felt it appropriate: "PUNISHMENT BY BROWBEATING" If a player violates one of the accepted rules, and it is brought to the attention to the List, the other players may send messages to that player with the phrase "BROWBEAT" in the body. Respectfully submitted, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From mattkeppel@y... Mon Mar 06 10:17:10 2000Received: (qmail 6513 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 18:17:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Mar 2000 18:17:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web210.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.110) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 18:17:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 24441 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Mar 2000 18:17:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000306181709.24440.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.121.239] by web210.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:17:09 PST Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:17:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] A friendly reminder! To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel My appologies folks. I could have sworn I sent that to Chuck's e-mail. Weird. Well, nothing you wouldn't know in due time... Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From jands1@f... Mon Mar 06 20:26:36 2000 Received: (qmail 18752 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2000 04:25:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Mar 2000 04:25:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO node9.cwnet.frontiernet.net) (209.130.129.194) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 04:25:16 -0000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by node9.cwnet.frontiernet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27130 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:25:14 -0500 Received: from 209-130-220-160.nas1.roc.gblx.net(209.130.220.160), claiming to be "oemcomputer" via SMTP by node9.frontiernet.net, id smtpdWRtoqa; Mon Mar 6 23:25:07 2000 To: Subject: New Proposals Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:27:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <952355346.29429@onelist.com> X-eGroups-From: "Julie & Scott" From: "Julie & Scott" Hello All, Just a few thoughts on the new proposals from my tired mind: 304: Sounds good to me! 305: Yeah, but what if during discussion you decide you don't like your proposal. I guess you could just withdraw it and vote no by the writhdrawl, so to speak. But what if the rest of us like it? Basically, what's the harm in letting someone go through the motions of voting on their own proposal? Save some electricity I guess. Just a thought.... 306: So, we're going to get mean already, eh? :) Them's fighting words my man! Can't we all just get along? My two bits...night all.... -Scott From mattkeppel@y... Tue Mar 07 10:47:21 2000 Received: (qmail 29615 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2000 18:47:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Mar 2000 18:47:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web215.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.115) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 18:47:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28309 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Mar 2000 18:47:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000307184709.28308.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.50.65] by web215.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 07 Mar 2000 10:47:09 PST Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:47:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] New Proposals To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel Good point on proposition 305, Scott. I hadn't really thought of that. That proposition came to mind when I realized it took a reminder from Chuck for me to vote on one of my own proposals! Regardless, I feel that there are ways around such a circumstance. Proposals can be discussed before they are officially submitted, and any law that passes can be amended or repealed. Perhaps if this particular proposition passes, I'll propose an amendment stating that the proposer (in fact, any Voter) can change their vote anytime within the designated voting period. That should fix things, shouldn't it? As for 306, they're only fighting words if you're not a law abiding citizen. :) Anyone who knows me knows that I am a bit warped, and I fully intend to keep this game interesting by proposing numerous silly laws. I have also found in searching other Nomic sites a variety of laws and proposals that may have a place in our game as well, this being one of them. Besides, at some point and time we will have to devise ways of enforcing our rules and regulations, and what better way than a text-based browbeating? :) Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From windrant@n... Tue Mar 07 12:29:18 2000 Received: (qmail 7528 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2000 20:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Mar 2000 20:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 20:27:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 14281 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2000 20:27:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.149) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 20:27:47 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: V4 (New proposals) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:32:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" *****NOTES Kris Zaker has left the game :( Pro. 301 due for vote! (Votes must be in by midnight tonight!) Pro. 303 due for vote tomorrow by midnight! Results will be announced Thursday. *****PROPOSALS (6 in Total!) Proposal # 304 Voting Period: March 13th, 2000 Proponent: Matt Keppel Text of Proposal: "CHUCK THE WEB GNOME" Whereas it is of vital importance that there be accurate records available to all players on the current status of the game, and whereas Chuck has been kind enough to provide a web site to provide this information, let there be the creation of the position of Historian. This title shall forevermore be conferred upon Chuck. As Historian, it will be Chuck's duty to maintain the web site and serve as list moderator for the discussion list serve. Furthermore, all proposals submitted must henceforth be simultaneously submitted to both the designated Speaker and Historian in order to maintain continuity. Comments from Proponent: None Proposal # 305 Voting Period: March 13th, 2000 Proponent: Matt Keppel Text of Proposal: "E WHO SMELT IT, DEALT IT" At anytime a Voter submits a proposal, it shall be assumed that said Voter will likewise vote for its acceptance. Therefore, let the submission of a proposal be automatically recorded as a vote by the submitter in favor of the proposal. Comments from Proponent: None Proposal # 306 Voting Period: March 13th, 2000 Proponent: Matt Keppel Text of Proposal: "PUNISHMENT BY BROWBEATING" If a player violates one of the accepted rules, and it is brought to the attention to the List, the other players may send messages to that player with the phrase "BROWBEAT" in the body. Comments from Proponent: None Proposal # 307 Voting Period: March 14th, 2000 Proponent: Jennifer Henry Text of Proposal: The Speaker shall do no more than facilitate discussion and fulfill duties mentioned in rule 218, with the exception of maintaining player lists, scores, and rules. All sections of rule 218 pertaining to maintenance will be fulfilled by the position of Historian. The Historian for the first game is Chuck Henry. Comments from Proponent: None Proposal # 308 Voting Period: March 14th, 2000 Proponent: Jennifer Henry Text of Proposal: The position of historian may be passed along to other players that are deemed worthy and capable by the current historian. Using the prestige points system can assess worthiness and capableness. Comments from Proponent: None Proposal # 309 Voting Period: March 14th, 2000 Proponent: Jennifer Henry Text of Proposal: There will be a prestige points system in use to track player participation. Each player in addition to the game points that determine winner, will have a sum of prestige points (PPs) assigned. The points will be awarded to represent participation only and will not aid in winning. A voter will receive 10 PPs for every proposal submitted to the speaker, regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted. A voter will receive 5 PPs for voting on any proposals. The Speaker will receive 2 PPs for every voter that votes on a proposal. Other rules may create circumstances in which PPs are created and awarded. The Speaker can grant PPs to any voter for service “above and beyond” the ruleset. The speaker shall not, however, assign more than 20 PPs to one voter within one month. PPs are non-tradable and non transferable. Comments from Proponent: None Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From windrant@n... Wed Mar 08 19:27:05 2000 Received: (qmail 5579 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 03:27:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 03:27:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 03:27:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 26223 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 03:27:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.149) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 03:27:25 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: Results 301 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:31:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" *****NOTES On March 7th, 2000 proposal 301 was adopted in the current ruleset. The record shows that: In favor: Jen, Matt, Devon Opposed: Steve, Scott Abstained: Justin, DeeAnna Points Awarded: Scott +10 (dissent points - rule 211) Steve +10 (dissent points - rule 211) Matthew (proponent) I've contacted an independent dice rolling website to determine his points as required in the ruleset. It will post the results to the discussion list. (this insures that I'm not cheating ;] ) The points suggested by the roller will be entered as his points. Proposal 303 still has 2 hours left... I'm not anticipating more votes but I still need to allow it time. Just to be careful! Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From windrant@n... Wed Mar 08 19:32:41 2000 Received: (qmail 9799 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 03:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 03:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 03:32:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 30107 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 03:33:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.149) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 03:33:03 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: oops! Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:37:27 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Matt's points will be Roll 1 from the email roller... sorry but I screwed up the number of dice! Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From jands1@f... Wed Mar 08 21:09:45 2000 Received: (qmail 21284 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 05:09:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 05:09:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO node15.cwnet.frontiernet.net) (209.130.129.205) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 05:09:46 -0000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by node15.cwnet.frontiernet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA103102 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:09:44 -0500 Received: from 209-130-221-67.nas1.roc.gblx.net(209.130.221.67), claiming to be "oemcomputer" via SMTP by node15.frontiernet.net, id smtpdxbNAya; Thu Mar 9 00:09:37 2000 To: Subject: Historian Debate Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:11:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Julie & Scott" From: "Julie & Scott" Good Evening to All, I have been thinking about the proposals surrounding the "Historian's" role in the game and am hoping others will chime in with their thoughts as well. I support Proposal 304 and agree with its wording. I believe that since Chuck has created this game, he should be given the title of permanent Historian. In submitting Proposal 308, I think Jen is also correct to leave it up to Chuck (the current historian) to select other members to be the Historian if he so chooses. However, as 308 is currently written, it could be argued that, if passed, Chuck could select Matt to be Historian and then Matt could in turn select me without Chuck's consent. I can't say I'm sure how to rectify that, so what do other people think? Do we just give Chuck the lifetime role as stated in 304? Does 308 give only Chuck the power to designate future Historians? Or does it allow the scenario I mentioned above? I think what we are trying to accomplish is a way for the Historian to be in control of the official website and separate those duties from the true role of Speaker. For now, Chuck is both, but it won't always be that way. And I wouldn't want to enact a rule that could conceivably put Chuck in violation of the rules by not giving up the password to his own account! I know such an occurrence wouldn't happen, but I thought I would raise the concern to elicit discussion. Well, I'm getting veh-clempt...discuss! Happy Trails, Scott From windrant@n... Thu Mar 09 03:58:28 2000 Received: (qmail 5070 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 11:58:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 11:58:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 11:58:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 14810 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 11:58:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.156) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 11:58:45 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: FW: Points for Devon Jacobs (Proponent) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:03:03 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" -----Original Message----- From: dice@i... [mailto:dice@i...] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 7:40 AM To: windrant@n... Subject: Points for Devon Jacobs (Proponent) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Points for Devon Jacobs (Proponent) windrant@n... requested that 1 roll of a 10-sided die be rolled. Roll them bones ... your dice are Roll 1: 10. Mail was sent to you at windrant@n.... (Mail addresses have not been confirmed.) --- Irony Games' public PGP key is available at http://www.irony.com/verifyroll.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBOMebuLyfeleUG9SNAQEnTgH8CZ11zrjpyyndz2ypwAwyO3NZd0gHp/1S pSTgWQRYFnx/QPnJ0gdbNMUgHlaanDTIMiT5BxoiuVQcHirJTIQhmA== =o1H6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From windrant@n... Thu Mar 09 04:11:30 2000 Received: (qmail 15796 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 12:11:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 12:11:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 12:11:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 21800 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 12:11:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.156) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 12:11:49 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: Ok sorry Matt! Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:16:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Well let me tell the stupid shit I went through... cause of course by my own idiocy. I wanted to use a play by email server to generate teh "random" determination of points for the proponents of adopted proposals. Great idea! They send the results right to an email address and there'd be no chance of me tampering with the results. I thought it would be fair. Well, I have this server send the email to the list... however I forgot the list was set to reject email from anybody except list members. Matt's point roll ended up, again because of another mistake, with 2 dice rolls on it... so this wasn't going smoothly. According to the dice roller, Matt's points was three. However, the second roll was different. I sent a message thinking that everybody would get... but nobody did... so everything's screwed up now. Do to the mix up, I am offically rerolling Matt's die and we'll see what comes up... if it's more than 3 he gets to keep it. If it is less than 3 then he keeps the 3. sound fair? If not too bad. -Speaker Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From mattkeppel@y... Thu Mar 09 05:50:38 2000 Received: (qmail 8391 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 13:50:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 13:50:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web206.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.106) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 13:50:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 8523 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Mar 2000 13:50:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20000309135037.8519.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.101.115] by web206.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:50:37 PST Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 05:50:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Historian Debate To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel Greetings all! Here's some additional thoughts on our current propositions... First of all, it concerns me that four of our propositions (304, 307 - 309) are intertwined and dependent on the assumption that they will all pass. If 304 were to fail, that would make 307 and 308 moot, regardless if they were to pass or fail. If 308 becomes moot or fails, so does 309. In retrospect, Jen, I think you and I should have worked together and jointly submitted a proposal encompassing 304, 307, and the first sentence of 308. It would have more clearly defined the Historian/Speaker relationship right off the bat. Maybe next time :) Second, I'm not entirely sold on these prestige points. This point system was designed to measure participation, but it has flaws. Let's say that on any given month we have 10 propositions to vote on. If player A submits one proposition and votes on two, e gains the maximum 20 PP allowed for that month. If player B submits 1 or more propositions and votes on all 10 propositions, e is considered to be on equal ground with player A. This point system also doesn't account for participation on the discussion list. PP's seem unnecessary to me since their only purpose is to decide on a future Historian, which brings me to my next set of thoughts... When and if Chuck ever decides he no longer wants to maintain the web site, he should just offer it to whoever wants the job. If more than one of us wants it, we'll put it to a vote. I think we're overlooking one very important detail: whoever takes over these duties must have certain qualifications, most notably the time and ability to update and maintain a web site!! The task shouldn't go to whoever participates the most, but rather to the one who will dedicate the necessary time to the site. Finally, I think we need to reform our point system. It bothers me that: 1) A Voter who votes for a proposal receives the same amount of points as one who abstains or doesn't vote (a great big 0 pts!) 2) You score the most points by voting against a proposition. 3) If one of your propositions fail you lose 10 pts but if it passes, you can possibly get only 1 pt. 4) The only way to lose points is by submitting a proposal. The purpose of this game is to change the rules, but the point system is stacked against those who try. If you want to win easily, all you have to do is never submit a proposal and vote against any propositions that come up. 10 passes laws and you win! It seems to me that points should be awarded to everyone who votes, regardless of how they vote, proposers should stand to earn more points than voters, and we either raise the amount of points needed to win or decrease the value of points given out (not so many 10's) Any thoughts? Your humble Nomic servant, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From windrant@n... Thu Mar 09 10:17:11 2000 Received: (qmail 2616 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2000 18:16:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Mar 2000 18:16:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO alpha.bur.adelphia.net) (24.48.40.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 18:16:55 -0000 Received: from glee (ny-tupperlake2a-9.bur.adelphia.net [24.49.133.9]) by alpha.bur.adelphia.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id NAA20859 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:16:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000309130457.007a8100@guru> X-Sender: windrant@guru X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:04:57 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Historian Debate In-Reply-To: <20000309135037.8519.qmail@w...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: "Chuck Henry (HGA)" From: "Chuck Henry (HGA)" Hi, Well to answer some of the things Matt said: >First of all, it concerns me that four of our >propositions (304, 307 - 309) are intertwined and >dependent on the assumption that they will all pass. >If 304 were to fail, that would make 307 and 308 moot, >regardless if they were to pass or fail. If 308 >becomes moot or fails, so does 309. So far we don't have a precedent of anything failing! I can't see where it would make much of a difference. Besides if a part failed while the rest did not then the part which failed would have to "patched" and resubmitted. Perhaps that would leave some interesting loopholes! [SNIP] This point system was designed to measure >participation, but it has flaws. Let's say that on >any given month we have 10 propositions to vote on. >If player A submits one proposition and votes on two, >e gains the maximum 20 PP allowed for that month. If >player B submits 1 or more propositions and votes on >all 10 propositions, e is considered to be on equal >ground with player A. This point system also doesn't >account for participation on the discussion list. >PP's seem unnecessary to me since their only purpose >is to decide on a future Historian, which brings me to >my next set of thoughts... Well, I think you miss interpreted Jen's intention and writing. If I may try to explain my wife's thinking...(usually dangerous BTW) The 20 PPs max was intented to limit what the Speaker could grant to people. Not what people could earn. Nobody whats a Speaker that could instantly grant a player 2000000000000 PPs instantly! Why would that reflect particpation? I also think that this system is meant to fix some of the difficulties or frustrations you might have about the point system as well. I'll skip to your thoughts about the point system. >It bothers me that: > >1) A Voter who votes for a proposal receives the same >amount of points as one who abstains or doesn't vote >(a great big 0 pts!) Again it is expected that everyone votes but it is just game custom... not law. If you really want everyone to vote then points are a motivator. I was hoping the PPs system could help to serve as motivation. That system could show you to be a good and loyal citizen more than just someone who can vote. >2) You score the most points by voting against a >proposition. It's called a dissenter's vote. You can find theorical examples of this in a lot of games. (IE Prisoner's Dillema) It was placed in this game to insure a certain amount of backstabbing. In this game it is to the benefit of everyone to vote positively for everything. If there's incentive to tell a proponent you're going to vote one way and then vote another... you might consider it. It keeps things random. I can guess (and did BTW) which way everybody was going to vote. Geez. Where's the fun in that? With this rule you always run a thin line. Too many people want that dissenter's points and the prop. fails! Too many people vote for it and the dissenter wins the game. Keeps things interesting. The point of this game is NOT to propose as many things as so you can win because of it! The point is to "wheel and deal" your way to victory! >3) If one of your propositions fail you lose 10 pts >but if it passes, you can possibly get only 1 pt. This is in place to keep people from putting crap up for vote. If you want it to pass talk people into voting for it. If you are unsure it'll vote write people and get them to vote for in exchange for support elsewhere. >4) The only way to lose points is by submitting a >proposal. Yup! If you put a stupid one up! The responibility for the passing of a prop. is yours. You want it to pass--- talk it out! >When and if Chuck ever decides he no longer wants to >maintain the web site, he should just offer it to >whoever wants the job. If more than one of us wants >it, we'll put it to a vote. I think we're overlooking >one very important detail: whoever takes over these >duties must have certain qualifications, most notably >the time and ability to update and maintain a web >site!! The task shouldn't go to whoever participates >the most, but rather to the one who will dedicate the >necessary time to the site. Here's my 2 cents worth. I prefer some of the stuff Jen said. The Historian position should take the "maintain" duties from the Speaker's position. I also like her statement that the Speaker chooses his successor, with the aid of the PPs. If I have 2 people with like-capabilities (in this case, Matt and Devon are equally qualified to take the Historian role... both have web experience) then I would like to have another qualification to help my decision. PPs would help to tell me how active a member of the nomic the canididates are. I wouldn't use game points in this case becuase as stated before, people who just vote against things and not particpate can large point totals. OK I guess the end result of my rant is: I do not want the game point system to change. And as far as the Historian position, I don't think any proposal regarding it is adequate at this time. But hey! You don't have to listen to me! -C ----------------------------------------------- Chuck Henry - windrant@n... ----------------------------------------------- From windrant@n... Fri Mar 10 12:11:57 2000 Received: (qmail 7945 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 20:11:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Mar 2000 20:11:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 20:11:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 18194 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 20:12:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.133) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 20:12:18 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: Matt's point reroll. Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:16:39 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" the damned dice server didn't send me the roll. I saw it on the web page and the roll was: 5 points. I'll update the webpages soon. -C Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From windrant@n... Fri Mar 10 12:51:01 2000 Received: (qmail 26777 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 20:51:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Mar 2000 20:51:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 20:51:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 7006 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 20:51:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (209.2.153.133) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 20:51:17 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: Just a thought! Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:55:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Ok I lied... a couple of thoughts. First, to correct the "problem" with the points system, how about making the dissenter's point bonus 5 points and the making the proponent point bonus random number (1-10) + 5 points? So that way a proponent stands to gain slightly more points than a dissenter? Just a thought. Next, would anybody mind if I don't send the current proposals via email? I'd like to just place them up on the net and not worry about producing a straight text version for dispersal. I'd send a notification of web changes... and of course voting results, notices, news, etc. But the current proposals up for vote would remain on the pages. I'm kinda testing the water to see what people think before I do anything... please let me know. Thanks and I hope is well! Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From LilBoof624@a... Sat Mar 11 11:51:11 2000 Received: (qmail 22570 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2000 19:51:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Mar 2000 19:51:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo28.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2000 19:51:12 -0000 Received: from LilBoof624@a... by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.e6.293c654 (3850) for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:51:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:51:04 EST Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Historian Debate To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 68 X-eGroups-From: LilBoof624@a... From: LilBoof624@a... After finally having a little time to reflect these propositions from my busy schedule of teaching and doing other work, and trying to rest, and not really getting on the internet for long periods oftime. I was thinking that I like the idea of PP's given to those dedicated to the game and those that have the time to participate more. However, I feel that PP's is not really an acurate way to pick who the next historian is. I feel that Chuck may be the historian for the life of the existence of this game, however if he chooses not to remain as historian at any point, he can deem anyone worthy and capable of holding the position. If PP's are only to be used as a tie breaker say if Chuck was debating between Matt and Devon, then it will be okay, but it sounded like The amount of PP's would pick who it is entirely, and someone may have more PP's and not really be deemed worthy of the position. So I think it can be an entire judgement call on the part of the historian to choose his successor. Also, what would happen if the "successor" didn't want the position. What would happen then? Steve From windrant@n... Sat Mar 11 17:36:19 2000 Received: (qmail 21882 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 01:36:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 01:36:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 01:36:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 1117 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 01:36:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.172) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 01:36:41 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:40:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Proposal 308 was removed from voting by the proponent. (Sat 3/11/00 6:57 PM) All votes cast for this proposal are considered void. Thanks The Speaker Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From robin770@p... Sat Mar 11 19:45:13 2000 Received: (qmail 4011 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 03:45:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 03:45:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 03:45:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 22145 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 03:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.155) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 03:45:34 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: Contemplation of Historian Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:49:49 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Chaos" From: "Chaos" I have become a bit concerned by the recent historian debate. I realize in retrospect that we speak of the position as though Chuck isn't there. I am as guilty as anyone else in doing this. It's like saying "Chuck shall forever wear underwear the color blue" without ever approaching him on the subject nor giving him a way out if he decides to do something different. Perhaps we should think about this? I think the idea of a historian is a good one, but I don't know if we should automotically assign it to Chuck without asking him. Remember, a speaker can't vote on a proposal, there is little he can do about it. -Jen Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From jands1@f... Sat Mar 11 21:47:07 2000 Received: (qmail 18380 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 05:47:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 05:47:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1.onelist.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 05:47:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.29] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Mar 2000 05:47:08 -0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:47:01 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: Contemplation of Historian Message-ID: <8afb0m+sg5o@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 958 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Hi All, Just wanted to chime in on what Jen said. When I said I supported Matt's proposal to make Chuck the Historian "forevermore", I didn't mean to suggest that I was decreeing that Chuck must always be Historian. I wanted to get a discussion going that gave Chuck the power to do whatever he wanted. As I see it, we've just be trying to make a provision in the world of the game that parallels the function of webmaster that Chuck provides in the real world. I certainly don't want to make him do anything he doesn't wish to do. As far as I am concerned, Chuck will always have a say over what it takes to keep this game going and, with that power, can decide if he wants to have someone else run the site. What does everyone else think? As I interpret Matt's proposal (304), it just gives Chuck a power he already has and I don't see it affecting a future real world choice of his own volition to ask someone else to run the site. Thoughts? -Scott From windrant@n... Sun Mar 12 09:53:56 2000 Received: (qmail 18998 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 17:53:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 17:53:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 17:53:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 29895 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 17:54:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (198.175.11.157) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 17:54:18 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: Reminder! Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:58:37 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Just a reminder! Proposals 304, 305 & 306 are due for vote on March 13th. Proposals 307, 308 & 309 are due for vote on March 14th. Also, I'd like to welcome Lonnie Henry into the game... have fun! We also lost DeeAnna this week! Win some lose some. Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From mattkeppel@y... Sun Mar 12 13:56:34 2000 Received: (qmail 843 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 21:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 21:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web220.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.120) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 21:54:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000312215438.25795.rocketmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.101.22] by web220.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:54:38 PST Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:54:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] NOMIC: Reminder! To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel More thoughts and whatnot: ...I was looking over the current ruleset and according to rules 208 and 209, Chuck, as Speaker, has the right of consent in certain circumstances. Seeing as how the current proposals deal with redefining the speakers role, such proposals should fall under those circumstances, shouldn't they? Or does the proposition have to directly require the Speaker's request? What I'm getting at is that Chuck has stated that he does not feel the Historian's role has been adequately defined and therefore he has the option to fail the motion if it passes with less than a 2/3 majority. I feel this is an adequate safeguard to protect the Speaker from the Voters going all crazy dictating eis role. ...Chuck: thanks for clearing up the PP's for me. I'm still not sold on them, but they make a hell of a lot more sense than before. ...what's wrong with blue underwear? :) ...my commendations to Chuck for setting up this discussion list - all this debating is keeping the game really interesting! Until Next Time, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From jands1@f... Sun Mar 12 14:51:52 2000 Received: (qmail 4888 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 22:46:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 22:46:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1.onelist.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 22:46:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.33] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Mar 2000 22:46:40 -0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:46:26 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Statement on 304 Message-ID: <8ah6o2+7o3s@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 612 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" To All, Earlier in the week I rose in support of Proposal 304. On the eve of the final vote, I wish to note a change of heart. I still believe that the Proposal is a good one, but one that needs to be improved. It is clear that Chuck is not in favor of 304, so I cannot in good judgment vote to enact something that will affect his duties in such a way. I believe that we must find another way and so I must urge the voters to vote down 304. Certainly nothing against Matt, but in supporting the spirit of what Matt was attempting to do, I believe we must find something that Chuck can support. Thanks, Scott From mattkeppel@y... Mon Mar 13 04:54:06 2000 Received: (qmail 25717 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2000 12:54:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Mar 2000 12:54:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web216.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.116) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2000 12:54:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 10413 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Mar 2000 12:54:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000313125407.10412.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.50.146] by web216.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:54:07 PST Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:54:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Statement on 304 To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel While I respect Scott's opinion, I would like to offer one final counter view. I will agree that the proposal as it stands now does not reach the potential it has, but please keep in mind that nothing that we vote on is written in stone. This proposal can be ammended. It can be added on to. It can be shaped and twisted into something that'll stand the tests of time. The simple fact remains that we need to seperate the duties of Speaker from the continuous upkeep of the web site. Proposition 304 provides us with a solid foundation to do this, one with which to build upon. If we try to define the Speaker's role in one fell swoop, we lend ourselves to endless debates and compounded complications. Instead, let us achieve our common goals by keeping things simple. Instead of trying to fix the whole thing, let's seperate each individual concern, tackle it as a group, and fix it. To conclude, The Speaker/Historian debate is perhaps the most significant problem that this game will ever have, for it is setting a groundbreaking presedence that'll dictate this game until its end. How can we reach a final destination if we don't have a starting point? Proposition 304, imperfections and all, gives us something to work off of. If you must vote it down, don't vote it down because you simply don't like it. Vote it down only if you have ideas on how to make it better, and you are prepared to work with me heavily on its revision. Thank you and good day. Your humble Nomic servant, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From windrant@n... Mon Mar 13 18:41:05 2000 Received: (qmail 6401 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2000 02:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Mar 2000 02:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2000 02:41:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 11825 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2000 02:41:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.8) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2000 02:41:27 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: Some Ideas for Discussion Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:45:45 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Greetings my fellow nomicicons, I have a couple of issues that I want to discuss with you. Please feel free to comment to the whole list or to me personally if you wish. However, I DO want you to comment in some way! First, I suggested this before and no one responded, so I will ask again: May I post new proposals to the web site and not bother sending the text out to the list? I will send a note detailing a web site update and polling results, point modifications, and prestige point updates. However, the note will not contain the text of proposals. I move for an informal vote on the issue of distribution of new proposals via the web site. I set the deadline for voting on this motion as Wednesday, March 15th. Please post your response and your vote on this motion to the list. Second, I think now that we have established this Nomic and its basic operating principles, that we should now open the game to players outside our immediate group of acquaintances. There are several places in which we could advertise for players on the net. However, I will respect the wishes of the entire group. If you want to keep this a "friendly" and close-knit game I will not take steps to advertise our existence. However, if you would like more players, I will begin announcing our presence to the world. I move for an informal vote on the issue of opening the game to "outsiders". I set the deadline for voting on this motion as Wednesday, March 15th. Please post your response and your vote on this motion to the list. Thank you for your time! The Speaker Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From jands1@f... Mon Mar 13 20:17:00 2000 Received: (qmail 24545 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2000 04:17:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Mar 2000 04:17:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2000 04:17:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.65] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2000 04:17:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:16:54 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: Some Ideas for Discussion Message-ID: <8akefm+3kk0@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 570 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Hi All, Just wanted to respond to Chuck's motions before I head off to bed. As to the first, I am fine with not having the text of proposals sent out to the list. I noticed the other day that no one, myself included, had responded to Chuck's initial query on the subject. Partly the reason I put up the two new proposals. As to the second, I must say that I would much prefer to keep the game friendly and not invite unknowns off the net. I don't mind y'all having my e-mail address, but I don't think I'd like just anyone to have it. That's my two cents... -Scott From LilBoof624@a... Tue Mar 14 12:45:22 2000 Received: (qmail 5080 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2000 20:45:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Mar 2000 20:45:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo21.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.65) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2000 20:45:23 -0000 Received: from LilBoof624@a... by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.fb.3389f56 (2701) for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:45:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:45:17 EST Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Some Ideas for Discussion To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) X-eGroups-From: LilBoof624@a... From: LilBoof624@a... I agree with both proposals Chuck. Steve From mattkeppel@y... Tue Mar 14 12:45:41 2000 Received: (qmail 28274 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2000 20:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Mar 2000 20:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web204.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.104) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2000 20:45:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 1420 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Mar 2000 20:45:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000314204538.1419.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.121.127] by web204.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:45:38 PST Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:45:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Some Ideas for Discussion To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel Greetings all! Here's my thoughts on Chuck's suggestions: If you want to just post the proposals on the web, that's fine with me. There shouldn't be any problem so long as the voters are told when the site's been updated. I have to agree with Scott on the second issue. I get enough spam as it is without giving my e-mail address away to random strangers. If we want to grow, I would suggest inviting any respective friends we may have instead. That's all for now! Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From windrant@n... Wed Mar 15 13:15:59 2000 Received: (qmail 28320 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2000 21:16:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Mar 2000 21:16:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2000 21:16:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 28965 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2000 21:16:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.57) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2000 21:16:21 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:20:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Well, the last set of proposals have been voted on... I've posted everything to the webpages... go check it out. I'm am not feeling well right now so I will not take the time to write out exactly the details needed. Sorry. For the time being just look at webpages... thanks -C Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From mattkeppel@y... Wed Mar 15 15:53:37 2000 Received: (qmail 27951 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2000 23:26:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Mar 2000 23:26:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web219.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.119) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2000 23:26:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 8292 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Mar 2000 23:26:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000315232620.8291.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.50.41] by web219.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:26:20 PST Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:26:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] NOMIC To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel More inane ramblings... I'm glad my Historian proposal passed, but as I mentioned before it is merely a starting point towards a better means. I'd like to open the floor to potential ammendments. Also, since the propal passed with the minimum 2/3 votes, the Speaker's consent became a non issue. Nonetheless, I'd like to here Chuck's suggestions on the matter. As the only Speaker we've had, he's got the best insight. Of the 3 proposals I submitted, the automatic vote proposal was the one I personally thought was least likely to get voted down. Funny how these things work out. I still think it was essentially a good proposal, so I'd like feedback as to what was wrong with it and how it could have been improved. Was it really that bad, or were you all just trying to score points off me? :) On the surface, I have nothing against Scott's latest proposals. However, I'm not sure if the Speaker should have that much power. Granted, this isn't much a concern with our current crop of players, but if we ever plan on expanding, like Chuck previously suggested, then this may be a concern. You must me sick, Chuck. I've never heard of March "22TH" :) That's all for now! Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From jands1@f... Wed Mar 15 16:25:18 2000 Received: (qmail 1102 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2000 00:25:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Mar 2000 00:25:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1.onelist.org with SMTP; 16 Mar 2000 00:25:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Mar 2000 00:25:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:13 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Matt's Automatic Vote Proposal Message-ID: <8ap9l9+d0l2@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20000315232620.8291.qmail@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 1437 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Hi All, Just wanted to briefly respond to a couple of Matt's points. I had stated last week why I voted the auto vote proposal down, but here is an example. I too am not entirely convinced that the Speaker should have as much power as the two proposals I submitted would allow. However, I thought they were important topics that deserved a vote. As a result, I may in the end vote down one or both if someone's argument convinces me that I should. Therefore, I wouldn't want it to be the case that I had to automatically have voted "yes" in order to offer them to the group. Personally, it would probably reduce the number of proposals I would submit if Matt's auto vote proposal had passed. Just my thought... As to my two proposals, I am strongly in favor of the Speaker being allowed to submit proposals. This will allow Chuck and future Speakers to get their agenda moving. As evidenced by the fact that everyone missed Chuck's first request on just posting proposals to the Web, I think the ability to put more pressing issues up for a vote is crucial. As to the Speaker being considered a voter, I am on the fence on my own proposal. I have the feeling that others may have reasons to vote "no" that I haven't thought of, such as Matt's good point about new players. For myself, I don't think it would be a serious conflict of interest or cause too much trouble, but I'd like to hear what y'all think. Nomic-ly yours, Scott From jands1@f... Fri Mar 17 17:03:32 2000 Received: (qmail 9737 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 01:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Mar 2000 01:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta1.onelist.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 01:03:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.69] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2000 01:03:33 -0000 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:03:24 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Lonnie's Proposal Message-ID: <8aukks+4pvi@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 409 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Hi All, Just wanted to note my support for Lonnie's new proposal. I think it allows the Speaker to take action when needed, but doesn't give too much power to one individual. Unless anyone objects, I shall withdraw proposal 311 to make way for 312. However, I will wait until tomorrow evening to send Chuck notice of my official withdrawl in case anyone has a strong feeling it should stay. Cheers, Scott From mattkeppel@y... Sat Mar 18 05:10:14 2000 Received: (qmail 11363 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 13:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Mar 2000 13:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web216.mail.yahoo.com) (128.11.68.116) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 13:10:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 18393 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Mar 2000 13:10:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20000318131015.18392.qmail@w...> Received: from [63.15.101.95] by web216.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:10:15 PST Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:10:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Lonnie's Proposal To: on_discussion@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-eGroups-From: Matthew Keppel From: Matthew Keppel My biggest problem with Lonnie's proposal (and for that matter, Scott's as well) was that I never received any official notification that new proposals were submitted! I have no problem with Chuck's request to post the proposals on the web instead of to the discussion list, but I had thought that when new proposals were put up, we would be notified by the speaker to go and check them out on the web page. We shouldn't have to hear about a proposal second hand from another voter. It's being assumed that everyone regularly checks the site for new content on at least a daily basis, and that's not right. Why did Scott know about Lonnie's proposal before the rest of us? I move that the deadline for all three proposals be extended to reflect one week from this day (3/18/00). Let's all start on the same foot, OK? As for Lonnie's proposal in particular, I feel that it directly conflicts with rule 209. Maybe I have a strict interpretation of 209, but it states that for a proposal to pass, it must receive a simple majority of votes. Anything less, up to and including 50%, fails to meet that criteria. Now I hate ties as much as the next person (that's my biggest problem with hockey!), but I see no reason why any random proposal should be given a second chance just because it came "so darn close". Pass or fail - nothing in between. Also, under this proposal, it gives the Speaker power to directly influence the game. I have no problem with anyone being allowed to submit proposals. That's just merely introducing a new element into our little society. But the strength of the voting body is that WE have the power to decide what stays and what goes. This tie-breaker rule infringes on the Voters' power. Instead, I would like to open this proposition for debate: MPK-PROP-1 If Proposals 310 and 311 pass, ammend them with the following text: "The Speaker shall receive no points otherwise entitled under the current ruleset." My thinking is that this would set a limitation of term for whoever is Speaker. The US President gets 4 years, our Speaker get 1 game. That way, no matter how a Speaker may influence a game, it's always correctable with the next game. Any thoughts? Your humble Nomic servant, Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From windrant@n... Sat Mar 18 06:40:51 2000 Received: (qmail 17787 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 14:40:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Mar 2000 14:40:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 14:40:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 26869 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 14:41:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.6) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 14:41:13 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: geez Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:45:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Sorry Matt! Scott no doubt found out about lonnie's proposal from the web page where I put it up... I'm not feeling well I do what I can while sitting at the computer. Please remember that all this is at my discretion. Nothing of this is actual law. I am still within my legally defined duties. Alright? Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From windrant@n... Sat Mar 18 06:42:10 2000 Received: (qmail 9376 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 14:42:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Mar 2000 14:42:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 14:42:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 27531 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 14:42:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.6) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 14:42:30 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:46:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" OFFICALLY I TELL YOU TO CHECK THE FRICKIN PAGE! Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From jands1@f... Sat Mar 18 20:58:01 2000 Received: (qmail 27231 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2000 04:58:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Mar 2000 04:58:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2000 04:58:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Mar 2000 04:58:02 -0000 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:58:01 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: Lonnie's Proposal Message-ID: <8b1mop+r5s5@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20000318131015.18392.qmail@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 2026 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Hi All, Thought I should respond briefly to what Matt said: Chuck is correct that I merely checked the website and saw the new proposal. I didn't have some secret power other than checking in regularly with the site. No one is assuming anything other than that the players are putting as much time and effort as they can into the game. As far as I am concerned, we are on the same foot here and will vote when the proposals are due for voting. As to the proposals concerning the speaker, I think we are missing a couple of key points. First, as the rules now stand, the speaker can't really play. And to the extent that the speaker can play, I don't imagine it is much fun. What's the worst that can happen? A speaker wins every game? If one speaker becomes such a pain in the you know what, we can collectively vote that person down. That's what the game is all about. Secondly, it is just a game and one set up to be conducive to all sorts of whacked up silliness or unending complexity. To me, we need to have all the players playing the game. And limiting the speaker's role to such a degree just makes that process more difficult. If we can't agree to let the speaker vote, then let's at least have the speaker participate in a tie. As the rules stand, I don't think Chuck can participate in the way he wants to and I don't think any future Speakers will either. So, rather than withdrawing proposal 311 I am going to let it come to a vote. Since there hasn't been much feedback from the players other than Matt and Lonnie, I can't be sure of the result. And while there have been some reservations about too much power for the Speaker, a little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, yes? The world won't end with a corrupt Speaker, Nomicsylvannia just might be a little more realistic. Let's let the Speaker lead. And whether that means he votes or not, breaks a tie or not, is up to us all. Personally, I say we let the speaker vote and see what happens, but that's just me... Best to all, Scott From windrant@n... Sat Mar 18 21:26:24 2000 Received: (qmail 21447 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2000 05:26:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Mar 2000 05:26:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2000 05:26:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 10677 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2000 05:26:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.86) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2000 05:26:46 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: OFFICAL RECORD 3/14, 3/15 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:31:05 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" This information is available on the "Information" page under the "Offical Record" subpage. I'm going to keep offical records of things as they happen each day. That way you have the complete idea of what happens each day... a day in the life of the speaker. I'm ready for my closeup Mr. Demill. Date: 3/14/2000 Incoming: New Proposals: 310 (SM), 311 (SM) Withdrawls: None New Player Registration: None Outgoing: Voting Results: Adopted: 304 (MK), 306 (MK), 307(JH), 309 (JH) Failed: 305 (MK) Score Changes: (see Players page for current totals) Devon +10 (Dissent 304 +10) Jen +24 (Dissent 306 +10, Author 307 +4, Author 309 +10) Lonnie +10 (Dissent 309 +10) Matthew +17 (Dissent 309 +10, Author 304 +8, Author 305 -10, Author 306 +9) Scott +30 (Dissent 304 +10, Dissent 306 +10, Dissent 307 +10) Steve +0 PPs Awards: None Page Changes: Added Custom page Notices: None! Date: 3/15/2000 Incoming: New Proposals: 312 (LH) Withdrawls: None New Player Registration: None Outgoing: Voting Results: None Score Changes: (see Players page for current totals) PPs Awards: (see Players page for current totals) Lonnie +10 PPs (Proposal 312 +10) Page Changes: Changed <<>> references in ruleset to strikes. Notices: None! Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From windrant@n... Sun Mar 19 17:20:20 2000 Received: (qmail 24685 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2000 01:20:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Mar 2000 01:20:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2000 01:20:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 14108 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2000 01:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.41) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2000 01:20:40 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: Issues... Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:24:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Now that I am at least slightly functional I'll comment on some of the issues brought up in the discussion list. First, about the motions I submitted for vote... it seems to me that most people don't mind that the proposals are put directly to the web and not circulate via the discussion list. Thank you that saves me a whole lot o' shit. I typically just format the proposals for the web. Starting soon, I will keep ALL postings I make to the discussion list on the webpage for easy reference. As Historian, it would be nice to have a more detailed record of everything that happens. I plan to make the posting from the Historian's Office the offical record of what has happen to the game state. I will soon be posting an "Offical Record" email... should be VERY detailed. Tell me what you think when you see it. Secondly, I will not advertise the Nomic to the outside world... yet. Perhaps it would be best to wait till a winner is declared in this game and a new game begins. That way we have a "test run" done all the way through. It'll no doubt help us when we get a bunch of "newbies" and veterans/refugees from other nomics starting to ask question of us. Further, as to my thoughts about the Historian position, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't like the rules as they stand. I'm not sure I want to the Historian "forevermore"! Here's the problems I see with rules regarding the Historian as I see it. 1st- No where in the rules does it explictly say I can pass the position on to anybody. If we want a new Historian, rule 304 HAS to be amended/changed. That leaves the nomination that I make up to vote by the players. What if the proposal to make the amendment fails? Does that mean I HAVE to continue as Historian? According to 304 it does. 2nd- 304 states "As Historian, it will be Chuck's duty to... serve as list moderator for the discussion list serve." And then 307 states "The Speaker shall do no more than facilitate discussion..." Ok, whose job is it to "facilitate disscusion"? I think there is a small conflict in those 2 rules. Alright, to further the discussion, in regards to prop 310, 311, 312. I support 310. I would like to get the power to create proposals. There have been lots of opportunities where I could have submitted something which would have been nice to have. I don't think the Speaker would have suddenly the means to win the game. At least I can't think of a rule change that would do that... yet. ;) If the speaker actually gets enough points to win the game then the players aren't really trying hard enough! Besides I don't think that a second term with the same speaker would be a bad thing. Perhaps a proposal could be written to govern that possiblity. Moving on to 311 and 312. I'm not so sure that I like 311. I sat here through the last round of voting knowing which proposals I wanted to fail and which I wanted adopted. With this small number of voters, in a lot of cases, 1 vote made the difference between passing and failing. If had the power to vote I could watch the results and vote knowing that my vote would make or break a proposal. I think it would create an unfairness in the proposal system. The general setup right now stands that if I don't like a proposal that applies to the Speaker I have the right to withhold my consent. That doesn't apply to general rule changes. I can't withhold consent to just anything! I kinda have to agree with Matt... I'm not sure if 312 is really nescessary. The rules say a rule must pass by a majority vote. That's more than 50% vote. I think that 312 would provide a "polite nod" to the Speaker and his role in the game. I would be able to rescue a proposal about to fail if I thought it was a good one. It's kinda like my rant about 311, except it only occurs at the very specific situation of a tie vote. I think I like it purely because it is some form of voting rights... it makes my opinion meaningful in the game. So here's the final tally in my mind: I support 310 and 312. I do not support 311. Sorry this has been so long! Just ranting all that I have had kicking around in the back of my snot-filled head! And now time for a nap! -C Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From windrant@n... Tue Mar 21 20:33:11 2000 Received: (qmail 16194 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 04:33:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2000 04:33:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 04:33:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 20611 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 04:33:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.99) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 04:33:32 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: Updates 3/21/2k Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" Date: 3/21/2000 Incoming: New Proposals: 313 (MK), 314 (MK) Withdrawls: None New Player Registration: None Outgoing: Voting Results: None Score Changes: (see Players page for current totals) PPs Awards: (see Players page for current totals) Matt +20 PPs (Author 313 +10, Author 314 +10 Chuck +4 PPs (2 voters have voted thus far) Page Changes: Notices: VOTES due props. 310, 311 on 3/22. VOTES due prop. 312 on 3/23 Yes, I'm feeling better! Thanks everybody who inquired! Charles Henry windrant@n... ~ www.northnet.org/windrant From djacobs@n... Wed Mar 22 13:15:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19514 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 21:13:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2000 21:13:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 21:13:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 4726 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 21:13:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO djacobs) (209.2.153.155) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 21:13:54 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000322161411.00805a50@a...> X-Sender: djacobs@a... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:14:11 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: poof I'm Back.... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} Greetings all..... Been away a bit.... just catching up on things On the whole, props 310 and 311 are fine.... this is in fact the way our government currently works, however some issues have been raised about 311 that make good sense... There will be a slight problem in the case of a tie vote situation. every prop requires only 51% of votes for it to pass (except ones overturning a non-consent issue which require 2/3) knowing that the speaker sees all of the votes before the end of the voting period and always gets to vote last, there are basically 3 schools of thought 1. Speaker can't vote at all.... personally I think that kinda sux, especially if you created the game, and want to see it grow 2. speaker can only vote to break a tie..... While it's an ok theory, it usually works better when parties have formed, and people start voting party lines instead of thinking for themselves.... for the most part right now, props aren't usually that close, So the speaker only gets to vote on a few props that turn out to be ultra minor interpretations of the rules. 3. speaker votes on everything, SUCK UP AND DEAL!.... I think this is the way to go, it allows for much more interesting gameplay, and realism, the only limit I would put on this power is that the speaker would not be able to vote on consent issues. while he wouldn't be able to vote directly, he would still be able to voice his opinion and force a full 2/3 majority vote by denying consent. That way the balance of power isn't skewed too badly. Devo-nomic -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From djacobs@n... Wed Mar 22 13:48:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1883 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 21:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2000 21:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 21:38:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 18254 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 21:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO djacobs) (209.2.153.155) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 21:37:20 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000322164430.0080a160@a...> X-Sender: djacobs@a... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:44:30 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: DRJPROP3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} PROPOSAL FOR DEBATE DRJPROP3 Hello Operator? To spawn a more invigorating environment, an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) chat room will be active 2 nights per week beginning at 8pm and ending at the moderator's discretion with a minimum time of 2 hours. The moderators for the first game will be Devon Jacobs and _______________________. The current chat days, chat room name and IRCServer location of the chat room will be Posted on the official OUR NOMIC website, initially the chatroom name will be OURNOMIC and the IRCServer will be _____________. The moderator has all powers entitled to em pursuant to the IRC rules governing chat room moderators. -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From jands1@f... Wed Mar 22 16:41:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30551 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 00:40:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Mar 2000 00:40:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 00:40:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.30] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Mar 2000 00:40:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:40:51 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: 311 - A last statement Message-ID: <8bbp6j+8p6u@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 1900 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Hello all, Well, proposals 310 and 311 are both up tonight, but it is on 311 that I would like to give a final word of support. I know that 311 is rather sweeping in the powers it gives to the Speaker and many here are concerned about corruption. I understand these concerns, especially the pointed comment Chuck made about the potential power to control the destiny of the game. However, the corruption that has been spoken of would undoubtedly, in all cases, be a MAJOR violation of the game's rules and would be reason for being kicked out. The results of every vote are publicized, so there is little chance of a Speaker changing someone's vote. As for "controlling" the game, I must say again that only collectively does anyone have such power. So, even if a corrupt Speaker is being an ass, but not breaking the rules, we can still vote that person down. When Chuck started this game, he put up on the pulpit the two rules that prevented the Speaker from either voting or proposing. He said that he wanted to be able to play and that "rules 204 and 206 prevent me from using my powers within the game from leading the development of the game." While Chuck has changed his mind at least about completely reversing rule 206, I still believe that the game's development will be retarded if ALL players cannot vote on an equal basis. The Speaker and the Voters need to be a real group for this game to truly work and the only way I see that happening is this: one person...one vote. Yes, one of us has some additional duties to stir up conversation and such, but that person who next becomes Speaker should be truly allowed to lead by proposing and voting on what affects us all; a crucial leadership function that I don't believe our current Speaker has been allowed to provide under the current rules. So, that's my final rant and I urge you to vote yes on 310 and 311 tonight. -Scott From windrant@n... Wed Mar 22 19:59:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21628 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 03:59:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Mar 2000 03:59:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 03:59:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 28130 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 04:00:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.68) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 04:00:15 -0000 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [on_discussion] DRJPROP3 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:04:38 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000322164430.0080a160@a...> X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" not a bad idea I was kinda thinking about the same type of thing. I wonder if anybody else out there is interested. oh and on the offical end of things... the Speaker recognizes DRJPROP3 as a proposition and the Speaker grants it the status reserved for propositions under rule 303. -----Original Message----- From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} [mailto:djacobs@n...] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:45 PM To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: [on_discussion] DRJPROP3 From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} PROPOSAL FOR DEBATE DRJPROP3 Hello Operator? To spawn a more invigorating environment, an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) chat room will be active 2 nights per week beginning at 8pm and ending at the moderator's discretion with a minimum time of 2 hours. The moderators for the first game will be Devon Jacobs and _______________________. The current chat days, chat room name and IRCServer location of the chat room will be Posted on the official OUR NOMIC website, initially the chatroom name will be OURNOMIC and the IRCServer will be _____________. The moderator has all powers entitled to em pursuant to the IRC rules governing chat room moderators. -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com: http://click.egroups.com/1/2377/0/_/_/_/953761719/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: on_discussion-unsubscribe@onelist.com From jands1@f... Wed Mar 22 20:33:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22438 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 04:33:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Mar 2000 04:33:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta1.onelist.org with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 04:33:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jands1@f... Received: from [10.1.10.30] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Mar 2000 04:33:40 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:33:32 -0000 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: DRJPROP3 Message-ID: <8bc6qs+kegn@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000322164430.0080a160@a...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Content-Length: 187 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-From: "Scott Morgan" From: "Scott Morgan" Devon, Good idea on the chat. Why not have it at the onelist site? I go there for my messages on the list and it has a chatroom function. Ah, centralized convenience! Night All, Scott From djacobs@n... Thu Mar 23 04:03:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8864 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 12:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Mar 2000 12:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 12:03:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 19824 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 12:04:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO djacobs) (198.175.11.157) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 12:04:03 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000323071118.007d4e00@a...> X-Sender: djacobs@a... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:11:18 -0500 To: on_discussion@onelist.com Subject: Re: [on_discussion] Re: DRJPROP3 In-Reply-To: <8bc6qs+kegn@eGroups.com> References: <3.0.2.32.20000322164430.0080a160@a...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" X-eGroups-From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} Thanks Scott... I'll hafta look into that, I'm very familiar with IRC (as anyone who went to college after 1985 should be) and how things work with it, and that's why I suggested that particular means, IRC also usually doesn't have the lag associated with web based chat rooms as it uses it's own client and server. I was also considering the possibility of openong the chat to the public one of the 2 nights/week to get a little outside input and stimulate our brains a little beyond our little nomic knot. IRC would grant the moderator the power to boot non nomic members and 'bots' who are being assinine just because they have nothing better to do than go around looking for open chats to disrupt. If I do make this an official proposal I'll be looking for a volunteer to moderate one of the nights... (I think I'll be doing Thursdays) anybody wanna play???? At 04:33 AM 3/23/00 -0000, you wrote: >>>> From: "Scott Morgan" < Devon, Good idea on the chat. Why not have it at the onelist site? I go there for my messages on the list and it has a chatroom function. Ah, centralized convenience! Night All, Scott ---------- < ---------- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: on_discussion-unsubscribe@onelist.com <<<<<<<< -Devon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Web -> http://www.northnet.org/darkstar E-mail -> djacobs@n... Netrek -> Darkone (DD) Diablo -> Moadib (Warrior) Quakeworld -> Darkstar (Deathmonger) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From windrant@n... Sat Mar 25 07:03:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5793 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2000 15:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Mar 2000 15:03:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aldus.northnet.org) (198.175.11.2) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2000 15:03:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 6896 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2000 15:03:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweaknfreak) (216.238.37.17) by aldus.northnet.org with SMTP; 25 Mar 2000 15:03:58 -0000 Reply-To: To: "Nomic Discussion" Subject: NOMIC: Official Record Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:08:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-eGroups-From: "Windrant" From: "Windrant" ***Sorry- No update in the last 2 days... school play and drunken spree! Date: 3/23/2000 Incoming: New Proposals: None Withdrawls: None New Player Registration: None Outgoing: Voting Results