From eventi@h... Tue Dec 12 21:09:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 05:09:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 72680 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 05:09:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 05:09:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:10:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 05:09:36 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:09:33 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 301 Message-ID: <9170ad+68q1@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 127 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.19 From: "eventi " Each proposal shall be posted to the group with the subject consisting of the word "Proposal" followed by the proposal number. From eventi@h... Tue Dec 12 21:10:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 05:10:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 53217 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 05:10:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 05:10:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:12:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 05:10:57 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:10:54 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 302 Message-ID: <9170cu+6t0t@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 108 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.19 From: "eventi " A poll shall be created by the author of a new proposal, in order to facilitate the vote tabulating process From eventi@h... Tue Dec 12 21:12:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 05:12:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 3833 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 05:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 05:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 05:12:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 05:12:31 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:12:24 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 303 Message-ID: <9170fo+6t9d@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 127 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.19 From: "eventi " Enacted rules shall be posted to the list, with the subject consisting of the word "Rule", followed by the number of the rule. From eventi@h... Tue Dec 12 21:13:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 05:13:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 55143 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 05:13:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 05:13:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 05:13:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 05:13:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:13:34 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 301 Message-ID: <9170hu+6anb@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9170ad+68q1@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 60 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.19 From: "eventi " This is an outrage!!! What kind of Crack are you smoking?? From eventi@h... Tue Dec 12 21:17:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 05:17:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 92796 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 05:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 05:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:18:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.2.56] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 05:17:42 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:16:45 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 302 Message-ID: <9170nt+nai0@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9170cu+6t0t@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 278 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.19 From: "eventi " --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "eventi " wrote: > A poll shall be created by the author of a new proposal, in order to facilitate the vote tabulating process This definately needs clarification... Is this now the only way to vote? As written, I vote against. From eventi@h... Tue Dec 12 21:24:35 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 05:24:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 82572 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 05:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 05:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 05:24:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.2.56] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 05:24:35 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:24:30 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 303 Message-ID: <91716e+k82l@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9170fo+6t9d@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 254 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.19 From: "eventi " --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "eventi " wrote: > Enacted rules shall be posted to the list, with the subject consisting of the word "Rule", followed by the number of the rule. someone should write a rule for how to Call For Judgement. From bernardo@c... Sat Dec 16 07:29:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 15:29:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17726 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 15:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 15:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 16:30:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: bernardo@c... Received: from [10.1.2.28] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 15:29:31 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:29:28 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 301 Message-ID: <91g1op+plve@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9170ad+68q1@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 208 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.17.168.70 From: bernardo@c... --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "eventi " wrote: > Each proposal shall be posted to the group with the subject consisting of the word "Proposal" followed by the proposal number. I vote yea. From bernardo@c... Sat Dec 16 07:41:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 15:41:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 38578 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 15:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 15:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 15:41:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: bernardo@c... Received: from [10.1.2.109] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 15:41:52 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:41:48 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 303 Message-ID: <91g2fs+js9t@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9170fo+6t9d@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 220 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.17.168.70 From: bernardo@c... --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "eventi " wrote: > Enacted rules shall be posted to the list, with the subject consisting of the word "Rule", followed by the number of the rule. I like this one too. p. From bernardo@c... Sat Dec 16 07:53:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 15:53:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11356 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 15:53:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 15:53:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 16:54:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: bernardo@c... Received: from [10.1.2.52] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 15:53:17 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:53:12 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 302 Message-ID: <91g358+p1ue@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9170cu+6t0t@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 624 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.17.168.70 From: bernardo@c... --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "eventi " wrote: > A poll shall be created by the author of a new proposal, in order to facilitate the vote tabulating process. This one may or may not be problematic. It depends on whether these rules are intended to stand alone, or they are to be appended to a prior set - which set would specify voting procedure and the threshold for passage. For example, it's quite possible to require a super-majority rather than a mere majority, etc. So I'd say I vote to retable this one for further discussion. You see - nobody specified whether that was possible or not! From eventi@h... Sat Dec 16 09:40:08 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 17:40:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 39276 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 17:40:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 17:40:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 17:40:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 17:40:07 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:40:07 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 302 Message-ID: <91g9dn+cgd3@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <91g358+p1ue@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1023 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.18 From: "eventi " --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, bernardo@c... wrote: > --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "eventi " wrote: > > A poll shall be created by the author of a new proposal, in order > to facilitate the vote tabulating process. > > This one may or may not be problematic. It depends on whether these > rules are intended to stand alone, or they are to be appended to a > prior set - which set would specify voting procedure and the > threshold for passage. For example, it's quite possible to require a > super-majority rather than a mere majority, etc. > > So I'd say I vote to retable this one for further discussion. You > see - nobody specified whether that was possible or not! I did intend this to go along with the previous rules... I posted them in the database section(link's on the right of the webpage). So it's unanimous for 2 rounds, then simple majority. Also, the poll is a feature from eGroups, not a generic term. Since this proposal was so botched, lemme re-propose it later. From eventi@h... Sat Dec 16 09:41:28 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 17:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 47406 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 17:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 17:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 17:41:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 17:41:27 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:41:20 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Rule 301 Message-ID: <91g9g0+nila@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <91g1op+plve@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 129 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.18 From: "eventi " Each proposal shall be posted to the group with the subject consisting of the word "Proposal" followed by the proposal number. From eventi@h... Sat Dec 16 09:42:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 17:42:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 70174 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 17:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 17:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 17:42:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 17:42:32 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:42:23 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Rule 303 Message-ID: <91g9hv+4nmk@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <91g2fs+js9t@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 130 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.18 From: "eventi " Enacted rules shall be posted to the list, with the subject consisting of the word "Rule", followed by the number of the rule. From eventi@h... Mon Dec 18 08:36:32 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@h... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 16:36:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 37173 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 16:36:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 16:36:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 17:37:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@h... Received: from [10.1.2.59] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Dec 2000 16:36:26 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:36:24 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Test Message Message-ID: <91lee8+104jq@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 12 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.73.237.163 From: "eventi " Hello There From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 10:48:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 18:48:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 34683 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 18:48:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 18:48:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 18:48:35 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-05.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.65]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBIImUv19887 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:48:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b901c06923$0c3bee80$41a811d0@computer> To: References: <91lee8+104jq@eGroups.com> Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Test Message Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:47:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Hi. ----- Original Message ----- From: eventi To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:36 AM Subject: [scatterbrains] Test Message > Hello There > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Mon Dec 18 10:51:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 18:51:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 33242 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 18:51:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 18:51:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 18:51:56 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA15351 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:51:50 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Test Message Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:52:28 -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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <00b901c06923$0c3bee80$41a811d0@computer> From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" Yeah- I added my work account, then found out that we were blocking egroups.com from delivering email... And me with no one to bitch to. All's good now. --e > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:48 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Test Message > > > Hi. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: eventi > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:36 AM > Subject: [scatterbrains] Test Message > > > > Hello There > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 13:57:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 21:57:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 2541 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 21:57:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 21:57:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 22:58:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: bernardo@c... Received: from [10.1.2.116] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Dec 2000 21:57:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:57:38 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 304 Message-ID: <91m18i+toct@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 648 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.17.168.69 From: "Al Farabi" A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new player into the game. B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a new rule. C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 (ten) or more members. E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 14:05:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 22:05:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 48663 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 22:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 22:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 23:06:59 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-09.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.69]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBIM5nv39635 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:05:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002301c0693e$9d235080$45a811d0@computer> To: References: <91m18i+toct@eGroups.com> Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:05:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Revision to 304: Render Part B to read, "The introducing Player shall receive 5 (five) points for an official Introduction." p.bernardo. I was reading the part about dice, and only realized later - "duh!" - that that couldn't apply to this rule! ----- Original Message ----- From: Al Farabi To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:57 PM Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new > player into the game. > > B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a > new rule. > > C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the > group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the > subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following > declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." > > D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 > (ten) or more members. > > E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be > referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Mon Dec 18 14:06:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 22:06:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 67266 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 22:06:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 22:06:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 23:07:59 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA05069 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:06:50 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:07:40 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <91m18i+toct@eGroups.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" Sounds good- Since Proposals 302 and 303 were technically illegal, you have no obligation to post this to the list as a rule, but I would think you are swell for doing so. 10 points for you --e > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Farabi [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:58 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new > player into the game. > > B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a > new rule. > > C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the > group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the > subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following > declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." > > D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 > (ten) or more members. > > E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be > referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 14:26:45 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 22:26:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 34033 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 22:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 22:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 23:26:49 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-09.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.69]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBIMPcv41613 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:25:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003401c06941$618e99a0$45a811d0@computer> To: References: Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:25:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Actually, that'd be 13 points for me : (304-291)*1 I didn't see the rule about the rules being posted only singly, but it seems to me to be common parliamentary procedure to introduce a package of rules at one time. Since these all had, more or less, the same subject, I don't see why this couldn't be the case. Sort of like Nafta, which was a bundle of rule-changes guided by one purpose. But I guess that this is a bit of extra-legal reasoning. There oughta' be a law! ----- Original Message ----- From: Eugene Ventimiglia To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:07 PM Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > Sounds good- > Since Proposals 302 and 303 were technically illegal, you have no > obligation to post this to the list as a rule, but I would think you are > swell for doing so. 10 points for you > --e > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Al Farabi [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:58 PM > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > > > > A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new > > player into the game. > > > > B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a > > new rule. > > > > C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the > > group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the > > subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following > > declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." > > > > D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 > > (ten) or more members. > > > > E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be > > referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Mon Dec 18 14:38:23 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 22:38:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 22782 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 22:38:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 22:38:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 22:38:22 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA07912 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:38:17 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:39:07 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <003401c06941$618e99a0$45a811d0@computer> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" If you were referring to my 3 proposals, I think it violates the turn order (201) and 202 (a turn consists of...) If you were referring to yours... I didn't see a problem with that proposal, but I think it could have been challenged under 111. Since we don't have a 3rd Player, I would have been the judge, too. But when seperated, it would have been too ambiguous. I'm not so sure I'm convinced that packages are Good Things(tm)... They expedite things now, but later, they'll be shot down more easily on the basis of one of the parts... 13 Points it is. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:25 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > Actually, that'd be 13 points for me : (304-291)*1 > > I didn't see the rule about the rules being posted only singly, > but it seems > to me to be common parliamentary procedure to introduce a package of rules > at one time. Since these all had, more or less, the same subject, I don't > see why this couldn't be the case. Sort of like Nafta, which was a bundle > of rule-changes guided by one purpose. > > But I guess that this is a bit of extra-legal reasoning. > > There oughta' be a law! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:07 PM > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > > Sounds good- > > Since Proposals 302 and 303 were technically illegal, you have no > > obligation to post this to the list as a rule, but I would think you are > > swell for doing so. 10 points for you > > --e > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Al Farabi [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:58 PM > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > > > > > > > A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new > > > player into the game. > > > > > > B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a > > > new rule. > > > > > > C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the > > > group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the > > > subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following > > > declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." > > > > > > D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 > > > (ten) or more members. > > > > > > E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be > > > referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Mon Dec 18 14:40:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 22:40:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 7689 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 22:40:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 22:40:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 22:40:55 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA08164 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:40:54 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:41:44 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <002301c0693e$9d235080$45a811d0@computer> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" OUCH!!! I got this 25 minutes after voting... now what... I'd vote for the ammendment as well, and it makes more sense. --e > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:05 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > Revision to 304: > > Render Part B to read, "The introducing Player shall receive 5 > (five) points > for an official Introduction." > > p.bernardo. > > I was reading the part about dice, and only realized later - "duh!" - that > that couldn't apply to this rule! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Al Farabi > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:57 PM > Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > > A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new > > player into the game. > > > > B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a > > new rule. > > > > C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the > > group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the > > subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following > > declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." > > > > D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 > > (ten) or more members. > > > > E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be > > referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 15:21:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 23:21:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 28214 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 23:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 23:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 23:21:03 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-07.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.67]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBINL1v46657 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:21:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001701c06949$1e8c1580$43a811d0@computer> To: References: Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:20:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" I'd say to just amend it, and let it slide for now. I guess if we wanted to be sticklers about it, you could insist upon it being accepted in its original form, which you voted on. Unfortunately, though, according to 111, there is to be a suitable time for discussion and amendment, and the Proponent gets to say what the final form should be. I'd argue that my amendment (since it was SENT about 5 minutes after the original Proposal) falls under the suitable time threshold, and that, as Proponent, I'd insist that it take the amended form. Since we don't have a third to be judge, we'd be in a stalemate, probably. But if you like the amended form, we don't really need to go into these things. It can be unanimously adopted as amended. Oh yeah, I invited an ex-Fordhamite to join. I don't know if he will or not, but how does he (or anyone) go about actually getting in? ----- Original Message ----- From: Eugene Ventimiglia To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:41 PM Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > OUCH!!! I got this 25 minutes after voting... now what... I'd vote for the > ammendment as well, and it makes more sense. > --e > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:05 PM > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > > > > Revision to 304: > > > > Render Part B to read, "The introducing Player shall receive 5 > > (five) points > > for an official Introduction." > > > > p.bernardo. > > > > I was reading the part about dice, and only realized later - "duh!" - that > > that couldn't apply to this rule! > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Al Farabi > > To: > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:57 PM > > Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 304 > > > > > > > A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new > > > player into the game. > > > > > > B) Points shall be determined in the same manner as the passage of a > > > new rule. > > > > > > C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the > > > group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the > > > subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following > > > declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." > > > > > > D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 > > > (ten) or more members. > > > > > > E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be > > > referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@w... Mon Dec 18 17:59:11 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@w... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 01:59:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 9444 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 01:59:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 01:59:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ns1.wyndtell.com) (63.81.201.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 03:00:10 -0000 Received: from nova.wyndtell.com (nova.wyndtell.com [63.81.201.78]) by ns1.wyndtell.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBJ2tdm16819 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:55:39 -0800 Received: (root@localhost) by nova.wyndtell.com (8.8.8/SCA-6.6) id UAA28555; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:59:04 -0500 (EST) To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 305 Message-Id: <15308871.1022@w...> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:59:04 -0800 X-eGroups-From: eventi@w... (Eugene Ventimiglia) From: eventi@w... "The My Cousin Paul Rule" If an action is required by a player, it must be made within one week. If the player does not act within one week, play continues as if that player were not in the game and that player loses 5 points. Note: I propose this as a safety measure against having a game become dormant due to lack of interrest of one player. My cousin Paul always does this... From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 19:55:06 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 03:55:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 81917 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 03:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 03:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 03:55:02 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp07-19.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.204]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBJ3t0v69796 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:55:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002301c0696f$648380c0$cca811d0@computer> To: References: <15308871.1022@w...> Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Proposal 305 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:54:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Hmm. I don't like it for a couple of reasons: 1) My next rule was going to cover this subject, but differently! (Hey, I'm being honest) 2) More importantly, it's too vague. Does "action" cover voting? I mean, if a person is apathetic, and kind of bails out of the game should they be penalized for not voting? It's the same thing with the vote here, plenty of people (close to half) didn't vote in this election. I'm inclined to count no-votes as yes votes. Or perhaps they should be discarded, and a prop's passage determined on the basis of the remaining votes. Either way, I'd rather see the rule phrased differently. 3) Will losing 5 points really discourage bailing out? If you really want to get tough, why not do something like a slavery rule? So, if a player does not propose a rule within a week, he/she is made a slave of (someone - highest bidder, point-wise, or something) and the slaves votes will be controlled by the master. Perhaps the slave account will be unable to propose new rules. Maybe there should be a time limit, say a week after declaration of interest in emancipation. Damn, now I gave you my rule. But really, this isn't a no vote - not yet - but I'd like to see it rewritten. (I'm assuming we're in the discussion phase, so you can still amend it... p. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:59 PM Subject: [scatterbrains] Proposal 305 > "The My Cousin Paul Rule" > > If an action is required by a player, it must be made within one week. If the player does not act within one week, play continues as if that player were not in the game and that player loses 5 points. > > Note: I propose this as a safety measure against having a game become dormant due to lack of interrest of one player. My cousin Paul always does this... > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@w... Mon Dec 18 20:48:12 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@w... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 04:48:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 64736 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 04:48:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 04:48:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ns1.wyndtell.com) (63.81.201.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 05:49:17 -0000 Received: from nova.wyndtell.com (nova.wyndtell.com [63.81.201.78]) by ns1.wyndtell.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBJ5ikm27655 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:44:46 -0800 Received: (root@localhost) by nova.wyndtell.com (8.8.8/SCA-6.6) id XAA23356; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:48:11 -0500 (EST) To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: re[2]: [scatterbrains] Proposal 305 In-Reply-To: 696f648 X-Status: 6Y Message-Id: <15308871.1023@w...> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:48:11 -0800 X-eGroups-From: eventi@w... (Eugene Ventimiglia) From: eventi@w... Damn, you're evil... I originally only included failure to propose, but as the rules are written, if 50% abstain from a vote, the rule can't pass... I'd agree that non-votes could be construed as afirmatives, but I was trying make the proposal one broad one, instead of multiple smaller issues (rule 111 again). Re-write is on the way. From bernardo@c... Mon Dec 18 21:11:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 05:11:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 30700 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 05:11:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 05:11:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 05:11:47 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp07-19.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.204]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBJ5Bgv76185 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:11:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001301c0697a$1b9d63c0$cca811d0@computer> To: References: <15308871.1023@w...> Subject: Re: re[2]: [scatterbrains] Proposal 305 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:11:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Alright, since we're quoting chapter and verse here :), I should point out a couple of things: If you put together 111 and 116, you will see that it never directly says that compounded rules are illegal. I don't even think that the intent was such, as 111 only says that if a rule "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded, ...then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." It never says that such rules are illegal, but points out that it might be advisable to argue against that rule in discussion, and explicitly reserves judgement of the suitability of the rule to a debate and a vote. Therefore, using 116, we can say that compounded rules are ok as long as the public likes the particular case. (BTW, 103 does not specify that a rule change is exclusively one of the following three possibilities, and as such takes no stand on the issue of whether a rule change might consist of one or more rules.) The problem with your first (three) rules is that they were given different Prop. numbers, and not included under one. Besides, I don't see any problem with a proposal requiring logical steps, for example, to change 103 so that it might rule on this issue: Proposal Example - A) Proposition 103 is hereby made mutable B)Proposition 103 is hereby repealed C) A rule-change is any *one* of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. The game might be more fun if you made each rule change consist of only one of the steps, so that you have to enact your rule in pieces, and someone might get there first. But as it stands, I think that compound rules are fine. Rule 105 already says that you have to vote. Perhaps the non-vote issue should be appended there. But first, you'd have to make 105 mutable... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:48 PM Subject: re[2]: [scatterbrains] Proposal 305 > Damn, you're evil... I originally only included failure to propose, but as the rules are written, if 50% abstain from a vote, the rule can't pass... I'd agree that non-votes could be construed as afirmatives, but I was trying make the proposal one broad one, instead of multiple smaller issues (rule 111 again). Re-write is on the way. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From scatterbrains@egroups.com Mon Dec 18 23:05:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81710 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 07:05:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 07:05:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 07:05:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.161] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Dec 2000 07:05:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 17393 invoked by uid 65534); 19 Dec 2000 07:05:36 -0000 Date: 19 Dec 2000 07:05:36 -0000 Message-ID: <977209536.17391@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Notify: From: To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to scatterbrains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the scatterbrains group. File : /Rules Uploaded by : eventi@n... Description : The current Ruleset in handy TEXT format You can access this file at the URL http://www.egroups.com/files/scatterbrains/Rules To learn more about eGroups file sharing, please visit http://www.egroups.com/help/files.html Regards, eventi@n... From eventi@n... Mon Dec 18 23:07:41 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 07:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 85717 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 07:07:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 07:07:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 08:08:46 -0000 Received: from win (win.venti.nyic.com [64.29.109.18]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA07156 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:07:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002001c0698a$2b1873c0$126d1d40@v...> To: References: <15308871.1023@w...> <001301c0697a$1b9d63c0$cca811d0@computer> Subject: Re: Proposal 305 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:06:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" > Alright, since we're quoting chapter and verse here :), I should point out a > couple of things: > > If you put together 111 and 116, you will see that it never directly says > that compounded rules are illegal. I don't even think that the intent was > such, as 111 only says that if a rule "arguably consists of two or more > rule-changes compounded, ...then the other players may suggest amendments or > argue against the proposal before the vote." It never says that such rules > are illegal, but points out that it might be advisable to argue against that > rule in discussion, and explicitly reserves judgement of the suitability of > the rule to a debate and a vote. Therefore, using 116, we can say that > compounded rules are ok as long as the public likes the particular case. Agreed completely. I think 111 can be stripped down to "Other Players may suggest..." cutting the first 20 or so words. As long as there's no challenge, any proposal can be voted on and passed. But.... > (BTW, 103 does not specify that a rule change is exclusively one of the > following three possibilities, and as such takes no stand on the issue of > whether a rule change might consist of one or more rules.) The problem with > your first (three) rules is that they were given different Prop. numbers, > and not included under one. I disagree. I think 103 _defines_ rule-change as it is used throughout the initial set, and that definition is _clearly singular_. It has effect on 202: "One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on..." and thats why I withdrew 302 and 303. It can always be argued that a compound rule is one new rule, but you'd have a hard time with a rule that explicitly ammends more than one rule. > > Besides, I don't see any problem with a proposal requiring logical steps, > for example, to change 103 so that it might rule on this issue: Proposal > Example - A) Proposition 103 is hereby made mutable B)Proposition 103 is > hereby repealed C) A rule-change is any *one* of the following: (1) the > enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, > repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the > transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. I see a big problem with it. See above, but that reads to me like 3 rule-changes, and quite distinct ones at that. The transmutation requires a unanimous vote, and parts B & C don't. I would vote for it, though ;) > > The game might be more fun if you made each rule change consist of only one > of the steps, so that you have to enact your rule in pieces, and someone > might get there first. But as it stands, I think that compound rules are > fine. > > Rule 105 already says that you have to vote. Perhaps the non-vote issue > should be appended there. But first, you'd have to make 105 mutable... Agreed, and again, I didn't take it into consideration when I proposed 305. It also does not prescribe a penalty, which I think is wisely left to the immutable rules. My proposal could be written to allow for an automatic abstain vote, cast in favor of the proposition, after a week of no activity. Rule 105 actually says the player has to participate, not necessarily for or against the proposition. If that's not good enough, I'll re-write to only effect proposals. Or maybe you have a better idea. BTW: 211 confuses me. If I add "This rule takes precedence over rule 105" to my proposal, does it then withstand a contest? If so, how is this different from "A) Transmute 105 B) Ammend to allow time limits?" I suppose it applies only to Mutable v. Mutable & Immutable v. Immutable contests. Anyway, I should definately be sleeping. --e > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:48 PM > Subject: re[2]: [scatterbrains] Proposal 305 > > > > Damn, you're evil... I originally only included failure to propose, but as > the rules are written, if 50% abstain from a vote, the rule can't pass... > I'd agree that non-votes could be construed as afirmatives, but I was trying > make the proposal one broad one, instead of multiple smaller issues (rule > 111 again). Re-write is on the way. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Tue Dec 19 07:23:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 15:23:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 12460 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 15:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 15:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 15:22:44 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA04403 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:43 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: Proposal 305 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:23:33 -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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002001c0698a$2b1873c0$126d1d40@v...> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" Since I don't think it'll pass as stated, and restricting the proposal only to cover failure to propose would weaken the intention of the rule, and there's an issue with Rule 105, I'd like to propose that 105 be transmuted to become a mutable rule. From bernardo@c... Tue Dec 19 08:08:36 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 16:08:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 60128 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 16:08:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 16:08:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 16:08:34 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-03.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.63]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBJG8Qv25207 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:08:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000701c069d5$db11c7e0$3fa811d0@computer> To: References: Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:07:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Well, now we have an issue. We need another player. I don't mean to be a jerk about this, but doesn't this run afoul of the turn rule? I'd imagine that you can't propose a rule, see that it's going to fail, and then withdraw it and propose a new one. If that were so, nobody would ever "lose" on their turn. Besides, the rules only allow for amendment of a rule. The change that you want to make seems to go beyond amendment and into a proposition of a whole new rule. I'd want to call for judgement on this one... ----- Original Message ----- From: Eugene Ventimiglia To: Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:23 AM Subject: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > Since I don't think it'll pass as stated, and restricting the proposal only > to cover failure to propose would weaken the intention of the rule, and > there's an issue with Rule 105, I'd like to propose that 105 be transmuted > to become a mutable rule. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Tue Dec 19 09:42:12 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 17:42:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 60263 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 17:42:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 17:42:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 18:43:16 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA18214 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:42:08 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:42:58 -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 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000701c069d5$db11c7e0$3fa811d0@computer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" I think it "runs afoul", but: (i realized after typing this that it's in no particular order) A) 111 says "...other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote" This doesn't limit changes I can make to the proposal to ammendments only; If it has any limitation, it's on you. Furthermore, "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on." B) There's nothing allowing a proponent to revise his proposal except Rule 111, when it's been challenged. I could have challenged your change to 304, and I wouldn't be able to change a proposal once voting started. So it's always possible to lose one's proposal, I could lose if you'd vote... C) With 2 players, if you call for judgement, I'd win! You invoke judgement and act as judge; I (acting as ALL the other players) overrule your judgement. Judgement passes through me (since it's my turn,) and back to you. I'd win by 213, since "the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality", and I'm unable to complete my turn. "There oughta be a law..." --Pat Bernardo D) It does suck, but you pointed out that my proposal was contrary to 105. It could have been written "A)Transmute 105, B)Amend time limits and associated penalties." This is clearly 2 rule changes, and the remedy would be "Do part A, since B depends on it." The only remedy I had was to reduce it to the implied transmutation in the original. If you vote against it as it was, it sinks; Vote for it, and it's nullified by Rule 110. My change in the proposal seems to be the only possible remedy for a proposal that would enact a rule contradicting an immutable rule. I know I'm being a prick, so vote already!! --e > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:08 AM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > Well, now we have an issue. We need another player. I don't mean to be a > jerk about this, but doesn't this run afoul of the turn rule? I'd imagine > that you can't propose a rule, see that it's going to fail, and then > withdraw it and propose a new one. If that were so, nobody would ever > "lose" on their turn. Besides, the rules only allow for amendment > of a rule. > The change that you want to make seems to go beyond amendment and into a > proposition of a whole new rule. I'd want to call for judgement on this > one... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:23 AM > Subject: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > > Since I don't think it'll pass as stated, and restricting the proposal > only > > to cover failure to propose would weaken the intention of the rule, and > > there's an issue with Rule 105, I'd like to propose that 105 be > transmuted > > to become a mutable rule. > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From bernardo@c... Thu Dec 21 07:54:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 21 Dec 2000 15:54:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 91571 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2000 15:36:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Dec 2000 15:36:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Dec 2000 15:36:12 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-03.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.63]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBLFaAv91769 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:36:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002f01c06b63$aca1e7c0$3fa811d0@computer> To: References: Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:35:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" I stand before you today a very disappointed citizen. This is a sad day for Scatterbrains democracy. Eugene has exploited a loophole in the law, and in a move that flouts the spirit - if not indeed the letter - has forced a proposal down our throats. Although I will vote for this proposal, as reform is desperately needed in our young system, this behaviour must be stopped. I pledge to you today, that I will not cease in my efforts until (etc...) Oh, ok. But if there were a judge around here, you would've lost. (ps - but isn't being a legalistic prick what this game is about?) ----- Original Message ----- From: Eugene Ventimiglia To: Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > I think it "runs afoul", but: > > (i realized after typing this that it's in no particular order) > > A) 111 says "...other players may suggest amendments or argue against the > proposal before the vote" This doesn't limit changes I can make to the > proposal to ammendments only; If it has any limitation, it's on you. > Furthermore, "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is > to be voted on." > > B) There's nothing allowing a proponent to revise his proposal except Rule > 111, when it's been challenged. I could have challenged your change to 304, > and I wouldn't be able to change a proposal once voting started. So it's > always possible to lose one's proposal, I could lose if you'd vote... > > C) With 2 players, if you call for judgement, I'd win! You invoke judgement > and act as judge; I (acting as ALL the other players) overrule your > judgement. Judgement passes through me (since it's my turn,) and back to > you. I'd win by 213, since "the legality of a move cannot be determined > with finality", and I'm unable to complete my turn. "There oughta be a > law..." --Pat Bernardo > > D) It does suck, but you pointed out that my proposal was contrary to 105. > It could have been written "A)Transmute 105, B)Amend time limits and > associated penalties." This is clearly 2 rule changes, and the remedy would > be "Do part A, since B depends on it." > > The only remedy I had was to reduce it to the implied transmutation in the > original. If you vote against it as it was, it sinks; Vote for it, and it's > nullified by Rule 110. My change in the proposal seems to be the only > possible remedy for a proposal that would enact a rule contradicting an > immutable rule. > > I know I'm being a prick, so vote already!! > --e > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:08 AM > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > > > > Well, now we have an issue. We need another player. I don't mean to be a > > jerk about this, but doesn't this run afoul of the turn rule? I'd imagine > > that you can't propose a rule, see that it's going to fail, and then > > withdraw it and propose a new one. If that were so, nobody would ever > > "lose" on their turn. Besides, the rules only allow for amendment > > of a rule. > > The change that you want to make seems to go beyond amendment and into a > > proposition of a whole new rule. I'd want to call for judgement on this > > one... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:23 AM > > Subject: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > > > > > Since I don't think it'll pass as stated, and restricting the proposal > > only > > > to cover failure to propose would weaken the intention of the rule, and > > > there's an issue with Rule 105, I'd like to propose that 105 be > > transmuted > > > to become a mutable rule. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Thu Dec 21 08:31:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 21 Dec 2000 16:31:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 610 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2000 16:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Dec 2000 16:21:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Dec 2000 16:21:42 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA20604 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:21:40 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:22:32 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <002f01c06b63$aca1e7c0$3fa811d0@computer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" I commend you, and thank you... And since you can't change your vote now ;> In admitting that I "expoited a loophole" do you admit that it was legal? I think that's what the games about... At least being a legalistic prick makes it more fun. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:36 AM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > I stand before you today a very disappointed citizen. This is a > sad day for > Scatterbrains democracy. Eugene has exploited a loophole in the > law, and in > a move that flouts the spirit - if not indeed the letter - has forced a > proposal down our throats. Although I will vote for this proposal, as > reform is desperately needed in our young system, this behaviour must be > stopped. I pledge to you today, that I will not cease in my efforts until > (etc...) > > Oh, ok. But if there were a judge around here, you would've lost. > > (ps - but isn't being a legalistic prick what this game is about?) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:42 PM > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > > I think it "runs afoul", but: > > > > (i realized after typing this that it's in no particular order) > > > > A) 111 says "...other players may suggest amendments or argue > against the > > proposal before the vote" This doesn't limit changes I can make to the > > proposal to ammendments only; If it has any limitation, it's on you. > > Furthermore, "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal > is > > to be voted on." > > > > B) There's nothing allowing a proponent to revise his proposal > except Rule > > 111, when it's been challenged. I could have challenged your change to > 304, > > and I wouldn't be able to change a proposal once voting > started. So it's > > always possible to lose one's proposal, I could lose if you'd vote... > > > > C) With 2 players, if you call for judgement, I'd win! You invoke > judgement > > and act as judge; I (acting as ALL the other players) overrule your > > judgement. Judgement passes through me (since it's my turn,) > and back to > > you. I'd win by 213, since "the legality of a move cannot be determined > > with finality", and I'm unable to complete my turn. "There oughta be a > > law..." --Pat Bernardo > > > > D) It does suck, but you pointed out that my proposal was > contrary to 105. > > It could have been written "A)Transmute 105, B)Amend time limits and > > associated penalties." This is clearly 2 rule changes, and the remedy > would > > be "Do part A, since B depends on it." > > > > The only remedy I had was to reduce it to the implied > transmutation in the > > original. If you vote against it as it was, it sinks; Vote for it, and > it's > > nullified by Rule 110. My change in the proposal seems to be the only > > possible remedy for a proposal that would enact a rule contradicting an > > immutable rule. > > > > I know I'm being a prick, so vote already!! > > --e > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:08 AM > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > > > > > > > Well, now we have an issue. We need another player. I don't > mean to be > a > > > jerk about this, but doesn't this run afoul of the turn rule? I'd > imagine > > > that you can't propose a rule, see that it's going to fail, and then > > > withdraw it and propose a new one. If that were so, nobody would ever > > > "lose" on their turn. Besides, the rules only allow for amendment > > > of a rule. > > > The change that you want to make seems to go beyond amendment > and into a > > > proposition of a whole new rule. I'd want to call for > judgement on this > > > one... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > > > To: > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:23 AM > > > Subject: [scatterbrains] RE: Proposal 305 > > > > > > > > > > Since I don't think it'll pass as stated, and restricting > the proposal > > > only > > > > to cover failure to propose would weaken the intention of the rule, > and > > > > there's an issue with Rule 105, I'd like to propose that 105 be > > > transmuted > > > > to become a mutable rule. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From barturo@e... Thu Dec 28 05:46:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: BArturo@e... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 28 Dec 2000 13:46:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 83364 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2000 13:46:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Dec 2000 13:46:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2000 13:46:14 -0000 Received: from batman.ess ([12.31.9.2]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA24553 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 08:46:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by BATMAN with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 08:42:46 -0500 Message-ID: <09A2E3F9D279D41185D8009027B8CDDF03725A@BATMAN> To: "'scatterbrains@egroups.com'" Subject: Introduction Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 08:42:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Arturo, Bob" Hello All This is my official introduction. E Venti has introduced me to Scatterbrains. Regards, B Arturo * NOTICE * - If the reader is not the specified recipient of this confidential email, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the specified recipient, please notify us at webmaster@e.... From bernardo@c... Sat Dec 30 16:53:27 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 31 Dec 2000 00:53:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 37977 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2000 00:53:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Dec 2000 00:53:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2000 00:53:27 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-02.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.62]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBV0rPv99242 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:53:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000b01c072c4$020655e0$3ea811d0@computer> To: References: <09A2E3F9D279D41185D8009027B8CDDF03725A@BATMAN> Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Introduction Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:52:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Uhh. I have a question that I'd like to get clarified, if that's ok with y'all. According to the rules, each turn is conducted in alphabetical order. That puts Bob first. Since we just ended a turn (Eug went last) does that mean it's Bob's turn? Or is it that it was kind of "my turn" after Eug went, so Bob entered after my turn started, and he has to wait for me to go and Eug to go. p ----- Original Message ----- From: Arturo, Bob To: Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 8:42 AM Subject: [scatterbrains] Introduction > Hello All > This is my official introduction. E Venti has introduced me to > Scatterbrains. > > Regards, > B Arturo > > > * NOTICE * - If the reader is not the specified recipient of this > confidential email, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying > of this transmission is strictly prohibited. > If you are not the specified recipient, please notify us at > webmaster@e.... > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Sat Dec 30 22:11:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 31 Dec 2000 06:11:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 44538 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2000 06:11:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Dec 2000 06:11:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2000 06:11:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@n... Received: from [10.1.10.105] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Dec 2000 06:11:38 -0000 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 06:11:34 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Introduction Message-ID: <92mimm+99es@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <000b01c072c4$020655e0$3ea811d0@computer> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1305 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.18 From: eventi@n... I'd say it's your turn. It's been your turn since mine was over. --e --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "Patrick D. Bernardo" wrote: > Uhh. I have a question that I'd like to get clarified, if that's ok with > y'all. According to the rules, each turn is conducted in alphabetical > order. That puts Bob first. Since we just ended a turn (Eug went last) > does that mean it's Bob's turn? Or is it that it was kind of "my turn" > after Eug went, so Bob entered after my turn started, and he has to wait for > me to go and Eug to go. > > p > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Arturo, Bob > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 8:42 AM > Subject: [scatterbrains] Introduction > > > > Hello All > > This is my official introduction. E Venti has introduced me to > > Scatterbrains. > > > > Regards, > > B Arturo > > > > > > * NOTICE * - If the reader is not the specified recipient of this > > confidential email, you are hereby notified that any distribution or > copying > > of this transmission is strictly prohibited. > > If you are not the specified recipient, please notify us at > > webmaster@e... > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > From scatterbrains@egroups.com Mon Jan 01 10:12:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93573 invoked by uid 7800); 1 Jan 2001 18:12:17 -0000 Date: 1 Jan 2001 18:12:17 -0000 Message-ID: <978372737.65712@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files From: scatterbrains@egroups.com To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: File - Rules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable). -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 106. All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 112. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 114. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 115. Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. -- Immutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 201. Players shall alternate in clockwise order, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points. In mail and computer games, players shall alternate in alphabetical order by surname. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) throwing one die once and adding the number of points on its face to one's score. In mail and computer games, instead of throwing a die, players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.) -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 207. Each player always has exactly one vote. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 208. The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points. In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates. The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 211. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment. When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players. The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate. Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge. New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Initial ---- 301. Each proposal shall be posted to the group with the subject consisting of the word "Proposal" followed by the proposal number. -- Mutable -- Author: E Venti -- History: Proposal 301 ---- 304. A) Each player shall receive Points for the Introduction of a new player into the game. B) The introducing Player shall receive 5 (five) points for an official Introduction. C)Introduction shall be determined by an affidavit posted to the group, by the new player, within 1 (one) day of joining, with the subject header "Introduction" and text consisting of the following declaration: "[Player name] has introduced me to Scatterbrains." D)This rule shall remain in effect until the game consists of 10 (ten) or more members. E) For the purposes of further discussion, this rule may also be referred to as the "Be Fruitful and Multiply" Bill. -- Mutable -- Author: Pat Bernardo -- History: Proposal 304 (12/18/00) ---- 305. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. -- Mutable -- Author: P Suber -- History: Transmuted from 105 by eventi (12/21/00) ---- From eventi@w... Mon Jan 01 12:42:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@w... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 1 Jan 2001 20:42:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 24728 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 20:42:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jan 2001 20:42:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ns1.wyndtell.com) (63.81.201.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 21:43:56 -0000 Received: from nova.wyndtell.com (nova.wyndtell.com [63.81.201.78]) by ns1.wyndtell.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f01Lcrm13704 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:38:53 -0800 Received: (root@localhost) by nova.wyndtell.com (8.8.8/SCA-6.6) id PAA12960; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 15:42:50 -0500 (EST) To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Rules file Message-Id: <15308871.1072@w...> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:42:50 -0800 X-eGroups-From: eventi@w... (Eugene Ventimiglia) From: eventi@w... The mailing list sends it every 2 weeks, and right after you subscribe... From bernardo@c... Tue Jan 02 17:35:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 01:35:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 68639 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 01:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 01:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 02:36:21 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-09.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.69]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f031Ylv93007 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:34:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003001c07525$484fc140$45a811d0@computer> To: Subject: Proposal 306 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:34:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C074FB.5CFBE800" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C074FB.5CFBE800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. Rule: One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule, which= is not substantially alterable 2)discussion and amendment phase, which beg= ins immediately following the proposal 3) voting on the rule 4) scoring. Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction produc= ed by the ratio of postive to negative votes. All remainders should be rou= nded up. __ I think that this should do it. Written this way, the extent of amendment = should be open-ended (there's no way that I can think of at present to writ= e a rule to cover what amendments look like) and determined on a case by ca= se basis, open to calls to Judgement. I don't like the present scoring system. This seems right - it keeps the p= oints about where they are, and rewards people for popular measures. p. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C074FB.5CFBE800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This rule will change rule 202 to clarify = things a=20 bit.
 
Rule:
One turn consists of four parts, in t= his order=20 1) proposal of a rule, which is not substantially alterable 2)discussion an= d=20 amendment phase, which begins immediately following the proposal 3) voting = on=20 the rule 4) scoring.
 
Scoring shall be 15 points for each r= ule,=20 multiplied by the fraction produced by the ratio of postive to negative=20 votes.  All remainders should be rounded up.
 
__
I think that this should do it.  Writ= ten this=20 way, the extent of amendment should be open-ended (there's no way that I ca= n=20 think of at present to write a rule to cover what amendments look like) and= =20 determined on a case by case basis, open to calls to Judgement.
 
I don't like the present scoring system.&n= bsp; This=20 seems right - it keeps the points about where they are, and rewards people = for=20 popular measures.
 
p.
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C074FB.5CFBE800-- From eventi@n... Tue Jan 02 20:58:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 04:58:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 16597 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 04:58:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 04:58:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 05:59:12 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: eventi@n... Received: from [10.1.2.74] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2001 04:58:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 04:58:06 -0000 To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 306 Message-ID: <92ubgu+ujia@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <003001c07525$484fc140$45a811d0@computer> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1289 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 64.29.109.18 From: eventi@n... Only a few things, and minor ones at that. A) The language in part one, "which is not substantially alterable," should be clarified. It's possibly better suited to part two. B) There should be a clearly defined ending to phase two, to prevent partial vote abortions (Ouch...) Other than that, I'm cool. --- In scatterbrains@egroups.com, "Patrick D. Bernardo" wrote: > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > Rule: > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule, which is not substantially alterable 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately following the proposal 3) voting on the rule 4) scoring. > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction produced by the ratio of postive to negative votes. All remainders should be rounded up. > > __ > I think that this should do it. Written this way, the extent of amendment should be open-ended (there's no way that I can think of at present to write a rule to cover what amendments look like) and determined on a case by case basis, open to calls to Judgement. > > I don't like the present scoring system. This seems right - it keeps the points about where they are, and rewards people for popular measures. > > p. From bernardo@c... Wed Jan 03 06:42:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 14:42:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 45435 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 14:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 14:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 15:43:37 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-02.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.62]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f03EgKv46985 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:42:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000a01c07593$51c85660$3ea811d0@computer> To: References: <92ubgu+ujia@eGroups.com> Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:41:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. Rule: One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately following the proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, but may not included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which begins when the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All remainders should be rounded up. ___ Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think before we go with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for the beginning of the vote: A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is good/long it might be cut off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is also bad since you'd have to wait to vote. C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting possibilitiy, but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more people, I might even propose this one. D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting phase. This is obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. From eventi@n... Wed Jan 03 09:05:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 17:05:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 88361 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 17:05:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 17:05:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 17:05:14 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA02232 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:05:08 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:05:48 -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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <000a01c07593$51c85660$3ea811d0@computer> Importance: Normal From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" Only one small thing: The wording of the scoring paragraph. Remainders are for division, but I know you meant "All fractional scores are rounded up to the nearest integer." I'll pass it as it stands, but I'll have to weigh in on the second question when I've got more time. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:42 AM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > Rule: > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately following the > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > but may not > included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which > begins when > the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All > remainders should be rounded up. > ___ > Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think > before we go > with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for the > beginning of the vote: > > A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer > B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is good/long it might be cut > off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is also bad since you'd > have to wait to vote. > C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting possibilitiy, > but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more people, I might > even propose this one. > D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting phase. This is > obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From bernardo@c... Wed Jan 03 10:14:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 18:14:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 20069 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 18:13:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 18:13:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 19:15:00 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-08.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.68]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f03IDqv65613 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:13:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000901c075b0$da64b1e0$44a811d0@computer> To: References: Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:12:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Doh! That is what I meant. You math geek. Change to read "All fractional scores shall be rounded up to the nearest integer." ----- Original Message ----- From: Eugene Ventimiglia To: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > Only one small thing: The wording of the scoring paragraph. Remainders are > for division, but I know you meant "All fractional scores are rounded up to > the nearest integer." I'll pass it as it stands, but I'll have to weigh in > on the second question when I've got more time. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:42 AM > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > > > Rule: > > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule > > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately following the > > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > > but may not > > included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which > > begins when > > the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > > > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction > > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All > > remainders should be rounded up. > > ___ > > Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think > > before we go > > with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for the > > beginning of the vote: > > > > A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer > > B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is good/long it might be cut > > off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is also bad since you'd > > have to wait to vote. > > C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting possibilitiy, > > but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more people, I might > > even propose this one. > > D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting phase. This is > > obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Wed Jan 03 10:24:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 18:24:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 3077 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 18:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 18:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 18:24:24 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA11462 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:24:22 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:25:03 -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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <000901c075b0$da64b1e0$44a811d0@computer> Importance: Normal From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" You still with us Bob? > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:13 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > Doh! That is what I meant. You math geek. > > Change to read "All fractional scores shall be rounded up to the nearest > integer." > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05 PM > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > Only one small thing: The wording of the scoring paragraph. > Remainders are > > for division, but I know you meant "All fractional scores are rounded up > to > > the nearest integer." I'll pass it as it stands, but I'll have to weigh > in > > on the second question when I've got more time. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:42 AM > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > > > > > Rule: > > > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule > > > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately > following the > > > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > > > but may not > > > included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which > > > begins when > > > the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > > > > > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction > > > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All > > > remainders should be rounded up. > > > ___ > > > Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think > > > before we go > > > with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for the > > > beginning of the vote: > > > > > > A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer > > > B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is good/long it might be > cut > > > off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is also bad since > you'd > > > have to wait to vote. > > > C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting > possibilitiy, > > > but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more people, I > might > > > even propose this one. > > > D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting phase. This is > > > obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From barturo@e... Wed Jan 03 10:41:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: BArturo@e... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 18:41:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 18789 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 18:41:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 18:41:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 18:41:44 -0000 Received: from batman.ess ([12.31.9.2]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA13270 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by BATMAN with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:38:02 -0500 Message-ID: <09A2E3F9D279D41185D8009027B8CDDF037263@BATMAN> To: "'scatterbrains@egroups.com'" Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:37:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Arturo, Bob" Yea. I'm just waiting for the final proposal. -----Original Message----- From: Eugene Ventimiglia [mailto:eventi@n...] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:25 PM To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 You still with us Bob? > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:13 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > Doh! That is what I meant. You math geek. > > Change to read "All fractional scores shall be rounded up to the nearest > integer." > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05 PM > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > Only one small thing: The wording of the scoring paragraph. > Remainders are > > for division, but I know you meant "All fractional scores are rounded up > to > > the nearest integer." I'll pass it as it stands, but I'll have to weigh > in > > on the second question when I've got more time. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:42 AM > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > > > > > Rule: > > > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule > > > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately > following the > > > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > > > but may not > > > included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which > > > begins when > > > the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > > > > > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction > > > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All > > > remainders should be rounded up. > > > ___ > > > Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think > > > before we go > > > with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for the > > > beginning of the vote: > > > > > > A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer > > > B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is good/long it might be > cut > > > off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is also bad since > you'd > > > have to wait to vote. > > > C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting > possibilitiy, > > > but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more people, I > might > > > even propose this one. > > > D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting phase. This is > > > obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com * NOTICE * - If the reader is not the specified recipient of this confidential email, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the specified recipient, please notify us at webmaster@e.... From bernardo@c... Wed Jan 03 14:10:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: bernardo@c... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 22:10:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2819 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 22:10:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 22:10:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outland.cyberwar.com) (208.17.174.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 22:10:23 -0000 Received: from computer (ppp03-11.cyberwar.com [208.17.168.71]) by outland.cyberwar.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f03MALv87254 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:10:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001301c075d1$e336adc0$47a811d0@computer> To: References: <09A2E3F9D279D41185D8009027B8CDDF037263@BATMAN> Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:09:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Patrick D. Bernardo" Wise ass. Here's the final form. Please vote as you see fit. I vote for it. This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. Rule: One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately following the proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, but may not include the substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which begins when the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All fractional scores shall be rounded up to the nearest integer. ----- Original Message ----- From: Arturo, Bob To: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > Yea. I'm just waiting for the final proposal. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eugene Ventimiglia [mailto:eventi@n...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:25 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > You still with us Bob? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:13 PM > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > Doh! That is what I meant. You math geek. > > > > Change to read "All fractional scores shall be rounded up to the nearest > > integer." > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05 PM > > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > Only one small thing: The wording of the scoring paragraph. > > Remainders are > > > for division, but I know you meant "All fractional scores are rounded up > > to > > > the nearest integer." I'll pass it as it stands, but I'll have to weigh > > in > > > on the second question when I've got more time. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:42 AM > > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > > > > > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > > > > > > > Rule: > > > > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule > > > > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately > > following the > > > > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > > > > but may not > > > > included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which > > > > begins when > > > > the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > > > > > > > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction > > > > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All > > > > remainders should be rounded up. > > > > ___ > > > > Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think > > > > before we go > > > > with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for the > > > > beginning of the vote: > > > > > > > > A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer > > > > B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is good/long it might be > > cut > > > > off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is also bad since > > you'd > > > > have to wait to vote. > > > > C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting > > possibilitiy, > > > > but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more people, I > > might > > > > even propose this one. > > > > D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting phase. This is > > > > obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > * NOTICE * - If the reader is not the specified recipient of this > confidential email, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copying > of this transmission is strictly prohibited. > If you are not the specified recipient, please notify us at > webmaster@e.... > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > From eventi@n... Wed Jan 03 15:00:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eventi@n... X-Apparently-To: scatterbrains@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 23:00:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 21891 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 23:00:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 23:00:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.nyic.com) (64.29.96.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 23:00:10 -0000 Received: from vlad (vlad.nyic.com [209.73.237.163]) by mail.nyic.com (8.9.0/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA09655 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:00:10 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:00:49 -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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <001301c075d1$e336adc0$47a811d0@computer> Importance: Normal From: "Eugene Ventimiglia" I vote for it, and that bob wan't being a wise ass > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:10 PM > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > Wise ass. > > Here's the final form. Please vote as you see fit. I vote for it. > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > Rule: > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) proposal of a rule > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately following the > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > but may not > include the substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which begins > when the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by the fraction > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible votes. All > fractional scores shall be rounded up to the nearest integer. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Arturo, Bob > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:37 PM > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > Yea. I'm just waiting for the final proposal. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eugene Ventimiglia [mailto:eventi@n...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:25 PM > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > You still with us Bob? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:13 PM > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > > > Doh! That is what I meant. You math geek. > > > > > > Change to read "All fractional scores shall be rounded up to > the nearest > > > integer." > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Eugene Ventimiglia > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05 PM > > > Subject: RE: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > > > > Only one small thing: The wording of the scoring paragraph. > > > Remainders are > > > > for division, but I know you meant "All fractional scores > are rounded > up > > > to > > > > the nearest integer." I'll pass it as it stands, but I'll have to > weigh > > > in > > > > on the second question when I've got more time. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Patrick D. Bernardo [mailto:bernardo@c...] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:42 AM > > > > > To: scatterbrains@egroups.com > > > > > Subject: Re: [scatterbrains] Re: Proposal 306 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This rule will change rule 202 to clarify things a bit. > > > > > > > > > > Rule: > > > > > One turn consists of four parts, in this order 1) > proposal of a rule > > > > > 2)discussion and amendment phase, which begins immediately > > > following the > > > > > proposal, and which may change the rule based on the discussion, > > > > > but may not > > > > > included substitution of a new rule 3) voting on the rule, which > > > > > begins when > > > > > the final form of the rule is declared by the proposer 4) scoring. > > > > > > > > > > Scoring shall be 15 points for each rule, multiplied by > the fraction > > > > > produced by the ratio of postive votes to total possible > votes. All > > > > > remainders should be rounded up. > > > > > ___ > > > > > Ok, this should fix things, but I'd like to hear what you think > > > > > before we go > > > > > with it. The way that I saw it, there are four possibilities for > the > > > > > beginning of the vote: > > > > > > > > > > A)What I chose - self selecting by proposer > > > > > B) Time limit - bad because if the discussion is > good/long it might > be > > > cut > > > > > off by the limit. If there is no discussion, this is > also bad since > > > you'd > > > > > have to wait to vote. > > > > > C) Creating an executive to call for votes. An interesting > > > possibilitiy, > > > > > but I though you guys might not like it. If we have more > people, I > > > might > > > > > even propose this one. > > > > > D) Just letting the first vote introduce the voting > phase. This is > > > > > obviously a bad idea, since someone might jump the gun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > scatterbrains-unsubscribe@egroups.c