Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 223 typo.
From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:03:31 +1000

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

A legislative order to correct the wording of rule 223.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
A Proposal is adopted iff, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
A Proposal is adopted if, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[The fifth word of the text 'iff' changed to 'if'.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 114 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:06:09 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 114.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known as the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[The word 'a' changed to 'as'.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 4 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:12:31 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisable' to 'revisable' and 'differentiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 4 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:13:58 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Repost - damn spell checker corrected the descriptive line at the
bottom.]]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable' and 'differientiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: how to become a player
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:14:02 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 00:00:00 UTC today, the nomic served by this list began. At 00:30:00, 
the Administrator declared this list, [email-masked], to be a 
public forum as per R219/0. As such, public business may be conducted here.

On that note, I'd like to welcome everyone to the new game! To become a 
Player, you need to publicly announce that you are one, and indicate by 
what name you wish to be known (q.v. Rules 2, 105, 106, 209). Until then, 
you're all just non-Player Agents, and can't do much...

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: how to become a player 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:19:47 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>At 00:00:00 UTC today, the nomic served by this list began. At 00:30:00, 
>the Administrator declared this list, [email-masked], to be a 
>public forum as per R219/0. As such, public business may be conducted here.
>
>On that note, I'd like to welcome everyone to the new game! To become a 
>Player, you need to publicly announce that you are one, and indicate by 
>what name you wish to be known (q.v. Rules 2, 105, 106, 209). Until then, 
>you're all just non-Player Agents, and can't do much...

I'm a Player, yo. I will be known by my name, "Josh Kortbein".

Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 5 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:22:49 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[If the q / n issue isn't a typo, speak up and I'll change the proposal
before voting commences.]]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the intrerpolated string "n/r", where q is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the interpolated string "n/r", where n is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
to 'interpolated'.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 8.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:28:35 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 8/0 : Comments
The following two non-whitespace characters:
[ ]

are considered "reserved characters when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in the Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 8/0 : Comments
The following two non-whitespace characters:
[ ]

are considered "reserved" characters when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in this Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[Added quotes for "reserved". I have changed 'the Rule' to 'this Rule' to
help prevent ambiguity.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 102.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:37:59 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisiable.
Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base Rule number is 300.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisable.
Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base number for Rules is 0.
Serial numbering of Rules start from 300.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I have changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable'. I have corrected the last
sentence and added an extra sentence to help prevent ambiguity about base
numbers (as in Rule 5)]]

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: I exist
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:38:47 CDT
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I declare myself to be a player.
You can call me "Remo".

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Spoon Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 223 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:54:44 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi All,
I officially request to become a player known as XnJester.  (Now I've got to
repost all those Proposals, bumma).

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 4 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:55:13 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Repost - damn spell checker corrected the descriptive line at the
bottom.]]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable' and 'differientiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 5 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:55:29 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[If the q / n issue isn't a typo, speak up and I'll change the proposal
before voting commences.]]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the intrerpolated string "n/r", where q is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the interpolated string "n/r", where n is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
to 'interpolated'.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 8.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:55:52 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 8/0 : Comments
The following two non-whitespace characters:
[ ]

are considered "reserved characters when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in the Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 8/0 : Comments
The following two non-whitespace characters:
[ ]

are considered "reserved" characters when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in this Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[Added quotes for "reserved". I have changed 'the Rule' to 'this Rule' to
help prevent ambiguity.]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 102.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:56:12 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisiable.
Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base Rule number is 300.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisable.
Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base number for Rules is 0.
Serial numbering of Rules start from 300.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I have changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable'. I have corrected the last
sentence and added an extra sentence to help prevent ambiguity about base
numbers (as in Rule 5)]]

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 114 typo.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:56:27 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 114.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known as the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[The word 'a' changed to 'as'.]]

XnJester

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:55:34 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am a player known as Jeff Schroeder.

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:20:01 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: request for judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request a judgement on the following statement:
Those that have declared emselves players are not players.

Analysis:

Since rule 105 prohibits people from making emselves Agents, and rule 209
requires an entity to be an Agent before making emself a Player, those that
have declared emselves players are not players.  [[And, among other things,
I probably can't make this RFJ.]]

209 states:
During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player
may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so.

105 states:
An Agent is an entity capable of action. The status of entities as Agents
may be altered only as specified in the rules. An entity may cause emself
to lose eir Agency, but may not, solely on eir own authority become an Agent.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 1
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:53:58 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgment on the following statement:

Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players. 

Analysis:

This is the same statement that Ed RFJed earlier this evening. Why (you may 
ask) am I submitting it again? For good reason, actually. As Admin, I am 
responsible for recognizing RFJs (R235/0). Before I can recognize an RFJ, I 
must ascertain whether it meets the criteria for recognition. If the RFJ 
originates from some non-agentic entity, it is unclear whether it should be 
accepted. Recognizing Ed's RFJ would, through that very action, make its 
statement true, since no one is disputing the ability of Agents to become 
Players. Because I was a Player when the game started, it is clear that I 
can make this RFJ, and as Admin, there is no doubt for me that it can be 
recognized under the rules.

I claim the statement to be false, by virtue of the definition of Agent in 
R105/0:

"An Agent is an entity capable of action."

Certainly everyone who declared themselves to be Players would be an Agent 
by this definition, since they are all (1) entities, and (2) the act of 
declaring oneself to be a Player is an action in the broad sense.

Furthermore, the next sentence of the Rule:

"The status of entities as Agents may be altered only as specified in the 
rules."

in no way impinges on the Agency of anything that was an Agent when the 
game started. Presumably no one who declared emself to be a Player failed 
to fit the definition of Agent when the game began, and there is nothing 
explicit in the Rules to lead us to believe that anyone's status in that 
regard has changed since. Thus, it follows that those who declared 
themselves Players were Agents when they did so, and, having done so in the 
proper fashion as per R209/0, are now Players.

----
As Admin, it is my responsibility to assign a Judge for this RFJ (and Ed's, 
assuming it can be recognized)--a responsibility I will fulfill in the 
morning.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:53:58 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My name is God.  I desire to become a player.

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:01:09 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I desire to become a player.
Administrator, by rule 204, I wish to change my name to God.

[[ Sorry about the repeat.  I just figured somebody might make the point that 
I wasn't God, so by claiming to be God, I was making a fradulent statement 
which could nullify my request to become a player.  Hence, I've indicated my 
request to become a player, then invoked 204 to change my name to God.  
Additionally, in *non-public* fora, I will recognize the name Adam.  ]]

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:26:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgement on each of the statements of the following paragraph:
	There is no player by the name of Ed.  There is there a player by the name 
of Benjamin Bradley.  There is there a player by the name of DW.  A forum not 
declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a public forum.  
Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are invalid.  
[email-masked] is not a public forum.  

Analysis:  Only the [email-masked] mailing list has been declared 
public by the Administrator.  Since no Agents called Ed, Benjamin Bradley, or 
DW expressed their desire to be players in a public forum, then there 
certainly are no players Ed, Benjamin Bradley, or DW.  By rule 112, "Actions 
may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules."  
I believe that this means that actions are prohibited in non-public fora.  
Since actions in non-public fora are explicitly prohibited, they are not 
allowed.  Since [email-masked] has not been declared a public forum 
by the Administrator, it is not a public forum.  Since spoon-discuss is not a 
public forum, no actions may be taken in that forum.  

Note:  Nothing personal guys, I just think it would be bad if we noticed 
several nweeks down the road that we had nonplayers voting and such.  This is 
more of a test of the validity of actions taken in the non-public fora and 
whether a forum which has been not been declared either public or private by 
the Administrator is a public forum.  

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal and RFJ
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:01:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I propose that the following rule be added to the ruleset:

A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a 
public forum.  Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are not 
recognized.

Analysis:
Just to be explicit.

Secondly, I request judgment on the following two statements:
Agents may not communicate via public fora.  Joel is the only player.

Analysis:
Rule 112:
Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are either public 
or private. A Player using a Forum is considered to be "in" that Forum at the 
time of its use. Actions may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise 
specified in the Rules.

Does this rule mean that Agents can't communicate in public fora?  It doesn't 
appear to explicitly prohibit it, and since there are no other rule which 
prohibit Agents from communicating via public fora, then I would think that 
Agents can communicate via public fora, and those Agents who have expressed 
their desire to become players in the public forum, spoon-business, have make 
legitimate actions and are players by whatever rule it is that says they are. 
 If it is judged that Agents may not communicate via public fora, then 
clearly Joel is the only player and thus the only entity that may vote in the 
first nweek since the rules currently do not explicitly allow any Agents to 
vote (see Rule 118, only players and designated agents may vote).  This RFJ 
is simply to clarify the point.  
Oh, and since I am an Agent, then by Rule 234, I, God, may make a Request for 
Judgment.

God

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:23:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry, I have another one.
I request judgment on the following statement:
No Agent is an eligible voter unless a rule other than Rule 118 explicitly 
allows that Agent to vote.

Analysis:
Rule 118: Eligible Voters
Every Player is an eligible voter on each Ballot Issue. Other Agents may be 
eligible voters, if allowed by the Rules.

Since the rules do not deny any Agent the right to vote, then by rule 116, 
all Agents may vote.

On the other hand, Rule 118 could be interpreted as saying that the only 
Agents eligible to vote are Players or those explicitly allowed to vote by 
some other rule.

God

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:16:52 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: just to be sure
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I announce my playerhood on the only(?) public fora.
I am Zagarna, a cross between a cactus and a squid

Zagarna

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

From: "Kelly Christians" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: 3rd times a charm
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:04:52 -0500
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I, Kelly Christians, desire to become a player.
Administrator, by rule 204, I desire my name be changed to "4T2-Supreme
Ruler of Everything".

-4T2> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 1
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:38:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I assign number 1 to the RFJ I made yesterday, and select myself as Judge:

Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.

(Lest anyone think this is untoward: I was intending to select Judges 
randomly, but peculiar to this case is the difficulty of determining who is 
eligible to be a Judge. ((Veterans of Berserker will recall the problem we 
had with this last summer.)) Since I am the only Player I *know* is 
eligible without reference to the outcome of this RFJ, I am left with 
little choice but to select myself. I certainly do not intend to do this in 
any other situation.)

Now, for a request:

It would be fair to assume, based on my analysis in the RFJ, that I am 
inclined to judge this statement to be false. Admittedly, I am in an odd 
position with respect to this RFJ, so I want to be sure I am ruling 
correctly. If anyone would like to make further argument why my 
interpretation is incorrect, I would be glad to consider it before making 
the judgment (tomorrow evening, probably).

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:59:47 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I announce that i am a player known as Jeff Schroeder.  This time on this 
list.  I did not realize that the business list was the only public forum 
designated.  Just change 'discussion list' to 'business list' in the 
message below.

jeff

At 08:48 PM 10/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > According to Rule 112:
> > "Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are either
> > public or private. A Player using a Forum is considered to be "in" that
> > Forum at the time of its use. Actions may be taken only in public Fora,
> > unless otherwise specified in the Rules."
> >
> > This is the only rule concerning actions in Fora and I do not see any
> > differentiation between the discuss list and the business list in the 
> rules
> > as they are both public Fora.  Therefore, just to be an ass, I won't send
> > any mail to the business list.  :)
> >
> > j
>
>Rule 218 deals with the designation of fora as public or private, here
>quoted in its relevant parts:
>
>"The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably
>accessible to all Players. . . . Only the Administrator may redesignate
>Fora."
>
>And Rule 219:
>
>"If at any time there exist no public Fora, the Administrator shall take
>such steps as are necessary to designate one. Designation of a Forum as
>public when there are no extant public Fora need not [[and cannot!]] be
>done publicly."
>
>In the first message I sent to the business list, I reported the
>designation of [email-masked] as a public forum, in accord with
>R218 and R219. This designation is not enshrined in the rules because the
>rules concerning fora not only do not require it to be so, but explicitly
>provide a process for changing the publicity(?) of a forum.
>
>So, any actions sent to the discussion list need not be recognized because
>they are not public. Go ahead and send actions to the discussion list if
>you want, but the rules seem to require everyone to ignore them.
>
>--
>J.
>
>--
>Play Nomic!
>http://www.nomic.net

Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:12:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I declare myself
a Player.  I shall be known
simply as Potter.

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

this is pretty silly.
remind me again why we have different mailing lists for business and
discussion?
since I'm not a player yet, I can't make any proposals, so this is my
suggestion:
I understand how having a special e-mail address for voting/etc is needed,
but it seems an easier way to differentiate between discussion and
official actions would be to include some marker in each specific message.
like the <proposal tag> but maybe less/more formal like:
Agent Benjamin makes the following statement:
I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as
Benjamin.

note this was sent to the business list, so it is an official game action.
but wait, is it? wasn't the text indicating a game action enclosed in
(invisible) understood quote marks?

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judgment 1, further judge assignments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:58:54 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Judgment 1

In the matter:

Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.

I rule false. 

The Plaintiff does not dispute one's right to become a Player if e is an 
Agent; the heart of the matter is whether there are any Agents at all.

By R105/0, "Agent" is defined as an "entity capable of action." As neither 
entity nor action are defined within the Rules, and there is no tradition 
of regarding them as having meanings other than their common ones, I 
understand them in the broad sense as referring, respectively, to beings 
and events caused by them. Furthermore, the limitation on arbitrary 
alteration of Agentic status in R105/0 does not come into play in this 
case. Of all the individuals who have thus far aspired to Playerhood, all 
met the definition of Agent (as construed above) when the game started, and 
none have since ceased to qualify.

Thus, a negation of the statement is true: those that have declared emselves Players *are* Players.

----
Now, for the spate of RFJ's:

The format I will be using for number and judge assignments will be the following:

(Plaintiff)'s RFJ of (Date):

(Assigned Number), (Judge). (Statement) 

Judge assignments were conducted with the help of a 10-sided die.

----
2. Ed's RFJ of 2 Oct 2000 04:18:41:

2, XnJester: Those that have declared emselves players are not players.

----
God's RFJ's of 2 Oct 2000 21:25:16:

3, Benjamin: There is no player by the name of Ed.
4, Zagarna: There is there a player by the name of Benjamin Bradley.
5, XnJester: There is there a player by the name of DW.
6, Remo: A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a public forum.
7, Josh Kortbein: Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are invalid.
[email-masked] is not a public forum.

----
God's RFJ's of 2 Oct 21:59:56:

8, Benjamin: Agents may not communicate via public fora.
9, Josh Kortbein: Joel is the only player.

----
God's RFJ's of 2 Oct 2000 22:21:42:

10, Remo: No Agent is an eligible voter unless a rule other than Rule 118 explicitly allows that Agent to vote.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgment RFJ2
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:38:06 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Judgment RFJ2

In the matter:

Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.

I rule false.

A ruling on this statement has already been made. I concur with that ruling
and see no need to add to the statements made in  Judgment 1.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgment RFJ5
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:05:19 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Judgment RFJ5

In the matter:

There is there a player by the name of DW.

I rule false.

I am basing this judgment on the assumption that the second 'there' in the
statement to be judged refers to a place within the boundaries of this Nomic
game. This assumption is made by taking the statement within it's context.

The Agent Dan Waldron has sent no posts to the business list. E did send one
post to the discussion list indicating a desire to become a player. This
post does not qualify em as a Player.

Rule 106:
"A Player is an Agent who...has become a Player in the manner proscribed in
the Rules."

makes it clear that an Agent may only become a Player as proscribed in the
Rules. The only rules that allow an Agent to become a player are these two.

Rule 209:
"During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player
may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so."

Rule 210:
"Any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become one if a Motion to Add
naming em is adopted..."

In regards to the public state of each list I'm going to be lazy here and
paste into this judgement the revelant sections of a post from J.

<pasted from J>
Rule 218 deals with the designation of fora as public or private, here
quoted in its relevant parts:

"The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably
accessible to all Players. . . . Only the Administrator may redesignate
Fora."

And Rule 219:

"If at any time there exist no public Fora, the Administrator shall take
such steps as are necessary to designate one. Designation of a Forum as
public when there are no extant public Fora need not [[and cannot!]] be done
publicly."

In the first message I sent to the business list, I reported the designation
of [email-masked] as a public forum, in accord with R218 and R219.
This designation is not enshrined in the rules because the rules concerning
fora not only do not require it to be so, but explicitly provide a process
for changing the publicity(?) of a forum.

So, any actions sent to the discussion list need not be recognized because
they are not public. Go ahead and send actions to the discussion list if you
want, but the rules seem to require everyone to ignore them.
<end of paste>

The Agent Dan Waldron has not met the requirements of the Rules to become a
Player.

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognized proposals
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:40:04 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is a listing of all recognized proposals. All are version 0 unless 
otherwise noted.

The following proposals by XnJester are recognized:

----
Proposal 301
Fix Rule 4 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:51:30

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.

Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.

Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable' and 'differientiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

----
Proposal 302
Fix Rule 5 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:51:42

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the intrerpolated string "n/r", where q is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the interpolated string "n/r", where n is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
to 'interpolated'.]]

----
Proposal 303
Fix Rule 8
2 Oct 2000 03:51:53

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 8/0 : Comments
The following two non-whitespace characters:
[ ]

are considered "reserved characters when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in the Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 8/0 : Comments
The following two non-whitespace characters:
[ ]

are considered "reserved" characters when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in this Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[Added quotes for "reserved". I have changed 'the Rule' to 'this Rule' to
help prevent ambiguity.]]

----
Proposal 304
Fix Rule 102
2 Oct 2000 03:52:14

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisiable.
Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base Rule number is 300.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisable.
Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base number for Rules is 0.
Serial numbering of Rules start from 300.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I have changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable'. I have corrected the last
sentence and added an extra sentence to help prevent ambiguity about base
numbers (as in Rule 5)]]

----
Proposal 305
Fix Rule 114 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:52:34

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 114.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known as the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[The word 'a' changed to 'as'.]]

----
The following Proposal by God is recognized:

Proposal 306
[[no title]]
2 Oct 2000 21:59:56

I propose that the following rule be added to the ruleset:

A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a 
public forum.  Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are not 
recognized.

----
The following Proposals by XnJester are recognized:

Proposal 307
Fix Rule 223 typo
2 Oct 2000 02:59:39

A legislative order to correct the wording of rule 223.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
A Proposal is adopted iff, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
A Proposal is adopted if, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[The fifth word of the text 'iff' changed to 'if'.]]

----
Proposal 308
Fix Rule 114 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:02:10

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 114.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 114/0 : Orders
An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known as the recipient,
requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
Courts.
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[The word 'a' changed to 'as'.]]

----
Proposal 309
Fix Rule 4 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:08:51

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisable' to 'revisable' and 'differentiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

----
Proposal 310/0
Fix Rule 4 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:08:51

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisable' to 'revisable' and 'differentiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

----
Proposal 310/1
Fix Rule 4 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:10:02

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.
Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
revision number is 0.

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable' and 'differientiate' to
'differentiate'.]]

----
Proposal 311
Fix Rule 5 typo
2 Oct 2000 03:18:52

This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.

The original (incorrect) text states:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the intrerpolated string "n/r", where q is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

It will be changed to:

" Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
the interpolated string "n/r", where n is the sum of the base number for T
and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
[[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]

0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"

[[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
to 'interpolated'.]]

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:12:04 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: buisness nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgment 4
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Judgment on RFJ4

In the matter:

There is there a player by the name of Benjamin Bradley.

I rule false.

I am basing this judgment on the previous judgment made by XnJester on RFJ5.

My reasoning: no agent named Benjamin Bradley ever sent a post to a public forum
expressing the intention of becoming a player, therefore there is there no
player by the name of Benjamin Bradley.

Zagarna

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:00:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judgment RFJ3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Judgement RFJ3

In the matter:

There is no player by the name of Ed.

I rule true.

This judgement is based on the same reasoning as Judgement RFJ5.
[[and I'm a slacker]]

{{Note: this is my first game of Nomic, so gentle suggestions would be
appreciated if I do anything incorrectly}}

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:24:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ: reflexivity of "to be"
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgement on the following statements regarding Rule 105/0:

STATEMENT 1:
The english verb "to be" is considered reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y
is x.']. 

{{as a side note, this problem would never happen in spanish, since
there are two different verbs for "to be", one of which indicates a
(permanent) characteristic and the other indicates a (temporary) state}}

STATEMENT 2:
The statement "An Agent is an entity capable of action." 
implies that "an entity capable of action is an Agent."

---
Rule 105/0 : Agents 
       An Agent is an entity capable of action. The status of entities as
Agents may be altered only as specified in the rules. An entity
       may cause emself to lose eir Agency, but may not, solely on eir own
authority become an Agent.

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:40:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement RJF8
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the matter:

Agents may not communicate via public fora.

I rule false.

More words:
Rule 116 allows whatever is not limited by the rules.
None of the rules limit who may communicate via public fora.
Therefore, Agents are allowed to communicate via public fora.

In this judgement, I take the first sentence of the rule, "Fora are the
means by which Players communicate." to be a qualifying statement and not
a restrictive statement.

This is basically what God said in his RFJ.
---

Cited rules:

Rule 105/0 : Agents 
       An Agent is an entity capable of action. The status of entities as Agents may be altered only as
       specified in the rules. An entity may cause emself to lose eir Agency, but may not, solely on eir
       own authority become an Agent.

Rule 112/0 : Fora 
       Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are either public or private. A Player
       using a Forum is considered to be "in" that Forum at the time of its use. Actions may be taken
       only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules.

Rule 116/0 : Permissibility of the Unprohibited
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and
unregulated, with the sole exception of Rule Changes, which are permitted
only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits them.

Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:13:10 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: I'm not a number, I am a Player!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi all, I'm a player, and I shall henceforth be known as The Kid.

I'm still finding my way round the rules, so if I do something stupid,
be nice. I found the archives of the two lists and there seems to have
been a number of proposals and RFJ's, but these are not reflected on the
web site. Am I looking in the right place (http://www.nomic.net/~g1/) ?

Rgds,
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal on rescinding actions
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:24:55 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There seems to be a need for being able to take back actions, so I'm 
offering a proposal to allow that:

<Proposal>
<Title>Rescinding Actions</Title>

A Agent may rescind any unrecognized action e has taken at any time by 
publicly indicating that e is doing so. The recognition of a rescinded 
action by any Officer is prohibited.
</Proposal>

This should work fine assuming there is at least a little lag between 
actions and there recognition.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Joining (again) and a new proposal.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It seems I am not a player.  Unless this has been overturned.  This agent
is having a hard time trying to keep up with the volume of mail on the
list and still pass all of it's classes.  Oh well, I struggle onwards.

I wish to become a player called Poulenc.  If by some chance I am already
a player called DW, I wish to change my name to Poulenc.  I may be
informally referred to as Dan or DW.

________________________________________________________________

The following is a proposal to be given a Proposal number and registered
by the Administrator:

[Proposal Summary:  This proposal will enact a criminal code which gives
us the ability to punish people for various actions that disrupt game
play.  Included are laws for dealing with players who try to destroy the 
game and officers who abuse their power.]

Enact a new rule titled "Criminal Code" with the first available rule
number and text as follows:

It is recognized that while certain actions technically allowed to a
Player may not be in the best intrests of this game.  If a player believes
that any agent has been guilty of such a crime then e should submit an RFJ
accusing that suspect of the crime.  The arguments portion of the RFJ
should contain documentation of whatever evidence has been found to
support the accusation.

An RJF submitted for this purpose is handled in the normal manner for an
RJF except for the following points of difference:

1.  The accused is entitled to submit to the Judge a statement explaining
their position and arguing for their own defense.  If they do not submit
such a statement within a reasonable length of time then they lose this
right.

2.  If the judge rules true e does not issue orders to change the game
state directly but instead issues an order to the accused to make whatever
reparations or punishments e decides upon, within the guidelines of the
criminal code.

3.  Neither the submittor nor the accused may be assigned to judge such an
RFJ.

Here follows the guidelines for judging RFJs on the criminal code.

To be found guilty of game delay through excessive RFJs, proposals, or
other means, the accused agent must have submitted at least fifteen RFJs
or proposals within one nweek, which was found to hinder game play, or
must have taken other simmilar actions which prevented participation by
the Players.  Punishment for this should be a suspension of the ability to
submit RFJs or proposals of not more than five times the amount of the
delay in game play, and may also involve a loss of points at the
discresion of the judge.

To be found guilty of the crime of dereliction of duty, an agent must have
been an officer and must have failed to perform some official duty within
the required amount of time.  Punishment for this should be a loss of a
number of points and possible expulsion from the office at the discresion
of the judge.

To be found guilty of the crime of murder, an agent must have acted in
some way as to directly and permanently prevent a player from
participating in the game. Punishment for this should include loss of any
official privilidges, loss of points, loss of player status, or permanent
expulsion from the game at the discresion of the judge.

To be found guilty of the crime of abuse of office, an agent must have
been an officer and must have used the power granted to eir office to
directly and unfairly hinder the play of another player, outside the realm
of what would normally be expected of that office, at the discresion of
the judge. Punishment for this should be reparations to the hindered
player of whatever game advantage e lost due to the actions of the
accused, made directly by the accused, at the discresion of the judge.

Judgement and punisment on other crimes are possible at the discresion of
the judge.  However, for crimes not listed here the punishment shall not
exceed one hundred points, plus reparations for damages directly caused to
other agents.

Here ends the text of the proposed rule titled "Criminal Code".
Here ends the new proposal.

_________________________________________________

We are allowed to rescind and edit proposals, right?  So if anyone wants
this changed in any way, let me know and I will see what I can do.  I did
my best to edit out all the bugs but there are probably some left.  There
are also points of policy upon which I am open to discussion.  Sorry about
making this so long.

Poulenc (DW)

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Pedantics.
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:53:33 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >the reason I thought of it was the first batch of proposals was all typos
> >fixes, and I had to read through all of it anyway.
> >I think this might be what Josh said, but I don't know what pedantry is.
>
> It's kind of like pederasty, except less messy.

I am offended by that remark.

Obviously people around here think that fixing up minor errors in the
ruleset is not something to be done by proposal. I therefore withdraw every
proposal submitted by myself before this post. I hereby submit a new
proposal.

That a rule be created titled "Pedantics" with this text.

"The Pedant is the Officer responsible for minor corrections to the rules.
The Pedant may make changes to the rules consisting of the insertion,
deletion, or change of no more than three words or alphanumeric characters
per Rule per nweek. The Pedant makes a rule change by making a Pedantic
Order ordering the rule change. The Pedantic Order is an Administrative
Order. The Pedantic Order will take effect at the end of the voting period
following the making of that Pedantic Order. The Pedantic Order is
automatically cancelled if a public objection is received before it takes
effect. At the end of a nweek Pedantic Orders will take effect prior to any
other Orders. The Pedant will be paid a stipend of 3 points per nweek. The
Pedant will be paid 1 point per Pedantic Order which takes effect. The first
Pedant is the Player whose real name is Kieron Jarvis. "

[[Some reasoning behind this rule.
1. No more than three words prevents wholesale changes to rules. If the rule
has to be changed in large chunks it is no longer an issue of Pedantics.
2. The Pedantic Order must be made before the voting period or it is carried
over to the next nweek.
3. It must be unanimously not objected to (ie we don't all have to agree as
long as noone objects). The minimum amount of time for objection is a full
voting period.
4. The Pedant's rule change takes place first so that a rule change from
exploitation of a typo may be preventable.
5. A large stipend didn't seem like a good idea as the position should be
close to redundant if the Pedant does his job well.
6. A reward for each rule fix done encourages the Pedant to pay attention to
detail.]]

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ: A non-Player can be a judge.
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:06:47 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgement on the following statement:

An agent needs to be a Player to be selected as a judge.

Rule 236 seems to be the only one governing selection of a judge. While the
wording presupposes that you must be a Player to be selected as a judge it
doesn't explicitly state it. Hence I request a judgement.

If ruled true this judgement will affect the game state in regards to the
judgements made by Benjamin Bradley. So Judicial Orders should be made to
clarify the game state.

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: competing error-correction proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:15:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am offering the following proposal:

<Proposal>
<Title>Motion to Amend Trivially</Title>

A Rule may be unsubstantially amended if a Motion to Amend Trivially naming 
that Rule is adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially are Privileged Motions. 
Motions to Amend Trivially are automatically subject to unanimous consent, 
and fail if unanimous consent is not given.

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Amend Trivially 
directs the Administrator to make appropriate changes to the Rules.
</Proposal>

I think this is a better way to go about correcting typos, grammar, etc. in 
the Rules, for the following reasons:

1. It's more responsive. Anyone can make one of these motions on finding a 
problem, rather than being forced to convince the Pedant that it should be 
done.

2. It's less restrictive. XnJester's proposal sets very strict limits on 
what can be corrected, and how quickly. It is entirely possible that the 
grammar in a Rule could be mangled so as to necessitate the change of more 
than three words, though it would not be so bad as to be unintelligible.

3. It doesn't create another unelected position. I would rather see all 
future Offices be elective (and lest ye think I want this to maintain my 
position, I would also like to parcel out many of my current duties to 
them).

[[Note: do to some technical difficulties this evening, the proposals won't 
show up on the page until tomorrow... Sorry.]]

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:02:07 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Most of the proposals etc so far seem to be about correcting spelling errors
and discussion if X is a player or not. So, I thought I'd submit something
*completely* different...

Proposal: Subliminal Religious Indoctrination

If at any time a Player submits a proposal which will cause the creation or
alteration of a rule so that the rule would subsequently contain the text of
one or more verses(*) from a Recognised Religious Text(**), then that Player
shall secretly become a Humble Disciple.

Anytime before the close of voting on proposals, a Player may make an
Accusation of Heresy by accusing any other Player of being a Humble
Disciple, and present the evidence. If the Player is found to be Guilty of 
Heresy then the accuser receives a payment of 30 points.

If the proposal of a Humble Disciple is passed without the Humble Disciple
being Accused of Heresy, then the Humble Disciple shall claim to have
Preached to the Unbelievers and offer the proof. If their claim is accepted
then they have Achieved Enlightenment and are blessed with 30 points.

If a player is wrongly Accused of Heresy, or a Humble Disciple's Proposal
fails, then no further action is taken. A Player who is Accused of Heresy
may not then claim to have Preached to the Unbelievers and Achieved
Enlightenment if their Proposal subsequently passes.

(*)In the case that the Recognised Religious Text is not normally divided
into verses, then one or more complete sentences totaling fifteen or more
words shall be understood to constitute a verse.

(**)Recognised Religious Texts at this time are:
Christian Bible, New International Version.
Christian Bible, King James Version.
ISO/IEC 14882, Standard for the C++ Programming Language.

--
The Kid

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal Numbering & withdrawal of Proposals.
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:40:44 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I was just looking at the Rules and found something interesting.

It would appear that R220 doesn't require the Administrator to tell us what
the Proposal number of a Proposal is.

It would also appear that R117 *requires* revisions to quote the original
Proposal number. Therefore, if a revision is sent without a Proposal number
(due to lack of knowledge of it's number or just slackness) then I assume it
would create a new Proposal.

I also wonder whether 'official recognition' from R220 prevents withdrawal
of a Proposal before it's been numbered.

I bring this to your attention because I would prefer not to have to run off
to the website (and hope it's available) to find out what number my Proposal
is. Can we please have the Proposal numbers reported on the list ?  I also
note that the only Proposals listed on the website are three of my typo
fixing Proposals which I have attempted to withdraw already.

P301 is in the archive already. Does this mean that my withdrawal has taken
effect or not ?  There's no notation on it to indicate that it has been
withdrawn.

I hereby withdraw Proposal 301, 302, & 303 if they have not already been
withdrawn.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ Benjamin on Roster.
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:51:32 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgment on this statement: Benjamin should not be listed on the
Roster.

Looking at the roster I find that Benjamin is listed. However, R203 and
Judgment 4 indicate that he should not be on the Roster.

XnJester

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:31:13 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: buisness nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ Benjamin on Roster.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Kieron Jarvis wrote:
> 
> I request judgment on this statement: Benjamin should not be listed on the
> Roster.
> 
> Looking at the roster I find that Benjamin is listed. However, R203 and
> Judgment 4 indicate that he should not be on the Roster.
> 
> XnJester

Judgment 4 was about agent Benjamin Bradley, of this Benjamin you speak of I
know nothing :)

Zagarna

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:10:12 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

approve darius_fugazi unsubscribe [email-masked]
approve darius_fugazi unsubscribe [email-masked]
end
-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: more proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:31:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized. [I decided not to resend the 
proposals to the list, as you can see them on the web page now.]
----
Proposal 311
Joel Uckelman
4 Oct 2000 22:22:56
Rescinding Actions

----
Proposal 312
Poulenc
4 Oct 2000 23:27:14
[[no title]]

----
Proposal 313
XnJester
5 Oct 2000 04:49:42
Pedantics

----
Proposal 314
Joel Uckelman
5 Oct 2000 05:13:51
Motion to Amend Trivially

----
Proposal 315
The Kid
5 Oct 2000 13:03:23
Subliminal Religious Indoctrination

----

Move along now, nothing else to see here.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: changes to proposal 312
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> ----
> Proposal 312
> Poulenc
> 4 Oct 2000 23:27:14
> [[no title]]
 
I would like to alter my proposal, number 312, as allowed by rule 222/0

The title of the proposal shall be "Criminal Code"

The first occurence of "[" shall be replaced with "[["
The first occurence of "]" shall be replaced with "]]"

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: more judge assignments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 00:56:48 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Judges are hereby assigned to the following outstanding RFJs, listed as 
before.
This stuff should be showing up on the page in the morning sometime.

[plaintif's RFJ of date]

[number, judge: statement]

----

Benjamin's RFJ of 4 Oct 2000 16:23:25:

11, 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything: The english verb "to be" is considered 
reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y is x.'].

----

XnJester's RFJ of 5 Oct 2000 05:02:46:

12, Remo: An agent needs to be a Player to be selected as a judge.

----

XnJester's RFJ of 6 Oct 2000 03:47:31:

13, God: Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: more judicial stuff
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:17:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It appears that I missed one of God's RFJ's from 2 Oct 2000 21:25:16:

14, Poulenc: [email-masked] is not a public forum.

----
The following judges are recused for failing to render judgments within 
three days of eir selection:

6. Remo
7. Josh Kortbein
9. Josh Kortbein
10. Remo

That this happened was entirely my fault, as I didn't make the information 
available to render these judgments before time ran out. Thankfully, there 
is no penalty for being recused (at this point), so no harm, no foul. 
Anyway, I apologize for taking so long to get the Judicial pages up.

In replacement, the following judges are selected:

6, Poulenc: A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator 
is not a public forum.

7, Jeff Schroeder: Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are 
invalid.

9, Zagarna: Joel is the only player.

10, Joel Uckelman: No Agent is an eligible voter unless a rule other than 
Rule 118 explicitly allows that Agent to vote.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 01:42:20 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: buisness nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 9
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

in the matter:

Joel is the only player.

I rule False.

My reasoning:
Judgement on RFJ 8 rules that agents can communicate via public fora. Therefore
at this time, all the players of this game that have become players in the ways
prescribed by the rules are players. Ergo Joel is not the only player.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ13
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:33:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:

> XnJester's RFJ of 6 Oct 2000 03:47:31:
>
> 13, God: Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.

In the matter:
	Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.

I rule true.

In the message of Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:00 -0500 (CDT) by the entity Benjamin 
Bradley <[email-masked]>, I find the following text.  
"I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as
Benjamin."  Since Benjamin has declared eir desire to be a Player on a public 
forum in accord with Rule 209 and Rule 112, e is a Player.

God

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ13, continued...
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:44:11 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Adam Tomjack:
> (Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> > XnJester's RFJ of 6 Oct 2000 03:47:31:
> >
> > 13, God: Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.
>
> In the matter:
> 	Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.
>
> I rule true.
>
> In the message of Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:00 -0500 (CDT) by the entity
> Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>, I find the following text.
> "I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as
> Benjamin."  Since Benjamin has declared eir desire to be a Player on a
> public forum in accord with Rule 209 and Rule 112, e is a Player.
>
> God

I have made an error.

The correct ruling is that the statement above is false.

The statement "Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster" is false because 
Benjamin is a player by my previous reasoning.  Since e is a Player, e should 
be listed on the Roster.

Based on this, by Rule 214, I make the Judical Order to the Administrator not 
to remove Benjamin from the Roster.

God

P.S.  Oops, sorry :(  

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 21:20:46 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>7, Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are invalid.

I rule the previous statement to be true.

Rule 112/0 states:
         Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are 
either public or private. A Player using a Forum is considered to be "in" 
that Forum at the time of its use. Actions may be taken only in public 
Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules.

According to the rule, actions cannot occur in non-public Fora.  This RFJ 
does not seem to be necessary because the required circumstances can never 
exist.  However, to provide any additional clarification, I judge that the 
statement is to be interpreted as true.

Jeff Schroeder

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13)
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:02:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Adam Tomjack sprach:
> >(Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Adam Tomjack:
> >> (Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> >> > XnJester's RFJ of 6 Oct 2000 03:47:31:
> >> >
> >> > 13, God: Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.
> >>
> >> In the matter:
> >> 	Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.
> >>
> >> I rule true.
> >>
> >> In the message of Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:00 -0500 (CDT) by the entity
> >> Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>, I find the following text.
> >> "I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as
> >> Benjamin."  Since Benjamin has declared eir desire to be a Player on a
> >> public forum in accord with Rule 209 and Rule 112, e is a Player.
> >>
> >> God
> >
> >I have made an error.
> >
> >The correct ruling is that the statement above is false.
> >
> >The statement "Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster" is false because
>  
> >Benjamin is a player by my previous reasoning.  Since e is a Player, e shoul
> d 
> >be listed on the Roster.
> >
> >Based on this, by Rule 214, I make the Judical Order to the Administrator no
> t 
> >to remove Benjamin from the Roster.
> >
> >God
> >
> >P.S.  Oops, sorry :(  
> 
> You've already made a judgement. The preceding is simply some other
> hoo-ha that for some reason you posted to the list.
> 
> 
> Josh

Yeah, I knew this was going to happen. This is one of the *BAD* things 
about our judicial system. Now I'm not sure if Benjamin is a Player--is 
"should not be listed on the Roster" equivalent to "is not a Player"? I 
don't know. If they are, I need only execute a removal of Benjamin from the 
Roster within a reasonable time. So, to correct this mishap, I am 
requesting judgment on the following statement:

The ruling for Judgment 13 should be "false".

and will hopefully receive a Judgment before "a reasonable time" elapses.

Analysis: In light of God's analysis on Judgment 13 and his immediate post 
attempting to correct it, it is obvious that e did not intend to rule 
"true".

----
Josh Kortbein has been assigned to judge RFJ 15:

The ruling for Judgment 13 should be "false".

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13) 
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:54:22 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Josh Kortbein has been assigned to judge RFJ 15:
>
>The ruling for Judgment 13 should be "false".

Ruling:

FALSE

The ruling for Judgment 13 "should be" "true" because it was originally
ruled "true". With that ruling, the RFJ was answered, and no further
ruling on the matter was possible, without further RFJs which speak
directly to the matter addressed by RFJ 13.

If the Plaintiff wishes to change history, e should make a more
careful RFJ. What e has attempted is akin to trying to correct
an incorrect answer on a test which has already been handed in,
by telling the professor that the answer "should be" the correct one.

Furthermore, even if I am to read the Plaintiff's RFJ as a statement
of fact - "the judgment for RFJ 13 was in error" - that statement alone
is not enough to cause me to issue a Judicial Order to right the
perceived error, because I have not been asked to judge in the matter
of Benjamin's place on the Roster.

Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: P311, P314 revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:16:54 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am changing P311 to the following, with title "Rescinding Actions":

Create a Rule entitled "Rescinding Actions" with the following text:

"A Agent may rescind any unrecognized action e has taken at any time by 
publicly indicating that e is doing so. The recognition of a rescinded 
action by any Officer is prohibited."

----
I am making a new proposal with title "Motion Reform":

1. Amend R120/0 to read:

"The Agent who submits a Motion is its owner. An Agent may never own more 
than ten live Motions of any one type, and may never submit more than ten 
Motions of any one type in a single day; otherwise an Agent may make a new 
Motion of any type at any time.

New Motions are live and active by default. Motions are revisable. Unless 
the Rules allow other Agents to do so, only the owner of a live Motion may 
alter its parts, or activate, deactivate, or withdraw it. Withdrawn Motions 
are dead. Only live Motions may be altered or be Under Consideration. No 
Motion may be altered while Under Consideration.

Each Motion is either Approvable or Unilateral, and Primary or Secondary. 
Approvable Motions are subject to voting or unanimous consent, as per the 
Rules. Unilateral Motions need no such approval to take effect. Primary 
Motions are assigned serial numbers by type, while Secondary Motions are 
assigned serial numbers as a group.

2. Add as the first sentence of R117/0:

"Proposals are Primary Approvable Motions which are not subject to 
unanimous consent."

3. Repeal R221/0.

4. Delete the second paragraph of R222/0.

5. Amend the first sentence of R225/0 to read:

'Only votes equivalent to "yes" or "no" are counted toward adoption of 
Approvable Motions.'

6. Amend R228/0 to read:

"The Administrator shall, within a reasonable time after receiving a new 
Motion, assign it a serial number in the sequence appropriate to its type. 
A new Motion is not officially recognized until it is assigned a serial 
number."

7. Amend R229/0 to read:

"An Approvable Motion is adopted iff it is subject to and receives 
unanimous consent, or at the close of voting on it, its passage ratio 
exceeds one-half. If the Rules regarding a motion establish a different 
passage ratio, it takes precedence over the passage ratio herein.

Orders, Motive or Legislative, in an adopted Motion shall be executed in a 
timely fashion by the appropriate Officers. Only Motions defined in the 
Rules have effect if adopted."

8. Repeal R223/0.

9. Insert "Approvable" before every instance of "Motion" in R230/0.

10. Amend the first sentence of R234/0 to read:

"A Request for Judgment is a Primary Unilateral Motion."

and replace the last sentence with:

"A Request for Judgment is dead once a Judgment has been issued on it."

11. Amend the second sentence of R210/0 to read:

"Motions to Add are Secondary Approvable Motions."

----
This is a really long proposal, and you may be wondering what exactly it 
does. Well, it seems to me that Proposals, RFJs, and Motions, as we know 
them now have certain things in common (or certain things we would like 
them to have in common), such as revisability, withdrawability, etc. This 
formalizes that by making them all different types of Motions.

----
I am changing P313 to the following, with title "Motion to Amend Trivially":

Create a Rule entitled "Motion to Amend Trivially" with the following text:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions adoptable only 
through unanimous consent, and fail if unanimous consent is not given. A 
Rule may be unsubstantially amended if a Motion to Amend Trivially naming 
that Rule is adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become Ballot 
Issues.

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Amend Trivially 
directs the Administrator to make appropriate changes to the Rules."

----

So, there we go.
-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:43:10 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I declare myself a player.  I wish to be called Ed.

Ed.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: revision to P314
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:54:47 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thanks to XnJester for catching my error. I tried to amend eir proposal 
instead of mine.

I am changing P314 to the following, with title "Motion to Amend Trivially":

Create a Rule entitled "Motion to Amend Trivially" with the following text:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions adoptable only
through unanimous consent, and fail if unanimous consent is not given. A
Rule may be unsubstantially amended if a Motion to Amend Trivially naming
that Rule is adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become Ballot
Issues.

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Amend Trivially
directs the Administrator to make appropriate changes to the Rules."

There we go.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 16
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:58:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgment on the following statement:

Benjamin was a Player immediately before Judgment 13 was issued, and as 
such, must still be a Player since e has not forfeited and no Orders have 
been executed (or even issued) to remove em, and thus should by definition 
be on the Roster.

Analysis:

R124/0, dealing with legal precedent, indicates that a "Judgment shall 
guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a subsequent Judgment 
contradicts it". Note that this says a "Judgment" and not the "statement 
and ruling". What this means is that the Judge's analysis is part of the 
Judgment, and must be taken into consideration.

Judgment 13 concluded that the statement "Benjamin should not be listed on 
the Roster." is true; however, the analysis submitted with it is at 
variance with its ruling, something which the Judge confirms as an error. 
If J13 is to "guide interpretation of the rules" how are we to apply it? 
Plausible arguments with diametrically opposed conclusions could be 
fashioned from the statement and ruling on one hand and the analysis on the 
other. The contradictory nature of J13 should weakens its strength as a 
precedent to practically nil.

Furthermore, J13 does not affect Benjamin's status as a Player. Clearly he 
was a Player prior to the Judgment, and the Judge did not issue a Judicial 
Order removing him. Ergo, Benjamin is still a Player.

R203/0 defines the Roster to be the "list of all Players". If Benjamin is a 
Player, then he must be on the list.

----
This RFJ is assigned number 16, and Josh Kortbein is the Judge.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 16 
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:01:29 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>I request judgment on the following statement:
>
>Benjamin was a Player immediately before Judgment 13 was issued, and as 
>such, must still be a Player since e has not forfeited and no Orders have 
>been executed (or even issued) to remove em, and thus should by definition 
>be on the Roster.
>
>Analysis:
>
>R124/0, dealing with legal precedent, indicates that a "Judgment shall 
>guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a subsequent Judgment 
>contradicts it". Note that this says a "Judgment" and not the "statement 
>and ruling". What this means is that the Judge's analysis is part of the 
>Judgment, and must be taken into consideration.
>
>Judgment 13 concluded that the statement "Benjamin should not be listed on 
>the Roster." is true; however, the analysis submitted with it is at 
>variance with its ruling, something which the Judge confirms as an error. 
>If J13 is to "guide interpretation of the rules" how are we to apply it? 
>Plausible arguments with diametrically opposed conclusions could be 
>fashioned from the statement and ruling on one hand and the analysis on the 
>other. The contradictory nature of J13 should weakens its strength as a 
>precedent to practically nil.
>
>Furthermore, J13 does not affect Benjamin's status as a Player. Clearly he 
>was a Player prior to the Judgment, and the Judge did not issue a Judicial 
>Order removing him. Ergo, Benjamin is still a Player.
>
>R203/0 defines the Roster to be the "list of all Players". If Benjamin is a 
>Player, then he must be on the list.
>
>----
>This RFJ is assigned number 16, and Josh Kortbein is the Judge.

TRUE

I concur with the Plaintiff's now-more-carefully-thought-out
analysis.

Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:03:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ re: "you guys"
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgement on the following statement:

You guys are out to get me.

did I say meh yet?
meh.

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 17
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:10:18 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> I request judgement on the following statement:
> 
> You guys are out to get me.
> 
> 
> did I say meh yet?
> meh.
> 
> - You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 

Ok, I suppose I do have to recognize this one (q.v. my message about the 
other).

17, God: You guys are out to get me.

There you go, God. Knock yourself out.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:15:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

this game is pretty fun!
I've noticed lots of inconsistencies in how proposals, rfjs, business in
general is introduced. (i.e. what happened to using <proposal> tags or
have we not been going that because the parser is not online yet? -
anyway, when it gets online, we need to write the for atting requirements
into the proposal rule)

Here's my proposal:
<proposal title="Liars, and how to deal with them">
If an Agent makes a statement in a public forum implying the truth of a
statment X, when e already knows statement X to be false, then e is a
Liar. If an RFJ is submitted, and said Agent is found to be a Liar, then e
shall be docked 5 points.
If said Agent makes a public apology (apologizes in a public
forum) before the Judgement is made, then e will be docked only 3 points
instead of 5.
</proposal>

No offense to you at all, God.
Hopefully, this rule will help us all be a bit more thorough when saying 
things.

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 17
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:38:32 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> 17, God: You guys are out to get me.
>
> There you go, God. Knock yourself out.

[[ 
I rule True!  

Obviously "me" is me.  I think you guys are out to get me because I 
retardedly didn't proofread my judgement.

Oops, by Rule 8, this is a comment.  Here, let me try again...
]]

On the truth of the statement:
	"You guys are out to get me."

I rule false.

Since this RFJ came from Benjamin, I will assume that "me" referers to em.  I 
will also assume "You guys" refers to all Players in this nomic, since "guys" 
is commonly used to address groups of same or mixed gender.  I rule that The 
Players of this nomic, except for Benjamin, are out to get Benjamin is false 
because [[ while I, God, am out to get Benjamin >:-> ]] clearly the other 
Players are making an effort to resolve the issue of whether or not Benjamin 
should be on the Roster[[ and because that leaves me as the sole Player out 
to get Benjamin, there are no "guys" in the plural sense]].  

[[ Sorry, Benjamin.  I'm not really out to get you. ]]

God

-- 
Adam Tomjack
[email-masked]
http://www.adamtj.com

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Alteration to proposal 315
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:32:26 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In my proposal (315 'Subliminal Religious Indoctrination'), in the third
paragraph, please change the text:
"the Humble Disciple shall claim"
to read:
"the Humble Disciple may, within one nweek, claim"

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 12/0
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:58:36 -0500
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Statement: 

      An agent needs to be a Player to be selected as a judge.

Ruling: 
 
      FALSE

Analysis:

      Rule 236/0 states:
      ------
      The following are excluded from serving as Judges on a Request 
      for Judgment: 

      1. the Plaintiff 
      2. Judges previously recused from the Request 

      If these exclusions leave no Players eligible to serve as Judge, 
      exclusions may be waived from highest-numbered to lowest until
      at least one Player becomes eligible.
      ------
      Agents who are not players are not specifically exempted by requirements
      1 or 2.  Thus by 116/0, Joel could select, say, Tomjack's Mom. 
      The last paragraph of the rule seems to imply that the only case in 
      which a non-player could be selected would be if there were no eligible
      players.  This is not made clear, however, and I suggest that we deal
      with the matter on a pragmatic basis until such time as the rule can
      be modified appropriately.  

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 11:06:04 -0500
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<PROPOSAL>
<TITLE>Tomjack's mom cannot be a judge</TITLE>
Amend Rule 235 to read:

Within a reasonable time after receipt of a Request for Judgment, the 
Administrator shall assign the Request the next Judgment number, and 
shall select a Player to serve as Judge as per the Rules on Judge 
selection.
</PROPOSAL>

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition of alterations
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:46:58 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Alterations to P311, P312, P314 are recognized and will be posted to the 
page soon, in case anyone was wondering.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: recognition of alterations 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:48:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> Alterations to P311, P312, P314 are recognized and will be posted to the 
> page soon, in case anyone was wondering.
> 
> 
> -- 
> J.

And P315.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: ballot
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:50:28 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Voting began at 00:00:00, 10 October 2000, and will last until 00:00:00, 13 
October 2000.

Here are the ballot issues, all Proposals this time. Since the Proposals 
are not quite up to date on the page, I'll be sending out a full text 
listing of all of the Proposals as well, so everyone can see them in their 
current forms.

Voting may be done publicly or privately. If you want to vote privately, 
you may do so by sending your votes to me. As was my policy in Berserker, I 
will vote myself before looking at any votes sent to me.

So, here are the Proposals to be considered:

P306/0
P311/1, Rescinding Actions
P312/1, Criminal Code
P313/0, Pedantics
P314/1, Motion to Amend Trivially
P315/1, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination

Three Proposals--one each by Remo, Benjamin, and Joel Uckelman--were not 
recognized in time for this round of voting. Doh. I'll try to be quicker 
about that for next nweek.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal list
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:53:21 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's a complete list of Proposals on the Ballot, as promised.

----
P306/0, God

I propose that the following rule be added to the ruleset: 

A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a 
public forum. Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are not 
recognized.

----
P311/1, Joel Uckelman, Rescinding Actions

Create a Rule entitled "Rescinding Actions" with the following text:

"A Agent may rescind any unrecognized action e has taken at any time by 
publicly indicating that e is doing so. The recognition of a rescinded 
action by any Officer is prohibited."

----
P312/1, Poulenc, Criminal Code

[[Proposal Summary: This proposal will enact a criminal code which gives us 
the ability to punish people for various actions that disrupt game play. 
Included are laws for dealing with players who try to destroy the game and 
officers who abuse their power.]]

Enact a new rule titled "Criminal Code" with the first available rule 
number and text as follows:

It is recognized that while certain actions technically allowed to a Player 
may not be in the best intrests of this game. If a player believes that any 
agent has been guilty of such a crime then e should submit an RFJ accusing 
that suspect of the crime. The arguments portion of the RFJ should contain 
documentation of whatever evidence has been found to support the accusation.

An RJF submitted for this purpose is handled in the normal manner for an 
RJF except for the following points of difference:

1. The accused is entitled to submit to the Judge a statement explaining 
their position and arguing for their own defense. If they do not submit 
such a statement within a reasonable length of time then they lose this 
right.

2. If the judge rules true e does not issue orders to change the game state 
directly but instead issues an order to the accused to make whatever 
reparations or punishments e decides upon, within the guidelines of the 
criminal code.

3. Neither the submittor nor the accused may be assigned to judge such an 
RFJ.

Here follows the guidelines for judging RFJs on the criminal code. 

To be found guilty of game delay through excessive RFJs, proposals, or 
other means, the accused agent must have submitted at least fifteen RFJs or 
proposals within one nweek, which was found to hinder game play, or must 
have taken other simmilar actions which prevented participation by the 
Players. Punishment for this should be a suspension of the ability to 
submit RFJs or proposals of not more than five times the amount of the 
delay in game play, and may also involve a loss of points at the discresion 
of the judge.

To be found guilty of the crime of dereliction of duty, an agent must have 
been an officer and must have failed to perform some official duty within 
the required amount of time. Punishment for this should be a loss of a 
number of points and possible expulsion from the office at the discresion 
of the judge.

To be found guilty of the crime of murder, an agent must have acted in some 
way as to directly and permanently prevent a player from participating in 
the game. Punishment for this should include loss of any official 
privilidges, loss of points, loss of player status, or permanent expulsion 
from the game at the discresion of the judge.

To be found guilty of the crime of abuse of office, an agent must have been 
an officer and must have used the power granted to eir office to directly 
and unfairly hinder the play of another player, outside the realm of what 
would normally be expected of that office, at the discresion of the judge. 
Punishment for this should be reparations to the hindered player of 
whatever game advantage e lost due to the actions of the accused, made 
directly by the accused, at the discresion of the judge.
      
Judgement and punisment on other crimes are possible at the discresion of 
the judge. However, for crimes not listed here the punishment shall not 
exceed one hundred points, plus reparations for damages directly caused to 
other agents.

----
P313/0, XnJester, Pedantics

That a rule be created titled "Pedantics" with this text. 

"The Pedant is the Officer responsible for minor corrections to the rules. 
The Pedant may make changes to the rules consisting of the insertion, 
deletion, or change of no more than three words or alphanumeric characters 
per Rule per nweek. The Pedant makes a rule change by making a Pedantic 
Order ordering the rule change. The Pedantic Order is an Administrative 
Order. The Pedantic Order will take effect at the end of the voting period 
following the making of that Pedantic Order. The Pedantic Order is 
automatically cancelled if a public objection is received before it takes 
effect. At the end of a nweek Pedantic Orders will take effect prior to any 
other Orders. The Pedant will be paid a stipend of 3 points per nweek. The 
Pedant will be paid 1 point per Pedantic Order which takes effect. The 
first Pedant is the Player whose real name is Kieron Jarvis. "

----
P314/1, Joel Uckelman, Motion to Amend Trivially

Create a Rule entitled "Motion to Amend Trivially" with the following text:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions adoptable only
through unanimous consent, and fail if unanimous consent is not given. A
Rule may be unsubstantially amended if a Motion to Amend Trivially naming
that Rule is adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become Ballot
Issues.

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Amend Trivially
directs the Administrator to make appropriate changes to the Rules."

----
P315/1, The Kid, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination

If at any time a Player submits a proposal which will cause the creation or 
alteration of a rule so that the rule would subsequently contain the text 
of one or more verses(*) from a Recognised Religious Text(**), then that 
Player shall secretly become a Humble Disciple.

Anytime before the close of voting on proposals, a Player may make an 
Accusation of Heresy by accusing any other Player of being a Humble 
Disciple, and present the evidence. If the Player is found to be Guilty of 
Heresy then the accuser receives a payment of 30 points.

If the proposal of a Humble Disciple is passed without the Humble Disciple 
being Accused of Heresy, then the Humble Disciple may, within one nweek, 
claim to have Preached to the Unbelievers and offer the proof. If their 
claim is accepted then they have Achieved Enlightenment and are blessed 
with 30 points.

If a player is wrongly Accused of Heresy, or a Humble Disciple's Proposal 
fails, then no further action is taken. A Player who is Accused of Heresy 
may not then claim to have Preached to the Unbelievers and Achieved 
Enlightenment if their Proposal subsequently passes.

(*)In the case that the Recognised Religious Text is not normally divided 
into verses, then one or more complete sentences totaling fifteen or more 
words shall be understood to constitute a verse.

(**)Recognised Religious Texts at this time are: 
Christian Bible, New International Version. 
Christian Bible, King James Version. 
ISO/IEC 14882, Standard for the C++ Programming Language.

----
-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Voting.
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:23:50 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

By my reckoning we are now into the voting period. As I read the rules it
would appear that I may vote on Proposals before the ballot is distributed.
It would also appear that I cannot vote on Proposals made after the
commencement of the voting period.

I hereby cast the following votes if it is legal that they may be cast and
counted as such.

Proposal 306/0
	I vote Yes because it clarifies the situation.
On Proposal 311/1 : Rescinding Actions
	I vote Yes because I would have liked to rescind an action this nweek.
On Proposal 312/0 : Criminal Code
	I vote No because I consider that the Proposed rule is too lenient and too
long.
On Proposal 313/0 : Pedantics
	I vote Yes because I see less problems with my Proposal than P314.
On Proposal 314/1 : Motion to Amend Trivially
	I vote No because I don't like being limited to one day in which to act.
On Proposal 315/1 : Subliminal Religious Indoctrination
	I vote Yes even though I don't have ISO/IEC 14882, Standard for the C++
Programming Language.
On Proposal 3??/0 : Motion Reform
	I vote Yes because it makes a lot of sense to me.

XnJester

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 6, Poulenc: A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator 
> is not a public forum. 

Rule 218/0(l) : Redesignation of Fora
   
     The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably 
     accessible to all Players. The Administrator may designate a Forum
     private only if it is not the sole extant public Forum. Only the
     Administrator may redesignate Fora. The Administrator shall
     maintain a list of public Fora.

Rule 218 makes it pretty clear that only the administrator can declare a
forum to be public.  The only time I think this rule might be at all vague
is if someone claims to have created a new forum, and that it was public
from the very beginning.  Even in that case, however, the rules seem to
imply that a new fora would start off as neither private nor public and
could only be declared as one or the other by the administrator.
Therefore, I rule TRUE.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 14
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> 14, Poulenc: [email-masked] is not a public forum.

On Sunday, the first of October, Joel sent the following to
[email-masked]

>At 00:00:00 UTC today, the nomic served by this list began. At 00:30:00, 
>the Administrator declared this list, [email-masked], to be a 
>public forum as per R219/0. As such, public business may be conducted
>here.

I was unable to find any simmilar post to the business list that game the
discussion list public status.  Since the forum has not been decalred
public by the administrator, it is not.  For the list
[email-masked] to be a public forum, Joel would have had to
designate it as such before he designated the [email-masked] to
be public.  If this had been the case, the above post to the business list
would have no weight because the designation would have had to be posted
to spoon-discussion.

This judgement was requested and designated in [email-masked].
On the assumption that this is a valid RFJ, I must rule TRUE.  I do,
however, issue a judicial order to Joel Uckleman, to post to the public
forum a statement of all fora he has to this point designated as public,
even if done so privately.  This should clear up the issue once and for
all.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:38:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: voting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here are my votes.

> ----
> P306/0, God

This is not nescessary.  The judgements have cleared up the issue well
enough.  I vote no on P306/0

> ----
> P311/1, Joel Uckelman, Rescinding Actions
> 
I vote yes on P311/1.

> ----
> P312/1, Poulenc, Criminal Code
> 
> [[Proposal Summary: This proposal will enact a criminal code which gives us 
> the ability to punish people for various actions that disrupt game play. 
> Included are laws for dealing with players who try to destroy the game and 
> officers who abuse their power.]]

Wow that is long, isn't it.  It's a shame that I was too late to split it
into smaller rules.  However, guidelines for other crimes could be added
on pretty easily.  If it is too lenient or too strict then at least the
basis for a more complete system is there.  As the game develops we will
need new charges in any case.  I vote yes on P312/1.

> 
> ---- P313/0, XnJester, Pedantics
> 

I vote no on P313/0.

> 
> ----
> P314/1, Joel Uckelman, Motion to Amend Trivially
> 
One day is too little time.  One week would be better.  I vote no on
P314/1.

> ----
> P315/1, The Kid, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination

Looks like fun.  I vote yes on P315/1.

Poulenc. 

From: "Kelly Christians" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ11
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:31:47 -0500
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin's RFJ of 4 Oct 2000 16:23:25:

11, 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything: The english verb "to be" is considered
reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y is x.'].

I rule this as false. [[There isn't enough grounds to rule that "to be" is
reflexive. ]]

And thus I have spoken.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: ballot
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:02:53 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> 
> Voting began at 00:00:00, 10 October 2000, and will last 
> until 00:00:00, 13 
> October 2000.

<snip!>

Rule 224/0 states:
"Each eligible voter may cast one vote on each Ballot Issue."

Where exactly does it define 'eligible voter'? 

In Rule 226/0 is says:
"A Player may vote privately..."
So we know that a Player may vote privately, and I suppose we can assume
from this that a Player may also vote publicly, but this is not stated.

However Rule 231/0 says:
"...each Agent who voted..."
So this implies that eligible voters are not necessarily restricted to
Players. Are there any other Agents that can vote? I suspect not, but maybe
the rules should make it clear.

So here is a simple proposal for a new rule:

	Proposal: Eligible Voters
	The following entities are Eligible Voters:
	Players, as defined in Rule 106.

I've put it as a list so that if we want to add to it at any time it should
be quite easy. If I've completely missed something obvious that already
defines Eligible Voters, then let me know and I'll withdraw this proposal.

BTW, is it ok for me to submit this proposal before the start of the next
nweek?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting reminder
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:24:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the ballot. Here's a 
corection:

Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on Wednesday for 
those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game days always 
begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that is, in which 
case days will begin at 6pm, I think).

So, everyone remember to vote. Your vote may actually make a difference in 
a polity this small... (Assuming that I agree with it--otherwise I'll 
delete it, doctor the logs, and deny ever receiving it.) :)

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:38:38 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: buisness nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: ballot
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 

> So, here are the Proposals to be considered:
> 
> P306/0                          
yes

> P311/1, Rescinding Actions
yes

> P312/1, Criminal Code 
yes

> P313/0, Pedantics  
yes

> P314/1, Motion to Amend Trivially 
yes

> P315/1, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination  
yes
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From: "Kelly Christians" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: ballot
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:32:46 -0500
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> P306/0
yes
> P311/1, Rescinding Actions
yes
> P312/1, Criminal Code
yes
> P313/0, Pedantics
no
> P314/1, Motion to Amend Trivially
no
> P315/1, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination
yes

-4T2, The supreme ruler of everything

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:21:27 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Voting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

306/0
This has been sorted out by RFJ's. I don't think we need a specific rule. No.

311/1
This is good, I like it, and so does everyone else. But I'm going to vote against it
anyway cos of Rule 231. ;-) No.

312/1
I don't know. Just too much in one thing, the first bit is ok, but I'm not to sure
about the specifics. No.

313/0
I prefer Joel's way of doing it, sorry. No.

314/1
See comment above. Yes.

315/1
Best thing I've seen so far. ;-) Yes.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:01:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

10 of 13 eligible voters cast ballots. Totals are listed as for-against.

P306 failed 4-6.
P311 passed 8-2.
P312 passed 6-4.
P313 failed 2-8.
P314 failed 5-5.
P315 passed 7-3.

So, that means we have three new rules, to which I'll be assigning numbers. 
The complete voting results (i.e. how each player voted) will be posted to 
the page once I make the table for it. Some scoring took place--in what 
amounts I have yet to calculate.

Since I've a lot of stuff to put on the page now, expect a whole bunch of 
backlogged items to be taken care of in quick succession tomorrow.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: new proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:22:14 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am submitting a slightly different version of the failed P314, which 
addresses the concern expressed by many that one day in which objections 
may be made is too short. The short objection period is a consequence of 
R230 and the mechanism for unanimous consent. Section 1 of the new proposal 
is simply the text of P314, cut-and-pasted in, with only a time limit 
added. Section 2 amends R230 to allow for objection time to vary from 
Motion to Motion, and Section 3 brings the only other Motion Rule into 
accord with the changes in Section 2 without changing the length of it's 
current objection period.

Here it is:

----

1. Create a rule entitled "Motion to Amend Trivially" with the following 
text:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions adoptable only
through unanimous consent, and fail if unanimous consent is not given. A
Rule may be unsubstantially amended if a Motion to Amend Trivially naming
that Rule is adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become Ballot
Issues.

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Amend Trivially
directs the Administrator to make appropriate changes to the Rules."

2. Amend the second sentence of R230/0 to read:
 
"N-unanimous consent on a Motion is granted if no eligible voters object to 
the Motion within time N after it is recognized."

3. Wherever the phrase "unanimous consent" appears in R210, replace it with 
the phrase "one day unanimous consent".

----

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Voting.
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:49:01 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the event that any (or all) of my preceding votes was not official, I
hereby submit these votes:

Proposal 306/0
	I vote Yes because it clarifies the situation.
On Proposal 311/1 : Rescinding Actions
	I vote Yes because I would have liked to rescind an action this nweek.
On Proposal 312/1 : Criminal Code
	I vote No because I consider that the Proposed rule is too lenient
	and too long.
On Proposal 313/0 : Pedantics
	I vote Yes because I see less problems with my Proposal than P314.
On Proposal 314/1 : Motion to Amend Trivially
	I vote No because I don't like being limited to one day in which to act.
On Proposal 315/1 : Subliminal Religious Indoctrination
	I vote Yes even though I don't have ISO/IEC 14882, Standard for the C++
	Programming Language.
On Proposal 3??/0 : Motion Reform
	I vote Yes because it makes a lot of sense to me.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ: State of the Ballot.
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:53:48 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgment on the following statements:

1. This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd.
2. All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting period became Ballot
Issues at the beginning of the voting period.
3. Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by
the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.
4. Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which purports to
recognise changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.
5. Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not
become Ballot Issues.
6. Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not affected
the actual state of Ballot Issues.
7. A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become a Ballot
Issue can not be counted.

I apologise for my bulk RFJs. There are a couple of heavy duty judgments in
there. I hope you can all see what I'm getting at with this lot. Because
Ballot Issues can substantially affect the Rules and/or Gamestate I believe
we need to be clear of exactly what status Proposals and Ballot Items have
and at what specific times those states may change.

This is particularly important with the current nweek's voting. We need to
know which revision of each Proposal we voted for. If it was indeed an
earlier revision than that which was published, do our votes count ?  If
they don't count then we probably didn't achieve Quorum on most of the
Ballot.

Here are some supporting comments for each statement.

1. This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd.
<argument>
According to the archives, the post which stated that the game began at
00:00:00 UTC that day was sent on October 2nd, the web page itself states
that the game started at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd. Yet J14 claims that
the game began on October 1st. We should clear this up as it will affect all
our nweeks from now on.

2. All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting period became Ballot
Issues at the beginning of the voting period.
<argument>
As I said, I believe we need to be absolutely certain when items became
Ballot Issues. I refer the judge to R202 & R111.

3. Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by
the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.
<argument>
R221 seems fairly clear on this point.

4. Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which purports to
recognise changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.
<argument>
I think we need to decide whether rules take precedence over 'recognition'.
If recognition takes precedence then the Officer charged with recognition
holds even more power than I thought.

5. Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not
become Ballot Issues.
<argument>
R202 point 2 "Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's
voting" seems to indicate that these Motions will only become Ballot Issues
if introduced after completion of the voting, while also limiting it to the
current nweek. Maybe I should have looked for ways to exploit this loophole,
but I'd rather not.

6. Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not affected
the actual state of Ballot Issues.
<argument>
Does a published revision of a Proposal take precedence even if that
revision was not legally made ?

7. A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become a Ballot
Issue can not be counted.
<argument>
If I vote on P301/0 and P303/1 is the Ballot Issue, does my vote count ?

XnJester.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Recinding Proposal
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:50:48 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey, guess what. I just noticed Rule 118. Don't I feel stupid! So I recind
the proposal that I made below. As it hasn't been recognised yet, I can do
this by the new rule created by prop 311. I'm assuming that this is
different from just withdrawing it?

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harrison, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 October 2000 14:03
> To: 'Nomic Business'
> Subject: RE: spoon-business: ballot
> 
> 
> > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 
> > 
> > Voting began at 00:00:00, 10 October 2000, and will last 
> > until 00:00:00, 13 
> > October 2000.
> 
> <snip!>
> 
> Rule 224/0 states:
> "Each eligible voter may cast one vote on each Ballot Issue."
> 
> Where exactly does it define 'eligible voter'? 
> 
> In Rule 226/0 is says:
> "A Player may vote privately..."
> So we know that a Player may vote privately, and I suppose we 
> can assume
> from this that a Player may also vote publicly, but this is 
> not stated.
> 
> However Rule 231/0 says:
> "...each Agent who voted..."
> So this implies that eligible voters are not necessarily restricted to
> Players. Are there any other Agents that can vote? I suspect 
> not, but maybe
> the rules should make it clear.
> 
> So here is a simple proposal for a new rule:
> 
> 	Proposal: Eligible Voters
> 	The following entities are Eligible Voters:
> 	Players, as defined in Rule 106.
> 
> I've put it as a list so that if we want to add to it at any 
> time it should
> be quite easy. If I've completely missed something obvious 
> that already
> defines Eligible Voters, then let me know and I'll withdraw 
> this proposal.
> 
> BTW, is it ok for me to submit this proposal before the start 
> of the next
> nweek?
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: public fora
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:20:12 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In accord with the Judicial Order issued as a result of RFJ 14, I am 
publishing a list of public fora. Here it is:

[email-masked]

That's it.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: judge assignments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:59:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I forgot to make a ruling on RFJ 10/0, so I must recuse myself from it. 
(doh)

Here is the new assignment:

10, Poulenc: No Agent is an eligible voter unless a rule other than Rule 
118 explicitly allows that Agent to vote.

----
XnJester made a bunch this morning:

18, 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything: This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on 
October 2nd.

19, Josh Kortbein: All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting 
period became Ballot Issues at the beginning of the voting period.

20, Zagarna: Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not 
recognised by the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.

21, Joel Uckelman: Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which 
purports to recognise changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.

22, Potter: Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting 
will not become Ballot Issues.

23, God: Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not 
affected
the actual state of Ballot Issues.

24, Ed: A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become a 
Ballot
Issue can not be counted.

----

Oh boy, this should be fun.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:45:07 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following proposals are recognized:

----

316/0
Benjamin
9 Oct 2000 05:14:17
Liars, and how to deal with them

If an Agent makes a statement in a public forum implying the truth of a
statment X, when e already knows statement X to be false, then e is a
Liar. If an RFJ is submitted, and said Agent is found to be a Liar, then e
shall be docked 5 points.
If said Agent makes a public apology (apologizes in a public
forum) before the Judgement is made, then e will be docked only 3 points
instead of 5.

----

317/0
Joel Uckelman
9 Oct 2000 04:14:38
Motion Reform

1. Amend R120/0 to read:

"The Agent who submits a Motion is its owner. An Agent may never own more 
than ten live Motions of any one type, and may never submit more than ten 
Motions of any one type in a single day; otherwise an Agent may make a new 
Motion of any type at any time.

New Motions are live and active by default. Motions are revisable. Unless 
the Rules allow other Agents to do so, only the owner of a live Motion may 
alter its parts, or activate, deactivate, or withdraw it. Withdrawn Motions 
are dead. Only live Motions may be altered or be Under Consideration. No 
Motion may be altered while Under Consideration.

Each Motion is either Approvable or Unilateral, and Primary or Secondary. 
Approvable Motions are subject to voting or unanimous consent, as per the 
Rules. Unilateral Motions need no such approval to take effect. Primary 
Motions are assigned serial numbers by type, while Secondary Motions are 
assigned serial numbers as a group.

2. Add as the first sentence of R117/0:

"Proposals are Primary Approvable Motions which are not subject to 
unanimous consent."

3. Repeal R221/0.

4. Delete the second paragraph of R222/0.

5. Amend the first sentence of R225/0 to read:

'Only votes equivalent to "yes" or "no" are counted toward adoption of 
Approvable Motions.'

6. Amend R228/0 to read:

"The Administrator shall, within a reasonable time after receiving a new 
Motion, assign it a serial number in the sequence appropriate to its type. 
A new Motion is not officially recognized until it is assigned a serial 
number."

7. Amend R229/0 to read:

"An Approvable Motion is adopted iff it is subject to and receives 
unanimous consent, or at the close of voting on it, its passage ratio 
exceeds one-half. If the Rules regarding a motion establish a different 
passage ratio, it takes precedence over the passage ratio herein.

Orders, Motive or Legislative, in an adopted Motion shall be executed in a 
timely fashion by the appropriate Officers. Only Motions defined in the 
Rules have effect if adopted."

8. Repeal R223/0.

9. Insert "Approvable" before every instance of "Motion" in R230/0.

10. Amend the first sentence of R234/0 to read:

"A Request for Judgment is a Primary Unilateral Motion."

and replace the last sentence with:

"A Request for Judgment is dead once a Judgment has been issued on it."

11. Amend the second sentence of R210/0 to read:

"Motions to Add are Secondary Approvable Motions."

----

318/0
Remo
9 Oct 2000 16:06:05
Tomjack's mom cannot be a judge

Amend Rule 235 to read:

Within a reasonable time after receipt of a Request for Judgment, the 
Administrator shall assign the Request the next Judgment number, and 
shall select a Player to serve as Judge as per the Rules on Judge 
selection.

----

319/0
The Kid
10 Oct 2000 13:04:09
Eligible Voters

The following entities are Eligible Voters:
Players, as defined in Rule 106.

----

320/0
Joel Uckelman
12 Oct 2000 01:19:45
Motion to Amend Trivially

1. Create a rule entitled "Motion to Amend Trivially" with the following 
text:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions adoptable only
through unanimous consent, and fail if unanimous consent is not given. A
Rule may be unsubstantially amended if a Motion to Amend Trivially naming
that Rule is adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become Ballot
Issues.

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Amend Trivially
directs the Administrator to make appropriate changes to the Rules."

2. Amend the second sentence of R230/0 to read:
 
"N-unanimous consent on a Motion is granted if no eligible voters object to 
the Motion within time N after it is recognized."

3. Wherever the phrase "unanimous consent" appears in R210, replace it with 
the phrase "one day unanimous consent".

----

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Nweekly Report
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:18:46 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am submitting the first Administrator's Nweekly Report (as per R207/0) as 
the Event Log that is now online. In future, I will probably provide some 
other sort of summary, though.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:35:21 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Roland of Gilead <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 22
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On the matter of RFJ 22, "Motions requiring a vote introduced during an 
nweek's voting will not become Ballot Issues," I rule False.

According to Rule 110/0, "Voting on a nweek's Ballot opens at the start of 
the eighth day of that nweek, and closes at the end of the tenth day of 
that nweek."  The voting period lies entirely within the nweek during which 
the proposals on that ballot were made; and the termination of the voting 
period is concurrent with the end of its nweek.

Rule 201/0 states that, prior to the end of the voting period, the 
Adminstrator shall "distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. 
Each nweek's Ballot shall list all Ballot Issues for the nweek."  This rule 
may seem to imply that only proposals initiated or activated during the 
current nweek are eligible for the ballot, but it does not explicitly make 
the point.  Also, there exists precedence, in rule 227/0, for proposals 
active in one nweek to remain active into the next nweek.  So, it would 
appear that it is possible for an active proposal to remain active into 
subsequent nweeks, though this can only occur through specific instances 
outlined in the Ruleset, from dirty pool by the Administrator, or by an 
undesirable coincidence of timing and Ruleset semantics.

The requirements for a Rule to be included in a ballot are given in Rule 
202/0.  The first is "Proposals then active," which includes all active 
proposals, regardless of how they came to be active.  This requirement is 
not explicitly limited or modified by other rules.

Rule 222/0 states that all proposals are live, unless they are declared 
dead.  A proposal can only become dead by being voted on in a weekly 
Ballot, or by being withdrawn.  All live rules are active unless they have 
been deactivated by their owners, according to rule 221/0.  This rule does 
not explicitly deactivate proposals which are active prior to the issuing 
of the Ballot, but not included in the Ballot and not voted on.  Thus, 
proposals remain active--and as such, eligible for the ballot--until they 
are withdrawn, deactivated, or voted upon.

As such, proposals made or activated after the issuing of a Ballot, but 
before the end of an nweek, remain active into the subsequent nweek.  Since 
the Ballot for the following nweek includes all active proposals, and does 
not exclude proposals that 'should' have been voted on in previous weeks, 
they are eligible for that Ballot and should be voted on.  I rule False.

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 10
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Here is the new assignment:
> 
> 10, Poulenc: No Agent is an eligible voter unless a rule other than Rule 
> 118 explicitly allows that Agent to vote.

Rule 118/0 : Eligible Voters 

     Every Player is an eligible voter on each Ballot Issue. Other Agents
may be eligible voters, if allowed by the Rules.

0. Initial Rules adopted, 02 Oct 2000 00:00:00

Players, a subclass of Agent are allowed to vote by rule 118, therefore I
rule FALSE.

I do not feel that the RFJ statement matched the arguments provided.  
Rule 118/0 is interpreted as making players eligible to vote, but that
other agents are not eligible unless specifically allowed elsewhere.  
While not consistant with the logical "if", this interpretation is
consistant with the use of the word "if" in the English language; it
implies an "if and only if" in this context.

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:32:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new Proposal titled "Oversight in Roster Maintanence"

[[summary:  Rule 203/0 requires the administrator to update the roster
whenever a player joins or forfeits, but not when a player changes eir
name.  In order to avoid potential problems down the road, we should fix
this now]]

Amend rule 203 by changing its text to the following:

The Roster is a list of all Players. Whenever a new Player is added, a
Player forfeits, or the name of a Player is changed, the Administrator
shall update the Roster to reflect that change.

Here ends the Proposal.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 21
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:05:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the matter:

Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which purports to recognise 
changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.

I rule TRUE.

The Ballot is constituted of Ballot Issues which are determined by the game 
state at the start of voting (R202/0). Obviously, any revisions of 
Proposals that are Ballot Issues would necessarily occur after they became 
Ballot Issues; thus the revisions would not be reflected on the Ballot, nor 
does the Rule concerning Ballot Issues provide for Proposals to become 
Ballot Issues at any other time.

If we take "Proposals then active" in R202/0 to mean "the active Proposals 
themselves" instead of "the then-current revisions of active Proposals", 
this statement could plausibly be ruled false, since the Proposals 
themselves could be ballot issues without respect to their revisions. 
However, this makes little sense given our tradition, albeit short, of 
distinguishing between individual Proposal revisions, and Proposals, which 
are collections of revisions, and could not sensibly be taken as objects of 
voting. Furthermore, when we type "Proposal" we generally mean to refer to 
a particular revision rather than the whole collection.

These two lines taken together lead me to believe the statement should be 
ruled true. A true ruling on this statement, however, means that P311/1, 
P312/1, P314/1, and P315/1 should not have appeared on the ballot; instead, 
their original versions were the actual Ballot Issues, and the Ballot 
failed to accurately reflect this.

It would appear that RFJ 24 addresses the interpretation of the voting on 
these; however, its wording seems to exclude just the cases in question. "A 
revision of an item which has not become a Ballot Issue" is not an object 
the status of which is in question--if it isn't a Ballot Issue at all, of 
course we wouldn't consider counting votes on it. The important case, "a 
revision of an item made since the item became a Ballot Issue" are excluded.

Since some sort of decision needs be made, and this Judgment supports their 
being a disparity between the actual Ballot and the Ballot as it should 
have been, I issue the following Judicial Order, directed to the 
Administrator:

Votes cast for P311/1, P312/1, P314/1, and P315/1 are not to be applied to 
the unrevised versions actually under consideration during the last voting 
period.

In effect, this means there was no quorum on these votes, and the Proposals are pushed, active, to this nweek, with no point changes, etc. Hopefully this corrects the problem with as little disruption as possible.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 22
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:50:37 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In J22 the judge appears to have missed a key word in the RFJ. I was calling
for this Judgment on 'Motions' not on 'Proposals'. The judge's summary of
the judgment refers repeatedly to Proposals but only mentions Motions once.

Seeing as how we have no appeal process I hereby again request judgment on
the statement:
"Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not
become Ballot Issues,"

R124 would allow for a new judgment to change the precedent set by J22.

I draw to the judge's attention R202 point 2:

"Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting"

This seems to indicate that these Motions will only become Ballot Issues
if introduced after completion of the voting, while also limiting it to the
current nweek. Maybe I should have looked for ways to exploit this loophole,
but I'd rather not.

XnJester

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:39:54 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: buisness nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judment on RFJ 20
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the matter:

Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by the start
of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.

I rule:
FALSE

Reasoning:
< Rule 201/0 : The Ballot > 
The Administrator shall, prior to the close of voting each nweek, distribute to
all Players the Ballot for that nweek.
Each nweek's Ballot shall list all Ballot Issues for the nweek. 
< / Rule 201/0 >

< Rule 202/0 : Ballot Issues > 
The following become Ballot Issues at the start of a nweek's voting: 

1. Proposals then active 
2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting 
3. Elections to replace elected Officers whose terms expire that nweek 
4. Elections to fill vacant elected Offices
< / rule 202/0 >

< Rule 220/0 : Recognition of Proposals > 
The Administrator shall, within a reasonable time after receiving a new or
revised Proposal, assign it a serial number. Proposals and their revisions are
not officially recognized until assigned a serial number.
< / Rule220/0 >

< Rule 221/0 : Proposal Submission and Alteration >
An Agent may submit a new Proposal whenever e owns fewer than ten live Proposals
and has submitted fewer than ten new Proposals that day. The Agent who submits a
Proposal is its owner. Only the owner of a Proposal may alter it, but only if
the Proposal is both live and not on the nweek's Ballot. The owner of a live
Proposal not on the nweek's ballot may alter its title or text, activate it if
it is inactive, deactivate it if it is active, or withdraw it from
consideration. Only the owner may take such action.
< / Rule 221/0>

For a proposal to be amended it must not be on the Ballot, if a proposal is on
the Ballot it may not be amended. There seems to be a minor unconistency here
between the Ballot ( which I take it to be the list of all Ballot issues posted
by the admin ) and the property of proposals to be a Ballot issues.
At the start of an nweek's voting period all live proposals become automatically
Ballot issues, but they are not on the Ballot until the administrator posts it.
So the administrator CAN decide to recognize a proposal alteration after the
official start of the nweek's voting period and then post the Ballot, containing
the alterated proposal. Therefore I rule the statement to be FALSE and since I
am such a good judge that I deserve a win.

Judicial orders:
1) The administrator shall credit the player Zagarna 500 points.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ on Judgement on RFJ20
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:26:53 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Therefore your judgement was FALSE, anything else was 
> analysis or Judicial
> > Orders.
> 
> Ok, that's true, but still, an order was given and the admin 
> must react in a
> timley fashion, what was done cannot be unmade (until, I 
> suppose, an RFJ is made
> and judged).

In that case I suppose I'd better submit the following RFJ:

The Judicial Order made by Zagarna in the Judgement on RFJ20 was invalid.

Argument: 
The judgement given was "FALSE", the line "since I am such a good judge that
I deserve a win" was not part of the judgement (Rule 237). The only reason
Judges can issue Judicial Orders is in order to 'bring the game state into
accord with the result of the Judgment' (Rule 214), and the order clearly
does not do this, and is therefore invalid. The order should be vacated
(Rule 217). [[Note: This RFJ does not attempt to overturn the Judgement
given on RFJ20, just the Order.]]

Referenced Rules:

Rule 237/0 : Judgments 
"A Judge shall, within three days of eir selection, give one of the
following responses to the Request for Judgment to which e was assigned,
accompanied by analysis and Judicial Orders as appropriate: 
1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
Statement or is not germain to the game. 
2. True: The Statement is true. 
3. False: The Statement is false. 
4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment whether
the Statement is true or false."

Rule 214/0 : Judicial Orders 
"A Judicial Order is an Order issued by a Judge or Appeals Court in
conjunction with eir Judicial duties. A Judge may, in the course of making a
Judgment, issue one or more Judicial Orders to bring the game state into
accord with the result of the Judgment."

Rule 217/0 : Vacation of Orders 
"An Order later found to be invalid may be vacated by a Judicial Order. In
the event that an Order is vacated, the Agent who executed it shall, if
possible, take such actions as to reverse the effects of the Order."

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: execution of order
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:44:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I suppose I have to do this, though I suspect it will be vacated soon:

1. Zagarna is credited with 500 points.
2. Zagarna is credited with a win.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:55:52 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is recognized as P321.

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is a new Proposal titled "Oversight in Roster Maintanence"
> 
> [[summary:  Rule 203/0 requires the administrator to update the roster
> whenever a player joins or forfeits, but not when a player changes eir
> name.  In order to avoid potential problems down the road, we should fix
> this now]]
> 
> Amend rule 203 by changing its text to the following:
> 
> The Roster is a list of all Players. Whenever a new Player is added, a
> Player forfeits, or the name of a Player is changed, the Administrator
> shall update the Roster to reflect that change.
> 
> Here ends the Proposal.
> 
> Poulenc.
> 

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: judge assignments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:14:09 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

For XnJester's RFJ of 13 Oct 2000 03:46:36

25, The Kid: Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting 
will not become Ballot Issues,

----
For The Kid's RFJ of 13 Oct 2000 15:28:07

26, Potter: The Judicial Order made by Zagarna in the Judgement on RFJ20 
was invalid.

[[NB: if this one is ruled true, remember to vacate the order.]]

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal - ballot fix 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here begins a new proposal, titled "ballot fix 1"

[[summary:  Essentially place some time constraints on what is allowed by
the administrator.  This will have more force when we finally get the
criminal code working.]]

Amend the text of rule 201 to read as follows:

The Administrator shall, at least 48 hours prior to the close of voting
each nweek, distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. Each
nweek's Ballot shall list all Ballot Issues for the nweek.

Here ends the proposal

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal - ballot fix 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal, titled "Ballot fix 2"

[[summarry:  Currently, if the admin does not recognize a revision to a
proposal by the beginning of voting (not the ballot distribution), the old
version is the one voted on.  It seems to me that this has the potential
to create embarrasing problems for us later on.  This proposal will
address that problem.]]

Enact a new rule entitled "Revisions of Ballot Issues" and with text as
follows:

Ballot issues may be revised if and only if the revision was submitted
before the start of that nweek's voting, and the issue is otherwise a
revisable item.  The ballot may not be distributed until all outstanding
revisions to ballot items have been recognized.

Here ends the new rule entitled "Revisions of Ballot Issues".

Here ends the proposal entitled "Ballot fix 2".

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal - Quorum Scoring
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal, entitled "quorum change"

[[Summary:  If a ballot item fails to meet quorum, then lets reward its
owner with points from eligible voters who did not vote on that item.
This should encourage everyone to vote]]

Enact a new rule, entitled "Quorum Scoring", and text as follows:

The Administrator shall, for each ballot item that fails to meet Quorum,
transfer one point to the owner of that ballot item from each eligible
voter that abstained or did not vote on that item.

Here ends the new rule entitled "Quorum Scoring"

Here ends the proposal.

Poulenc

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal - Vacating Orders fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal titled "Vacating Orders fix"

Amend rule 270 to read as follows:

An Order later found to be invalid may be vacated by a Judicial Order. In
the event that an Order is vacated, the Agent who executed it shall, if
possible, take such actions as to reverse the effects of the Order.  These
actions should be specified as part of the Judicial Order.

If the Agent who executed the order cannot reverse the effects of the
order, then the Judicial order shall specify some other Agent who is able
to reverse the effects to do so.

Here ends the new proposal.

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:01:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal - Salary for Judges
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal titled "Salary for Judges"

Amend rule 273 by appending the following paragraph:

Upon the issuing of judgement, the Administrator shall credit the Judge
with 5 points.

Here ends the new proposal.

Poulenc

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Orders
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I issue a Personal Order to Joel Uckelman to set my score to 500 points.

Poulenc

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Kid <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Orders
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
>
>I issue a Personal Order to Joel Uckelman to set my score to >500 points.

Rule 121 says "No Agent may voluntarily reduce eir Score to less than zero
Points", so I can't reduce my own score, but it says nothing about reducing
other player's scores.

I hereby reduce the score of all players except myself to minus one million
points. [[Note, this is not an order, this is an action.]]

Now can we please stop mucking about with the scores.

--
The Kid

______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Kelly Christians" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: judge assignments
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:38:44 -0500
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On this:
> 18, 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything: This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on 
> October 2nd.
I rule true.

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 16:07:45 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[  time to put on the judicial legislation hat ]]

I rule TRUE.

Rule 237 states that the only possible judgements on an RFJ are True, 
False, and Undecided (I omit the Refusal option here because Zagarna 
clearly did not refuse to judge the RFJ).  In this case, Zagarna ruled that 
the statement for RFJ 20 was false.  Having done so, Zagarna was free to 
give judicial orders which would bring the gamestate into accord with his 
judgement.  However, while he attempted to give a judicial order, it was 
not an order based on the RFJ's truth or falsehood--it was based on his 
comment that he was a good judge.  The order did not bring the gamestate 
into accord with the the fact that the statement was false--it was meant to 
alter the gamestate according to the judge's commentary and justification 
of his decision.

As per Rule 214, a Judge can "issue one or more Judicial Orders to bring 
the game state into accord with the result of the Judgment."  A Judgement, 
according to Rule 237, only states the truth or falsehood of the statement 
being judged.  While Judges may give analysis or commentary on their 
judgements (as I do here), such comments are incapable of significance in 
the gamestate--they only provide personal justification for the Judge's 
ruling of true, false, or undecided on the RFJ at hand.

The Judicial Order Zagarna attempted to give did not bring the gamestate 
into accord with his ruling of False on the statement, "Alterations to 
Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by the start of an 
nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues."  It instead attempted to 
alter gamestate according to opinions expressed in the Zagarna's subsequent 
discussion, and as such is an inappropriate Judicial Order.

Judicial Orders:
1)  The Administrator will remove any points from Zagarna's score, and any 
Wins on his record, that may have been awarded as a result of the judgement 
on RFJ 20.

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 20:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal Alteration
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is the second revision of my proposal, number 312.

Change the text of the proposal to read as follows:

[[Proposal Summary: This proposal will enact a criminal code which gives
us the ability to punish people for various actions that disrupt game
play. Included are laws for dealing with players who try to destroy the
game and officers who abuse their power.]]

[[Revision 2:  separated the crimes into individual rules, and corrected
them to properly deal with corrupt judges and officers.]]

Enact a new rule titled "Criminal Code" with the first available rule 
number and text as follows: 

It is recognized that while certain actions technically allowed to a
Player may not be in the best intrests of this game. If a player believes
that any agent has been guilty of such a crime then e should submit an RFJ
accusing that suspect of the crime.  The arguments portion of the RFJ
should contain documentation of whatever evidence has been found to
support the accusation.  Judges should take into account the precedent of
judgements on simmilar crimes as well as the evidence presented to come to
eir decision.  The RFJ must be submitted within two nweeks of the date of
the alleged crime.

An RJF submitted for this purpose is handled in the normal manner for an
RJF except for the following points of difference:

1. The accused is entitled to submit to the Judge a statement explaining
their position and arguing for their own defense. If they do not submit
such a statement within a reasonable length of time then they lose this
right.

2.  If the judge rules True then e shall issue Judicial orders to restore
the game to the state it would be in without the crime, and also may order
the Agent found guilty to make reparations or punishment within the bounds
of the guidelines for various types of crimes specified in the rules.

3. Neither the submittor nor the accused may be assigned to judge such an
RFJ.

4. The ruling on this kind of RFJ must be either True or False.  If it is
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the agent did commit the crime then
the ruling shall be true, otherwise the ruling must be false.

Here ends the new rule entitled "Criminal Code"

Enact a new rule entitled "General Misconduct", with text as follows:

The crime of General Misconduct is a crime punishable under the Criminal
Code.  To be found guilty of General Misconduct, an agent must have used
devious means to attempt some action not normally allowed or possible.
Punishment for this crime is a fine of up to 100 points.  The Judge will
also issue orders to correct the game state.

Here ends the rule "General Misconduct.

Enact a new rule entitled "Game Delay", with text as follows:

The crime of Game Delay is a crime punishable under the Criminal Code.  
To be found guilty of game delay through excessive RFJs, proposals, or
other means, the accused agent must have submitted at least fifteen RFJs
or proposals within one nweek, which was found to hinder game play, or
must have taken other simmilar actions which prevented participation by
the Players. Punishment for this should be a suspension of the ability to
submit RFJs or proposals of not more than five times the duration of the
delay in game play, and may also involve a loss of points at the
discresion of the judge.

Here ends the rule titled "The Crime of Game Delay"

Enact a new rule entitled "The Crime of Dereliction of Duty"

The crime of Dereliction of Duty is a crime punishable under the criminal
code.  To be found guilty of the crime of dereliction of duty, an agent
must have been an officer and must have failed to perform some official
duty within the time allowed.  Punishment for this should be a loss of up
to 100 points and possible expulsion from the office if the crime is
particularly severe, at the discresion of the Judge. The Judge shall also
take such steps as are nescessarry to correct the game state.

Here ends the rule entitled "The Crime of Dereliction of Duty"

Enact a new rule entitled "The Crime of Murder"

Murder is a crime punishable under the criminal code.  To be found guilty
of the crime of murder, an agent must have acted in some way as to
directly and permanently prevent a player from participating in the game.
Punishment for this should include loss of any official privilidges, loss
of points, loss of player status, or permanent expulsion from the game at
the discresion of the judge.

Here ends the new rule.

Enact a new rule entitled "Abuse of Office"

To be found guilty of the crime of abuse of office, an agent must have
been an officer and must have unfairly used the power granted to eir
office outside the capacity of that office for either the benefit or the
detriment of emself or another Agent or Agents.  Punishment for this crime
should be a fine of up to 100 points and an immediate expiration of eir
Official term. The Judge shall also take such steps as are nescessarry to
correct the game state.

Here ends the new rule

Here ends the revised text, and revision also.

Poulenc.

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 20:26:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal - Required Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Required Actions"

Enact a new ruled entitled "Required Actions" with text as follows:

Actions required to be performed by an agent "as soon as possible" must be
performed in the order in which they were assigned, and any outstanding
"as soon as possible" actions must be performed before any other actions
may be performed by that Agent.  Actions required to be performed "as soon
as possible" are also assumend to be required "within a reasonable length
of time".

The time allowed for actions required to be performed "within a reasonable
amout of time" varies depending on what is reasonable for the action, but
in no case is it longer than one nweek.

Here ends the new proposal

Poulenc.

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:53:47 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: buisness nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ on on Judgement on RFJ 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wish to submit the following RFJ:

subject: The Judicial Order made by Potter in the Judgement on RFJ26 was
invalid.

the order was:" 1)  The Administrator will remove any points from Zagarna's
score, and any Wins on his record, that may have been awarded as a result of the
judgement on RFJ 20 "

Rule 114/0 clearly states: "An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known
a the recipient, requiring em to perform exactly one action.". Potter's order
requires the administrator to perform two actions, remove points and remove wins
on my record.

Zagarna, who is sticking to this thing just for the comic value. 

P.S. Then again, I am also curious to see what would happen if this RFJ is ruled
true. The order would be vacated, and I would still have my win ( and minus one
million points *grin*, if nobody objects to the kid's action ) so my blatant
crime of abuse of power would go unpunished.
And THEN....

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:41:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: propasal: crime/liars
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Please revise proposed rule 316 to the following:

<proposal title="make crime rule for liars">
{{Enact a new rule entitled "The crime of lying" with the following
text:}}

If an Agent makes a statement in a public forum implying the truth of a
statement X, when e already (at time of statement) knows statement X to be
false, then e is a Liar. Punishment for this crime should be a fine of
between 10 and 100 points, to be decided by the Judge based upon the
severity of the lie. If Liar makes a public apology (apologizes in a 
public forum) before the Judgement is made, then e will be docked only 
half as many points.

{{Here ends the new rule}}
</proposal>

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:51:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal:timing of RFJs
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<proposal title="append 237/judgement timing">
{{Amend Rule 237 with the following text:}}

The Judge shall decide the truth of the Plantiff's statement based on the
game state at the time the RFJ was submitted. Judicial Orders presented
with the Judgement will be made based on the game state at the time of the
judgement. [[so if a problem has worked itself out already, we don't have
to fix it twice]]

{{here ends the text of the proposed amendment}}
</proposal>

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Privileged Motion
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:14:44 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a Privileged Motion for which I request Unanimous Consent.

1. All players scores shall be reset to zero.
2. All credits for wins, loses and draws shall be removed from players and
from the event log.
3. The proposals that were recognized as passed [[Joels email 12 Oct 2000
00:59:21]] shall be adopted immediately, and points awarded as per the
rules.
4. The proposals that were recognized as failed [[Joels email 12 Oct 2000
00:59:21]] shall be declared dead immediately, and points awarded as per the
rules.
5. All outstanding RFJ's on these matters shall be refused.
6. No further RFJ's may be raised on these matters.
7. No further Orders, Actions or any other method of altering Agents Scores,
other than that specifically detailed in the Rules, shall be taken.
8. Players who found loopholes and exploited them to potentially be credited
with a win shall be recognized as being "Clever Gits".
9. We shall get on with playing the game.
[[10. Please.]]

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Ruling on RFJ25
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:31:44 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

RFJ25: Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not
become Ballot Issues.

Firstly, I don't really want to overrule established legal precedent, but
the rules do allow for it and I think the Plantiff has presented a valid
argument rather than just disagreeing with the ruling, so I won't just
'refuse' this as was my initial thought.

The Plantiff's argument is based on Rule 202:
"The following become Ballot Issues at the start of a nweek's voting: 
2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting"

The Plantiff is also keen to point out that Proposals and Motions are not
neccesarily equal.

Rule 202 states that at the start of the nweeks voting, Motions that at that
time are requiring a vote, and have been introduced since the previous
nweek's voting, shall become Ballot Issues. It does not state that items not
on the list shall not become Ballot Issues, nor does it state that Motions
may not become Ballot Issues at other times. However, I would not be happy
to rule on this basis alone.

To come to a conclusion on this matter I asked myself the following
question:
"When does the voting occur?"
My answer is:
"The voting occurs at the start of the eighth day and continues for three
days."

Therefore I find that the phrase "since the previous nweek's voting" should
be interpreted as "since the start of the previous nweek's voting" and not
"since the end of the previous nweek's voting"

I rule FALSE.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Privileged Motion (fwd)
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:58:54 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ahem. That was to the discussion list. I'm now objecting to the business 
list so it counts.

------- Forwarded Message

From [email-masked] Tue Oct 17 04:57:56 2000
[129.186.153.119])
	by pop-4.iastate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA18312
	for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:48:09 -0500
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Privileged Motion 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:49:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Woah. I object to this, at least until I get a chance to bring stuff up to 
date again, which should be tomorrow. (Anyway, I'm not sure this is 
legal...)

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> The following is a Privileged Motion for which I request Unanimous Consent.
> 
> 1. All players scores shall be reset to zero.
> 2. All credits for wins, loses and draws shall be removed from players and
> from the event log.
> 3. The proposals that were recognized as passed [[Joels email 12 Oct 2000
> 00:59:21]] shall be adopted immediately, and points awarded as per the
> rules.
> 4. The proposals that were recognized as failed [[Joels email 12 Oct 2000
> 00:59:21]] shall be declared dead immediately, and points awarded as per the
> rules.
> 5. All outstanding RFJ's on these matters shall be refused.
> 6. No further RFJ's may be raised on these matters.
> 7. No further Orders, Actions or any other method of altering Agents Scores,
> other than that specifically detailed in the Rules, shall be taken.
> 8. Players who found loopholes and exploited them to potentially be credited
> with a win shall be recognized as being "Clever Gits".
> 9. We shall get on with playing the game.
> [[10. Please.]]
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

- -- 
J.

- --
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

------- End of Forwarded Message

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal 319
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:17:50 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I withdraw proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
I recind proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
I deactivate proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
I do not want you to vote on proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".

Please note that I still don't think that the proposal should not have been
recognised in the first place, but I am performing all the actions I can
think of in order that the proposal does not get voted on. Please note that
Joel does not have to recognise these actions before the start of voting as
only proposal submissions and alterations need to be recognised. I'd
appreciate it if you did thogh Joel, just to be sure.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:22:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals by Poulenc are recognized:

321
322
323
324
325
326

The following Proposals by Benjamin are recognized:

327

I think this hits all of the *new* proposals. I'm working on an improved 
proposal poster right now--they should appear on the page sometime this 
evening.... More to come....

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: revision recognitions
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:56:13 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following proposal revisions are recognized:

312/2, Poulenc
316/0, Benjamin

The newly recognized props are on the page now... More to come...

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: rfj recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:42:47 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following RFJ has been recognized:

25, Remo: The Judicial Order made by Potter in the Judgement on RFJ26 was 
invalid.

That covers all of the heretofore-unrecognized RFJs. I think there are a 
few that need new judges, though. More to come...

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: more judicial stuff
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:17:55 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's another RFJ I missed:

26, The Kid: Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting 
will not become Ballot Issues,

More to come...

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: doh!
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:25:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ignore that one I sent about RFJ26--it was already assigned as RFJ 25.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: rfj recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:21:27 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry, this one should be 27, not 25.

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> The following RFJ has been recognized:
> 
> 25, Remo: The Judicial Order made by Potter in the Judgement on RFJ26 was 
> invalid.
> 
> That covers all of the heretofore-unrecognized RFJs. I think there are a 
> few that need new judges, though. More to come...
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net
> 
> 

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: judge recusals, reassignments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:06:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I believe, at the time of typing this sentence, that the judicial pages 
reflect the current gamestate. So, I'll put them out-of-date again by 
recusing the judges that are tardy in ruling, and assigning new ones:

Josh Kortbein is recused from RFJ 19.
God is recused from RFJ 23.
Ed is recused from RFJ 24.

And the following new assignments are made:

19, Jeff Schroeder: All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting 
period became Ballot Issues at the beginning of the voting period.

23, Ed: Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not 
affected the actual state of Ballot Issues.

24, Jeff Schroeder: A vote which names a revision of an item which has not 
become a Ballot Issue can not be counted.

So, that should cover all of the judicial stuff to date.

Yet to come: scoring, rules updates...

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:50:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I offer the following proposal:

1. Add as the second paragraph of R121/0:

"Points are indivisible, and thus may not be possessed or transferred in 
fractional quantities. All Point awards shall be rounded to the nearest 
integer prior to any transactions involving them."

2. Round all Scores to the nearest integer.

---
The reason I'd like Scores to be integers is that it simplifies 
scorekeeping tremendously. At present, it's possible to have non-integer 
rational Scores. Non-terminating decimals and computers don't get along 
very well; the way it is right now, the only way I can keep score 
accurately is as fractions. I hate fractions. You should too.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:53:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I recognize my Proposal of 22 Oct 2000 00:47:01 as P328/0.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:57:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Ruling on RFJ 19
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>19, Jeff Schroeder: All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting
>period became Ballot Issues at the beginning of the voting period.

As I see it, the appropriate reference is rule 202/0 as displayed below:

Rule 202/0 : Ballot Issues
      The following become Ballot Issues at the start of a nweek's voting:

      1. Proposals then active
      2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting
      3. Elections to replace elected Officers whose terms expire that nweek
      4. Elections to fill vacant elected Offices

The rule says that Proposals active at the start of a nweek's voting become 
Ballot Issues.  Therefore all active proposals [[automagically]] become 
Ballot Issues at that time.

So I rule TRUE.

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:19:08 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal alteration
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The web page has P315 entitled "Motion Reform", when it should be
"Subliminal Religious Indoctrination". Also please place quotes (")
around the existing text of P315 and insert the following text at the
start (i.e. before the opening quote):

"Create a rule entitled 'Subliminal Religious Indoctrination' with the
following text:"

[[Non-business:
Joel, do you think you could amend your P311 to start the rule with "An
Agent" rather than "A Agent". Little things like that really bother me
;-)
]]
--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Proposal alteration 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:36:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth andy_harrison:
> The web page has P315 entitled "Motion Reform", when it should be
> "Subliminal Religious Indoctrination". Also please place quotes (")
> around the existing text of P315 and insert the following text at the
> start (i.e. before the opening quote):

Hmm. That was probably my mistake.

> "Create a rule entitled 'Subliminal Religious Indoctrination' with the
> following text:"

Recognized.
 
> [[Non-business:
> Joel, do you think you could amend your P311 to start the rule with "An
> Agent" rather than "A Agent". Little things like that really bother me
> ;-)
> ]]
> --
> The Kid

Me fail English? That's unpossible. :) Point taken.

I change the first word of P311 to "An". And recognize the change.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: order execution, J26
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:27:03 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I almost forgot--I need to execute the order from J26.

So, in accord with the Judicial Order issued in conjunction with J26, 
Zagarna's score is hereby reduced by 500 points, and his win total is 
reduced by one.

There we go.
-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: judge reassignments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:32:03 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There are still three RFJs outstanding, all of which have gone past their 
due dates.

So, Ed is recused from RFJ 23.
Jeff Schroeder is recused from RFJ 24.
Remo is recused from RFJ 27.

Replacing them are:

23, Joel Uckelman: Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues 
does not affected the actual state of Ballot Issues.

24, Zagarna: A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become 
a Ballot Issue can not be counted.

27, 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything: The Judicial Order made by Potter in 
the Judgement on RFJ26 was invalid.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:51:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: new proposal: 100 points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<proposal title="100 points to start with">
{{add a new rule with the following text:}}
<title>100 initial points</title>
When a new player is added to the roster, they will be credited with 100
points. These points are called the 100 initial points.
If it is decided by a judge as judgement on an RFJ that a player or
players have not been credited with their 100 initial points, a judicial
order shall be made crediting said players each with 100 initial points.

</proposal>
This will allow point deductions to occur (as punishments) from the start
of the game -- remember point levels cannot go below 0.

is 100 too much? 

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: I Shot The Sheriff
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:31:41 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit the following proposal:

Create a rule entitled 'I Shot The Sheriff' with the following text:

"If the Administraor deems that an Officer has not performed their duties in
a reasonable time, then the Administrator may declare emself to be the
Deputy of that Officer and perform those duties instead of the Officer
concerned.

If a Player deems that the Administrator has not performed eir duties in a
reasonable time, then the Player may declare emself to be the Deputy of the
Administrator. The Player must specify exactly what duties e thinks that the
Administrator should have performed. The Player must then wait 24 hours
before e may carry out these duties as Deputy Administrator. If another
player
objects to the Player's Deputyship or the Administrator performs the duties
within those 24 hours then the Player may not perform those duties
concerned. Once the duties have been performed by the Deputy, the
Administrator is no longer required to perform them.

Special Case:
In the case that the duties the Deputy Administrator wishes to carry out
would affect the Ballot Issues for that nweek [[eg. Recognition of Proposal
submission or alteration]] and voting starts in less than 24 hours, then the
Deputy Administrator need only wait 6 hours to perform the duties. However
the duties do not officially happen until the second before voting starts,
so players may still object in the mean time.

The following exceptions apply to the Deputy Administrator:
The Deputy Administrator may not recognise es own actions [[eg. Proposal
submission or alteration]].
The Deputy Administrator may not assign or recuse Judges for an RFJ in which
e is the Plantiff or Defendant.
The Deputy Administrator may not award or credit any Player with a Win."

--
The Kid	

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:36:41 +0200
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: business nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I propose the following rule:
<start proposal>
title: Motion to Remove Players
text: Any Agent qualified as a Player may cease to be one if a Motion to
Remove naming em is adopted. Motions to Remove are Privileged Motions. A
Motion to Remove is adopted if its passage ratio is at least two-thirds. 

The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Remove directs
the Administrator to remove the named Agent from the Roster. 
<end proposal>

It seems we should get rid of all the people that are not actually
playing the game and keep getting nominated as judges.

Zagarna

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:04:07 +0200
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: business nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 24
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

in the matter: A vote which names a revision of an item which has not
become 
a Ballot Issue can not be counted.

I rule: Refused

The statement is not very clear, what is it that has not become a ballot
issue? the item or the revision?

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:14:21 +0200
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 24
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Zagarna wrote:
> 
> in the matter: A vote which names a revision of an item which has > not become
> a Ballot Issue can not be counted.
> 
> I rule: Refused
> 
> The statement is not very clear, what is it that has not become a
> ballot issue? the item or the revision?
> 
oops! I am really sorry 'bout this, I just found the plaintiff's
analysis on the website, you see, I was looking for it in my mailbox and
couldn't find it :( 
I beg your forgiveness

Zagarna

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:19:56 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Newly recognized props:

P329/0, "100 points to start with", by Benjamin
P330/0, no title, by The Kid
P331/0, no title, by Zagarna

All will be added to the page in the morning... maybe current scores, too.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:27:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal revision - ballot fix 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is the revised text of my proposal titled "Ballot fix 2",
number 
___________
[[summarry:  Currently, if the admin does not recognize a revision to a
proposal by the beginning of voting (not the ballot distribution), the old
version is the one voted on.  It seems to me that this has the potential
to create embarrasing problems for us later on.  This proposal will
address that problem.]]

[[rev. 1 Expanded to deal with withdrawals and other types of proposal
change covered in 
rule 221.]]

Enact a new rule entitled "Revisions of Ballot Issues" and with text as
follows:

An otherwise reviseable item which is a ballot issue may be altered,
withdrawn, or deactivated if and only if the revision was submitted before
the start of that nweek's voting; this special case is otherwise subject
to the restrictions for whatever type of item that may be.  [[For
proposals, this is rule 221, "Proposal Submission and Alteration"]]. All
outstanding changes to ballot items must be recognized by the
Administrator before the ballot is published.

Here ends the new rule entitled "Revisions of Ballot Issues".
_____________
Poulenc.

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:24:18 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: prop recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> Newly recognized props:
> P330/0, no title, by The Kid

The title is 'I Shot The Sheriff', as specified in the subject of the
message I sent. If that doesn't count for some reason then please modify
my proposal to have the title 'I Shot The Sheriff'.

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: revise proposal P329/0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Now that my prop has a number (P329/0), I request that it be revised as
follows:
Capitalize each instance of the words 'player', 'players', 'points' and
the phrase 'initial points'.
Replace the word 'they' with 'e'. [[the spivak pronoun]]
Add the following quoted text to the beginning of the proposal [[before
the part that says 'add a new rule with this text']]
"When/if this proposition passes, credit each Player with 100 Initial
Points."

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:28:09 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following revisions are recognized:

P322/1, "balot fix 2", by Poulenc
P329/1, "100 points to start with", by Benjamin

All outstanding proposals, etc. will be published on the page this evening.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: J23/0
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:27:49 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the matter:

Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not affected the 
actual state of Ballot Issues.

I rule TRUE.

It is entirely possible for the Ballot to be grossly incorrect (as the 
Ballot unfortunately was for the first voting period). R202/0 provides that 
active Proposals become Ballot Issues at the start of voting. R201/0 
defines the Ballot as "list[ing] all Ballot Issues for the nweek". Thus, 
the Ballot is defined in terms of Ballot Issues, not vice versa. Moreover, 
is entirely possible (as we unfortunately saw during the first nweek) for 
the Ballot to be grossly incorrect. The Ballot is an Administrator-created 
document, and thus directly subject to error. Being a Ballot Issue is a 
Proposal state; the Administrator cannot directly affect it as e can the 
Ballot.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: revision of P324
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[All right I will try this one more time...]]

I revise P324 by replacing "270" with "217"
 
Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: revision of P324 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:39:38 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> 
> [[All right I will try this one more time...]]
> 
> I revise P324 by replacing "270" with "217"
>  
> Poulenc
>  
>  
> 

Recognized as P324/1.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: nick of time
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:01:06 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I withdraw P314, since it's a duplicate of P319.

And then I recognize it.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 3
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:13:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wow, there's a few proposals this time. The full texts of all proposals on 
the page are current. Voting ends at midnight UTC, 1 November.

P311/2, Rescinding Actions, by Joel Uckelman
P312/2, Criminal Code, by Poulenc
P315/2, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination, by The Kid
P316/1, make crime rule for liars, by Benjamin
P317/0, Motion Reform, by Joel Uckelman
P318/0, Tomjack's mom cannot be a judge, by Remo
P319/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Joel Uckelman
P320/0, Oversight in Roster Maintanence, by Poulenc
P321/0, ballot fix 1, by Poulenc
P322/1, ballot fix 2, by Poulenc
P323/0, quorum change, by Poulenc
P324/0, Vacating Orders fix, by Poulenc
P325/0, Salary for Judges, by Poulenc
P326/0, Required Actions, by Poulenc
P327/0, append 237/judgment timing, by Benjamin
P328/0, no title [[integer points]], by Joel Uckelman
P329/1, 100 initial points, by Benjamin
P330/0, I Shot the Sheriff, by The Kid
P331/1, no title [[player removal]], by Zagarna

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: corrected Ballot
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:37:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There was a slight problem with the Ballot--P324/0 should have been P324/1. 
It is corrected here.

P311/2, Rescinding Actions, by Joel Uckelman
P312/2, Criminal Code, by Poulenc
P315/2, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination, by The Kid
P316/1, make crime rule for liars, by Benjamin
P317/0, Motion Reform, by Joel Uckelman
P318/0, Tomjack's mom cannot be a judge, by Remo
P319/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Joel Uckelman
P320/0, Oversight in Roster Maintanence, by Poulenc
P321/0, ballot fix 1, by Poulenc
P322/1, ballot fix 2, by Poulenc
P323/0, quorum change, by Poulenc
P324/1, Vacating Orders fix, by Poulenc
P325/0, Salary for Judges, by Poulenc
P326/0, Required Actions, by Poulenc
P327/0, append 237/judgment timing, by Benjamin
P328/0, no title [[integer points]], by Joel Uckelman
P329/1, 100 initial points, by Benjamin
P330/0, I Shot the Sheriff, by The Kid
P331/1, no title [[player removal]], by Zagarna
-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:28:51 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Unfortunately, we failed to meet quorum again--there are thirteen players, 
and only six voted. This time, there were no procedural snafus (the ballot 
went out on time and was correct, voting times are listed on the page, 
etc.), so I'm wondering what happened. There were quite a few proposals on 
which to vote (20, by my count), so maybe some players felt overwhelmed and 
didn't vote. That's counterproductive, though, since all of the proposals 
will just be held over until the next voting period. There won't be less 
next time unless some of them are withdrawn. Really frustrating, it is.

On a related note, I think we need to do something about the way quorum 
works. Either:

1. have some way to declare players inactive so they don't count against 
quorum

or 

2. jettison the idea of quorum altogether 

Otherwise, we may get stuck in a situation where we are unable to change 
the rules because too few people decide to vote.

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: quorum proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:38:19 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's a proposal to fix the quorum problem, entitled "Quorum Fix". Note 
that assigning the right to call Quorum Votes to the Officer who maintains 
the Roster is done with an eye toward that being a position separate from 
that of Admin. Here goes:

1. Amend the first sentence of R227/0 to read:

"Quorum is the number of eligible Agents needed to participate in voting in 
order for the results of the voting to take effect."

2. Create a new rule entitled "Establishing Quorum":

"The Officer charged with maintaining the Roster may, at any time prior the 
start of a nweek's voting, declare that nweek's voting to be a Quorum Vote. 
No other Agent may declare Quorum Votes, nor may a Quorum Vote be called 
during a voting period.

If a Quorum Vote is declared for a voting period, quorum is then set at the 
number of Agents voting in that period. Establishing quorum precedes the 
determination of the passage or failure of any Ballot Items. Quorum may be 
changed only through the results of a Quorum Vote."
-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net