Subject: spoon-business: scoring
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:31:09 -0600

Ok, here are the scoring changes:

+65 The Kid
+57 Poulenc
+42 M'cachessilnath
+40 Josh Kortbein
+37 Joel Uckelman
+20 Benjamin
 +7 Zagarna
 +6 XnJester

Also, I discovered that the only Players who are AWAY are God and 
4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything.

Yet another note: there will be a bunch of elections this week, so don't 
forget to nominate people for the new Offices (and don't let me forget to 
put them on the Ballot, either).

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Paper-Rock-Scissors and conflict resolution
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 20:36:33 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I make the following proposal, entitled "Paper-Rock-Scissors":

<proposal>
Create a rule entitled "Paper-Rock-Scissors" with the following text:

Paper-Rock-Scissors is a two-player Game. Each player shall, without the 
other's knowledge, select one of "paper", "rock", or "scissors", and submit 
eir choice to the referee. The referee shall determine a winner thusly:

1. Paper beats rock.
2. Rock beats scissors.
3. Scissors beats paper.

In the event that both players make the same selection, neither wins and 
Paper-Rock-Scissors must be repeated.
</proposal>

This isn't really complete--I still need to define Game, and maybe give 
some hint as to what to do with it...

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Political Go proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 16:58:45 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ok, so here's the first draft, for which I am greatly indebted to Tom 
(Jenny?) Mueller's proposal from Berserker. This looks extremely 
complicated, but it's really not. The rules for Go are intuitively simple, 
but are difficult to describe precisely, especially when they are expanded 
to include more than two players. A few things to note:

1. I have not specified how this affects the larger game.
2. I have not specified how long turns last, and whether extra-Go things 
affect how many turns Go players get.

These two things are purposely omitted, since I don't know what people want 
with regard to them.

I will likely split up the rules for Political Go somehow just to make them 
more readable. Some of the dealings w/r/t alliances need to be checked to 
ensure they don't lead to any paradoxes, like the rules dictating that a 
dragon is both captured and causes the capture of another at the same time, 
e.g.

So, the proposal:

----

Create a Rule entitled "Subgames" with the following text:

"Subgames may be played by any Agent who publicly indicates a desire to 
participate.

Each Subgame must have a Subgame Administrator."

[[There's a little more to say about this, obviously. Something about 
generalized features of Subgames. Actually, this should probably be a 
separate proposal.]]

Create a Rule entitled "Political Go" with the following text:

"There exists a Subgame called Political Go. The Go Consul is the Subgame 
Administrator.

Political Go is played on a square grid of 19 rank lines and 19 file lines, 
lettered horizontally from "a" to "s" and vertically from "1" to "19".

Each vertex on the grid must, at all times, either be empty or have a stone 
on it. Two vertices are adjacent if a grid line can be followed from one to 
the other without crossing any other vertices. A set of vertices is 
mutually adjacent if it is possible, by passing through only vertices in 
the set, to trace a path along grid lines from one vertex in the set to all 
other vertices in the set.

The stone is the playing piece in Political Go. Each stone is owned by one 
and only one Go player. Two stones are friendly if they are owned by the 
same Go player or by allies; otherwise, the stones are unfriendly. A set of 
stones is mutually friendly if all pairs of stones in the set are friendly. 
Two stones are adjacent if they occupy adjacent vertices. A stone is 
adjacent to a vertex if the vertex it occupies is adjacent to that vertex.

A dragon is defined as any set of mutually friendly stones occupying 
mutually adjacent vertices in which no stone in the set is adjacent to a 
mutually friendly stone not in the set. A dragon is adjacent to all of the 
vertices adjacent to the vertices occupied by its stones. A dragon has a 
number of liberties equal to the number of unoccupied vertices to which it 
is adjacent, with no vertex being counted more than once. A dragon is 
considered dead if has only one liberty; otherwise, the dragon is live. A 
dragon is friendly to a Go player if it contains only friendly stones. Each 
vertex from which no path may be traced to a dragon unfriendly to a Go 
player is counted as one territory for that Go player. A dragon has an eye 
if its liberties are territory for a Go player to whom it is friendly, and, 
barring a change of alliances, it would be impossible for that territory to 
be lost. Any dragon with two distinct eyes, barring a change of alliances, 
may never become dead.

The turn list is a list the names of all Go players. The first Go player on 
the turn list must make exactly one move, after which eir name is moved 
from the head of the list to the tail.

For each move, a Go player must do one of the following:

1. Place a stone.
2. Pass.
3. Offer an alliance.
4. Declare war on an ally.

If a Go player places a stone, e may place a single stone on any unoccupied 
vertex, with the following exceptions:

1. Stones may not be placed on vertices on which the Go player had a stone 
during eir previous turn.

2. Stones may not be place on vertices on which the placement of a stone 
would cause the formation of a friendly dragon with no liberties, unless it 
would also cause the formation of an enemy dragon with no liberties.

If a Go player passes, eir turn ends.

If a Go player offers an alliance, e must name a Go player whose stones are 
not friendly to whom e is making the offer. If that Go player accepts the 
offer, the two Go players become allied.

If a Go player declares war on an ally, the two Go players cease to be 
allies, and eir former ally's stones are no longer friendly.

On making a legal move, a Go player's turn ends. Before the next Go 
player's turn starts, the stones of enemy dragons with no liberties are 
captured and removed from the grid.

If a captured dragon is adjacent only to stones owned by a single Go 
player, that player is credited with all of the stones in the captured 
dragon. If a captured dragon is adjacent to stones owned by more than one 
Go player, the captured stones are divided thusly by the Go players whose 
stones are adjacent to the captured dragon:

The Go player with the most stones adjacent to the captured dragon receives 
the first stone, the next most the next stone, and so on, with ties broken 
randomly, until all captured stones are exhausted or every Go player 
capturing from that dragon has received a stone.  The process is repeated 
until all stones from the captured dragon are exhausted.

If ever all Go players pass three times consecutively or no Go player may 
legally place a stone, the Subgame ends.

At the end of the game, all live dragons which could not gain two distinct 
eyes  if play were to continue without a change of alliances are considered 
dead. All dead dragons are captured by the Go players whose unfriendly 
dragons are adjacent to them. Live unfriendly dragons adjacent to the 
liberties of dead dragons are considered to be adjacent to the dead dragons 
for the purpose of dividing the captured stones. After the removal of dead 
stones, each Go player's territory is counted. A Go player's Go score is 
the sum of eir territories and captured stones. The Go player with the 
highest Go score is the winner of the Subgame.
-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:40:24 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Kid pointed out that this did not go to the business fourm last time I 
sent it:

<proposal>
1. Strike the paragraph in R327/2 beginning with "Upon".

2. Strike the comment text in R304/0.
<\proposal>

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Nominations
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:24:23 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I nominate The Kid for Officer of Bean Counting
I nominate Poulenc for Banker
I nominate Remo for Banker
I nominate Zagarna for Banker
I nominate Benjamin for Tax Collector
I nominate Jeff Schroeder for Tax Collector
I nominate Josh Kortbein for Tax Collector

I submit a proposal entitled 'How to Nominate' with the following text:
"Insert the text "by posting eir nomination to a public forum" at the end of
the last sentence of the first paragraph of Rule 312/0."

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:05:17 -0500 (EST)
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 "Loans"

Enact a new rule titled "Loans" with text as follows:

An agent may request a loan for a certain number of points and duration
from the bank by posting eir request in the public forum.  The Banker may
then, within 1 nweek, offer that agent eir loan with an amount of interest
at eir discression.

If the requesting agent, the Banker, and the Tax Collector publicly agree
on the terms for the loan, the Banker shall issue the loan by ordering the
transfer from the bank to the requesting agent of a number of points equal
to the agreed amount of the loan, to be performed as soon as possible.  A
debt shall then be recorded of the agreed amount plus the agreed amount of
interest, to be repayed in the agreed amount of time.

A loan to be issued to the Banker or the Tax collector requires the
public approval of at least one of the Administrator and the Bean Counter.

______

Poulenc

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:21:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Another Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "The Price of Nomic"

[[I know we already have a failed proposal fee but I thought it might be
kind of neat to do something like this.  With this proposal the Tax
Collector will have something useful to do, and there will be a kind of
balance of power between the Tax Collector, who is in charge of bank
revenue, and the Banker who is in charge of salaries and other expenses.
If anyone gets really dinged by this they can always apply for a loan]]

Enact a new rule entitled "The Price of Nomic"

The Proposal fee is a value associated with the game; it can be changed
only as specified by the rules.  Initially the value is zero.

At the start of the voting period a debt of one Proposal Fee shall be
recorded for the author of each proposal on the ballot, payable one nweek
from the start of voting by the author of that proposal to the bank.

Once per week the Tax Collector may set the value of the Proposal Fee such
that it is neither less than zero nor greater than twenty.

______

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition and stuff
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:47:11 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following proposals are recognized:

P361, Paper-Rock-Scissors, by Joel Uckelman
P362, Political Go, by Joel Uckelman
P363, [no title], by Joel Uckelman
P364, Loans, by Poulenc
P365, The Price of Nomic, by Poulenc

In my capacity as Banker, I hereby set the Adopted Proposal Award at one point, and the Opposed Minority Awards at 20 points. As the Tax Collector, I set the Failed Proposal Fine at 20 points. (This will hopefully discourage everyone from allowing proposals to be voted on this week...)

Also, on a personal note, I make all of my proposals inactive (until I weather the storm that is the semester's end).
 
-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:05:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal:  Win condition fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Win condition fix"

Amend rule 211/1 to read as follows:

Whenever an Agent's score minus debts reaches or exceeds 500 points, and
that Agent owns 20 or more Rules, the Administrator shall credit em with a
Win.

_______

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:45:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Another Proposal (revised)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a revised version of my proposal 365 entitled "The Price
of Nomic"

[[I know we already have a failed proposal fee but I thought it might be
kind of neat to do something like this.  With this proposal the Tax
Collector will have something useful to do, and there will be a kind of
balance of power between the Tax Collector, who is in charge of bank
revenue, and the Banker who is in charge of salaries and other expenses.
If anyone gets really dinged by this they can always apply for a loan]]

[[first revision, to take into account The Kid's suggestion that the fee
should be charged upon submission, not upon the creation of the ballot.  
I am also taking the opportunity to levy a smaller fee for revsions.]]

1. Enact a new rule entitled "The Price of Nomic" which reads as follows:

The submission fee and the revision fee are values associated with the
game; each may be changed only as specified by the rules.  Initially the
value of each is zero.

Once per week the Tax Collector may set the value of the submisison fee
and the revision fee, such that the value of the proposal submission fee
is neither greater than twenty nor less than zero, and the value of the
proposal revision fee is neither greater than five nor less than zero.

2. Amend rule 120 to read as follows:

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.  Upon the submission of a Motion its
owner owes one submission fee to the bank, due at the end of the next
voting period.

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.  Upon
performing a revision, withdrawal, activation, or deactivation of a
Motion the revising agent owes one revision fee to the bank.

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.

______

Poulenc.

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:48:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: proposal: Rescinding actions fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal, entitled "rescinding actions fix"

Amend rule 301, "Rescinding Actions", to read as follows:

An 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.  If the rescinded action created a
debt then that debt is also rescinded.

-------

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:59:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: proposal: the price of justice
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal titled "The price of justice"

1. Enact a new rule titled "The price of Justice", text as follows:

The court fee is a value associated with the game that can only be changed
as specified by the rules.  Initially the value of the court fee is zero.

Once per nweek the Tax Collector may change the value of the court fee
such that it is neither greater than twenty nor less than zero.

2. Amend the text of rule 234, "Requests for Judgement", to read as
follows:

A Request for Judgment is a Primary Unilateral Motion. An Agent may, at
any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter by making a Request
for Judgment. That Agent shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to
the Request. A Request for Judgment consists of a Statement to be judged,
and analysis as the Plaintiff deems appropriate. A Request for Judgment is
dead once a Judgment has been issued on it.

Upon the creation of a Request for Judgement the creating Agent owes one
court fee to the bank, due two weeks from the date of creation.

-------

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:07:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Re: proposal recognition and stuff, and stuff.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[

> In my capacity as Banker, I hereby set the Adopted Proposal Award at
> one point, and the Opposed Minority Awards at 20 points. As the Tax
> Collector, I set the Failed Proposal Fine at 20 points. (This will
> hopefully discourage everyone from allowing proposals to be voted on
> this week...)
> 
> Also, on a personal note, I make all of my proposals inactive (until I
> weather the storm that is the semester's end).

This is a good way of getting around the craziness of this week.  There
will still need to be a ballot, as there are several elections running,
but it will be much simpler and less time-consuming.

Clearly, the Administrator will be too busy in the next week-or-so to do
all the nescessary proposal maintenence, so I will follow his example.

I have a request for Joel for the web page, though.  I think it would be a
good idea to list the rule-ownership standings with the point standings on
the page.  Time permitting, of course, could you include this piece of
pertinent information?

]]

I make all my active proposals inactive.

I purchase one Extra Vote from the Bank, at a cost of 100 points.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:43:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

No Proposals this time, just elections. I believe these are all of the candidates. Just to make things interesting, I made this a butterfly ballot. Try not to leave hanging chads. :)

Bean Counter:
The Kid  0

Banker:
Poulenc  0
         0 Remo
Zagarna  0

Tax Collector:
Benjamin 0
         0 Jeff Schroeder

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:05:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Binding Contracts
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Binding Contracts":

[[Generic binding-contract rules that effectively handle trades, subgames,
and any other kind of short- or long-term agreement between agents.  For a
game, all it would take is a contract with a few rules in-contract for who
can be a player and how the game is to be conducted. For a trade, even
less.  If you want a really elaborate game to run in many instances or
over a very long time, you could even make it in rule form that the bank
would offer a contract for the game when whatever conditions you like were
to be met.  I know it doesn't look like much but this took me almost three
hours to write. I had to completely rewrite it several times to get
all the loopholes and conceptual problems out.  The only thing missing is
some way of holding property in an account for a game--this can easily be
done in another proposal by someone else.]]

1. Enact a new rule entitled "Contracts", with text as follows:

A Contract is an object.  Each contract must consist of a list of
signatory agents and a set of requirements placed upon those agents.

Contracts are revisable objects.  Their base serial number is 1000.
Contracts may be created, destroyed, or otherwise altered only as
specified by the rules.

Signatories to a contract are required to follow all requirements and
restrictions placed upon them by the text of that contract.

Any contract with no signatories is automatically destroyed.

2. Enact a new rule entitled "Optional Contract Parts", with text as
follows:

A contract may optionally specify conditions under which agents may become
signatories, although it may not require anything of non-signatories.

A contract may optionally specify conditions under which an agent is
removed from its list of signatories.

A contract may specify conditions under which it is destroyed.  This is
equivalent to removing all signatories from its list of signatories.

3. Enact a new rule entitled "Contract Offers", with text as follows:

An agent may create a contract offer at any time, by posting the offer to
the public forum.  A contract offer is an object with a title and text
that describes a contract object to be created, and the activation
condition for that contract.  The agent creating the contract offer may
destroy it at any time before the activation condition has been met.

An contract offer may optionally specify which agents are eligible for the
contract, either by name, serial number, or eligibility conditions.  If
unspecified every agent is eligible.

When the activation condition is met, the described contract is created.
Eligible agents who have posted eir agreement to the terms in the Public
Forum are signatories to the new contract.

4. Create a new rule titled "Contract Restrictions", text as follows:

No contract may exempt any agent from any rule of this game.  Contracts
have only the power to require action from their signatories: they are not
part of the rules of this game and never take precedence over the rules of
this game.

No contract may require any action from, or put limits on the action of a
nonsignatory.

No contract may require any transfer of property to a nonsignatory.

5. Create a new rule titled "Contract records", text as follows:

It is the responsibility of the Official Bean Counter to recognize the
creation and destruction of, and changes to contracts and contract offers.
A list of all contracts and their signatories; and all contract offers and
their potential signatories shall be part of the Official Bean Counter's
nweekly report.

6. Create a new rule titled "The Motion to Escape a Contract", text as
follows:

The Motion to Escape is a Secondary motion, Approvable by four-day
unanimous consent or by voting.  The Motion to Escape should list one or
more Agents to be released from a specified contract.  The motive order
corresponding to a Motion to Escape directs the Official Bean Counter to
remove the specified agent or agents from the list of signatories of the
specified contract.

-------

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:34:24 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Bean Counter:
> The Kid  *
> 
> Banker:
> Poulenc  *
>          0 Remo
> Zagarna  0
> 
> Tax Collector:
> Benjamin *
>          0 Jeff Schroeder

(In case any of those chads don't fall out properly, my votes are The Kid,
Poulenc and Benjamin)

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: FW: Request to Join NOMIC
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:15:14 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit a Motion to Add a Player. Details as below.
 
BTW Feyd, you seem to have my email mixed up with 4T2, but I'll submit a
motion for you anyway. The Nomic's a bit quiet at the moment, should pick up
a bit in the new year.
 
--
The Kid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 12 December 2000 00:39
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Request to Join NOMIC

Petitioner:  Feyd,  [email-masked] 
Petitioner Text:   
I hereby petition 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, according to rule "Rule 
210/2(l) : Motion to Add Players " that you propose my inclusing into A
Nomic. 
I am available for questions by Players or Agents at [email-masked]. 

Sincerely, 
Feyd 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: FW: Request to Join NOMIC 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:09:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Motion to Add Feyd as a Player is recognized (I think this would be M7).

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> I submit a Motion to Add a Player. Details as below.
>  
> BTW Feyd, you seem to have my email mixed up with 4T2, but I'll submit a
> motion for you anyway. The Nomic's a bit quiet at the moment, should pick up
> a bit in the new year.
>  
> --
> The Kid
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 12 December 2000 00:39
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Request to Join NOMIC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petitioner:  Feyd,  [email-masked] 
> Petitioner Text:   
> I hereby petition 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, according to rule "Rule 
> 210/2(l) : Motion to Add Players " that you propose my inclusing into A
> Nomic. 
> I am available for questions by Players or Agents at [email-masked]. 
> 
> Sincerely, 
> Feyd 
-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 7
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:27:39 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This was an incredibly close election, every candidate won by a single vote. That's because only Poulenc voted, though.

So, the new Officers are:

Bean Counter: The Kid
Banker: Poulenc
Tax Collector: Jeff Schroeder

Back to work...

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:02:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Banker's Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As Banker-elect I Publish the following Banker's Nweekly Report:

Week 8

Official Salary: 5
Judicial Salary: 5
Adopted Proposal Award: 5
Opposed Minority Award: 5

Bank Property Holdings:
0 points
5 Extra Votes

Bank Debts:
none

Player Debts:
none
_______

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: reminder
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:31:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Just a reminder to Joel and The Kid that you have yet to recognize my
> purchase: The Kid to recognize my point transfer and Joel to 
> order me to
> transfer myself an extra vote.

Right then. Recognised that 100 points are transferred from Poulenc to the
Bank. I won't say what that leaves averyoe with, cos I'm not sure. Joel, are
the points on the web pages up to date?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: [nomic] Question: should there be a proposal for my membership on the web page 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:01:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[see subject]

It's a Motion, not a Proposal, and yes, it would be on the page if I were caught up. Since The Kid didn't ask for unanimous consent, it will have to go to a vote in four days. Since there may not be much on which to vote this time (I'm not sure on this, I think there are some unrecognized Proposals), the turnout might be low enough that we wouldn't have quorum, and the Motion would fail. In order to avoid that, I'm making a Motion to Add Feyd as a Player, and reqesting unanimous consent (and hereby recognizing that motion).

Since there really shouldn't be able to be two live Motions regarding adding the same player, and it seems like unanimous consent should be requestable until it would conflict with voting, I propose the following, entitled "UC and Motion Fix":

1. Amend R230/3 to read as follows:

"An Agent introducing a Approvable Motion may request unanimous consent at the time of its introduction, or until such time as the granting of unanimous consent could still occur prior to the nweek's voting, unless the Rules explicitly prohibit it. N-unanimous consent on a Motion is granted if no eligible voters object to the Motion within time N after the Motion is recognized."

2. Create a new Rule entitled "Motion Duplication" which reads:

"The recognition by any Officer of any Motion which would have the same effect another live Motion is prohibited."

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: a bunch of proposal recognitions
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:56:14 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

366/0, How to Nominate, by The Kid
367/0, Win condition fix, by Poulenc
365/1, The Price of Nomic, by Poulenc
368/0, rescinding actions fix, by Poulenc
369/0, The price of justice, by Poulenc
370/0, Binding Contracts, by Poulenc
371/0, UC and Motion Fix, by Joel Uckelman

I think this brings me up to date as far as Proposals go.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: P371 revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:23:05 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just finished putting up the pages for Motions. In doing so, I noticed that 
there were a few that have been around for a while, but can only pass by 
unanimous consent. Also, there's the Motion to Add Feyd as a Player which got 
lost in the end-of-semester craziness. (Sorry this is taking so long, Feyd!) 
So, I'm addressing these in a revised version of P371:

1. Amend R230/3 to read as follows: 

"An Agent introducing a Approvable Motion may request unanimous consent at the 
time of its introduction, or until such time as the granting of unanimous 
consent could still occur prior to the nweek's voting, unless the Rules 
explicitly prohibit it. N-unanimous consent on a Motion is granted if no 
eligible voters object to the Motion within time N after the Motion is 
recognized. Unanimous consent is considered to have been requested for any 
Approvable Motions which may be adopted only by unanimous consent."

2. Create a new Rule entitled "Motion Duplication" which reads: 

"The recognition by any Officer of any Motion which would have the same effect 
another live Motion is prohibited."

3. Motions 6/0, 7/0, and 8/0 are considered to have received unanimous consent 
as of the passage of this Proposal.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:24:41 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

P371/1 is recognized.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion recognition, progress
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:07:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just found a Motion of mine from a while back that wasn't recognized:

> Also I, introduce the following Trivial Amendment:
>
> Change "Agent" to "Agents" in R113/0.

Which I now recognize as M9, and for which I request unanimous consent.

Messages in my spoon-pending mailbox: 41
(most of which deal with election matters)

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:40:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: inactive proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I make all my inactive proposals active.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: trivial amendment
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:27:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I offer the following Trivial Amendment, and request UC:

Change "their" in the first paragraph of R306/1 to "eir".

And this MtTA is recognized as M10.

Messages in spoon-pending mailbox: 41

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 9
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:14:02 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There are actually a fair number of Proposals up for consideration this 
week:

P364/0, Loans, Poulenc
P365/1, The Price of Nomic, Poulenc
P366/0, How to Nominate, The Kid
P367/0, Win condition fix, Poulenc
P368/0, rescinding actions fix, Poulenc
P369/0, The price of justice, Poulenc
P370/0, Binding Contracts, Poulenc
P371/1, UC and Motion Fix, Joel Uckelman

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:36:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop: challenge/response game / similarity
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

suggestions for changes...?

<proposal title="challenge/response games">
{{Enact a new rule entitled "Challenge/response games" with the following
text:}}

Each instance of a Challenge/Response Game (C/RG) is governed by this set
of rules and when it is defined, must include the following
attributes: game name, admin title, period of duration, repetitive or not
(if yes, how often), and entry fee. It should also describe the limits and
guidelines for the challenge(s) and methods by which to judge the
correctness of the answers, and either specify the (first) Admin or
describe how to determine who the (first) Admin is.
Statements in the rule(s) defining the instance of the C/RG take
preference over this rule.

The Administrator of the C/RG (Admin) should post the/a Challenge to a
public forum (once in each period of duration if the game is
repetitive). The other Players may, if they choose, submit to the Admin an
answer (response) to the challenge. Answers must be submitted privately
via a time-stampable medium (e.g. e-mail) within the period of duration
after the challenge was posted. Each player  may submit up to one complete
answer. Partial or incomplete answers (as determined by the Admin) are not
considered submissions. For each answer submitted, (entry fee)*2 points
shall be transferred from each submitting player to  the Admin. After the
period of duration after posting the challenge, the Admin will judge the
answers e received and select a winner. This judgement should be made in a
reasonable amount of time [[like 2 days at most]].
If more than one answer is judged (most) correct, the answer submitted
earliest will be selected the winner. 
Half the total of the entry fees shall be transferred to the winner of the
challenge [[the Admin keeps the other half]].
If the C/RG is repetitive, the winner of the challenge shall be the Admin
for the following challenge.

If less than 2 answers are submitted, the game is considered finished with
no winner. All points taken from players as entry fees for the game are
returned to their original owners. If it is a repetitive game, then the
Admin does not change and play proceeds as normal for the next challenge.

[[The changing paid Admin is not only an extra incentive for people to
want to win, but also for the Admin to create a challenge to which a lot
of people will respond.]]

If the Admin fails to change after two consectutive periods of duration, a
Secondary Unilateral Motion may me made naming a new (different) Admin for
the game which will pass after 2 days if no objections are voiced in
public fora.

</proposal>

<proposal title="Similarity game">
{{If the proposal entitled "challenge/response games" doesn't pass/hasn't
passed, then discount the remainder of this proposal:}}
{{Enact a new rule entitled "Three of these things belong together" with
the following text:}}

The Similarity Game

The Similarity Game is an instance of a challenge/response game with the
following attributes:
game name: 	The Similarity Game
admin title: 	Similarity Officer
duration: 	until repealed
repetitive: 	yes, nweekly
entry fee:	2

Once every nweek, the Similarity Officer (S.O.) should post a Challenge to
a public forum.

Limits and guidelines:
The Challenge will take the following form:
The S.O. will describe a list of items. The answer should be an attribute
which is shared between all the items.

Judging:
More specific attributes are 'more correct' than general attributes
[[e.g. 'round' is better than 'same shape']] and multiple attributes are
'more correct' than single attributes [[e.g. 'striped and round' is better
than 'striped' or 'round' individually]].

first Admin:
The first Admin of the game is Benjamin.

[[
Three of these things belong together
Three of these things are kind of the same
Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here?
Now it's time to play our game! 
]]

</proposal>

- You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 9
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:07:47 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, we didn't make quorum, since only three of us cast votes:

P364/0 held (2-1-0-9)
P365/1 held (1-2-0-9)
P366/0 held (3-0-0-9)
P367/0 held (1-2-0-9)
P368/0 held (2-1-0-9)
P369/0 held (1-2-0-9)
P370/0 held (2-1-0-9)
P371/1 held (2-1-0-9)

For the first time ever, complete voting results are available on the page 
on the same day as the end of voting (so go look how everyone voted!). :)

Messages left in spoon-pending mailbox: 28

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:30:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposal is recognized:

P372/0, challenge/response games, by Benjamin

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:35:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposal is recognized:

P373/0, Similarity game, by Benjamin

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: score corrections
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:19:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just discovered why the scores were wrong: score changes for 11 November 
were applied twice. Thanks to The Kid for gathering up all of the relevant 
information so this could be corrected.

-- 
J.