Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Debts
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:35:55 -0500 (EST)

[[Most of this would have been allowed by permissibility of the
unprohibited anyway but...]]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Debt Transfer"

Enact a new rule entitled "Debts are Objects" with text as follows:

Debts are objects which may be transferred at will.  The player to which a
debt is payable is the same as the owner of that debt.

An Agent may create a debt any time, in their own ownership, by posting
eir intent to the Public Forum.  The debt is created when its creation is
recognized by its owner.  Unless specified otherwise by the rules or a
legislative, administrative, or judicial order the debt is always owed by
its creator.

Debts are divisible.  The owner of a debt may elect to split it into
component debts such that the sum of the point-values of the component
debts is equal to the point-value of the original debt.  The component
debts may then be transferred independantly.  Component debts have the
same owner, debtor, and due date as the original debt.

Each Agent is responsible for recording the debts owned by em.  This
information must be made publicly available.  If an agent is requested, by
any agent, to post this information to the Public Forum e is required to
do so.

If a CFJ finds that an agent has failed to follow the rules by
distributing false debt information, a correct version of that debt
information shall be posted to the public forum, and that agent owes the
bank one judge's salary and one officer's salary.

The Banker may accept for payment to the Bank the transfer of a debt or
debts equal in total point value to the amount owed to the Bank.
_______

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:30:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: New Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The human Rob Speer has sent me a message asking to be added, with the
name "PurpleBob".  I always like to see this game grow, so I submit a
motion to add em as a player.  I request unanimous consent for this
motion.

[[A note to PurpleBob--This game isn't actually called "A Nomic".  It's
unnamed as yet and there has been quite a powerful movement among a few
players to keep it that way.]]

Poulenc

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:39:09 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I'd like to join A Nomic

Hello. I'd like to be added to A Nomic, with the name 'PurpleBob'. Could you
submit a motion to add me?

Thanks,
--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:10:52 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Prop is recognized:

P393/0, Debt Transfer, by Poulenc

More bookkeeping stuff to come later today...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:16:12 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is recognized:

13/0, Motion to Add PurpleBob, by Poulenc

PurpleBob will become a Player three days from now if there are no 
objections.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: another prospective Player
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:54:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm making a Motion to Add the person Jonathan Downes as the Player jonno.

And, for expediency, I'm recognizing it too.

jonno will become a Player in three days if there are no objections.

(Does this bother anyone, my doing something and recognizing it in one 
piece of mail? No one else can do this, so maybe I shouldn't, but I can't 
think of any specific harm it does, so...)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:38:44 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've been working on categorizing the Rules (which means I'm reading 
through them from beginning to end), and I noticed that R204, Name Changes, 
refers to entities rather than Agents. The current text of the Rule is as 
follows:

"An entity may initiate changing its name to another uniquely identifying 
name by notifying the Administrator. The Administrator shall, in a timely 
fashion, record the name-change on the Roster. Entities may change only 
their own names."

For an entity to initiate a name change, it would have to take action, 
which would make it an Agent, by definition. Also, only Players are on the 
Roster, so it would make no sense to record there name changes by 
non-Player entities. So, I offer the following Prop:

Amend R204 to read:

"An Agent may initiate changing eir name to another uniquely identifying 
name by notifying the Administrator. The Administrator shall, in a timely 
fashion, record the name-change in the appropriate way. Agents may change 
only their own names."

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal II
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 16:11:20 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Another discrepancy:

R220 is redundant, since Proposals are a type of Motion, and R228 covers 
recognition of Motions. R222 is partly redundant due to R120, and what 
remains belongs with the Quorum Rule.

So, here's another Proposal:

1. Repeal R220.

2. Repeal R222.

2. Amend R227 to read:

"Quorum is the minimum number of eligible Agents needed to participate in 
voting in order for the results of voting to have effect. If quorum on some 
Ballot Issue is not met for a nweek's voting, it will be handled as follows:

1. Motions cease to be Under Consideration.
2. Elections for non-vacant Offices are held again in the next nweek. The 
current Officers keeps their Offices for another nweek. Candidates must be 
nominated for election again.
3. Elections for vacant Offices shall carry on the majority of votes cast."

Ballot Issue Motions for which quorum has been met become dead at the close 
of voting, regardless of their adoption."

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:14:24 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Props and Motions are recognized:

M13/0, Motion to Add PurpleBob, by Poulenc
M14/0, Motion to Add jonno, by Joel Uckelman

P394/0, Name Changes, by Joel Uckelman
P395/0, [no title], by Joel Uckelman

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: oops
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:15:44 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Those two Motions had already been recognized, my bad.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 13
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:23:25 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is the Ballot for nweek 13.

P375/1, A Resolution for Point Amnesty, by Joel Uckelman
P390/0, Licensing: Instances, by Benjamin
P391/0, licensing fee for C/RG's, by Benjamin
P392/2, Dependency of Propositions, by Benjamin
P393/0, Debt Transfer, by Poulenc
P394/0, Name Changes, by Joel Uckelman
P395/0, [no title], by Joel Uckelman

This is a quorum vote, BTW, so everything here will either pass or fail 
this time.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:33:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Official Business
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I set the Opposed Minority Award to 1 point,
I set the Official Salary to 1 point,

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:31:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm making a Motion to Add the person Daniel Chapman as the player "sabby".

And recognizing this as Motion 15/0.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:57:07 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I assume that since 3 days have passed since the request for 3-day unanimous
consent, I am now a player.

That said, I'd like to make the following proposal, entitled "Expediency of
Player Creation."

<proposal>

1. Add a rule entitled "Player Self-Creation" with the following text:
"A non-player Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may create a Motion
to Add, provided that e is the Agent that would be made a Player by the
motion.

An agent may create a Motion to Add emself by publicly indicating that he would
like to join the game, and indicating the name he would like to be known by."

[[I'm not entirely sure if the first clause is necessary. I see no rule that
prevents an Agent from making a Motion to Add emself, but the main page says
that one must be a Player to make a Motion to Add.]]

2. In rule 210, change the words "three-day unanimous consent" to "one-day
unanimous consent".

</proposal>
--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Voting results, nweek 13; new players, etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:55:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Earlier today, the two outstanding Motions to Add passed by unanimous 
consent. Everyone say "hi" to PurpleBob and jonno. Welcome to our game!

----
Voting Results

P375/1 passed (5-1-0-8)
P390/0 failed (3-3-0-8)
P391/0 failed (1-5-0-8)
P392/2 passed (5-1-0-8)
P393/0 passed (4-3-0-8)
P394/0 passed (5-1-0-8)
P395/0 passed (4-2-0-8)

Poulenc is lucky he cast is Extra Vote on P393/0, otherwise it would have 
failed.

----
Adoption Results

P375/1: 

Oh, man, are the scores a mess, partly because my program screws them up 
more after each time we vote. If someone thinks e knows what the scores 
should *actually* be, e would be doing us a great service by saying so. The 
Banker and Bean Counter should look into the effects of this to see what 
will happen.

P392/0: Created R346.
P393/0: Created R347.
P394/0: Amended R204.
P395/0: Repealed R220, R222. Amended R227.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal, Motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:14:17 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I make the following Motion to Amend Trivially:

Strike the double quotation marks (") in the middle of R227/4.

----
The following are recognized:

M15/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Joel Uckelman
P396/0, Player Self-Creation, by PurbleBob

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: inheritance proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:07:58 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It just occurred to me from looking at the (woefully incorrect) standings 
that Potter owned some points when he forfeited, and if points are Objects, 
then they weren't destroyed. The same would apply to XnJester's points and 
Rules, if he had quit in a public forum. (What should we do about that, 
BTW? Make a Motion to Remove, maybe?)

So, we have to figure out what happens to stuff owned by former Players. 
So, I propose offer the following Proposal, entitled "Inheritance":

BEGIN

1. Create a Rule entitled "Inheritance", with the following text:

"Any Objects owned by a Player at the time when e forfeits or is removed 
become property of the Bank."

2. All Objects owned by Agents who ceased to be Players prior to the 
adoption of this Proposal shall become property of the Bank.

END

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bean Counting Report
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:28:42 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's the current state of affairs. There has only been one transfer of points since the last report, so nothing much has changed.

Points
======
15 Jan 2001:
	Joel Uckelman, 176
	The Kid, 126
	Josh Kortbein, 102
	Zagarna, 65
	Poulenc, 63
	M'cachessilnath, 42
	Remo, 29
	Benjamin, 24
	Jeff Schroeder, 18
	Potter, <withdrawn>
	XnJester, 8
	Ed, 7
	4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, 0
	God, -5

30 Jan 2001:
	Bank transfers 45 points to Poulenc

9 Feb 2001:
	Joel Uckelman, 176
	The Kid, 126
	Poulenc, 108
	Josh Kortbein, 102
	Zagarna, 65
	M'cachessilnath, 42
	Remo, 29
	Benjamin, 24
	Jeff Schroeder, 18
	XnJester, <withdrawn>
	Ed, 7
	4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, 0
	God, -5

--
The Kid

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:15:09 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi!

> someone should point out to me where in the Rules it says you
> have to be a
> Player to make a Motion to Add. As far as I can tell, you don't
> need to be
> a Player to make Motions, and R210/2 doesn't add any restrictions to that.

Ok, then I make the following motion, subject to 3-day unanimous consent:

--
Add the person with the real name Jorg Rathlev [[ that's me :-) ]] as a
Player, named "Jorg".
--

Concerning PurpleBob's idea, I think it's a good idea to shorten the time,
but can you really assume "consent" within only one day? Someone might not
be reading the mailing list on that particular day. I hope that you don't
try to keep new players from joining (guess why :-)), but still...

What about this: If someone makes a motion to be added as a player, he is
added as a "newbie player" immediately and becomes a regular player after
three days unless someone disagrees.

Here's my proposal (title: "Newbie Players"):

--
Change the title of rule 210 to "Becoming a Player" and the the content to:

Any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become a Newbie Player by
publicly announcing that e wishes to become a Player. A Newbie Player will
automatically become a Player if no eligible voter objects within a three
day period.

If any eligible voter objects within that period, the Administrator shall
create a Primary [[or Secondary?]] Approvabe Motion to add the Agent as a
Player, and the Agent shall stay a Newbie Player until the end of the next
voting period, after which e will become a Player if the motion to add em is
adopted. If the motion is not adopted, e will lose eir status as a Newbie
Player.

Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exception
that they cannot become Officers or Judges.
--

I think I didn't really get the difference between a primary and a secondary
motion, could someone please explain it to me? Thanks!

(PurpleBob: sorry this one conflicts with your proposal :-(, by the way,
what happens if both are adopted?)

Jorg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:59:11 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are recognized:

P397/0, Inheritance, by Joel Uckelman
M16/0, Motion to Add Jorg, by Jorg

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:51:33 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Ok, then I make the following motion, subject to 3-day unanimous consent:
>
> --
> Add the person with the real name Jorg Rathlev [[ that's me :-) ]] as a
> Player, named "Jorg".
> --

Ooops. My real name actually has a german o-umlaut character as the second
one, but it doesn't seem to get through the list correctly... and thinking
about it, you might also not be able to type that character :-), so please
use the transcribed version (i.e. Joerg) instead.

I withdraw my first motion and make the following:

--
Add the person with the real name Joerg Rathlev [[ now that *is* me, finally
:-) ]] as a
Player, named "Joerg".
--

Joerg

---
(ignore this, it's just for me to see whether encoding set to UTF-7 works:
aAoOuU?)

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:04:02 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> > > Ok, then I make the following motion, subject to 3-day unanimous consent:
> > >
> > > --
> > > Add the person with the real name Jorg Rathlev [[ that's me :-) ]] as a
> > > Player, named "Jorg".
> > > --
> > 
> > Ooops. My real name actually has a german o-umlaut character as the second
> > one, but it doesn't seem to get through the list correctly... and thinking
> > about it, you might also not be able to type that character :-), so please
> > use the transcribed version (i.e. Joerg) instead.
> > 
> > I withdraw my first motion and make the following:
> > 
> > --
> > Add the person with the real name Joerg Rathlev [[ now that *is* me, finall
> y
> > :-) ]] as a
> > Player, named "Joerg".
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > Joerg
> 
> I just noticed that this wasn't sent to the business list, so I can't recogni
> ze it as an official action. (Resend the withdrawal of your first motion and 
> the new one to the business list.)
> 
> -- 
> J.

Ack! I am dumb. Ignore this. Your motion was just fine, and is recognized 
as M17/0.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:26:51 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I almost forgot to recognize:

P398/0, Newbie Players, by Joerg

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: FW: spoon-discuss: P398 revision
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:49:43 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ooops, sorry, I didn't realize the reply-to of the business list is the =
discussion list.

-----Original Message-----

> P398/0, Newbie Players, by Joerg

I revise P398, Newbie Players, as follows:

Change the sentence "(...) Administrator shall create a Primary [[or =
Secondary?]] Approvabe Motion to add (...)" to "(...) Administrator =
shall create a Secondary Approvable Motion, not subject to tacit =
consent, to add (...)".

Change "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the =
exception that they cannot become Officers or Judges." to "Newbie =
Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exception that =
they are not eligible voters and cannot become Officers or Judges."

Joerg

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Add
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:37:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As a non-player I'm not sure how to handle this, but I see that Motion 15/0
is actually a "Motion to Ammend Trivially" to Strike double quotation marks
in R227/4.  (which has since, passed).

Could I make another motion to attempt to add myself as the player "sabby"?

Thanks, all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 3:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add

I'm making a Motion to Add the person Daniel Chapman as the player "sabby".

And recognizing this as Motion 15/0.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:33:46 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Revision to P396
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would like to revise Proposal 396, "Expediency of Player Creation", to read
as follows:

1. Add a rule entitled "Player Self-Creation" with the following text:

"An agent may create a Motion to Add emself by publicly indicating that e would
like to join the game, and indicating the name e would like to be known by."

2. In Rule 210, change the words "three-day unanimous consent" to "two-day
unanimous consent".

--
Rob Speer

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: P389 revision
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:50:52 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I revise P389 again:

Change the sentence "Newbie Players shall be treated (...)" to "Newbie =
Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exception that =
they are not eligible voters and cannot become Judges."

Joerg

From: "Corque S" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: new proposal P399
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:26:47 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am a dog named Corque but I am capable of action, therefore I am an Agent. 
  Proposals are defined to be Primary Approvable Motions and therefore, I am 
entitled to and desire to make the following proposal P399:

1. Create a new rule entitled, "Joel must Randal" with the following text:

"The Player known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days 
after this rule takes effect.  The action of Randalling will be recorded via 
camara and posted to the Nomic web site.  These photographs will remain for 
a minimum of 6 months."

C
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:50:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Props are recognized:

P398/1, Newbie Players, by Joerg
P396/1, Expediency of Player Creation, by PurpleBob
P398/2, Newbie Players, by Joerg
P399/0, Joel must Randal, by Corque (?! Must be one of my weird friends.)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 14
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:04:51 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is the Ballot for nweek 14.

P396/1, Expediency of Player Creation, PurpleBob
P397/0, Inheritance, Joel Uckelman
P398/2, Newbie Players, Joerg
P399/0, Joel must Randal, Corque

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting prop 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:17:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a Proposal entitled "Voting Clean-up". It doesn't change 
much in practice, but it does simplify and tighten the Rules covering 
voting. Note that this will up for voting next nweek, not this nweek.

BEGIN

1. Amend R201 to read:

"The Administrator shall, at least 48 hours prior to the close of voting 
each nweek, distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. On the 
Ballot shall be a list of the following:

i. Approvable Motions which were at the time when voting began both live 
and not awaiting consent.

ii. Candidates to fill Elected Offices which are vacant or for which the 
current Officer's term will expire at the end of the nweek."

2. Repeal R202.

3. Retitle R227 as "Quorum and Voting", and amend it to read:

"Quorum is the minimum number of eligible Agents needed to cast votes on an 
issue during a single voting period in order for the results of voting to 
have effect.

Motions for which quorum is not met remain alive, but are not adopted.
Elections for which quorum is not met are held again in the next nweek, and 
the term of the current Officer is extended by one nweek."

Motions for which quorum has been met become dead at the close of voting, 
regardless of their adoption."

4. Repeal R304. 

5. Replace "Ballot Items" in R309 with "issues on the Ballot".

6. Retitle R312 as "Nominations" and amend it to read:

"Prior to the start of voting during a nweek in which an Elective Office is 
either vacant or an Elected Officer's term will expire, any Player may 
nominate any Player, including emself, as a candidate for that Elective 
Office.

Any Player who declines nomination for an Office prior to voting ceases to 
be a candidate for that Office."

7. Create a new Rule entitled "Elections" as follows:

"Voters may cast exactly one vote for a candidate for each Elective Office 
on the Ballot.

Whichever candidate receives a plurality of the votes cast for an Elective 
Office shall assume that Office upon the expiration of the erstwhile 
Officer's term. In the event of a tie for the most votes among two or more 
candidates for an Elective Office, the Administrator shall select one of 
those candidates to hold the Office."

8. Amend R118 to read:

"Each Player is eligible to vote on each issue on any given Ballot for the 
duration of the voting for which the Ballot was issued. Other Agents may be 
eligible voters, if allowed by the Rules."

9. Amend R224 to read:

"Each eligible voter may cast exactly one vote on each issue on any given 
Ballot, unless otherwise provided for in the Rules."

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Motion restriction
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:48:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a Proposal entitled "Only Players May Make Change the 
Rules". This would restrict the ability to make two Motions, Proposals and 
Motions to Amend Trivially, to Players only.

BEGIN

1. Amend R303 to read as follows:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions which may be 
made only by Players, are adoptable only through two-day unanimous consent, 
and fail if it is not granted. A Motion to Amend Trivially, when submitted, 
must consist of one potential Legislative Order that would unsubstantially 
amend a Rule if adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become issues 
on a Ballot.

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

2. Amend the first sentence of R117 to read:

"Proposals are Primary Approvable Motions which are not subject to 
unanimous consent, and may be made only by Players."

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Voting Clean-up Clean-up
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:53:12 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I rescind my first Voting Clean-up Proposal, and offer this one instead:

BEGIN

1. Amend R120 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. Live Motions which are neither 
being voted on nor for which consent is being sought are revisable, and may 
be activated, deactivated, or withdrawn, but only by their respective 
owners. In no other case may a Motion be altered. When a Motion is 
withdrawn, it becomes dead.

Each Motion type is either Approvable or Unilateral. Approvable Motions are 
subject to voting or consent, as per the Rules, while Unilateral Motions 
need no such approval to take effect. 

Each Motion type is either Primary or Secondary. Primary Motions are 
assigned serial numbers by type, while Secondary Motions are assigned 
serial numbers as a group."

2. Amend R118 to read:

"Each Player is eligible to vote on each issue on any given Ballot for the 
duration of the voting for which the Ballot was issued. Other Agents may be 
eligible voters, if allowed by the Rules."

3. Amend R201 to read:

"The Administrator shall, at least 48 hours prior to the close of voting 
each nweek, distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. On the 
Ballot shall be a list of the following:

i. Approvable Motions which were at the time when voting began both live 
and not awaiting consent.

ii. Candidates to fill Elected Offices which are vacant or for which the 
current Officer's term will expire at the end of the nweek."

4. Repeal R202.

5. Amend R224 to read:

"Each eligible voter may cast exactly one vote on each issue on any given 
Ballot, unless otherwise provided for in the Rules."

6. Retitle R227 as "Quorum and Voting", and amend it to read:

"Quorum is the minimum number of eligible Agents needed to cast votes on an 
issue during a single voting period in order for the results of voting to 
have effect.

Motions for which quorum is not met remain alive, but are not adopted.
Elections for which quorum is not met are held again in the next nweek, and 
the term of the current Officer is extended by one nweek."

Motions for which quorum has been met become dead at the close of voting, 
regardless of their adoption."

7. Repeal R304. 

8. Replace "Ballot Items" in R309 with "issues on the Ballot".

9. Retitle R312 as "Nominations" and amend it to read:

"Prior to the start of voting during a nweek in which an Elective Office is 
either vacant or an Elected Officer's term will expire, any Player may 
nominate any Player, including emself, as a candidate for that Elective 
Office.

Any Player who declines nomination for an Office prior to voting ceases to 
be a candidate for that Office."

10. Create a new Rule entitled "Elections" as follows:

"Voters may cast exactly one vote for a candidate for each Elective Office 
on the Ballot.

Whichever candidate receives a plurality of the votes cast for an Elective 
Office shall assume that Office upon the expiration of the erstwhile 
Officer's term. In the event of a tie for the most votes among two or more 
candidates for an Elective Office, the Administrator shall select one of 
those candidates to hold the Office."

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Recognition Elimination
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:59:26 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've gotten the impression that the whole recognition system is rather 
cumbersome, and just doesn't serve much purpose, save that of generating 
lots of unnecessary mail. So, lets nix it. Here's a Proposal to do that, 
entitled "Recognition Elimination":

BEGIN

1. Amend R109 to be entitled "Officer Jurisdiction" and read as follows:

"Each Officer is responsible for recording, in a timely fashion, a 
particular subset of Agentic actions. The Administrator is responsible for 
recording actions not specifically within the jurisdiction of any other 
Officer. Every action falls within the jurisdiction of at least one 
Officer."

2. Retitle R228 to "Motion Numbering" and strike the last sentence.

3. Retitle R235 to "Numbering of Requests

4. Repeal R301.

5. If R304 has not been repealed, replace its last sentence with:

"All legal changes to Ballot Items must be reflected in the published 
Ballot."

6. Replace "recognising" in R310 with "numbering".

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: last of three
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:03:28 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

While I'm at it, I might as well make a Prop to fix this too: I noticed 
that R103 refers to "transmutation", when we have no such concept in this 
game. So, here's a Proposal entitled "R103 Fix". I would do this as a 
Trivial Amendment,
but I'm not sure this would count as an "unsubstantial" change. so:

BEGIN

Strike the text ", or transmutation", and insert "or " immediately before 
"amendment" in R103.

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: name change
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:06:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am officially shortening my name to "Joel". This should have no affect on 
anything, really. (R208 names me as the "Player whose real name is Joel 
Uckelman", so it makes no difference what my game name is.)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: new Motion restriction prop
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:14:04 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wow, did I munge the title.

I rescind the first version, and replace it with this, entitled "Only 
Players May Change the Rules":

BEGIN

1. Amend R303 to read as follows:

"Motions to Amend Trivially are Secondary Approvable Motions which may be 
made only by Players, are adoptable only through two-day unanimous consent, 
and fail if it is not granted. A Motion to Amend Trivially, when submitted, 
must consist of one potential Legislative Order that would unsubstantially 
amend a Rule if adopted. Motions to Amend Trivially may never become issues 
on a Ballot.

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

2. Amend the first sentence of R117 to read:

"Proposals are Primary Approvable Motions which are not subject to 
unanimous consent, and may be made only by Players."

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:26:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following new Props are recognized:

400/0, Voting Clean-up, by Joel
401/0, Recognition Elimination, by Joel
402/0, R103 Fix, by Joel
403/0, Only Players May Change the Rules, by Joel

Note that these will be voted on (presumably) next nweek, not during the 
present voting period.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:03:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Simmilarity Challenge.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here is the 2nd simmilaity challenge.  The words are:

Errour
Shelob
Morgause

This one shouldn't be too hard.  Answers in private email please to
[email-masked]

Poulenc

From: "Corque S" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal 399
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:15:34 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wish to modify proposal 399 to contain the 'fixed' text:

"The Player known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days 
after this rule takes effect.  The action of Randalling will be recorded via 
camera and posted to the Nomic web site.  These photographs will remain for 
a minimum of 6 months.  The recording device shall be simple photography 
which must contain at least 5 images at various stages of the Randal.  A 
video camera (or web-cam) can be used in place of photographs to show the 
Randal in its entirety."
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:29:53 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wow, there's been a veritable stampede to join our game of late...

I make a Motion to Add Joel Ricker as the Player "404notfound".

So, assuming no objections, 404notfound should be a Player three days from 
now.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results...
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:49:05 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

...will be ready in the morning, I need sleep right now...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Voting results, nweek 14
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:10:33 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

P396/1 passed (5-4-0-7)
P397/0 passed (7-2-0-7)
P398/2 failed (3-6-0-7)
P399/0 passed (7-1-1-7)

----

Immediate Effects:

P397/0

The Banker will note that due to the passage of P397/0, all points held by 
former Players Potter and 4T2 revert to the Bank.

P399/0

No idea.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:47:58 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are recognized:

M19/0, Motion to Add 404notfound

404notfound: Sorry, I made the Motion to Add you right away, but then 
proceeded to forget to recognize it. You'll be a Player two days from now 
if no one objects. (It was three days, but the Rule regarding new Players 
was amended yesterday.)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: new version of P401
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:47:19 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's a revised version of P401:

BEGIN

1. Amend R109 to be entitled "Officer Jurisdiction" and read as follows:

"Each Officer is responsible for recording, in a timely fashion, a 
particular subset of Agentic actions. The Administrator is responsible for 
recording actions not specifically within the jurisdiction of any other 
Officer. Every action falls within the jurisdiction of at least one 
Officer."

2. Retitle R228 to "Motion Numbering" and strike the last sentence.

3. Repeal R235 and append its text as the second paragaph of R234. 

4. Repeal R301.

5. If R304 has not been repealed, replace its last sentence with:

"All legal changes to Ballot Items must be reflected in the published 
Ballot."

6. Replace "recognising" in R310 with "numbering". 

END

-- 
J.

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:46:22 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

With the passage of Rule 350/0 (which I voted for) I feel that it's time to
pass a rule that will mildly limit the jurisdiction of new rules.  I don't
want to see a new rule which requires me to buy a digital camera from a
particular site or requires me to visit some web site.

<proposal>

Title: Jurisdiction of Rules

New rules may not be proposed which will require the player to take an
action outside of the limits of public fora. 

[[ This should allow for rules which require Officers to keep track of
points and other such data, as you're requiring the Officer to produce a
correct report. ]]

New rules may also not be proposed which will restrict a player's actions
outside of public fora.

</proposal>

In addition, I would also like to make a motion to recognize the website as
a public forum.  I don't recall ever seeing any sort of recognition of it as
such, but we all sort of assumed that it would be.

Even if this rule is ammended, due to its numbering, this should not affect
Rule 350/0.  Good that we got that passed first.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:14:29 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since Agents can win, and since the bank is an Agent, there is a serious =
possibility that the bank might win the game (I know it needs to own 20 =
or more rules, but it might due to the new "Inheritance" rule).

I don't want the bank to win, so I make the following proposal, entitled =
"Only Players may win":

--

Amend Rule 211 to read:

"Whenever a Player's score reaches or exceeds 500 points, and that =
Player owns at least 20 Rules, the Administrator shall credit em with a =
Win."

--

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Call for Judgement
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:14:32 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> We haven't had a CFJ in a while.
>
> --
> The Kid

Ok. Here's two:

--
Call for Judgement

Statement:

Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.

Analysis:

Rule 347/0 states that "Debts are objects" (note the lowercase spelling =
of "objects"). Rule 347/0 also states that "Debts are divisible", but =
Objects as defined by Rule 316/0 are "indivisible".

I conclude that debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
--

and the second:

--
Call for Judgement

Statement:

NomicHomes cannot be transferred.

Analysis:

Rule 316/0 states that "Objects (...) may not be transferred (...) =
except as allowed by the Rules".

Rule 340/0 defines that a NomicHome is an instance of a Place. Places =
are defined by Rule 327/0, which does not allow them to be transferred.

Rule 340/0 includes the following statement:

"NomicHomes can be bought and sold in the same manner as any Object".

In this statement, "any Object" refers to Objects in general, i.e. =
Objects as defined by Rule 316/0, which cannot be transferred. Thus the =
statement defines that NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
--

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Naming Prohibition Proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:36:47 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The debate over how to distinguish between game and non-game actions 
reminded me of Article I, section 9, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution 
(the one with which I am most familiar), quoted here:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or 
group for punishment without a trial.

The reason I mention this is that we could use a similar idea to avoid the 
problem of determining which requirements are game-relevant and which 
aren't. If we prohibited the creation of Rules that name individual 
Players, then any odious requirements in a proposed Rule would necessarily 
have wider application, thus increasing the likelihood that more Players 
would vote against it.

So, here's a Proposal to do that:

BEGIN

Create a new Rule entitled "No Bills of Attainder" with the following text:

"Proposals which name individual Players in their texts are prohibited."

END

-- 
J.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:50:15 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Now that I've finally come to terms with the death of RFN, I want some
more nomic...]]

Add the person with the real name "Gavin M. Doig" and the email address
"[email-masked]" as a player named "Blest Lax Monk Pal".

--
Gavin M. Doig, [email-masked]
http://www.gmd.ukgateway.net/

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: various recognitions
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:54:19 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are recognized:

P401/1, Recognition Elimination, by Joel
P404/0, Jurisdiction of Rules, by sabby
P405/0, Only Players may win, by Joerg
P406/0, No Bills of Attainder, by Joel

M19/0, Motion to Add Blest Lax Monk Pal

Also, there are two outstanding RFJs to be recognized, but that's not my 
job anymore. The Kid is currently the OSJ, so e needs to recognize and 
assign Judges to them.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Elections
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:59:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since the terms of all four Elected Officers expired quite some time ago, 
and they've just held on due to automatic term extension since no one ever 
remembers to make nominations, here goes, as loud as I can yell:

HEY EVERYONE! WE'RE HAVING ELECTIONS THIS NWEEK! SO NOMINATE SOMEBODY!

There. Now no one can accuse me of forgetting every time. :)

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Call for Judgement
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:47:17 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.

Recognised as RFJ#28 and assigned to Feyd

> NomicHomes cannot be transferred.

Recognised as RFJ#28 and assigned to Benjamin

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Call for Judgement
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:55:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
> 
> Recognised as RFJ#28 and assigned to Feyd
> 
> > NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
> 
> Recognised as RFJ#28 and assigned to Benjamin

Oh #*&%! That last one should obviously be RFJ#29.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:23:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Banker's Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have started automatically combining debts with the same due date as
allowed by the new debt rule.  This will let me simplify this sytem a lot.

There are quite a lot of overdue debts.  The Tax collector is supposed to
start claiming them from players so the bank can get some money.  The
banks has previously been in a very low-funding system.  This crisis has
been averted.  Since the point amnesty passed, I am in a position where to
publish an accurate report I would have to go back and recalculae the
scores from every nweek since nweek 8.  This will take more time than I
have.  This report is accurately based on the second (corrected) version
of my nweek 10 report.  May I please beg for a second amnesty proposal?

debts marked + are owed by the bank to the player.  debts marked - are
owed by the player to the bank.  By the new debt rule, if debts are owed
to you, you are their owner and can trade or do what you will with them.
They can also be used to cancel out older debts if both parties agree.  I
am allowed to agree on behalf of the bank.

Banker's Report at the start of Nweek 15

Official Salary: 1
Judicial Salary: 0
Adopted Proposal Award: 5
Opposed Minority Award: 1

Failed proposal fine: 8

Summary of overdue debts due the end of nweek 12
Poulenc, -60
The Kid, -20 +30
Joel Uckelman, +20
Josh Kortbein, +20
Jeff Schroeder, +20

Summary of debts due the end of nweek 13
The Kid, +5
Jeff Schroeder +5
M'cachessilnath +10
Benjamin +10
Joel Uckelman +25

debts due at the end of nweek 14:
Administrator(13) Joel Uckelman +5    
OBC(13) The Kid +5
TaxC(13) Jeff Schroeder +5

debts due at the end of nweek 15:
Joel Uckelman +17
Benjamin -11
Poulenc +10
PurpleBob +1
zagarna +1
Jeff Schroeder +2
The Kid +1

debts due at the end of nweek 16:
Joel +8
PurpleBob +5
Joerg -8
Corque +5
sabby +1
zagarna +1
Poulenc +1
The Kid +1
jeff +1

bank property (as of nweek 14): 
515 points 
5 extra votes

In order to update property I need the final scores of potter and 4T2.

Poulenc.

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:08:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop:automatic debt payment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This silly point-transfer nonsense is making me upset. This is the digital
age afterall, I can pay my bills online, so why do I have to get the
runaround in a silly game?

<proposal title="Automatic Debt Payment">
create a new rule entitled "Automatic Debt Payment" with the following
text:

"Automatic Debt Payer" is an attribute which Players can have.

A player may gain or lose the "Automatic Debt Payer" (ADP) attribute by
posting eir preference to a public forum.

The Banker must keep track of which players currently have the ADP
attribute.

Whenever a debt is created naming a Player (X) as a debtor, if the
named Player has the attribute "Automatic Debt Payer" and also has sufficient 
funds to pay the debt, then the debt is automatically paid, points
transferred, and the debt is destroyed.
</proposal>

How's that sound?

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:01:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Banker's Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> > Failed proposal fine: 8
> > debts due at the end of nweek 16:
> > Joel +8
> > PurpleBob +5
> > Joerg -8
> 
> Hmmmm... I think I should get the Opposed Minority Award for voting
> against PurpleBob's proposal, shouldn't I? So my debt would be only
> -7.

Oops.  Joerg's debt should indeed only be -7.  This is a correction to the
Banker's report.

Pouelnc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Prop recognition, new Player
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:22:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposal is recognized:

P407/0, Automatic Debt Repayment, Benjamin

Also, 404notfound will become a Player 85 minutes from now.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:29:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Back by popular demand
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit a new proposal eititled "Parties, back by popular demand"

The text of this new proposal is exactly the same as the text of proposal
382/1

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Dependency Fix
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:56:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There are a number of errors in R346, and I don't think that Proposals 
failing by dependence should be considered "withdrawn". Also, a small 
change to R229 will prevent us from having to amend it every time we add a 
new adoption condition.

I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Proposal Dependency: I Need My 
Fix":

BEGIN

1. Retitle R346 to "Motion Dependency" and amend it to read as follows:

"The owner of an Approvable Motion may specify a condition for its adoption 
in addition to the standard conditions required by the Rules.

Whenever an Approvable Motion would be adopted in the absence of a 
condition added by its owner, and it is no longer possible for that 
condition to be met, the Motion fails by dependence.

No scoring may occur due to failure by dependence."

2. Amend the first sentence of R229 to read:

"An Approvable Motion is adopted iff it is subject to and receives consent 
or at the close of voting on it its passage ratio exceeds one-half, and all 
other adoption conditions applying to it are met."

And add as the last sentence of the first paragraph:

"An Approvable Motion fails when its adoption becomes impossible."

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: a modest proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:05:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just realized that, contrary to what was said before, R350 could be 
repealed before it would take effect. The first instant anyone could be in 
violation of R350 would be 00:00:00 on 1 March. That is also the exact time 
at which the next batch of Proposals will come into effect. So, since a 
Proposal to repeal the Rule would be effective, I feel bound to try.

So, here's a Proposal entitled "Repeal R350" with the text "Repeal R350."

That has to fetch me the record for "Proposal text differing least from its 
title" or something like that.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: new players
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:21:57 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

M19/0 and M20/0 passed in the last day or so, which makes both 404notfound 
and Blest Lax Monk Pal new Players.

BTW, is there some sort of story behind your name, BLMP?

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Dependency Fix
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:56:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There are a number of errors in R346, and I don't think that Proposals 
failing by dependence should be considered "withdrawn". Also, a small 
change to R229 will prevent us from having to amend it every time we add a 
new adoption condition.

I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Proposal Dependency: I Need My 
Fix":

BEGIN

1. Retitle R346 to "Motion Dependency" and amend it to read as follows:

"The owner of an Approvable Motion may specify a condition for its adoption 
in addition to the standard conditions required by the Rules.

Whenever an Approvable Motion would be adopted in the absence of a 
condition added by its owner, and it is no longer possible for that 
condition to be met, the Motion fails by dependence.

No scoring may occur due to failure by dependence."

2. Amend the first sentence of R229 to read:

"An Approvable Motion is adopted iff it is subject to and receives consent 
or at the close of voting on it its passage ratio exceeds one-half, and all 
other adoption conditions applying to it are met."

And add as the last sentence of the first paragraph:

"An Approvable Motion fails when its adoption becomes impossible."

END

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: a modest proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:05:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just realized that, contrary to what was said before, R350 could be 
repealed before it would take effect. The first instant anyone could be in 
violation of R350 would be 00:00:00 on 1 March. That is also the exact time 
at which the next batch of Proposals will come into effect. So, since a 
Proposal to repeal the Rule would be effective, I feel bound to try.

So, here's a Proposal entitled "Repeal R350" with the text "Repeal R350."

That has to fetch me the record for "Proposal text differing least from its 
title" or something like that.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:57:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Back by popular demand 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[
> I have a few questions/suggestions:
> 
> Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
> not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.

Oops.  Thanks for catching that.  I've fixed it in the latest version,
posted below.

> 
> Why do Parties need serial numbers?

Why does anything need serial numbers?  We don't actually have to number
our rules either, we could keep track of them only by title or by 'the
rule Joel proposed nweek 4, day 5'. I don't want them to get lost.  If the
consensus is that it's overkill then I'll take it out.

> I'd like there to be a requirement that Party records be kept in such a way 
> that 1) tracks changes to Party rules, and 2) makes all Party records 
> public if a Party ceases to exist.
 
I wanted to make Parties as self-contained as possible.  I can see that #2
is a good idea, but I can't see how to track and publish changes to party
rules while still keeping them secret.  However, a good set of party rules
should appoint someone as the Party Admin, to track the party rules.

> Also, I have reservations about the idea of only a judge being appraised of 
> Party rules when they are relevant to an RFJ, since such rules could 
> conceivably impact a plaintiff's ability to make eir case.

But secret party rules cannot be given away to more players than
nescessary.  Presumably the plaintiff would be someone affected by the
party rules; therefore they must have access to the rules.  They can refer
to rules in their request, but they cannot quote rules.

I caution players not to join any party until you have been shown its
ruleset, not to join a party that does not let you leave if things go
sour, and not to join a party that does not include a reasonable method of
tracking changes to its rules.

Let the mayhem begin!
]]

I rescind my latest attempt to create a new proposal and instead submit
another new proposal, entitled "Parties: back by popular demand", with
text as follows:

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

A Party is a type of object consisting of a name, a serial number, a set
of rules, and a set of member agents. Any agent may create a party at any
time by announcing eir intent to the Administrator who shall recognize eir
action and assign a serial number, the party creator must also determine
an initial set of rules and name for the new party. A newly created party
has no members, and a party which is found to have no members continuously
for a period of one nweek ceases to exist.

2. Enact a new rule entitled "Party Membership", text as follows:

The requirements for membership of a party shall be defined by the
rules of that party. No agent may become a member of a party without eir
consent.

The members of a Party must abide by the rules of that Party, with the
proviso that no agent may be required to abide by a set of rules of which
e has been uninformed. The rules of this game take precedence over the
rules of all Parties, but they do not exempt the members of a party from a
punishment for failing to comply with the rules of that party.

3. Enact a new rule entitled "Party Privacy", with text as follows:

The rules and membership list shall be maintained by the members of that
party. They must be available to all members of that party, but are not
required to be available to non-members; all members must be apprised of
any change in the rules or party membership. If the otherwise privately
kept rules or membership of a party is the subjct of a CFJ, and the judge
of that CFJ is not a member of that party, then whomever is responsible
for tracking the state of the party rules and any elements defined in the
party rules shall make them available available to judge upon the judge's
selection, but the Judge shall not further distribute them.

4. Enact a new rule entitled "Party Security", with text as follows:

In no case may an agent be bound by a set of rules of which e is
uninformed.

In no case may an agent become a member of a party without eir express
written consent, although said consent does not nescessarily have to be
posted to the Public forum. Party rules may not take precedence over the
rules of this game, although this does not nescessarily exempt a player
from penalties for failing to abide by the rules of a party of which e is
a member. Party rules may not redefine terms used in the rules of this
game.

5. Enact a new rule entitled "Party Destruction", with text as follows:

If a Party ceases to exist the last known state of its rules, membership,
and any variables or other objects defined shall be made publicly
available.
______

Poulenc

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:05:48 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hereby make a Request for Judgment.

Statement:
It was possible to make a Request for Judgment before the 11th of November
2000.

Analysis:
Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.

Rule 114/0 : Orders:
An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
Private.

Rule 216/0 : Private Orders:
A Private Order is any Order that is not Legislative, Motive,
Administrative, or Judicial.

Although Rule 234/0 attempted to define a Request for Judgment (sic) as a
"Personal" Order, rule 216/0 had precedence, and redefined it as being a
Private Order, and thus made it valid by Rule 114/0

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:21:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: A Proposal (this is PurpleBob)
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I promise that I really am PurpleBob. I just can't
send from my normal mail account right now.

I submit the following proposal entitled "Preventing
Tyranny of the Majority":
<proposal>
Create a rule entitled [[you guessed it]] "Preventing
Tyranny of the Majority" with the following text:

If a proposal names one or more specific players in
its text, those players must consent to the passage of
the proposal.

If a proposal uses one or more terms which indirectly
refer to one player, or to a group of players
containing less than half of the players in the game,
each specified player or group must consent to the
passage of the proposal.

Names of administrative positions are a special case
of the above clause. If the administrative position is
not yet filled, no consent is needed. If the posiiton
is filled, the player who occupies that position must
consent.

Consenting to the passage of a proposal means that, if
any single player from whom consent is required votes
against the proposal, or if the majority of a group
from which consent is required votes against the
proposal, the proposal fails.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:20:10 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> Statement:
> It was possible to make a Request for Judgment before the 
> 11th of November
> 2000.

Recognised as RFJ#30 and assigned to Jeff.

On a personal note, I don't really understand your RFJ. Are you trying to
say that it was ONLY possible before 11 Nov, and that it's not afterwards?
And more to the point, why are you making an RFJ about old rules?

Other RFJs:

RFJ#28, Joerg: Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
Feyd is recused as Judge.
Josh is appointed as Judge.

RFJ#29, Joerg: NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
Benjamin is recused as Judge.
Zagarna is appointed as Judge.

Is there a fine for being recused?

--
The Kid

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal to make the Administrator a normal Officer
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:51:26 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As I have explained in my message to the discussion list, the Office of =
the Administrator is a real problem if any sort of "naming prohibition" =
is adopted, because just about every game duty at least indirectly =
refers to the Administrator, and R208 (The Administrator) *does* name a =
specific player.

I propose to solve this problem by making the Administrator an Elected =
Office, however one which does not have any fixed term (i.e. if Joel =
doesn't resign, nothing will change). The idea is that the Administrator =
will no longer be a specific player, since he can resign at any time, =
and a working "naming prohibition" rule can be created.

Note that, if the proposal is adopted, a 2/3 majority will be required =
to remove the Administrator (with a Motion of no Confidence). With the =
current rules, only a simple majority is required (to change R208). So =
this will not weaken his position.

I make the following proposal, entitled "The Administrator is an Elected =
Office that does not expire".

--

Amend Rule 208 to read:

"The Office of the Administrator is an Elected Office which does not =
have a Term of Office (i.e. the Officer stays in Office until e resigns =
or is removed from eir Office by other means). The Administrator is =
responsible for all game duties not assigned by the Rules to other =
Officers.

The Office is initially held by the Player whose real name is Joel =
Uckelman."

Amend Rule 110 by adding the following paragraph:

"If the Administrator resigns, e shall name a Player who will assume his =
duties until the Office is again filled. If the Administrator has =
resigned without naming any Player, the first Player who publicly =
announces that e will assume the Administrator's duties shall do so =
until the Office is again filled."

--

Joerg

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ#29, Ruling
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:28:50 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:20:10 -0000, you wrote:

>
>RFJ#29, Joerg: NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
>Benjamin is recused as Judge.
>Zagarna is appointed as Judge.
>

Ok, I found the text of the rfj:

>Call for Judgement
>
>Statement:
>
>NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
>
>
>Analysis:
>
>Rule 316/0 states that "Objects (...) may not be transferred (...) =
except
>as allowed by the Rules".
>
>Rule 340/0 defines that a NomicHome is an instance of a Place. Places =
are
>defined by Rule 327/0, which does not allow them to be transferred.
>
>Rule 340/0 includes the following statement:
>
>"NomicHomes can be bought and sold in the same manner as any Object".
>
>In this statement, "any Object" refers to Objects in general, i.e. =
Objects
>as defined by Rule 316/0, which cannot be transferred. Thus the =
statement
>defines that NomicHomes cannot be transferred.

Judge's Ruling:
TRUE

Judge's Reasoning:
The plaintiff's analysis is accurate, the only interesting thing is
that if rule 340 had an only slightly different wording, for
example:"NomicHomes can be bought and sold in the same manner as any
other Object" , it would permit transferability of NomicHomes, since
the only other objects we have in the game are points, and those are
transferable :-)
Sorry, just raving
--

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:14:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P408/0, Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix, by Joel
P409/0, Repeal R350, by Joel
P410/0, Parties: back by popular demand, by Poulenc
P411/0, Preventing Tyranny of the Majority, by PrupleBob
P412/0, The Administrator is an Elected Office that does not expire, by 
Joerg

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:50:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since XnJester quit on the discussion list, he's still technically a 
Player, which means that he could be selected as a Judge. I hate to do 
this---it sort of feels like I'm kicking someone out, even though I'm 
not---but I'm making a Motion to Remove XnJester. I hope he comes back 
sometime, but he should probably be moved over to the Former Player part of 
the Roster.

The above Motion is recognized as M21/0, and will be adopted in 10 days 
baring any objections.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: P406 revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:35:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Someone (I don't recall exactly who it was) mentioned the difficulty of 
distinguishing between game actions and non-game actions if the actions are 
Rules-mandated. Such an approach sounds more promising to me than the one 
we've been discussing. I think this would render harmless Rules like R350. 
This covers way different ground from PurpleBob's P411, and may even be 
compatible with it. Have a look:

This is a complete revision of P406:

BEGIN

Create a new Rule entitled "Impossible Actions"

"No Agent shall be required to take an action if there is no public fora in 
which that action would be possible. Any Rule or portion thereof that would 
require such actions of an Agent shall have no effect."

END

And the revision is recognized as P406/1. On a related note, please vote 
for P401, so we can eliminate this recognition business. :)

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:40:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: comment on Parties Prop
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> I just reread P410, and noticed another minor error. There are no things 
> known as CFJs. Presumably you mean "RFJ" instead.
> 
> -- 
> J.

I guess that's my dependancy on old Berserker getting through.  Ack!
]]

I revise my proposal 410 by replacing every instance of "CFJ" with "RFJ".

[[
I'd copy out the whole thing properly but I play this game exclusively
in an 80x24 text window running Pine.  It's a fairly major cut-and-paste
job to get it all in.
]]

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: comment on Parties Prop 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:00:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> [[
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> > I just reread P410, and noticed another minor error. There are no things 
> > known as CFJs. Presumably you mean "RFJ" instead.
> > 
> > -- 
> > J.
> 
> I guess that's my dependancy on old Berserker getting through.  Ack!
> ]]
> 
> I revise my proposal 410 by replacing every instance of "CFJ" with "RFJ".
> 
> [[
> I'd copy out the whole thing properly but I play this game exclusively
> in an 80x24 text window running Pine.  It's a fairly major cut-and-paste
> job to get it all in.
> ]]
> 
> Poulenc.

Recognized.

Speaking of RFJs, I'll see if I can get those up on the page before going 
off to play billiards and have a Guinness. Mmmm, Guinness.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:14:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: The Bank pays its debts!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Bank owns 524 points

The Bank pays its debts:

The Bank transfers 22 points to The Kid,
The Bank transfers 75 points to Joel Uckelman
The Bank transfers 20 points to Josh Kortbein
The Bank transfers 33 points to Jeff Schroeder
The Bank transfers 11 points to M'cachessilnath
The Bank transfers 10 points to Benjamin
The Bank transfers 11 points to Poulenc
The Bank transfers 1 point to PurpleBob
The Bank transfers 5 points to Corque
The Bank transfers 1 point to sabby
The Bank transfers 2 points to Zagarna

The followiong debts have now been paid:

owner		amount		due
----------------------------------------
The Kid		+10		nweek 12
Joel Uckelman	+20		nweek 12
Josh Kortbein	+20		nweek 12
Jeff Schroeder	+20		nweek 12

The Kid		+5		nweek 13
Jeff Schroeder	+5		nweek 13
M'cachessilnath +10		nweek 13
Benjamin 	+10		nweek 13
Joel Uckelman 	+25		nweek 13

Joel Uckelman	+5		nweek 14    
The Kid		+5		nweek 14
Jeff Schroeder 	+5		nweek 14

Joel Uckelman 	+17		nweek 15
Poulenc 	+10		nweek 15
PurpleBob 	+1		nweek 15
zagarna 	+1		nweek 15
Jeff Schroeder 	+2		nweek 15
The Kid 	+1		nweek 15

Joel 		+8		nweek 16
PurpleBob 	+5		nweek 16
Corque 		+5		nweek 16
sabby 		+1		nweek 16
zagarna 	+1		nweek 16
Poulenc 	+1		nweek 16
The Kid 	+1		nweek 16
Jeff Schroeder	+1		nweek 16
M'cachessilnath +1		nweek 16

The Banks owes no debts.

These debts are owed to the bank:
owner		amount		due
----------------------------------------
Poulenc, 	-60 		nweek 12
Benjamin 	-11		nweek 15
Joerg 		-8		nweek 16

Bank property:
333 points
5 extra votes

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:36:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal:  Point Amnesty fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "A Resolution for Point Amnesty,
part 2"

-----
Whearas, upon the passage of proposal 375/1 "A Resolution for Point
Amnesty", the point holdings were to be based on the "first, incorrect
version" of an nweekly Banker's report, 

and Whearas the subsequent Banker's reports and scoring have been based
upon the second, corrected version;

and Whearas the first version contained several major errors which were
corrected in the second version;

and Whearas the Banker would have to perform his several nweeks worth of
duties a second time to return to the first version, which would in any
case create a discontinuity in the game state;

Be it resolved that article 1 of P375/1 be waived, while retaining the
other provisions of P375.

Be it also resolved that the Bankers Report for Nweek 15, published by
Poulenc on the 20th of February, 2001, plus the two subsequently published
corrections, be accpted as accurate and representative of the game state
at that time.

-----

Poulenc

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:53:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bank Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I set the Adopted Proposal Award to 3 points
I set the Judicial Salary to 1 point

[[
The Official Salary and the Opposed Minority Award remain at 1 point each.
The Failed Proposal File is currently 8.
]]

Poulenc

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Roster improvement
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:10:14 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Yes, the AWAY rules are still there. The only Player that is=20
> currently AWAY=20
> is God.

It's likely that some addtional attributes are created (like Automatic =
Debt Payer), and currently there is no way to quickly check the =
attributes of players.

I make the following proposal, entitled "Roster improvement":

--

Amend rule 213 to read:

"The Roster is a list of all Players. It shall contain, for each Player, =
at least the following information: (1) The Player's name, (2) eir email =
adress, (3) eir score, and (4) a list of all attributes associated with =
em.

The Administrator is responsible for updating the Roster so that it =
reflects the current game state."

--

Note that this includes the current "Standings" web page with the =
Roster.

Joerg

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:49:27 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Failed Proposal Fine is set to 5 for this nweek.

jeff

Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:07:44 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Reclaim debts owed the bank
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hereby make a Bank Motion requiring the bank to collect the following points:

60 points from Poulenc
11 points from Benjamin
8 points from Joerg

jeff

Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Reclaim debts owed the bank
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:23:38 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I hereby make a Bank Motion requiring the bank to collect the=20
> following points:
>=20
> 60 points from Poulenc
> 11 points from Benjamin
> 8 points from Joerg

I make the following RFJ:

--

Statement:

The Bank Motion made by Jeff Schroeder on Feb. 24, 2001 was invalid.

Analysis:

According to Rules 317 and 319, Motions for Repayment can be made only =
if a debt is overdue. Joerg's debt is payable nweek 16 and is not =
overdue. Bejamin's debt is payable nweek 15 and is not overdue [[but =
will soon be]].

Furthermore, as stated in the correction to the Banker's Report, Joerg's =
debt is only 7 points, but the Motion requires a payment of 8 points.

--

Oh, and I canot repay the debt anyway, I don't have any points.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: P406
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:06:20 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I withdraw P406. 

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:37:58 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 30 Ruling
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The ruling on RFJ 30 as stated below:

> > Statement:
> > It was possible to make a Request for Judgment before the
> > 11th of November 2000.

the statement is ruled TRUE.

Rule 234/0 at the time read: "A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order. 
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. The implicit 
recipient is the Administrator."  Rule 216/0 also reads: "A Private Order 
is any Order that is not Legislative, Motive, Administrative, or Judicial."

A RFJ is stated to be a personal order, and rule 216 does not disagree by 
saying that it is not a private order.  [[Double negatives are hard to 
follow sometimes!!]]  There is no explicit definition for Personal Order in 
the rules.  Nonetheless, I can find nothing in the rules that would make 
the statement false in that there has always been a method for making a RFJ 
since the game began.

The spirit of the game also seems to confirm this in that due to any 
possible (not found by this Judge for this Judgement) technicality that 
might render the statement false, and for creating a precedent, the power 
of the Judge to overrule a large array of Judgements via a technicality 
must be limited.  I will stop short of making a Judicial Order to this 
effect and let this Judgement stand as a precedent.

jeff

Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:57:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: The Bank pays its debts!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I transfer 11 points to the bank in order to pay my debt for said amount.

- 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: Prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:04:17 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposal is recognized:

P413/0; A Resolution for Point Amnesty, part 2; by Poulenc

That should cover all of the outstanding Proposals. Voting starts in 
approximately two hours.

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:22:59 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Amendment to P411
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I withdraw P411.

[[I couldn't find any way to do this without loopholes you could drive a truck
through.]]

--
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:50:14 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: A different proposal which might serve the same purpose as P411
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit the following proposal entitled "Randal Judgements".

Create a rule entitled "Randal Judgements" with the following text:

The verb "to Randal" is defined as "to perform an action which is mostly
unrelated to the game, which one does not want to perform". The noun "Randal"
is defined as either "an action which is mostly unrelated to the game,
which one does not want to perform" when it is used with an article, and
"a character from Clerks" when it is used as a name.

Any Motion or Proposal which requires a player to Randal may be nullified via
the process below.

If a player feels that an action required of em is a Randal, he may make a
Request for Randal Judgement. A Request for Randal Judgement is a specific kind
of Request for Judgement, which follows all the rules of Requests for
Judgement.

When a Request for Randal Judgement (RFRJ) is made, it is applied to some
Motion or Proposal. The player making the RFRJ should specify which Motion or
Proposal it should be applied to. The Statement of the resulting RFJ
is "<motion/proposal> requires <player> to Randal and should be nullified".

If there is a time limit on the Randal in question, it is extended for the
duration of the Judgement.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:00:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bank Update
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joer's debt was incorrectly posted at -8 due to an error on my part.  It
should be -7.

Benjamin paid eir debt of 11 points.

The Banks owes no debts.

These debts are owed to the bank:
owner		amount		due
----------------------------------------
Poulenc, 	-60 		nweek 12
Joerg 		-7		nweek 16

Bank property:
344 points
5 extra votes

_____

Poulenc.

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:29:39 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: withdraw Bank Motion and create new
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I withdraw the Bank Motion requiring
60 points from Poulenc
11 points from Benjamin
8 points from Joerg

I create a new Bank Motion requiring the bank to reclaim 30 out of the 
current 60 outstanding points from Poulenc.  This will reduce Poulenc's 
debt by 30.

Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:57:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Debt Fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Following is a new proposal entitled "Debt Fix"

Amend each instance of "Motion for Repayment" to "Motion for Payment" in
rule 317.

If an agent owes points to another agent e is a debtor and the agent to
which e owes points is eir creditor.  Said pending point transfer is a
debt.  The debt shall exist until payment has been made by point transfer,
satisfying the debt.

If the debtor does not transfer the specified number of points by the time
specified at creation of the debt, or within two weeks of the debt
creation by default, eir creditor may force payment with a Motion for
Payment.

A Motion for Repayment is a primary, approvable motion that is not subject
to unanimous consent.  A Motion for Repayment should specify the debt that
is overdue by amount, agents involved, and due date.  If a Motion for
Repayment passes and the debt remains unpaid a motive order is issued for
the transfer of points to satisfy that debt, to be performed as soon as
possible.

-----

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: final recognition before Ballot
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:25:14 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P414/0, Roster improvement, by Joerg
P415/0, Randal Judgements, by PurpleBob
P416/0, Debt Fix, by Poulenc

I'm unsure how to handle Jeff's Bank Motion. I think he meant a Motion for 
Repayment, which would be M22/0.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 15
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:36:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are up for voting:

P400/0, Voting Clean-up, by Joel
P401/0, Recognition Elimination, by Joel
P402/0, R103 Fix, by Joel
P403/0, Only Players May Change the Rules, by Joel
P404/0, Jurisdiction of Rules, by sabby
P405/0, Only Players may win, by Joerg
P407/0, Automatic Debt Payment, by Benjamin
P408/0, Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix, by Joel
P409/0, Repeal R350, by Joel
P410/1, Parties: back by popular demand, by Poulenc
P412/0, The Administrator is an Elected Office that does not expire, by 
Joerg
P413/0, A Resolution for Point Amnesty, part 2, by Poulenc
P414/0, Roster improvement, by Joerg
P415/0, Randal Judgments, by PurpleBob
P416/0, Debt Fix, by Poulenc

----

The following Motion is up for voting:

M22/0

The text of which is quoted here:

"I create a new Bank Motion requiring the bank to reclaim 30 out of the 
current 60 outstanding points from Poulenc.  This will reduce Poulenc's 
debt by 30."

----

There were no nominations, so consequently no elections this nweek. :(

-- 
J.

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: withdraw Bank Motion and create new
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:59:42 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I withdraw the Bank Motion requiring
> 60 points from Poulenc
> 11 points from Benjamin
> 8 points from Joerg

Ok. I withdraw my Request for Judgement about that Motion.

Joerg

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Nomic Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:43:52 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hearby make a Request For Judgement.

Statement:

Voting without notifying the Administrator of your votes is possible [[if
not entirely practical]]

Analysis:

There is nothing in the rules that I can find which states how one should
vote. Therefore, it is entirely possible to vote by any means one wishes,
and one is fully justified in complaining about the actions that ought due
to other rules to result from their votes not being carried out even if one
has not actually posted one's votes in a way seen by the Administrator. This
system may be open to abuse, as such private votes may be said by the player
to be anything they like. [[I intend to write up a proposal to fix this when
I get time, but a RFJ seemed more fun right now.]]

[[Right, given I've been a bit rushed in writing this, I suspect (hope?)
it's going to be refuted pretty easily...]]

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: R340 modification
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:31:39 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hearby submit a proposal, with the title 'Even though no-one has used
these NomicHomes, I'd better tidy up' and the following text:

Amend R340 as follows:
Replace the phrase 'can be bought and sold as any Object' with 'can be
bought and sold by the transfer of a number of points either equal to the
value or agreed by the players involved to the selling player from the
buying player, which will result in the transfer of the NomicHome (but not
its contents, which will remain the property of the selling player and be
removed from the NomicHome) from the selling to the buying player.'

[[I was hoping someone else would do the work of defining this... oh well]]

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Nomic Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: M'cachessilnath's NomicHome
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:34:38 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hereby modify some values on my NomicHome as per R340:

Name: M'cachessilnath's weyr
Description: A boring cave-type-thing with a replicator and plenty of random
junk
Value: 1000 points [[Which should stop anyone randomly buying it just to be
silly; I've made the buying and selling negotiable in the revision to the
rule, not that I expect anyone wants my useless description...]]

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Zagarna's NomicHome
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:16:07 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:34:38 -0000, you wrote:

I want to redecorate my home too :)

Location: On the top of the hill just outside NomicTown
Name:The Tangerine Palace
Description: A wonderful palace with a fountain that spurts wine and
an altar to Offler.
Contents: initially just the Player who is the owner of the NomicHome
Value: 10000 points=20

--

zagarna

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

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce Proposal Fee.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[
I feel that having the fee for a failed proposal happen when the proposal
fails introduces fear of losing points.  However, you can accomplish the
same task (charge someone points for proposals doomed to fail) by moving the
fee forward in the cycle (when they introduce the proposal) and then
refunding that proposal fee for a successful proposal.  Making the fee
someone like a bottle deposit.

This has the additional affect of allowing the bank to suspend the fee to
encourage people to submit proposals (when the bank is rich) or raise the
fee to slow down the rate of proposals.
]]

I propose to remove the text "Whenever a Proposal fails, the bank is owed:
1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner"

Then add the following text: "Whenever a proposal is submitted, the owner of
the proposal must pay the bank the New Proposal Fee."

[[ 
Then to make the fees match the current state of events, the bank would set
the New Proposal Fee to equal the current Failed Proposal Fee, and then
increase the Adopoted Proposal Award by the amount of the New Proposal Fee.
The net effect of this will be to move the payment of the fee further ahead
in time and add a level of predictableness to the bank's salary.

And, for just "touchy feely" reasons, it hurts less to pay a fee than to pay
a fine.
]]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:34:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: NomicHome
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

yeah, me too.

> Location: a dark and shadowy but dry street
> Name: Whirlpool(r) brand Frigidaire cardboard box
> Description: An old cardboard box which has been fortified with
newspaper and duct tape.
> Contents: the player Benjamin, a half-consumed 40 (of liquor), some
dirty magazines (3,dirty meaning erotic not mud-stained), a thermal
sleeping bag and several newspapers.
> Value: 10 points 

- 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: Oh, give me a NomicHome...
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:16:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> LOOK

You are on a vast, featureless plain. There is a yurt here, to which there 
is running a small cable, which looks to be CAT-5. Above the mailbox is a 
sign saying "Administrator's Palace". Near the door the door is a dromedary 
camel who appears to be having a discussion with a talking penguin.

> NORTH

You can't go that direction. There is nothing to see there. "Vast, 
featureless plain" remember?

> ENTER YURT

Inside the yurt you find many books and computers, as well as a some 
Escher-esque widgets and impossible boxes. Also there are the Player Joel 
and Osborn's Demon, who has been out of work since Berserker Nomic died.

> APPRAISE

You estimate the value of the yurt and its environs to be 1000 points.

> LEAVE YURT

This concludes this installment of A Nomic: the text adventure.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: NomicHome improvement proposal
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:10:45 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmmm, now that I've destroyed all your NomicHomes, I think the rule =
needs some sort of improvement, doesn't it?

I make the following proposal, entitled "NomicHomes have no fixed =
value":

--

In rule 340, remove "Value: initially 0 points".

--

This means NomicHomes won't have any fixed value, and if we want to =
trade them, we'll simply have to agree about the price each time. Makes =
much more sense to me.

There's also some ambiguity about the distinction between contents and =
description. For example, do Joel's CAT-5 cable, books, computer etc. =
violate the rule because it is content not acquired elsewhere, or is it =
part of the description?

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: M'cachessilnath's NomicHome
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:10:47 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I hereby modify some values on my NomicHome as per R340:
>=20
> Name: M'cachessilnath's weyr
> Description: A boring cave-type-thing with a replicator and=20
> plenty of random
> junk
> Value: 1000 points [[Which should stop anyone randomly buying it=20
> just to be
> silly; I've made the buying and selling negotiable in the revision to =
the
> rule, not that I expect anyone wants my useless description...]]

I hereby object to this modification.

According to Rule 340/0, "these [modifications] will be treated as a =
two-day unanimous consent motion".

Reason: The value doesn't seem to be reasonable.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Zagarna's NomicHome
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:10:49 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I want to redecorate my home too :)
>=20
> Location: On the top of the hill just outside NomicTown
> Name:The Tangerine Palace
> Description: A wonderful palace with a fountain that spurts wine and
> an altar to Offler.
> Contents: initially just the Player who is the owner of the NomicHome
> Value: 10000 points=20

I hereby object to this modification.

According to Rule 340/0, "these [modifications] will be treated as a =
two-day unanimous consent motion".

Reason: The value doesn't seem to be reasonable.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Oh, give me a NomicHome...
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:10:51 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > LOOK
>=20
> You are on a vast, featureless plain. There is a yurt here, to=20
> which there=20
> is running a small cable, which looks to be CAT-5. Above the mailbox =
is a=20
> sign saying "Administrator's Palace". Near the door the door is a=20
> dromedary=20
> camel who appears to be having a discussion with a talking penguin.
>=20
> > NORTH
>=20
> You can't go that direction. There is nothing to see there. "Vast,=20
> featureless plain" remember?
>=20
> > ENTER YURT
>=20
> Inside the yurt you find many books and computers, as well as a some=20
> Escher-esque widgets and impossible boxes. Also there are the Player =
Joel=20
> and Osborn's Demon, who has been out of work since Berserker Nomic =
died.
>=20
> > APPRAISE
>=20
> You estimate the value of the yurt and its environs to be 1000 points.
>=20
> > LEAVE YURT
>=20
> This concludes this installment of A Nomic: the text adventure.

I hereby object to this modification.

According to Rule 340/0, "these [modifications] will be treated as a =
two-day unanimous consent motion".

Reason: The value doesn't seem to be reasonable.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:10:56 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> yeah, me too.
>=20
> > Location: a dark and shadowy but dry street
> > Name: Whirlpool(r) brand Frigidaire cardboard box
> > Description: An old cardboard box which has been fortified with
> newspaper and duct tape.
> > Contents: the player Benjamin, a half-consumed 40 (of liquor), some
> dirty magazines (3,dirty meaning erotic not mud-stained), a thermal
> sleeping bag and several newspapers.
> > Value: 10 points=20

I make the following RFJ:

--

Statement:

The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Analysis:

Rule 340/0 states:

"Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, =
adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player already =
present."

Benjamin has added content which he did acquire elsewhere.

--

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:40:48 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Analysis:
> >=20
> > Rule 340/0 states:
> >=20
> > "Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere=20
> acquired, adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object=20
> or Player already present."
> >=20
> > Benjamin has added content which he did acquire elsewhere.
>=20
> I think that's supposed to be "content which he did NOT acquire =
elsewhere"

Ooops, yes you're right.

I withdraw the RFJ cited above and make the following RFJ:

--

Statement:

The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Analysis:

Rule 340/0 states:

"Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, =
adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player already =
present."

Benjamin has added content which he did not acquire elsewhere.

--

Joerg

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: M'cachessilnath's NomicHome
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:09:55 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, I hereby modify some values on my NomicHome as per R340:
>
> Name: M'cachessilnath's weyr
> Description: A boring cave-type-thing with a replicator and plenty of
random junk
> Value: 100 points

More reasonable now? (given that it can't be bought or sold yet and it's
negotiable when it is)

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: A Nomic Business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal to create Real Estate Agent
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:55:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ Due to all the posts to create nomic homes, etc.  I wanted to add this
following proposal to keep things in order.  This will create a Real Estate
Agent whose responsibility will be to track Nomic homes, their descriptions,
etc. ]]

<proposal>
<title>Creation of a Real Estate Agent</title>

In order to prevent having to deal with Nomic homes with contents with kings
or with princes who had gold who filled their houses with silver and other
such valuable metals, we shall erect an officer in charge of Real Estate.
The real estate agent shall record all changes to properties of Nomic homes
and be allowed to veto anything that they deem "unreasonable."

The Real Estate Agent can be overturned with a Request for Judgement on the
changing of a property.  

The Real Estate agent will also be responsible for keeping a list of the
properties and owners of various nomic homes.

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:31:36 +0100
To: spoon-business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add / relet
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I create a Motion to Add myself to the game of A Nomic. My name of choice
is "relet".

Thomas

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: MAT, motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:53:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a Motion to Amend Trivially:

1. Replace "no r" in the first paragraph of R323/0 with "nor".

2. Replace "on ce" in the second paragraph of R325/0 with "once".

----
The following Motions are recognized:

M23/0, Motion to Add relet
M24/0, Motion to Amend Trivially

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results, partial
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:24:39 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here are the voting results for the Proposals:

P400/0 failed (6-6-0-6)
P402/0 failed (6-6-0-6)
P403/0 failed (6-6-0-6)
P404/0 failed (2-10-0-6)
P405/0 passed (8-4-0-6)
P407/0 passed (8-4-0-6)
P408/0 failed (6-6-0-6)
P409/0 failed (1-10-1-6)
P410/1 passed (7-4-1-6)
P412/0 passed (9-2-1-6)
P413/0 passed (7-4-1-6)
P414/0 passed (9-2-1-6)
P415/0 passed (7-4-1-6)
P416/0 passed (10-2-0-6)

P401/0, had it been a live Proposal at the time of voting, would have 
passed (8-4-0-6). As it was, I made a mistake---P401/1 should have listed, 
and not its older revision. The last time this happened, it was the subject 
of Judgments 21, 23, and 24 all of which seem to point to those votes being 
inapplicable to P401/1. So, until another Judgment tells me differently, I 
presume that P401/1 is held over for this nweek.

As for scoring resulting from last nweek, I'll have that later tonight 
after I make the changes to reflect the current system. Also, later this 
evening expect a whole raft of Proposal recognitions, Rules updates, and 
Judgment follow-ups.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: why?
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:31:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Why did people vote against P400, P402, P403, or P408? I'm confused by 
this, since all made changes that I presumed from the lack of comment were 
non-controversial. Was it to gain points, prevent me from owning more 
Rules, because they were flawed, or for some other reason?

In any case, since the problems they address still exist (e.g., R346 is 
quite broken), I'm proposing the whole batch again, with the same text as 
before.

-- 
J.

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Rescind
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:58:06 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'd like to rescind all propsals I currently have out.  It appears that
other people have improved on them and submitted their own version.  No need
to clutter everything with two copies.