Subject: spoon-business: scoring
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:31:01 -0600

Here's the scoring I cranked out for nweek 15 voting:

Joel -25 (-5, -5, -5, -5, -5, 0)
sabby -5 (-5)
Joerg 6 (2, 2, 2)
Blest Lax Monk Pal 0 (0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
Josh Kortbein 0 (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
M'cachessilnath 0 (0, 0, 0)
Poulenc 4 (0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2)
Benjamin 2 (2)
jonno 0 (0, 0, 0)
Zagarna 0 (0, 0)
PurpleBob 1 (0, 1)

Totals are first, followed by what composes them in the parens. 

Explanation for all of the zeros: given the present number of Players, 
setting the Opposed Minority Award to 1 makes what is actually paid out 
round to zero.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:44:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Simmilarity challenge #3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There were no correct answers to simmilarity challenge #2.

A correct answer would have mentioned that they were all minor villians in
English-language epic fantasy stories.  Errour features in Canto 1 of "The
Faerie Queene" by Edmund Spenser.  Shelob is from the "Lord of the Rings"
by J.R.R Tolkien.  I took Morgause from T.H. White's version of the
Arthurian legend, "The Once and Future King".  A really good answer would
have mentioned that all three characters are female and that their
sexuality is the basis of their villany.

I recieved the following incorrect answer from sabby:

Here's my stupid response:  Shelob is different, it does not have a u in
the second to last position.

Since there was only one entry sabby's entry fee*2 points automatically
transferred to me are automatically refunded.

And here is my next challenge.  I hope people will have more time for this
one.  I admit that the previous challenge probably required too much
research.  My challenge for this week should not be so obscure.

Here is what you have all been waiting for!  Simmilarity Challenge #3.  I
challenge all contestants to find the connection between the following
three things:

1.  The Gong on the Hook and Ladder or Firemen's Parade on Main Street

2.  Central Park in the Dark

3.  The Unanswered Question

Good luck everyone!

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Micropayment proposal
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:05:37 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

With all the fractions in my Joint Proposals proposal, and possible =
other uses for Point quantities smaller than one point (for example a =
voting reward), I suggest to create a new currency, which is worth less =
than a Point but can be exchanged for Points (i.e. Points become =
divisible).

I make the following proposal, entitled "Micropayment":

--

Create a new rule, entitled "Micropayment", with the following text:

"Pennies are Objects. One Penny is worth 1/100 Point, one Point is worth =
100 Pennies.=20

Whenever an Agent owns 100 or more Pennies, 100 of eir Pennies are =
destroyed and one Point is created in eir posession. This process is =
repeated until the Agent owns less than 100 Pennies.

Whenever an Agent transfers a number of Pennies larger than the number =
of Pennies in eir posession, one of eir Points is destroyed and 100 =
Pennies are created in eir posession until e has sufficient Pennies. The =
transfer is impossible if the Agent does not have the required number of =
Points.

If an Agent is required to make a payment to another Agent that contains =
a fractional part, and the rule that governs the payment does not state =
that the amount should be rounded, e shall pay the fractional part in =
Pennies.

Values, scores, etc. shall be written as the the amount of Points plus =
the amount of Pennies/100.

[[ For example 8 points, 4 Pennies are written 8 + 4/100 =3D 8.04 ]]"

--

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:05:39 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Heh.  I'm more annoyed that I keep making proposals which other people
> improve on, submit as a different proposal ... We should have some =
sort of
> "ammend the current proposal" instead of submitting a new proposal.
> Otherwise, we end up with two similar proposals by voting time and the
> person who submitted the idea in the first place not only doesn't get
> credit, but gets a failed proposal.

Yea, I thought about that as well. It's annoying not to get any reward =
for improving someone else's proposal, but if you make a conflicting =
proposal one of them is almost certain to fail, or the original author =
sees the new proposal is better and withdraws his, but doesn't get any =
reward.

I make the following proposal, entitled "Joint Proposals"

--

Create a new rule entitled "Joint Proposals" with the following text:

"A Player may suggest an amendment to a live Proposal owned by another =
Player by sending eir suggestion to a public forum.

The owner of the Proposal can then decide whether e accepts the =
amendment or not. If e accepts the amendment, the Proposal is amended as =
suggested and becomes a Joint Proposal. The Player who suggested the =
amendment becomes a contributor of that Joint Proposal.

Whenever a Joint Proposal is adopted, its owner owes 1/(N+2) of the =
Adopted Proposal Award to each contributor; Whenever a Joint Proposal =
fails, each contributor owes 1/(N+2) of the Failed Proposal Fine to the =
Proposal's owner. N is the number of contributors.

[[ Examples:

Number of     Share for     Share for
contributors  each of them  the owner

    1             1/3          2/3
    2             1/4          1/2
    3             1/5          2/5
    .             ...          ...

This makes sure the owner, who had the idea, always receives the largest =
share, while the rest is distributed equally among all contributors. ]]"

Create a new rule entitled "Proposal piracy" with the following text:

"Any of the following is considered Proposal piracy:

1. A Player (pirate) makes a proposal that deals with the same issues as =
a live Proposal owned by a different Player (victim), and that proposal =
is an amendment to the exisiting proposal rather than a new idea, unless =
the Player previously suggested eir Proposal as an amendment to the =
victim's Proposal, and that amendment was rejected by the victim.

2. The owner of a Proposal (pirate) rejects a suggested amendment to =
that Proposal, but later amends it as suggested without crediting as a =
contributor the Player (victim) who suggested the amendment.

If a Player suspects that e has become a victim of Proposal piracy, e =
can make a Request for Judgement stating that eir Proposal was copied. =
If that RFJ is ruled True, the pirate owes to the victim 1/2 of that =
nweek's Adopted Prosal Award, or two Points, whichever is higher. If in =
case of 1. both Proposals are voted on, and the victim's Proposal fails, =
the pirate also owes the Failed Proposal Fine of the nweek in which the =
voting took place to the victim."

--

Joerg

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:22:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: ADP
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wish to gain the Automatic Debt Payer attribute.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:40:41 +0100
To: spoon-business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal / Players that are [Away] + Motion to Remove Players
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[short summary:
  amending 307/1: Players that are [Away]
  - Players may specify a Date of Expected Return
  - Players are not set [Away] if they have not yet existed three 
    nweeks ago.
  - minor typo: was: "Players that are away", becomes "..are [Away]".
  amending 314/2: Motion of Remove Player
  - 10-day-0-consent extended when Player is [Away].
  - no Motions of Remove Player may be created if a DateOER is given.
]]

I make the following proposal entitled 
"Removing Players that are [Away]":

=================================================================
Amend Rule 307/1 to say:

 "Any Player may gain or lose the [Away] attribute by sending a 
 message to this effect to a public forum. E may also specify a 
 Date of Expected Return as an additional information.

 Players that have not voted in the last three nweeks automatically 
 gain the [Away] attribute without any Date of Expected Return, 
 if they have already been Player during these nweeks.
 In that case the Administrator shall, within a reasonable amount 
 of time, grant  them the [Away] attribute by posting a message to 
 that effect to  the public forum. Players that are [Away] are not 
 required to make  any action if that action was imposed on them 
 while they were [Away].
 
 The Administrator cannot become [Away].
 
 Players that are [Away] do not count when calculating the Quorum."

[[With the current ruleset, any newly created player would have been 
set [Away], as e did not vote the previous nweeks.]]

Amend Rule 314/2 to say:

 "Any Agent qualified as a Player may cease to be one if a Motion 
 to Remove naming em is adopted. Motions to Remove are Secondary 
 Approvable Motions. A Motion to Remove is subject to 
  - 10days-unanimous consent if the player has not got the [Away]
    atribute.
  - 30days-unanimous consent if the player is [Away].
 If the Player specified a Date of Expected Return, no Motion to 
 remove this player may be created before this date. 
 [[This way, no player can be removed, if e checks the mailing list 
 at least once per nweek, or during predictable periods of 
 inactivity.]]

 The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Remove directs 
 the Officer in charge of Roster maintainance to remove the named Agent 
 from the Roster."

=================================================================

-relet

-- 
thomas hirsch | [email-masked]
advanced network technologies
phone   +49 (0)30 76 67 80 72
mobile  +49 (0)173 4 55 97 85

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: corrected scoring
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:35:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think this is right:

Joel -24 (-5, -5, -5, -5, -5, 1)
sabby -5 (-5)
Joerg 9 (3, 3, 3)
Blest Lax Monk Pal 5 (1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
Josh Kortbein 8 (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
M'cachessilnath 3 (1, 1, 1)
Poulenc 12 (1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3)
Benjamin 3 (3)
jonno 3 (1, 1, 1)
Zagarna 2 (1, 1)
PurpleBob 4 (1, 3)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: further voting results
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:48:47 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

M22/0 passed (5-3-1-9).

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:24:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Motion is recognized:

M23/0, Motion to Add relet, by relet

relet will become a Player in three days assuming no objections.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:51:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P417/0, Even though no-one has used these NomicHomes, I'd better tidy up, 
by M'cachessilnath
P418/0, NomicHomes have no fixed value, Joerg
P419/0, proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring system, by Benjamin
P420/0, Voting Clean-up, by Joel
P421/0, R103/0 Fix, by Joel
P422/0, Only Players May Change the Rules, by Joel
P423/0, Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix, by Joel
P424/0, Micropayment, by Joerg
P425/0, Joint Proposals, by Joerg
P426/0, Removing Players that are [Away], by relet

Whew!

More to come this evening...

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:28:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I withdraw my proposal to revamp the scoring system (P419)

- 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: R213/203 Fix
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:28:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It looks like Joerg meant for P414 to amend R203, not R213. So, I offer the 
following Proposal, entitled "R213/203 Fix", to correct that:

<prop>

1. Amend R203 such that its text is the same as that of R213/1.

2. Amend R213 such that its text reverts to its original version.

</prop>

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:46:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bankers Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Bankers Nweekly Report as of the start of Nweek 16

Adopted Proposal Award: 3
Failed Proposal Fine: 5
Opposed Minority Award: 1
Official Salary: 1
Judicial Salary: 1

Bank Property:
344 points
5 extra votes

debts past due:
owed by		amount		due
----------------------------------------
Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12

old debts:
----------------------------------------
Joerg           -7              nweek 16

new debts:
-----------------------------------------
Joel		-24		17
sabby		-5		17

debts owed:
owner			amount		due  nweek
--------------------------------------------------
Joerg 			9		17
Blest Lax Monk Pal 	5		17
Josh Kortbein		8		17
Poulenc			13		17
Benjamin		3		17
jonno			3		17
Zagarna			2		17
PurpleBob		4		17
Joel Uckelman		1		17
The Kid			1		17
Jeff Schroeder		2		17

To pay its debts, the bank makes the following point transfers:

agent			amount
---------------------------------------
Joerg                   9
Blest Lax Monk Pal      5               
Josh Kortbein           8               
Poulenc                 13             
Benjamin                3               
jonno                   3               
Zagarna                 2               
Joel Uckelman		1
PurpleBob               4               
The Kid			1
Jeff Schroeder		2

The bank owes no debts.

These debts are owed to the bank:
owner		amount		due
----------------------------------------
Poulenc, 	-60 		nweek 12
Joerg 		-7		nweek 16
Joel Uckelman	-24		nweek 17
sabby		-5		nweek 17

Bank property:
294 points
5 extra votes
--------
Poulenc.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Joint proposal revision
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:35:13 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ok, you've convinced me. I revise P425 as follows:

--

Create a new rule entitlet "Joint Proposals" with the following text:

"The owner of a live Proposal may make that Proposal a Joint Proposal by =
naming one or more other Players as contributors of that Proposal. No =
Player shall become a contributor without eir prior consent.

Whenever a Joint Proposal is adopted, its owner owes 1/(N+2) of the =
Adopted Proposal Award to each contributor; Whenever a Joint Proposal =
fails, each contributor owes 1/(N+2) of the Failed Proposal Fine to the =
Proposal's owner. N is the number of contributors.

[[ Examples:

Number of     Share for     Share for
contributors  each of them  the owner

    1             1/3          2/3
    2             1/4          1/2
    3             1/5          2/5
    .             ...          ...

This makes sure the owner, who had the idea, always receives the largest =
share, while the rest is distributed equally among all contributors. ]]"

--

This makes creating a Joint Proposal much simpler and there's no piracy =
rule any more.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Agents and Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:35:12 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

With the current rules, there is a lot of ambiguity about who is an =
Agent and who is not.

I make the following proposal, entitled "Agents and Organizations":

--

Amend rule 105 (Agents) to read:

"Any of the following are Agents:

1. Players,
2. Organizations,
3. Parties, if they have one or more representatives who may take =
actions on behalf of the Party."

Amend rule 106 (Players) by replacing "an Agent" with "a Person".

Create a new rule entitled "Organizations" with the following text:

"Organizations are game entities which may be created only by rules. =
Each organization has a unique name and one or more representatives who =
are responsible for taking actions on behalf of the organization. Only =
Players may become representatives.

The representatives must act on behalf of the organization in resposible =
way corresponding with the goals of the organization. They must also =
cause the organization to perform any actions it is required to perform =
in a timely fashion.

Organizations are never eligible voters."

Amend the first sentence of rule 317 (The Bank) to read:

"The Bank is an organization responsible for the management and =
distribution of Points."

Amend rule 318 (The Banker) as follows:

Replace the first paragraph with:

"The Office of the Banker is an Elective Office. The Banker is the =
representative of the Bank." [[ much simpler now :-) ]]

and remove the last paragraph of that rule. [[ Which basically says that =
the Banker must act responsibly, which is now already required by the =
organizations-rule. ]]

Amend rule 348 (Player Self-Creation) by replacing "An agent" with "A =
person".

Amend rule NO-NUMBER-YET (Parties) by replacing "is a type of object" =
with "is a game entity".
[[ That's because no entity may be both an agent and an object. I think =
it makes more sense if Parties are agents, not objects. ]]

--

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: prop recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 19:17:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Props are recognized:

P427/0, R213/203 Fix, by Joel
P425/1, Joint Proposals, by Joerg
P428/0, Agents and Organizations, by Joerg

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 00:54:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: A new Party!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I create a new party with the name "Randallers Anonymous" and a secret
initial ruleset.

I join the party "Randallers Anonymous"

Pouelenc

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: P428 revision
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:22:31 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I revise my "Agents and Organizations" proposal as follows:

--

Replace "NO-NUMBER-YET" with "352".

Add the following ***-delimited text:

***

Amend rule 210 (Motion to Add Players) by replacing "Any Agent" with =
"Any person" in the first sentence, and change "the named Agent" in the =
last sentence to "the new Player".

Replace the first sentence of rule 314 (Motion to Remove Players) with: =
"Any Player ceases to be one if a Motion to Remove naming em is =
adopted." and change "Agent" to "Player" in the last sentence [[ i.e. =
the Player, not the Agent, has to be removed from the Roster ]].

***

--

This should fix all problems that could prevent people from joining the =
game.

Hmmm, maybe I should revise the proposal to contain at least the most =
important modified rules in full text, so it's easier for you to check =
them?

Note that my modfication of rule 314 currently conflicts with relet's =
proposal "Removing Players that are [Away]". Relet, your proposal does =
not suggest any modifications of either the first or the last sentence =
anyway, could you consider removing these from your proposal? That would =
make our proposals independent of each other.

Joerg

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:04:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Rubber Stamps"
-------
1. Create a new rule entitled "Item Purchase"

Items owned by the Bank may be purchased by agents if a purchase price is
defined in the Rules.  The act of purchasing transfers the purchase price
in points from the purchaser to the Bank, and the item from the Bank to
the purchaser.  An agent may not purchase an an item from the Bank if e
does not own the purchase price in points.

2. Create a new rule entitled "The Stamp of Failure"

The Stamp of Failure is a transferable object.  Initially it is owned by
the Bank.  If the Stamp of Failure is owned by the bank it may be
purchased from the Bank at a price of 50 points.

The owner of the Stamp of Failure, but not the Bank, may use it during the
nweekly voting to Fail one ballot item.  The effect is the same as if the
ballot item had failed due to the number of votes cast against it.  This
use of the Stamp of Failure transfers ownership of the Stamp to the Bank.

3. Create a new rule entitled "The Stamp of Theft"

The Stamp of Theft is a transferable object.  Initially it is owned by the
Bank.  The Stamp of Theft has a purchase price of 60 points.

The owner of the Stamp of Theft, but not the Bank, may Stamp one item in
the posession of another agent, but not the bank, as an action takin in
the Public Forum.  Ownership of the Stamped object is transfered to the
Stamper.  This use of the Stamp tranfers ownership of it to the Bank.

4. Create a new rule entitled "The Stamp of Confusion"

The Stamp of Confusion is a transferable object.  Initially it is owned by
the Bank.  The Stamp of Confusion has a purchase price of 70 points.

The owner of the Stamp of Confusion, but not the Bank, may use it during
the nweekly voting to Stamp an eligible voter.  That voters votes are
determined randomly by the Administrator instead of by some other method.  
The stamped voter shall vote either for or against each ballot item, and
there shall be a 50% chance of each.  This use of the Stamp returns
ownership of it to the Bank.
-------
Poulenc

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:17:56 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I set the failed proposal fine for this nweek to 10 

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:31:33 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wish to make the following Request For Judgement:

"It is possible for a Player to not follow the Rules"

As justification for this I point to Rule 350/0 entitled "Joel must 
Randal".  The Rule clearly states that a Randal must be performed within 
10 days of the effective date of the rule, Feb 19, 2001.  By Feb 29, 2001 
there was no Randal, and even by today, March 6, 2001 there has been no 
Randal.  This time limit expired before Rule 357/0 "Randal Judgements" had 
taken effect on March 1, 2001.  Therefore it is obvious that a Player may 
break any rule that e wishes at any time.  The purpose of this Judgement 
is not to force the completion of Rule 350/0, it is to clarify the fact 
that the Randal did not take place during the designated time as stated 
within the Rule.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 10:43:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Well, I had might as well get this over with, since Schroeder seems to be 
pressing on this issue.

I submit the following RFJ:

The Player Joel is not in violation of R350/0.

My analysis:

R350 does not require me to Randal. The first sentence states "The Player 
known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days after this 
rule takes effect." There hasn't been a Player known as Joel Uckelman since 
16 February, and R350 did not exist prior to 19 February. Though the 
Proposal existed before I changed my name, it was not updated to reflect 
that change, so in the form it was adopted it simply does not refer to me. 
Moreover, I cannot possibly be held accountable for the proposer's 
negligence in failing to alter the Proposal as a result of my name change, 
as the contents of unadopted Proposals are not binding. Nor are Rule 
titles, for that matter: Though the Rule title contains my name, Rule 
titles do not have the force of Rule.

Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in the 
Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player whose 
real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists a Player, 
namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a quick check 
of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player known as Joel 
Uckelman.

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:11:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Motion To Add
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I create a Motion to Add the human David E. Smith [[ myself ]] to the game
A Nomic, as the Player "Dave".

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition...
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:02:46 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P428/1, Agents and Organizations, by Joerg
P429/0, Rubber Stamps, by Poulenc

Also, the following Motion is recognized:

M25/0, Motion to Add Dave

Ballot to come shortly...

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:02:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal Against a Monopoly of Power
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Against a monopoly of power":

-------
1.  Enact a new rule entitled "Banker/Tax Collector division of powers"
with text as follows:

The Agent holding the office of Banker may never be nominated in an
election for Tax Collector, nor may the Tax Collector ever be nominated in
an election for Banker.

Should the Offices of Tax Collector and Banker ever be held by the same
agent the powers of those offices shall be subject to the following
restrictions:
 
1.  All variable awards adjustable by the Banker or Tax Collector from
voting, all salaries, and all fines or payments resulting from voting or
the proposal process, shall be immediately set to zero, and shall remain
at zero until such time as the duties of the two offices are no longer to
be performed by the same agent.

2.  The holder of both offices may not approve any motion that requires
the approval of the holder of both offices.

--------

Poulenc

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:07:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:

> I set the failed proposal fine for this nweek to 10 

I feel a need to discourage people from voting negatively...
]]

I set the Opposed Minority Award to 0
I set the Adopted Proposal Award to 5
I set the Official Salary to 2
Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 16
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:10:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are on the Ballot:

P401/1, Recognition Elimination, by Joel
P417/0, Even though no-one has used these NomicHomes, I'd better tidy up, 
by M'cachessilnath
P418/0, NomicHomes have no fixed value, by Joerg
P420/0, Voting Clean-up, by Joel
P421/0, R103/0 Fix, by Joel
P422/0, Only Players May Change the Rules, by Joel
P423/0, Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix, by Joel
P424/0, Micropayment, by Joerg
P425/1, Joint Proposals, by Joerg
P426/0, Removing Players that are [Away], by relet
P427/0, R213/203 Fix, by Joel
P428/1, Agents and Organizations, by Joerg
P429/0, Rubber Stamps, by Poulenc

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 16 
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:53:39 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I vote no on all of Joel's current proposals, abstain on all
other proposals, and then forfeit.

Josh

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

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:04:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: FPF
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The failed proposal fine is too high for me:  I declare Proposal 429
inactive.  I'll bring it back next week or when I know how many points I
have.  I don't want to take a loss this nweek.

Poulenc

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:25:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Go Stones
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[This is a neat idea I've been working out in my head all day.  If we're
lucky it should work well with the in-progress political go.]]

The following is a new proposal entitled "Go Stones":

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

Stones are objects.  They can be created, destroyed, transferred, and
otherwise manipulated only as allowed by the rules.

Stones have three states:  "Reserve", "In Play", and "Captured".  Newly
created Stones are always Reserve Stones.

2. Enact a new rule entitled "Stone Purchase"

If a game of Political Go is in progress a player may, at any time,
purchase a Stone from the bank.  This purchase transfers the purchase cost
of that stone in points to the bank, and creates a new Stone [[Reserve]]
owned by that player.

The purchase price is equal to 5 raise to the power of the number of
stones already purchased by that player in that nweek.

3. Enact a new rule entitled "Reserve Stones"

Ownership of Reserve Stones is transferable at will by the owner of the
stone.

4. Enact a new rule entitled "Stones In Play"

Stones In Play acquire the property "location".  The location of an In
Play stone is specified when it becomes In Play and may not change.

5. Enact a new rule entitled "Captured Stones"

Captured Stones may be sold to the Bank for 1 point each.  This sale
destroys the stone and transfers 1 point from the Bank to the stone's
owner.

-------

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:12:04 +1100 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal: let's vote ourselves rich.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

SEEING as there is has been a recent spurt of new players, who have few
points,

AND FURTHER that the current ruleset actively encourages negative voting,
through the opposed minority award (where a negative vote can lead to
points for the voter), the failed proposal penalty (where a negative vote
can lead to points removed from the voters competitor) and the adopted
proposal award (where an affirmative vote gives points to the voters
competitors),

AND FINALLY that the bank currently has a large surplus of unused points,
I hereby propose the following rule, entitled "let's vote ourselves rich":
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) At the conclusion of every voting period (except for the voting period 
during which this proposal is voted on), after payments of the opposed
minority awards, the failed proposal fines and the adopted proposal award,
if the bank is in posession more than 250 points, the banker shall
distribute all points in excess of 250 amongst all players who voted in
the affirmative for at least one proposal in the voting period just
concluded. 

Points will be distributed according to the following formula:

(points allocated to a player) = ((total affirmative votes made by that
player in the voting period just concluded) / (total affirmative votes
made by all players in the voting period just concluded)) * (total points
owned by the bank at the end of the voting period and after payments of
the opposed minority awards, the failed proposal fines and the adopted
proposal award - 250)

2) Anyone voting for this proposal shall receive a special one off peace
dividend of 15 points, to be paid from the bank by the banker at the
conclusion of the voting period where this proposal is voted on.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:31:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Re: proposal: let's vote ourselves rich.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Jonathan Downes wrote:

> SEEING as there is has been a recent spurt of new players, who have few
> points,
> 
> AND FURTHER that the current ruleset actively encourages negative voting,
> through the opposed minority award (where a negative vote can lead to
> points for the voter), the failed proposal penalty (where a negative vote
> can lead to points removed from the voters competitor) and the adopted
> proposal award (where an affirmative vote gives points to the voters
> competitors),
> 
> AND FINALLY that the bank currently has a large surplus of unused points,
> I hereby propose the following rule, entitled "let's vote ourselves rich":

The Bank is currently running a loss of about 20-50 points per nweek.  I
see no sign of this changing in the near future unless something is done
to get points back from the wealthier players.  All it would take just now
is a couple of unlucky nweeks where a lot of proposals pass and the award
is high and The Bank would be broke again.  And the situation is getting
worse.

Oh dear i feel like a right-wing deficit-paranoid Tory finance minister.

We just put taxes up... but we'll reduce spending too.  and give tax
breaks to the wealthy office-holders. ;-p

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:33:45 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Money for Nothing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Due to the observation that people are in fact intended to hoard points, I make
the following proposal entitled "Money for Nothing".

Create a rule called "Money for Nothing" with the following text:

At the beginning of each nweek, the score of the Bank shall be increased by
five points for each player who voted in the previous nweek.

[[ I want my MTV. ]]

--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Thug Fix Proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 19:12:05 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a Proposal to make the Thug usable:

\begin{proposal}
\title{Thug Fix}

Amend the last paragraph of R344 to read as follows:

"Following the conclusion of each voting period in which the Thug has been 
used, or whenever the Thug has no empoyer, the Bean Counter shall randomly 
select the Thug's new employer from among those Players who voted during 
the previous nweek."

\end{proposal}

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: test
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 20:14:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is not a new Proposal, but rather a test:

\begin{proposal}
\title{Thug Fix}

Amend the last paragraph of R344 to read as follows:

"Following the conclusion of each voting period in which the Thug has been 
used, or whenever the Thug has no empoyer, the Bean Counter shall randomly 
select the Thug's new employer from among those Players who voted during 
the previous nweek."

\end{proposal}

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: test again
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 20:18:12 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry about this, but I need to make sure this works correctly. C'est ne 
pas un Proposal. :)

\begin{proposal}
\title{Thug Fix}

Amend the last paragraph of R344 to read as follows:

"Following the conclusion of each voting period in which the Thug has been 
used, or whenever the Thug has no empoyer, the Bean Counter shall randomly 
select the Thug's new employer from among those Players who voted during 
the previous nweek."

\end{proposal}

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:53:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 16
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Welp, since I'm a player now, I get to vote! Woohoo!

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> P401/1, Recognition Elimination, by Joel

No

> P417/0, Even though no-one has used these NomicHomes, I'd better tidy up,
> by M'cachessilnath

Yes

> P418/0, NomicHomes have no fixed value, by Joerg

Yes

> P420/0, Voting Clean-up, by Joel

Yes

> P421/0, R103/0 Fix, by Joel
> P422/0, Only Players May Change the Rules, by Joel
> P423/0, Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix, by Joel

No, no, and no. Dear $DEITY, no.

> P424/0, Micropayment, by Joerg

Yes

> P425/1, Joint Proposals, by Joerg

No. This is just silly. No.

> P426/0, Removing Players that are [Away], by relet

Yes

> P427/0, R213/203 Fix, by Joel
Huh? I mean, No.

> P428/1, Agents and Organizations, by Joerg

Yes.

> P429/0, Rubber Stamps, by Poulenc

Yes.

...dave

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:05:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Averting the S&L Scandal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Just Because It's A Bank, Doesn't Mean It Should Be Bankrupt}

Create a new rule with the following text:

Each time a new Player joins the game, five hundred points shall be
created in the possession of the Bank.

\end{proposal}

Hopefully, this will keep the Bank vaguely solvent, with a minimum of
bookkeeping muss and fuss.

...dave

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:19:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Two Proposals!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Tax the Rich!}

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

The Property Tax Rate is a variable associated with the Game.  It can be
changed only as described in the rules.

At the end of each nweek each agent, but not the Bank, whose score is
greater than 100 points, owes the Tax Rate times their score at the
beginning of that nweek, rounded down, in points to the bank.

If, at the end of an nweek, the score of that one or more agents as of the
beginning of that nweek is not known, the Official Bean Counter is fined
20 points, and calculation of the taxation for that agent or agents is put
off until such time as eir score is calculated.

\end{proposal}

[[Why don't I add a bit of an incentive now to make people pay their
debts too]]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Debt Overdue Charges}

1. Enact a new rule entitled "Overdue Debts" with text as follows:

Upon the creation of a debt, the parties involved may specify a Debt
Overdue Fee, to be paid to the owner of the debt by the debtor at the end
of every nweek in which the debt is past due.  Unless specified, this
value is 0.

2. Enact a new rule titled "Bank Overdue Debts" with text as follows:

For debts owed to the Bank the debt overdue fee is always 0.05 of the
value of the debt.

\end{proposal}

[[Did I do that right?  Please tell me I did that right]]

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:32:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P430/0, Against a monopoly of power, by Poulenc
P431/0, Go Stones, by Poulenc
P432/0, let's vote ourselves rich, by jonno
P433/0, Money for Nothing, by PurpleBob
P434/0, Thug Fix, by Joel
P435/0, Just Because It's A Bank, Doesn't Mean It Should Be Bankrupt, by 
Dave
P436/0, Tax the Rich!, by Poulenc
P437/0, Debt Overdue Charges, by Poulenc

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Lynching proposal
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:43:52 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

People seem to be punishing Joel for something (for not Randalling, =
probably) by voting against his proposals, but some of Joel's proposals =
were made to fix errors or loopholes in the rules, so this isn't really =
smart.

Other Nomics (i.e. Berserker, I've just looked through its rules) have a =
much better way of punishing players. Let's lynch them.

\begin{proposal}
\title{Lynching}

Create a new rule entitled "Lynching" with the following text:

"Any Player who believes that another Player ought to be punished may =
make an Attempt to Lynch. An Attempt to Lynch is a Primary Approvable =
Motion, subject to voting. It must name exactly one Player to be lynched =
(the victim), list the crimes which e has commited and state a fine =
which the victim shall pay. The fine shall shall be at least 10 Points =
and shall not exceed 50% of the victim's score; if the victim's score is =
lower than 20 Points, the fine is always 10 Points.

For any crime commited by a Player, only one Attempt to Lynch may be =
made. No Agent may make an Attempt to Lynch emself [[to prevent em from =
lynching emself with only a small fine when e knows e'll be lynched =
anyway]].

If the Attempt to Lynch is adopted, the victim owes the fine to the =
bank, and the bank owes (1/N * fine) + 1 Points to each Player who voted =
for the Attempt to Lynch, where N is the number of Players who voted for =
the Attempt to Lynch. All Players except the victim who voted against =
the Attempt to Lynch owe 5 Points to the bank [[as a punishment for =
trying to aid and abet a criminal]].

If the Attempt to Lynch fails, all Players who voted for the Attempt to =
Lynch owe 5 Points to the bank [[as a punishment for attempting to lynch =
an innocent]]. The bank owes one Point to all Players except the victim =
who voted against the Attempt to Lynch [[as a reward for protecting an =
innocent]]."

\end{proposal}

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:03:42 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposal is recognized:

P438/0, Lynching, by Joerg

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:12:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Taxation Revised
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[I have provided a means by which the PTR can be changed, and also an
initial value of 3%.  This is nweekly. 20%/nweek would be excessive.  2%
of 100 is only 3 points, which would not be too hard on one of the newly
rich.]]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Tax the Rich!}
\number{431}

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

The Property Tax Rate is a variable associated with the Game.  It can be
changed only as described in the rules.  The Property Tax Rate may be
neither greater than 0.1 nor less than 0.

Upon Adoption of this rule set the Property Tax Rate to 0.03 and delete
this paragraph.

At the end of each nweek each agent, but not the Bank, whose score is
greater than 100 points, owes the Tax Rate times their score at the
beginning of that nweek, rounded down, in points to the bank.

If, at the end of an nweek, the score of that one or more agents as of the
beginning of that nweek is not known, the Official Bean Counter is fined
20 points, and calculation of the taxation for that agent or agents is put
off until such time as eir score is calculated.

2.  Enact a new rule entitled "Changing the Property Tax Rate"

The Motion to Set the Property Tax Rate is a Unilateral Secondary Motion
that takes effect only if the Banker and the Tax collector publicly
announce their approval.  If the offices of the Banker and the Tax
Collector are held by the same person then it is an Approvable motion
not subject to unanimous consent.

The value specified by the Motion to Set the Property Tax Rate becomes the
new Property Tax Rate when the motion takes effect.

\end{proposal}

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:21:04 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I suppose I should do this since sabby asked me to:

I make a Motion to Remove sabby.

This is recognized as M26/0, and will pass in 10 days without objection.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: accurate scores
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:09:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm working on calculating accurate scores right now. Prior to 1 December 
2000, when responsibility for point disbursements was transferred from the 
Administrator to the Banker, the scores stood as so:

129	Joel
 96	Poulenc
 62	Josh Kortbein
 56	Zagarna
 51	The Kid
 29	Remo
  9	Potter
  8	Jeff Schroeder
  7	Ed
  4	Benjamin
  2	XnJester
 -5	God

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 16
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:28:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

P401/1 failed (5-6-1-7)
P417/0 passed (8-1-3-7)
P418/0 passed (6-5-1-7)
P420/0 passed (8-4-0-7)
P421/0 passed (8-4-0-7)
P422/0 failed (6-6-0-7)
P423/0 failed (6-6-0-7)
P424/0 passed (7-4-1-7)
P425/1 failed (4-7-1-7)
P426/0 passed (8-3-1-7)
P427/0 passed (8-4-0-7)
P428/1 failed (4-7-1-7)
P429/0 passed (9-2-1-7)

Scoring
Joel -15 (-10, 0, 5, 5, -10, -10, 0, 5)
M'cachessilnath 5 (5, 0, 0)
jonno 0 (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
Joerg -10 (5, 5, -10, -10)
Blest Lax Monk Pal 0 (0, 0)
Poulenc 5 (0, 0, 5)
Benjamin 0 (0, 0)
Jeff Schroeder 0 (0, 0, 0)
Josh Kortbein 0 (0, 0, 0)
Dave 0 (0, 0)
relet 5 (0, 5)

The zeros are from the Opposed Minority Award being zero for the nweek. By 
my count, the Bank is taking in 10 points from nweek 16.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: trivial amendment
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:43:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I make the following Motion to Trivially Amend:

Remove the double quotation marks (") from R227/6.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:12:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Taxation Revised 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

oops.  Joel is right, my quoted message below should revise 436, not 431.
I'm changing that now.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Quoth Dan:
> > [[I have provided a means by which the PTR can be changed, and also an
> > initial value of 3%.  This is nweekly. 20%/nweek would be excessive.  2%
> > of 100 is only 3 points, which would not be too hard on one of the newly
> > rich.]]
> > 
> > 
> > \begin{proposal}
> > \title{Tax the Rich!}
> > \number{431}
> > 
> > 1. Enact a new rule entitled "Taxation" with text as follows:
> > 
> > The Property Tax Rate is a variable associated with the Game.  It can be
> > changed only as described in the rules.  The Property Tax Rate may be
> > neither greater than 0.1 nor less than 0.
> > 
> > Upon Adoption of this rule set the Property Tax Rate to 0.03 and delete
> > this paragraph.
> > 
> > At the end of each nweek each agent, but not the Bank, whose score is
> > greater than 100 points, owes the Tax Rate times their score at the
> > beginning of that nweek, rounded down, in points to the bank.
> > 
> > If, at the end of an nweek, the score of that one or more agents as of the
> > beginning of that nweek is not known, the Official Bean Counter is fined
> > 20 points, and calculation of the taxation for that agent or agents is put
> > off until such time as eir score is calculated.
> > 
> > 2.  Enact a new rule entitled "Changing the Property Tax Rate"
> > 
> > The Motion to Set the Property Tax Rate is a Unilateral Secondary Motion
> > that takes effect only if the Banker and the Tax collector publicly
> > announce their approval.  If the offices of the Banker and the Tax
> > Collector are held by the same person then it is an Approvable motion
> > not subject to unanimous consent.
> > 
> > The value specified by the Motion to Set the Property Tax Rate becomes the
> > new Property Tax Rate when the motion takes effect.
> > 
> > \end{proposal}
> > 
> > 
> 
> I presume you meant this to be a revision of P436, rather than P431?
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:36:14 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are recognized:

P436/1, Tax the Rich!, by Poulenc
M26/0, Motion to Remove sabby, by Joel
M27/0, Motion to Trivially Amend R227/6, by Joel

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:48:27 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit the following Motion to Amend Trivially:

Change "thee" to "the" in R322/0.

This is recognized as M28/0.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: VSBL Proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:59:19 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Create a Rule entitled "The Very Small Black Hole" with the following text:

"There exists an entity known as the Very Small Black Hole. Whenever other 
game entities venture too near the Very Small Black Hole, they are sucked 
in and are added to its contents.

The initial contents of the Very Small Black Hole are six otherwise 
unaccounted-for Points."

I'll probably flesh this out some later.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:54:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Similarity challenge no. 3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Response was very quick this time.  I recieved multiple correct responses
within 24 hours of announcing the contest.  And I learned something new
about the items that I had not known before.

I recieved answers from the following Players:

Jonno
relet
Benjamin
Joel Uckelman
PurpleBob

The Correct answer that I was looking for was that the three items named
were all pieces by the American composer Charles Ives.  Even better
answers (although I did not expect this), were that they were all recorded
on the CD "Charles Ives - Symphony no. 2" by Leonard Bernstein and the New
York Philharmonic Orchestra, and published by Deutsche Grammophon, CD no.
DG429220-2.  The music was recorded live.  I didn't know when I made the
puzzle that the album had won a grammy award in 1990 for best classical
album.

relet, Benjamin, Joel and PurpleBob all indicated that the pieces were by
Ives.  relet and PurpleBob identified the recording.  Jonno and relet
pointed out that it won a grammy award, which I did not know in advance,
but relet did not provide the most important link which was that Ives was
the composer.  Jonno said that the three pieces are symphonies--they are
not, although one of the other works on the same disc is Ives' symphony
no. 2.

Jonno, relet, Benjamin, Joel Uckelman, and PurpleBob all transfered 4
points to me, Poulenc, and to fulfil my duties as Contestmaster I transfer
10 points to PurpleBob, who won the contest with the first corect answer.
PurpleBob is the new Contestmaster.

Poulenc

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:13:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bankers Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Bankers Nweekly Report as of the start of Nweek 17

Adopted Proposal Award: 5
Failed Proposal Fine: 10
Opposed Minority Award: 0
Official Salary: 2
Judicial Salary: 1

Bank Property:
294 points
5 extra votes

The Bank inherited all of Josh's property.  This consisted of 130 points.

These debts are owed to the bank:
owner		amount		due
----------------------------------------
Poulenc, 	-60 		nweek 12
Joerg 		-7		nweek 16
Joel Uckelman	-24		nweek 17
sabby		-5		nweek 17

Joel Uckelman	-13		nweek 18
Joerg		-10		nweek 18

The Bank owes these debts:
--------------------------
Poulenc 	7		nweek 18
Jeff Schroeder 	2		nweek 18
relet 		7		nweek 18
The Kid		2		nweek 18

The Bank transfers 7 points to Poulenc, 2 points to Jeff Schroeder, 7
points to relet, and 2 points to The Kid.  

The Bank owes no debts.

Bank property:
406 points
5 extra votes

--------
Poulenc.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:22:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: debts
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

To pay my debts I transfer 60 points to the Bank.
Poulenc.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:31:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Similarity Challenge #4
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's Similarity Challenge #4. Find the connection between these three things:

1. Skydiving in Michigan
2. 20 francs
3. They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa

--
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:41:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The bank did quite well last nweek, so we can be more generous this nweek.

I set the adopted proposal award to 7.
I set the judicial salary to 2.
I set the official salary to 3.

[[The OMA can stay at 0 for now, and the FPF remains at 10.]]
Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:37:23 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chess [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I hearby make a Request For Judgement.
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Voting without notifying the Administrator of your votes is 
> possible [[if
> not entirely practical]]

Recognised as RFJ#31 and assigned to Joerg.

--
TK

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:42:18 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I make the following RFJ:
> 
> --
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Recognised as RFJ#32 and assigned to BLMP

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:45:51 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J=F6rg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Ooops, yes you're right.
>=20
> I withdraw the RFJ cited above and make the following RFJ:
>=20
> --
>=20
> Statement:
>=20
> The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Ok, my previous recognition of RFJ#32 was clearly wrong as it has been
withdrawn before I recognised it. Therefore this RFJ is recognised as =
RFJ#32
and assigned to BLMP. Not that it really makes much difference since =
both
RFJ's were identical except for the analysis.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:00:51 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff N Schroeder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I wish to make the following Request For Judgement:
> 
> "It is possible for a Player to not follow the Rules"

Recognised as RFJ#33 and assigned to Joel

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:01:59 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I submit the following RFJ:
> 
> The Player Joel is not in violation of R350/0.

Recognised as RFJ#34 and assigned to Jeff

--
The Kid

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Entry Fee for Similarity Challange
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:37:44 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I haven't seen anyone writing such a message yet, so is there a way of =
transferring points to the Contestmaster other than announcing the =
transfer in a public forum, as rule 121 would normally require?

Anyway, I have submitted a Similarity Challange reply, and I hereby =
transfer the required 4 Points to PurpleBob.

Joerg

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:04:41 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Ok, my previous recognition of RFJ#32 was clearly wrong as it has been
> withdrawn before I recognised it. Therefore this RFJ is recognised as
RFJ#32
> and assigned to BLMP. Not that it really makes much difference since both
> RFJ's were identical except for the analysis.

Judgment: false.

Analysis:
The Plaintiff points out that the contents of a NomicHome can only be
modified "by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, adding a Player with eir
consent or removing an Object or Player already present" (rule 340/2).
Benjamin did indeed attempt to alter his content by adding something. By the
above, it could only have been Objects he was adding. Rule 316/0 states
"Objects may not be created, destroyed, or otherwise altered, transferred,
or adulterated except as allowed by the Rules."  So he couldn't have just
made those Objects he attempted to add.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:08:12 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Judgment: false.
> 
Um.

True. I meant true.

D'oh!

BLMP.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:59:24 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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 not acquire elsewhere.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:01:37 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\being{proposal}
\title{Hail Eris!}
Append the following quoted string to rule 302/0, Subliminal Religious
Indoctrination:
"Principia Discordia, 1st through 4th editions, including introductions."
\end{proposal}

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:23:45 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Voting Misinformation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Voting Misinformation}

When voting on the Ballot, a player may specify with any of eir votes an
alternate choice for which it should appear that e voted.

[[ For example, you could vote 'NO to P942/0, shown as YES'. ]]

The actual vote is counted in the vote totals. However, in all records of
voting and in all future gameplay, the player is considered to have made the
alternate vote. Only the Administrator should know how the player actually
voted.

[[ This may make some voting reports appear to not add up. Tough. It has the
very useful effect that proposals that have effects based on who voted for them
fall flat on their face. ]]

\end{proposal}

--
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:55:09 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: A Retraction and a new Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I retract the proposal entitled "Voting Misinformation".

I also submit this new one:
\begin{proposal}
\title{Prevention of Voting Manipulation}

Create a rule entitled "Prevention of Voting Manipulation" with the following text:

A Motion or Proposal may not make use of the information in its own voting
tally (the information specifying who voted which way on the Motion or
Proposal). Only the vote totals are accessible to it. If the Motion or Proposal
makes use of voting tallies in general [[like the Opposed Minority Award
does]], then its own tally is seen to it as everyone abstaining.

\end{proposal}

--
Rob Speer

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Naming agents proposal
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:23:37 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Names of Agents}

Amend rule 204 by changing its title to "Identifying Agents" and amend =
the text to read:

"All Agents must have a unique name. The name of an Agent is eir real =
name if e is a person and did not supply any other unique name e would =
like to be known as.

An Agent may change eir name by sending a message to this effect to a =
public forum. Agents may change only eir own name. No name changes are =
possible during the voting period.

Agents should be identified by eir name, but may be identified by any =
other method as long as that method does not cause any ambiguity."

\end{proposal}

This should make it harder for players to avoid the effect of any rules =
by simply changing their name, like Joel Uckelman, who is now Joel, did. =
It should also solve any possible problems with non-ascii names (like =
J=F6rg), since transcriptions of those names (like Joerg) are usually =
unambiguous.

Note that I've not included the sentence that requires the Administrator =
to record the name change. That requirement is already in the Roster =
rule, and all Officers including the admin are required to recognize =
actions anyway. If there are any reasons for keeping it that I've =
missed, let me know.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:31:42 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

you said:
>Because it doesn't automatically transfer the points. "If it passes then =
>a Motive Order is issued for the repayment of the debt, to be performed =
>as soon as possible." (R319)
>
>This means Poulenc should have transfered the 30 points "as soon as =
>possible", and he wasn't allowed to perform any other actions before he =
>did.

This is interesting, the rules are unclear here, IMO.  Upon reading them 
again, I could have just transferred the points directly after my motion 
passed, but I was thinking that the motion itself would transfer the 
points.  Then one has to ask whether the Motive Order stated in Rule 319 
is automatically issued immediately after the Motion for Repayment is passed 
(this is what I thought would happen) or whether I have to issue the 
Motive Order.

The way I understood what would happen is that after the Motion for 
Repayment (Bank Motion) passed, then the Motive Order would immediately 
take effect forcing the automatic transfer of points.  If this did not 
happen, you say that he was not allowed to perform any other actions.  I 
don't know if I agree with this because the rules don't say that he can't 
do anything else until the points are transferred.  To clear this up, I 
issue the RFJ, 

"Upon passage of any Bank Motion issued by the Tax Collector, a Motive 
Order is issued by Rule 319/0 forcing the repayment of the points specified 
from the debtor to the bank."

and to find out exactly what happened this last week, the RFJ, 
"The Player Poulenc performed several actions after the Motive Order 
for repayment was issued, and therefore did not perform the required action 
'as soon as possible' as stated in Rule 319/0."

jeff

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:39:25 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: A Little Heresy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{A Little Heresy}

Append the following quoted strings to rule 302/0, Subliminal Religious
Indoctrination:

"The Satanic Bible, by Anton Szandor LaVey"

"The Book of the SubGenius: The Sacred Teachings of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, by
The SubGenius Foundation"

\end{proposal}

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    [email-masked]
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://metadave.net/

"It won a Humanitas."
"What's that?"
"It's an award for TV shows that don't use words like 'retarded.'"
"That's retarded... and queer."
 -- Dante and Randal

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:31:29 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin M. Doig [mailto:[email-masked]]
 
> Statement:
> The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.

Recognised as RFJ#35 and assigned to Rob Speer

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:34:49 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Statement:
> > The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.
> 
> Recognised as RFJ#35 and assigned to Rob Speer

By that I mean PurpleBob. Sorry, you keep signing yourself Rob Speer, so I
thought that's what you were known as in the game.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:35:37 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff N Schroeder [mailto:[email-masked]]

> "Upon passage of any Bank Motion issued by the Tax Collector, 
> a Motive 
> Order is issued by Rule 319/0 forcing the repayment of the 
> points specified 
> from the debtor to the bank."

Recognised as RFJ#36 and assigned to Poulenc
 
> "The Player Poulenc performed several actions after the Motive Order 
> for repayment was issued, and therefore did not perform the 
> required action 
> 'as soon as possible' as stated in Rule 319/0."

Recognised as RFJ#37 and assigned to Chess

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:49:31 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Several rules state times to complete a task as "a reasonable amount of 
time" or "as soon as possible" but these are abstract terms and could be 
abused.  Hence, this proposal.

\begin{proposal} 
\title{Sack the lazy}

Create a rule entitled, "Sack the lazy" with the following text:

If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task within a 
"reasonable amount of time" or similarly constructed time frame, and 
while the Agent does not have the [Away] attribute as specified in Rule 
307/2, the agent has the duration of one nweek to perform the task.  After 
this time has elapsed and the action has not been performed, any Player may 
request a Motion to Sack or Lynch the offending Player.

If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task "as soon 
as possible" or similarly known time frame, and while the Agent does not 
have the [Away] attribute set, the agent has the duration of one-half an 
nweek to perform the task.  During this time, e may not create 
Proposals.  After this time has elapsed and the action has not been 
performed, any Player may request a Motion to Sack or Lynch the offending 
Player.

Once the [Away] attribute has been cleared, if it was previously set, the 
time to complete the above actions shall begin.
\end{proposal}

\begin{proposal}
\title{for Sacking}

Create a rule entitled "for Sacking" with the text:

A Motion to Sack is a Unilateral Motion submitted by any one Player, 
known as the Sacker, that names the offending Player, known as the 
Sackee, the broken Rule or crime committed and the Penalty.  Only one 
Motion to Sack may be submitted to a Player per broken Rule or crime. The 
Penalty may include the forced transfer of Objects, Points or Items from 
the Sackee to the Sacker with a total purchased value of no more than 
30% the Sackee's Points or 3 Objects/Items, whichever has a greater 
value. The Sacker can choose the Penalty based on these guides.

If the Sackee has the [Away] attribute set, this Rule will have no effect 
until the [Away] attribute is cleared.

The Sackee has three days to comply with the broken rule or to otherwise  
make reparations for the crime without penalty.  These reparations can 
include offerings of appeasement to the Sacker [[Points, votes, Objects, 
etc]] or to the game in general.

After three days have passed, if the cause for the sack was a broken Rule 
and the Sackee complied with the Rule, then there is no penalty.  If the 
cause for the sack was a crime and the Sacker is appeased by reparations, 
there is no penalty.  If the Sacker does not feel appeased, e can submit 
an Approveable Primary Motion called 'Give Me Justice' to the game in 
order to receive his Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack.  Upon 
passage of 'Give Me Justice' e must receive as soon as possible the Penalty 
from the Sackee minus a 20% fee to be transferred to the Bank.

The Sackee can petition his case in a public forum before voting occurs 
on the Motion Give Me Justice.

\end{proposal}

From: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:49:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I set the Failed Proposal Fine to 3 for this nweek.

jeff

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:40:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Any proposals I tried to submit or revise during my negated period, I
actually submit now.  There should be a list of them available when chess
posts his summary of my attempted actions.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:46:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ #36
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > "Upon passage of any Bank Motion issued by the Tax Collector, 
> > a Motive 
> > Order is issued by Rule 319/0 forcing the repayment of the 
> > points specified 
> > from the debtor to the bank."
> 
> Recognised as RFJ#36 and assigned to Poulenc

The sentence in question in rule 319 is the following:

"If it passes then a Motive
     Order is issued for the repayment of the debt, to be performed as
     soon as possible. "

Yes, this would seem to force repayment.  However, this refers to a Motion
for Repayment, not a Bank Motion. There is a distinction.

The wording here is unfortunate.  A Bank Motion is defined in rule 317/2
and is a means by which the Player community have to force the Bank to
take certain actions, with or without the agreement of the Banker.  If the
Players feel they don't have enough points, for example, they could order
the Bank to transfer to every player 10 points.  The Bank, however, is an
agent just as other agents are and cannot force a player, outside of
rules-defined mechanisms, to transfer points.

A Motion for Repayment applies to any debt-situation, whether it involves
the bank or not.  Normally this must be done by the agent to whom the debt
is owed.  The exception is the Bank, whose Motions For Repayment are
submitted by the Tax Collector.

The closest a Bank Motion can come to forcing a player to pay eir debt is
to order the Bank to issue a Motion for Repayment.

I rule FALSE

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:57:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: YARFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit a new RFJ:

M22, by Jeff Schroeder, text quoted below, did not result in a Motive
order requiring Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the bank, because its
wording and type (Bank Motion) were directed at the Bank, not at Poulenc.

Text of M22:
"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."

Ordering the Bank to reclaim 30 points from Poulenc is not the same as
ordering Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the Bank.  And a Bank motion is
not the same as a Motion for Repayment--they have different definitons
under the rules.

The Judge is encouraged to refer to R317/2 "The Bank" and R319/0 "Points
Owed".

Poulenc.

From: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judge Selection Proposal
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:46:00 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}

Modify Rule 236/0 to replace the text:

"The following are excluded from serving as Judges on a Request for Judgment:

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

    If these exclusions leave no Players eligible to serve as Judge, exclusions may be waived from highest-numbered to
    lowest until at least one Player becomes eligible."

with the text:

"The following are excluded from serving as Judges on a Request for Judgment:

    1. the Plaintiff
    2. Judges previously recused from the Request
    3. any one Player that the Plantiff requests be recused from the Request

    If these exclusions leave no Players eligible to serve as Judge, exclusions may be waived from highest-numbered to
    lowest until at least one Player becomes eligible."

\end{proposal}

jeff

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: nomination!
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:50:45 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I nominate Myself as Officer of Supreme Justice.

--=20

zagarna

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

From: =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 31 ruling and a proposal
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:03:34 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Statement:
> >=20
> > Voting without notifying the Administrator of your votes is=20
> > possible [[if
> > not entirely practical]]
>=20
> Recognised as RFJ#31 and assigned to Joerg.

FALSE

Analysis:

The rules clearly state that actions have to be taken in public fora =
(R112/0, Fora), and voting is an action. A Player may however vote =
without using a public forum by notifying the Administrator (R226/0, =
Secret Voting).

Since the Administrator is the person resposible for counting the votes =
(R225/1, Vote Counting), it is obvious that "casting a vote" should be =
interpreted as "making the vote available to the Administrator". The =
votes must be made available to the Administrator during the voting =
period, because "Only votes cast during voting are counted for voting =
purposes" (R225/1).

----

Note that currently it is illegal to vote by submitting the votes to a =
non-public forum (such votes are private votes since the voting doesn't =
happen in a public forum). While the actual votes are legal, and should =
be counted, it violates R226/0 because the votes are revealed before the =
end of the voting period.

To solve this, I make the following proposal:

\begin{proposal}
\title{How to vote}

Amend rule 226 by changing the title to "Voting" and the text to:

"To cast a vote, a Player must submit the vote to a public forum. E may =
also vote privately if e desires by submitting the vote to the Officer =
responsible for counting the votes using another method. The Officer =
shall reveal such private votes at the end of the voting period, but no =
Player except the voter is allowed to reveal them before."

[[by voting in a non-public forum, the voter reveals the votes emself, =
which is now legal]]

\end{proposal}

Joerg

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Nomic players' Tribune
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:03:17 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This might be Fun

\begin{proposal}
\title{The Tribune}
The office of The Tribune is an elective office. The term of office
for the Tribune is one nweek. At the end of the Term of Office the
current Tribune is not automatically nominated for election. A
specific Player may not be nominated as Tribune more than once every
five nweeks. If no player is nominated as Tribune the office is held
vacant.
[[severe restrictions so that the Tribune's power is kept in check]]

The Tribune is meant to be the protector of liberty in this game of
nomic. The Tribune holds the power of veto, once per nweek the Tribune
may Veto a proposal by posting such action to a public forum.

A Proposal Vetoed by the Tribune fails even if would have otherwise
been approved. This paragraph overrides rule R229 [[adoption of
motions]]
\end{proposal}
--=20

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition, etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:27:33 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P439/0, The Very Small Black Hole, by Joel
P440/0, Hail Eris!, by Blest Lax Monk Pal
P441/0, Voting Misinformation, by PurpleBob
P442/0, Names of Agents, by Joerg
P443/0, A Little Heresy, by Dave
P444/0, Sack the lazy, by Jeff Schroeder
P445/0, for Sacking, by Jeff Schroeder
P446/0, by Jeff Schroeder
P448/0, How to vote, by Joerg
P449/0, The Tribune, by Zagarna

The following Motions received unanimous consent:

M27/0, Motion to Trivially Amend R227/6
M28/0, Motion to Trivially Amend R322/0

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 31 ruling and a proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:49:39 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Joerg:
>
> Note that currently it is illegal to vote by submitting the votes to a =
> non-public forum (such votes are private votes since the voting doesn't =
> happen in a public forum). While the actual votes are legal, and should =
> be counted, it violates R226/0 because the votes are revealed before the =
> end of the voting period.

Hmm. I can't say that I agree with this, and I think it might be a good 
idea to get a Judgment on it. So, I request Judgment on the following:

Statement:

R226/0 does not prohibit voting in private fora.

Analysis:

Here's the text of R226/0:

"A Player may vote privately if e so desires by notifying the 
Administrator. Votes cast privately shall not be revealed until voting 
ends."

1. It seems to me that the second sentence implicitly apples to the Admin, 
and not anyone else.

2. The second instance of "privately" in the Rule could be read in the 
usual, rather than the technical, in-game sense.

3. There is clearly no prohibition against posting one's own votes to a 
public forum---and it seems to happen quite a lot. That said, it can be 
noted that there is no blanket prohibition on revealing votes prior to the 
close of voting.

4. For non-revelation to be possible, someone must lack the unrevealed 
knowledge. For instance, it would be impossible for me to avoid revealing 
to anyone on the list that 1 + 1 = 2, because everyone already knows that. 
Similarly, when someone votes to the discussion list, there is afterward no 
one on the list to whom their votes could yet be revealed. So, if it is 
granted that the sending of votes to the discussion list is not covered by 
the non-revelation clause in R226/0, then there could not possibly be any 
violation of the Rule in that case. I contend that voting to the discussion 
list does not constitute vote revelation, as conveying one's votes in 
private fora---of which the discussion list clearly is one---is explicitly 
allowed by the first sentence of R226/0. So, either R226 is 
self-contradictory, or poorly written. I am inclined to go with the latter.

----
end of analysis
----

So, I would suggest a much simpler change to R226:

"A Player may vote privately if e so desires by conveying eir votes to the 
Administrator. Until such time as voting ends, the Administrator is 
prohibited from revealing votes cast in this fashion."

As it stands, I probably won't vote for Joerg's changes, which seem to me 
overly complex.

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:50:55 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Cards
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ Here goes. I'm making a big huge proposal which would add a whole new
category of rules to the game. ]]

\begin{proposal}
\title{cards}

1. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Properties" with the following text:

There exist objects in the game known as Cards. Cards are only transferrable
under conditions stated by the rules.

Each Card has 3 properties that distinguish it from all other Cards in the
game: Suit, Rank, and Back.

The possible Suits are Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs, and Spades.
The possible Ranks are Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, and King.
The possible Backs are described elsewhere.

2. Create a rule entitled "Cards: The Packs" with the following text:

A Pack of Cards is a set of 52 Cards which all have the same Back. The 52 Cards
represent every possible combination of Suit and Rank.

The following Packs of Cards are in play:

* The Red Pack
  (The Backs of these cards are primarily Red. They are decorated with the
  traditional card design featuring the twisty lines surrounding circles which
  appear to contain cherubs on pogo sticks.)
* The Blue Pack
  (The Backs of these cards are primarily Blue. Other than the color, they are
  decorated the same way as the Red Pack.)
* The Fish Pack
  (The Backs of these cards contain colorful drawings of tropical fish.)
* The Corporate Pack
  (The Backs of these cards contain a message urging you to fly the friendly
  skies with United.)

4. Create a rule entitled "Cards: The Dealer" with the following text:

The Dealer is the player who owns all the cards in the Deck and is responsible
for taking the necessary actions to Deal a card to a Player.
The Dealer is an Elected Officer. The original Dealer is PurpleBob.

5. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Dealing" with the following text:

On certain occasions the Dealer will be required to Deal a Card to a Player.
The Dealer does this by assigning a unique number from 1 to 52*(the number of
Packs) to each Card, and asking the Nomic's dice server to roll one die with
that many sides. If the number returned is the number of a Card that is not
currently in the Deck, the Dealer keeps rolling until e gets the number of a
Card that is in the Deck. The Dealer then transfers this Card from the Deck to
the Hand of the player who should recieve the card, and notifies that Player of
what the Card is. The Player is then considered to own that Card.

However, if the Deck contains no Cards, the Dealer cannot Deal a Card. This
takes precedence over rules that state when a Card should be Dealt.

The method used to assign numbers to cards is this:

The packs are numbered from 0 to (N-1), where N is the number of packs, in the
order which they are originally described.

The suits are numbered as such: Diamonds = 0, Spades = 1, Hearts = 2. Clubs =
3.

The ranks are numbered as such: Ace = 1, Jack = 11, Queen = 12, King = 13, and
all other ranks are numbered as themselves.

The number of a card is: (pack number)*52 + (suit number)*13 + (rank number)

6. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Hands" with the following text:

A Hand is the collection of all cards which a player besides the Dealer owns.

7. Create a rule entitled "Cards: The Deck" with the following text:

The Deck is the collection of all cards which are owned by the Dealer.
Originally, all the Cards in all the Packs that are in play are in the Deck.

8. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Dealer's Report" with the following text:

Each nweek, the Dealer make a report of who recieved Cards in that nweek, and
what the Back of each Card was. No other information about the Cards should be
given by the Dealer.

9. Create a rule entitled "Cards for Votes" with the following text:

At the beginning of each nweek, the Dealer deals a Card to each Player who
voted in the previous nweek.

\end{proposal}
--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:32:33 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Prop is recognized:

P449/0, cards, by PurpleBob

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: RFJ 28 needs a new judge
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:14:04 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
=20
> RFJ 28 slipped through the cracks somehow, and doesn't have a=20
> judge at=20
> present.

According to my records Josh is currently assigned to Judge that one. I =
was
planning on reviewing the situation at the end of the week on all RFJs =
and
recuse & reassign as needed.=20
But since that one was from before I was off ill I guess it really =
should be
done sooner rather than later.

Josh is recused as Judge from RFJ#28
Zagarna is assigned as Judge on RFJ#28

Here's details of RFJ#28 so you don't need to look them up:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J=F6rg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 20 February 2001 00:15
>
> Statement:
>=20
> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
>=20
> Analysis:
>=20
> Rule 347/0 states that "Debts are objects" (note the=20
> lowercase spelling of "objects"). Rule 347/0 also states that=20
> "Debts are divisible", but Objects as defined by Rule 316/0=20
> are "indivisible".
>=20
> I conclude that debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 31 ruling and a proposal 
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:25:08 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Statement:
> 
> R226/0 does not prohibit voting in private fora.

Recognised as RFJ#39 and assigned to relet

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:18:42 +0100
To: spoon-business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ39 ruling
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> R226/0 does not prohibit voting in private fora.

Sentence: TRUE
Analysis:

R226/0:  "A Player may vote privately if e so desires by notifying the 
Administrator. Votes cast privately shall not be revealed until voting 
ends."

Postings in private fora are not officially part of the game. However, 
the action of notifying the Administrator (if e is member of the private 
forum) is official, as its means are not further specified in R226/0. 
Concerning the term of "revealing", I agree with Joel s interpretation: 
It is impossible to reveal a condition known a priori. A priori in this 
case means, that the members of the forum have the knowledge in the 
moment the votes are cast, not by any information afterwards. 
[[A moment in PbeM-games is hard to grasp, in our case the forum time 
stamp should suffice]]
Thus, any later notification of ones votes, either by the Administrator 
or by the player emself, is forbidden by the rule in question. 
In addition, the player may even decide to adjust eir votes (if allowed 
by the Rules) in another official notification, which may be adressed 
to the Administrator only. Notification of other players is non-official 
and non-binding.
[[This kind of misinformation is of course strongly discouraged and 
shall serve only for demonstration purposes here.]]

-relet

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: P448 revision
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:03 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\number{447}

Amend rule 226 by changing the title to "Voting" and the text to:

"To cast a vote, a Player must submit eir vote to the Administrator. =
Votes which are not known publicly shall not be revealed by the =
Administrator until voting ends."

\end{proposal}

This is much simpler, describes both the public and the private voting =
process, and doesn't prohibit voting in a non-public forum.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Revise Prop 444
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:50:19 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Revise proposal 444/0:

Rename Rule 305/0 entitled "Required Actions" with "Sack the lazy" and 
replace the contents with the following text:

    If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task within 
a "reasonable amount of time" or similarly constructed time frame, and 
while the Agent does not have the [Away] attribute as specified in Rule 
307/2, the agent has the duration of one nweek to perform the task. After 
this time has elapsed and the action has not been performed, any Player 
may request a Motion to Sack or Lynch the offending Player.

    If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task "as 
soon as possible" or similarly known time frame, and while the Agent does 
not have the [Away] attribute set, the agent has the duration of 
one-half an nweek to perform the task.  All tasks of this type must 
be performed in the order they were assigned.  While the task has not been 
performed, e may not submit Proposals or Vote. After the allowed time has 
elapsed and if the action has not been performed, any Player may request a 
Motion to Sack or Lynch the offending Player.

    Once the [Away] attribute has been cleared, if it was previously set, 
the time to complete the above actions shall begin.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 34 comments
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:56:47 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The statement to be ruled is, "The Player Joel is not in violation of 
R350/0."

>R350 does not require me to Randal. The first sentence states "The Player 
>known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days after 
>this rule takes effect." There hasn't been a Player known as Joel 
>Uckelman since 16 February, and R350 did not exist prior to 19 February. 
>Though the Proposal existed before I changed my name, it was not updated 
>to reflect that change, so in the form it was adopted it simply does not 
>refer to me. Moreover, I cannot possibly be held accountable for the 
>proposer's negligence in failing to alter the Proposal as a result of my 
>name change, as the contents of unadopted Proposals are not binding. Nor 
>are Rule titles, for that matter: Though the Rule title contains my name, 
>Rule titles do not have the force of Rule.
>    Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in 
>the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player 
>whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists 
>a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a 
>quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player 
>known as Joel Uckelman.

Rule 204/1 contains the text:
"An Agent may initiate changing eir name to another uniquely identifying 
name by notifying the Administrator."
and 
Rule 2/0 contains the text:
"All game entities must have uniquely identifying names."

These rules cover how each game entity has a unique identifying name and 
how to change that identifier.  But the definition of a name in 
Merriam-Webster is:
 "1a : a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of 
a person or thing 
   b : a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity"

By this definition it is clear that the name is just an identifier for 
the Player, and not the Player eimself.  The question now becomes is the 
Player Joel the same entity as the former Player Joel Uckelman. And is it 
known to the game that the Player Joel is the same entity as the former 
Player Joel Uckelman.

This question is more difficult in that we have to decide whether 
changing the name, according to the game rules, also changed the entity 
as viewable to the game.  This could have severe ramifications if the 
name change also changed the entity.  By the reasoning of the Plantiff:

">    Also, it should be noted that the only other such naming instance in
>the Rules is in R208/1, which actually does refer to me, as "the Player
>whose real name is Joel Uckelman". Clearly this refers, as there exists
>a Player, namely Joel, whose real name is Joel Uckelman. For contrast, a
>quick check of the Roster will verify that there does not exist a Player
>known as Joel Uckelman."

The claim follows that because there is no Player named Joel Uckelman, 
the Player Joel does not have to obey Rule 350/0.  This can be extended 
to reason that Joel Uckelman had Points and Objects and Offices within 
the game that did not belong to the Player Joel.  Rule 208/1 states the 
Player Joel Uckelman is the initial Administrator and provides means for 
electing a new Administrator.  The Rule also states that the Officer 
stays in Office until e resigns or is removed from eir Office by other 
means.  There was no election of a new Administrator and Joel is not the 
initial Administrator, therefore strictly according to the Rules, Joel 
cannot be the current Administrator.

Unless we conclude that the entity that was previously known to the game 
as Joel Uckelman is the same entity now knows as Joel.  It is clear that 
the other Players in the game know that Joel and Joel Uckelman are the 
same Player.  First there was no motion to add the Player Joel, the 
change was conducted via Rule 204/1 where Joel Uckelman stated his 
request to change his name to Joel.  Second, the Player Joel 
took possession of the Points, Objects and Offices that previously Joel 
Uckelman had obtained.  Third, there was no objection by any of the 
Players in any public forum to the transfer of Points, Objects and 
Offices to the new Player Joel.

By this reasoning it is clear that the Player Joel is the same entity as 
the previously known Joel Uckelman.  Joel has the same Points, Objects 
and Offices as Joel Uckelman and is bound by the same Rules as Joel 
Uckelman.  In addition, for the ease of convention and for the spirit of 
the game, this judgement is necessary in order to relieve many problems 
that could occur if it is determined that changing a name will relieve a 
Player of any responsibility to a Rule or Motion while maintaining eir 
Points, Objects and Offices at previous levels.

Thus I rule the statement "The Player Joel is not in violation of R350/0" 

FALSE

Jeff Schroeder

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 33
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:29:00 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(NB: I did not set out to write a book-length opinion; however, the 
enormous complexity of this issue seemed, IMHO, to necessitate it.)

The statement for RFJ 33 is as follows:

It is possible for a Player to not follow the Rules.

This strikes me as very possibly the single most important issue the Courts 
have yet been asked to decide. The relevant Rule for deciding this matter 
is R101/0, quoted here:

"All game entities must always abide by all the Rules then in effect, in 
the form in which they are then in effect. This Rule takes precedence over 
all other Rules."

That the Rules are binding on Players is not ambiguous. What is unclear is 
what sort of Rules we have. Are they Laws or laws---i.e., do they define 
what is possible, similar to physical laws, or merely what is permissible, 
as statutory laws? This is a metaphysical question, and an odd one at that, 
since it deals with the nature of the conceptual space we have constructed 
rather than the nature of the world itself. Moreover, rarely does an 
opportunity to do applied metaphysics present itself outside of the 
philosophy of science. But I digress.

Put another way, what is at state here is whether actions which violate the 
Rules are impossible, or merely illegal. As noted, the Rules provide no 
explicit statements about the matter at hand. What about indirect evidence?

"Players" could take "actions" (bot used advisedly here, not in the 
technical sense) that would violate certain existing Rules. E.g., R354/0 is 
one such Rule. R354/0, inter alia, prohibits the further distribution of 
secret Party documents by Players who have seen them as a result of having 
been Judges. There should be no doubt that a person who has been sent such 
information would thereafter be capable of posting it to one of the game 
mailing lists. Taking this to be the act of a Player argues for Rules that 
are laws, not Laws. Further support for such a view is provided by R350/0. 
It requires certain undoubtedly physical actions, which though not 
impossible, could certainly fail to be performed. If our Rules were Laws, 
nothing they mandate could fail to occur.

The picture is not so clear as that, however, and there are a number of 
factors which muddy the waters a bit, e.g., one might suppose Rules which 
it is possible to violate would include penalties for flaunting them. An 
inspection of the Rules reveals that the vast majority do not include 
penalties, nor do they even hint that violating them might be possible. 
Moreover, it may be argued---plausibly, I think---that Rules which do 
specify penalties, e.g., R325/1 on Bankruptcy, do so in such a way that 
incurring the penalty does not constitute a violation of the Rule, but 
rather is perfectly in accord with its provisions.

If, in fact, the Rules are Laws, that R101 is amendable by a majority vote 
(or at all, for that matter!) is problematic. E.g., we could amend R101 
such that is unambiguously claimed our Rules to be laws, not Laws. That is 
to say, a contingent event---the outcome of voting, which is itself 
determined by a number of other contingent events---could cause the force 
of our Rules to change from necessary to contingent. This is bizarre. In 
the language of modal logic, our game world is one in which things which 
are necessary are not necessarily necessary. (For those familiar with modal 
logic, this would mean that the modal system of our game world is neither 
S4 nor S5. Hmmm.) Now, a question arises as to whether this is a correct 
characterization of R101---that R101, or more generally, _some Rule_ 
actually, or potentially serves as the anchor for the metaphysics of our 
game world, and whether as a consequence of the malleability of our 
Ruleset, that our metaphysics is malleable as well.

Sources external to the Game seem to regard game rules as statutory. On 
reading the appendix on Nomic in Suber's _The Paradox of Self-Amendment_, 
one gets the impression that Suber views the rules as statutory rather than 
necessary; however, this is unsurprising as he devised Nomic for the 
purpose of exploring such laws. One of the annotations to Agora's R101/1, 
part of which is comparable to our R101/0, seems to indicate that in their 
game, the rules are statutory, noting that by CFJ 1132, "A Player failing 
to perform a duty required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in 
violation of the Rules..."---an impossible state if the Rules placed 
necessary constraints on action.

Consider the negation of the statment: ~PEx(Px & Vxr) This is equivalent to 
NAx(~Px v ~Vxr). That is, "It is necessary that for any x, either x is not 
a Player or x does not violate the Rules." Note the lack of causal 
implication, e.g., that violating the Rules would cause one to cease being 
a Player. If, for instance, a chess player moves a knight forward one space 
along a rank or file, it is not that e has ceased to be a chess player, but 
rather that e is no longer playing chess. Such an observation is only 
possible, however, because the rules of chess are unambiguous---there could 
be no disagreements about what a constitutes a legal move. In our Game, and 
Nomics in general, this is not the case. What is legal is mediated by our 
(varying) interpretations of the rules. Nomic is fundamentally a language 
game. Thus, while it is possible to violate the rules---and it will become 
increasingly so as their complexity grows---we need not recognize such 
violations as permissible moves. It is the very purpose of the courts is to 
reverse them.

On these grounds, I rule TRUE.

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 28: Ruling
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:11:37 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:14:04 -0000, you wrote:

>>
>> Statement:
>>=20
>> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
>>=20
>> Analysis:
>>=20
>> Rule 347/0 states that "Debts are objects" (note the=20
>> lowercase spelling of "objects"). Rule 347/0 also states that=20
>> "Debts are divisible", but Objects as defined by Rule 316/0=20
>> are "indivisible".
>>=20
>> I conclude that debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.

Rule 316/0 takes this in account by stating:"Objects may not be
created, destroyed, or otherwise altered, transferred, or adulterated
except as allowed by the Rules.". As for the spelling it is only a
minor technicality better suited by a motion to trivially amend.
Therefore

I Rule: FALSE

I submit a motion to amend trivially rule 316/0 by replacing the word
"objects" with "Objects"

[[I wonder what would have happened if I had made that a judicial
order instead of a motion to amend trivially"]]
--=20

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Omnibus Proposal
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:03:33 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposal makes a few changes to a disparate group of Rules. 
Comments are included to indicate the clauses' effects.

\begin{proposal}
\title{Omnibus Proposal}

1. Strike the final two paragraphs of R121/3. 

[[These conflict with our other Banking rules.]]

2. 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."

3. 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."

[[These are the provisions of my prior "Only Players May Change the Rules" 
Proposal.]]

4. 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."

5. 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."

[[These are the provisions of my prior "Proposal Dependency" Proposal. The 
current Prop Dependency Rule is horribly broken.]]

\end{proposal}

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:06:42 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following Proposals are recognized:

P444/1, Sack the lazy, by Jeff Schroeder
P447/1, How to vote, by Joerg
P450/0, Omnibus Proposal, by Joel

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:55:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: rfj: transferability of points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request judgement on the following statement:
If a rule states certain conditions under which points should be
transfered, and those conditions are met, then those points should be
transfered without any action by the current owner of the points.

Analysis:
-----Rule 121/3 : Score  is quoted here:
Associated with each agent is a scalar quantity known as eir score. An
agent's score is a representation of the number of point objects owned by
em.
The owner of one or more points may transfer any or all points in eir
posession to another legal owner by posting to the public forum.
If the rules call for the Administrator to credit a player with a certain
number of points then e shall order the transfer of those points from the
Bank to that player.
If the rules call for the Administrator to debit a player a certain number
of points then e shall order that player to transfer the required points
to the Bank.
-----

This rule does not explicitly state that this is the only way to transfer
points, and I want a definitive ruling.
A TRUE ruling on this would mean that e.g. points exchanged for similarity
challenges would be transfered without each player having to post a
message indicating so.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: rfj: transferability of points
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:58:51 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]]
 
> I request judgement on the following statement:
> If a rule states certain conditions under which points should be
> transfered, and those conditions are met, then those points should be
> transfered without any action by the current owner of the points.

Recognised as RFJ#40 and assigned to Poulenc.

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:42:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: judgement on rfj#38
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the matter,

M22, by Jeff Schroeder, text quoted below, did not result in a Motive
order requiring Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the bank, because its
wording and type (Bank Motion) were directed at the Bank, not
at Poulenc.
--motion:
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.
---

I rule TRUE

Analysis:
I looked over the rules for about an hour and a half and what it comes
down to is this:
Taken in context, the motion could be jeff, as a player, submitting a Bank
Motion, directing the Bank to make a Motion for Repayment
or, it could be Jeff, acting in his capacity as the tax collector,
submitting a motion for repayment on behalf of the bank.
Because of the ambivalent nature of the motion, I feel we are forced to
let the literarity of the motion preside, meaning that Jeff actually
submitted a Bank Motion (requiring the Bank to make a Motion for
Repayment).

It would be more convenient the other way, but I feel this is right.

- 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: Political Go revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:31:20 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I make a revision to P362 and activate it:

\begin{proposal}
\title{Political Go}
\number{362}

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

"There exists a Contest called Political Go. The Go Consul is the 
Contestmaster. The first Go Consul is Joel.

The Go Board is empty at the start of Political Go. Players become Go 
players by making a Go move. Go players are unallied by default.

A game of Political Go ends if it is no longer legal to place a Stone, or 
if a nweek passes in which no Player places a Stone.

The Go player with the highest Go score is the winner of the Contest."

2. Create a Rule entitled "Go Board" with the following text:

'The Go Board is a square grid of 19 rank lines and 19 file lines, lettered 
horizontally from "a" to "s" and vertically from "1" to "19".

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

3. Create a Rule entitled "Stones, Dragons, and Liberties" with the 
following text:

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

A Dragon is defined as any set of mutually friendly Stones occupying 
mutually adjacent vertices in which no Stone in the set is adjacent to a 
mutually friendly Stone not in the set. A Dragon is adjacent to all of the 
vertices adjacent to the vertices occupied by its Stones. A Dragon has a 
number of liberties equal to the number of unoccupied vertices to which it 
is adjacent, with no vertex being counted more than once. A Dragon is 
considered dead if has only one liberty; otherwise, the Dragon is live. A 
Dragon is friendly to a Go player if it contains only friendly Stones.

Each vertex from which no clear path may be traced to a Dragon unfriendly 
to a Go player is counted as one territory for that Go player. A Dragon has 
an eye if its liberties are territory for a Go player to whom it is 
friendly, and, barring a change of alliances, it would be impossible for 
that territory to be lost. Any Dragon with two distinct eyes, barring a 
change of alliances, may never become dead."

4. Create a Rule entitled "Go Moves" with the following text:

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

1. Place a Stone. 
2. Offer an alliance to an enemy. 
3. Declare war on an ally. 

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

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

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

If a Go player offers an alliance, e must name an enemy Go player to whom e 
is making the offer. If that Go player accepts the offer, the two Go 
players become allied.

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

5. Create a Rule entitled "Stone Capture" with the following text:

"Following each Go move, the Stones of Dragons with no liberties unfriendly 
to the moving Go player are captured.

If a captured Dragon is adjacent only to Stones owned by a single Go 
player, that Go player captures all of the Stones in the captured Dragon. 
If a captured Dragon is adjacent to Stones owned by more than one Go 
player, the captured Stones are divided among the owners of those Stones as 
follows:

The Go player with the most Stones adjacent to the captured Dragon receives 
the first Stone, the next most the next Stone, and so on, with ties broken 
randomly, until all captured Stones are exhausted or every Go player 
capturing from the Dragon has received a Stone. This process is repeated 
until all Stones from the captured Dragon are exhausted."

6. Create a Rule entitled "Go Scoring" with the following text:

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

\end{proposal}

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Political Go revision revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:34:42 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just noticed an important omission. I rescind the unrecognized revision 
of P362, and replace it with a revision that inserts the following as the 
last sentence of the second paragraph of the Rule text in section 1:

"Go players may make no more than one Go move per Game day."

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:23:42 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
>=20
> I Rule: FALSE

:-)

I take the following actions:

1. I currently own two debts, one with a value of 7 and one with a value =
of 10 Points. I divise these debts so that I have 17 debts with a value =
of one Point each.

2. I repay one of my debts by transferring one Point to myself. I repeat =
this action until I have repayed all debts in my posession.

3. To prove that I was allowed to do 1. and 2., I make the following =
RFJ:

--
Statement:
A debt is payable to the debtor unless e transferred ownership of the =
debt.

Analysis:

According to rules 319/0 (Points Owed) and 358/0 (Motion for Payment) =
[[these two rules are actually quite similar]], an Agent who owes Points =
is a debtor and the Agent to which e owes Points is a creditor. Rule =
358/0 defines this pending Point transfer to be a debt.

Rule 347/0 defines that debts are Objects (proved true by RFJ 28), and =
that a "debt is always owed by its creator". Obviuosly, the debt is owed =
by the debtor, so e must be the creator of that debt.

As stated by Rule 347/0, Agents may create debts "in their own =
ownership". Since Objects may not be created except as allowed by the =
rules (R316/0, Objects), the only possible way for the debtor to be the =
creator of the debt is to have created it in eir own ownership. =
Therefore, as long as the debtor does not transfer ownership of the =
debt, e is the owner of that debt.

Rule 347/0 states that "The player to which a debt is payable is the =
same as the owner of that debt.", i.e. the debtor. Thus the debt is =
payable to the debtor.

[[Ownership of debts should probably be transferred to the creditor =
automatically, but it is not.]]
--

Joerg

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:23:19 +0100
To: spoon-business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: ADP
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wish to gain the Automatic Debt Payer attribute.

-relet

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:38:56 +0100
To: spoon-business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Another [Away] patch
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[this Proposal will avoid players setting themselves [Away] without being 
away. Note that they "are not required to make any action (...) imposed on 
them", e.g. paying debts, however it does not restrict them from any other 
part of the game.]]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Another [Away] patch}
\number{307}

Append the following sentence to the end of R307

Players automatically lose the [Away] attribute by sending any message 
to a public forum while being [Away].

\end{proposal}

-relet

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Political Go revision revision revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:07:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Something has been bothering me about how to pace Political Go. If we 
follow traditional Go rules, Players would take turns placing Stones in a 
set order. The pace of such a game would be glacial. If we allow players to 
place Stones whenever they have Stones to place, then the same player could 
place multiple Stones in a row. This could upset the dynamics of the game. 
It seems to me that a balance between the two would be to prohibit the same 
player from placing Stones consecutively.

So, I rescind the most recent unrecognized version of P362, and replace it 
with a revision that inserts the following as the last sentence of the 
second paragraph of the Rule text in section 1:

"Each Go player may make no more than one Go move per Game day, and may 
never place two Stones consecutively."

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:05:14 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Statement:
> A debt is payable to the debtor unless e transferred 
> ownership of the debt.

Recognised as RFJ#41 and assigned to Joel

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:24:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: judgement on rfj#38
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Bank submits a Motion for Repayment for 30 points which poulenc does
not owe the Bank anymore.

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:27:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Amend Trivialy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I move to Amend Trivialy each non-case-specific instance of "Repayment" in
the rules to "Payment"

[[My previous effort to fix this resulted in changing about half of
them.]]

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: P438 revision
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:52:39 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just noticed two problems with the lynching scoring. First, if the =
lynched player votes for the attempt to lynch and it succeeds, e =
receives points. So e can lynch emself, but this doesn't make sense.

Second, everyone who votes 'no' receives points if the attempt fails. So =
someone could just make an attempt to lynch that is almost sure to fail, =
and then everyone would receive points. To prevent this, the owner of =
the motion is now always fined if the motion fails, no matter what e =
voted.

To make the scoring for no-votes more balanced, I also increased the =
protection award from one to two points.

I revise P438 as follows:

\begin{proposal}
\number{438}

[[typo fixes]]
Remove "=3D " between the words "may" and "make" in the first sentence.
Replace "50\%" with "50%".

[[secondary motion]]
Replace "Primary Approvable Motion" with "Secondary Approvable Motion".

[[new scoring]]
Replace the last two paragraphs with the following text:

"If the Attempt to Lynch is adopted, the victim owes the fine to the =
bank. All scoring defined hereafter in this rule does not apply to the =
victim.

If the Attempt to Lynch is adopted, the bank owes 1/N + 1 Points to each =
Players who voted for the Attempt to Lynch, and each Player who voted =
against the Attempt to Lynch owes 5 Points to the bank [[as a punishment =
for trying to aid and abet a criminal]].

If the Attempt to Lynch fails, its owner owes 5 Points to the bank, all =
other Player who voted for the Attempt to Lynch owe 5 Points to the bank =
[[as a punishment for attempting to lynch an innocent]], and the bank =
owes 2 Points to all other Players who voted against the Attempt to =
Lynch [[as a reward for protecting an innocent]]."

\end{proposal}

Joerg

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Amend Trivialy 
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:13:22 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > I move to Amend Trivialy each non-case-specific instance of 
> > > "Repayment" in
> > > the rules to "Payment"
> > > 
> > > [[My previous effort to fix this resulted in changing 
> about half of
> > > them.]]
> > 
> > I'm not too sure that a global replacement like that can 
> really be called a
> > 'trivial' change. Isn't there any sort of limit on what can 
> be in a trivial
> > change?
> 
> Triviality is in the eye of the objector. It's easy to recognize, but 
> enormously difficult to define precisely. This shouldn't be a 
> problem, 
> though, since you can object if you don't think it's a trivial change.

Yeah, I going to object. Sorry Poulenc but to me that doesn't seem a trivial
change. To me a trivial change must be simple enough that I can just read it
and be happy that it doesn't really change anything substantial. With a
global replacement like that I'd have to search through the rules and check
each place, and I don't have the time for that. Although I'm fairly sure
that there wouldn't be any problem with this particular change, I'd rather
we didn't allow global changes as they are so easy to get wrong.

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:45:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: "'Nomic Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Amend Trivialy 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Yeah, I going to object. Sorry Poulenc but to me that doesn't seem a trivial
> change. To me a trivial change must be simple enough that I can just read it
> and be happy that it doesn't really change anything substantial. With a
> global replacement like that I'd have to search through the rules and check
> each place, and I don't have the time for that. Although I'm fairly sure
> that there wouldn't be any problem with this particular change, I'd rather
> we didn't allow global changes as they are so easy to get wrong.

Would it be all right then if I make another motion to do the replacement
within a specified list of rules?

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:03:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal:  A reward for voting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{A reward for voting}
Create a new rule titled "A reward for voting" with text as follows:

The Voting Bonus is a variable associated with this game.  The value of
the Voting Bonus may never exceed 20 nor may it ever be less than 0.  
Initially the Voting Bonus is equal to 2.

Once per nweek, but not during the voting period, the Banker may set the
Voting Bonus to a new legal value.

At the conclusion of each voting period the Bank owes one Voting Bonus in
points to each Agent who voted in favor of at least one ballot item.
\end{proposal}

poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:17:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Another try at this Motion
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I move to amend trivialy R35/0 by chaning each instance of "Repayment" to
"Payment".

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:22:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Yet Another try at this Motion
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I rescind my attempt to amend trivialy.

I move to amend trivialy R358/0 by changing each instance of "Repayment"
to "Payment".
 
Poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:29:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Oops
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\start{proposal}
\title{Debts Fix I}

[[R319 and R358 attempt to do exactly the same thing.  This is somewhat
embarrasing, especially as both of them were proposed by me.]]

Repeal rule 319.

\end{proposal}

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:39:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Amend Trivialy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I move to trivialy amend R364/0 by replacing "50/%" with "50%".

poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:54:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Mediocrity Fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[It turns out I left out a bit that deals with Concertmasters in my
Mediocrity C/R Game.  It can actually work as a C/R game but it behaves a
bit weirdly.

A Mediocrity C/R Game is made up of a number of other Mediocrity games, up
to a certain point declared at creation, where the subgames become
individual challenges.  Thus, to play a level 5 Mediocrity game where each
game is made up of 5 sub-games requires 5^4 individual challenges.  This
might take a while.  I suggest we hold it to level 3 games, which would
only require 25 challenges.
]]

\start{proposal}
\title{Mediocrity fix}

1.  Append the following paragraph to rule 343:

The ContestMaster of each Mediocrity sub-game is the winner of the
previous sub-game of the same game.  If there was no previous subgame the
winner is the ContestMaster of that game.  If there is no Mediocrity game
active any Player start one and declare emself concertmaster of the new
game by posting such to the Public Forum.

\end{proposal}

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:32:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Go Stones
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[This has been revised so your first stone is free]]

\start{proposal}
\number{431}
The following is a new proposal entitled "Go Stones":

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

Stones are objects.  They can be created, destroyed, transferred, and
otherwise manipulated only as allowed by the rules.

Stones have three states:  "Reserve", "In Play", and "Captured".  Newly
created Stones are always Reserve Stones.

2. Enact a new rule entitled "Stone Purchase"

If a game of Political Go is in progress a player may, at any time,
purchase a Stone from the bank.  This purchase transfers the purchase cost
of that stone in points to the bank, and creates a new Stone [[Reserve]]
owned by that player.

The Purchase price of a Go Stone is equal to (5^n)-1, where n is the
number of stones purchased previously by the purchasing agent in that
nweek.

3. Enact a new rule entitled "Reserve Stones"

Ownership of Reserve Stones is transferable at will by the owner of the
stone.

4. Enact a new rule entitled "Stones In Play"

Stones In Play acquire the property "location".  The location of an In
Play stone is specified when it becomes In Play and may not change.

5. Enact a new rule entitled "Captured Stones"

Captured Stones may be sold to the Bank for 1 point each.  This sale
destroys the stone and transfers 1 point from the Bank to the stone's
owner.

\end{proposal}

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:37:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is, I believe, the final revision of the Political Go Proposal. I 
realized that I was not handling Ko or Seki correctly, and added a section 
on clearing the board.

\begin{proposal}
\title{Political Go}
\number{362}

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

"There exists a Contest called Political Go. The Go Consul is the 
Contestmaster. The first Go Consul is Joel.

The Go Board is empty at the start of Political Go. Players become Go 
players by making a Go move. Go players are unallied by default. Each Go 
player may make no more than one Go move per Game day, and may never place 
two Stones consecutively.

A game of Political Go ends if it is no longer legal to place a Stone, or 
if a nweek passes in which no Player places a Stone.

The Go player with the highest Go score is the winner of the Contest."

2. Create a Rule entitled "Go Board" with the following text:

'The Go Board is a square grid of 19 rank lines and 19 file lines, lettered 
horizontally from "a" to "s" and vertically from "1" to "19".

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

3. Create a Rule entitled "Stones, Dragons, and Liberties" with the 
following text:

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

A Dragon is defined as any set of mutually friendly Stones occupying 
mutually adjacent vertices in which no Stone in the set is adjacent to a 
mutually friendly Stone not in the set. A Dragon is adjacent to all of the 
vertices adjacent to the vertices occupied by its Stones. A Dragon has a 
number of liberties equal to the number of unoccupied vertices to which it 
is adjacent, with no vertex being counted more than once. A Dragon is 
considered dead if has only one liberty; otherwise, the Dragon is live. A 
Dragon is friendly to a Go player if it contains only friendly Stones.

Each vertex from which no clear path may be traced to a Dragon unfriendly 
to a Go player is counted as one territory for that Go player. A Dragon has 
an eye if its liberties are territory for a Go player to whom it is 
friendly, and, barring a change of alliances, it would be impossible for 
that territory to be lost. Any Dragon with two distinct eyes, barring a 
change of alliances, may never become dead."

4. Create a Rule entitled "Go Moves" with the following text:

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

1. Place a Stone. 
2. Offer an alliance to an enemy. 
3. Declare war on an ally. 

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

1. Stones may not be placed so as to repeat a previous Board configuration.

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

If a Go player offers an alliance, e must name an enemy Go player to whom e 
is making the offer. If that Go player accepts the offer, the two Go 
players become allied.

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

5. Create a Rule entitled "Stone Capture" with the following text:

"Following each Go move, the Stones of Dragons with no liberties unfriendly 
to the moving Go player are captured.

If a captured Dragon is adjacent only to Stones owned by a single Go 
player, that Go player captures all of the Stones in the captured Dragon. 
If a captured Dragon is adjacent to Stones owned by more than one Go 
player, the captured Stones are divided among the owners of those Stones as 
follows:

The Go player with the most Stones adjacent to the captured Dragon receives 
the first Stone, the next most the next Stone, and so on, with ties broken 
randomly, until all captured Stones are exhausted or every Go player 
capturing from the Dragon has received a Stone. This process is repeated 
until all Stones from the captured Dragon are exhausted."

6. Create a Rule entitled "Go Scoring" with the following text:

"At the end of the game, all dead Dragons are captured by the Go players 
whose unfriendly Dragons are adjacent to them. After the removal of dead
Stones, each Go player's territory is counted. A Go player's Go score is 
the sum of eir territories and captured Stones."

7. Create a Rule entitled "Clearing the Board" with the following text:

"Following Go scoring, a number of captured Stones equal to eir territories 
plus is created in each Go player's possession, and all of eir Stones in 
play are added to eir pool of captured Stones, thus removing all Stones 
from the Go Board."

\end{proposal}

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Typo Alert 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:54:56 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Nice catch. 

Rescind the most recent version of P362, replace it with the same text 
without the word "plus" in section 7.

Quoth Dan:
> a number of captured Sontes equal to eir territories plus what?
> 
> > "Following Go scoring, a number of captured Stones equal to eir territories
>  
> > plus is created in each Go player's possession, and all of eir Stones in 
> > play are added to eir pool of captured Stones, thus removing all Stones 
> > from the Go Board."
> 
> poulenc

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:15:19 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal 445 Revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Revise proposal 445/0 with the following:

Create a rule entitled "Sacking" with the text:

A Motion to Sack is a Unilateral Motion submitted by any one Player,
known as the Sacker, that names the offending Player, known as the
Sackee, the broken Rule or crime committed and the Penalty.  Only one
Motion to Sack may be submitted to a Player per broken Rule or crime. The
Penalty may include the forced transfer of Objects, Points or Items from
the Sackee to the Sacker with a total value of no more than 30% the 
Sackee's Points or 2 Objects/Items, whichever has a lesser or equal value. 
Objects and Items with no set value shall be considered to count as 30% of 
the Sackee's Points.  The Sacker can choose the Penalty based on these guides.

If the Sackee has the [Away] attribute set, this Rule will have no effect
until the [Away] attribute is cleared.

The Sackee has three days to comply with the broken rule or to otherwise
make reparations for the crime without penalty.  These reparations can
include offerings of appeasement to the Sacker [[Points, votes, Objects,
etc]] or to any other Player.

After three days have passed, if the cause for the sack was a broken Rule
and the Sackee complied with the Rule, then there is no penalty.  If the
cause for the sack was a crime and the Sacker is appeased by reparations,
there is no penalty.  If the Sacker does not feel appeased, e can submit
an Approveable Secondary Motion called 'Give Me Justice' to the game in
order to receive his Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack.  This Motion 
must be submitted within a reasonable time after the stated three days 
expires.  Upon
passage of 'Give Me Justice' e must receive as soon as possible the Penalty
from the Sackee minus a 35% fee to be transferred evenly to the Players who 
voted in the affirmative or negative for the Motion [[so abstentions do not 
get rewarded]].  If 'Give Me Justice' fails, the Sacker must compensate for 
the emotional trauma of the Sackee by transferring 40% of the stated 
Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack from eimself to the Sackee as soon as 
possible.

The Sackee can petition his case in a public forum before voting occurs
on the Motion.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:37:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The folloing actions led to the creation of new debts:

player	action				debt
Poulenc returned judgement on RFJ 36 	+2
Joerg returned judgement on RFJ 31 	+2
relet returned judgement on RFJ39 	+2
zagarna returned judgement on RFJ 28 	+2
Benjamin returned judgement on RFJ 38 	+2

To pay these debts, the Bank transfers:
2 points to Poulenc
2 points to Joerg
2 points to relet
2 points to zagarna
2 points to Benjamin

[[If you have returned a judgement this nweek and not been mentioned,
say something now so I don't forget you!]]

The Bank has 456 points
------
Poulenc

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:06:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Bank stuf
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm going to try this again.

> 
> Hey! I did! I did! RFJ 33!

Whoops

Joel returned judgement on RFJ 33  +2

The Bank transfers 2 point to Joel

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:17:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are recognized:

M29/0, Motion to Amend Trivially R316, by Zagarna

More to come...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:11:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are recognized:

P362/1, Political Go, by Joel
P451/0, Another [Away] patch, by relet
P438/1, Lynching, by Joerg
P452/0, A reward for voting, by Poulenc
P453/0, Debts Fix I, by Poulenc
P454/0, Mediocrity fix, by Poulenc
P431/1, Go Stones, by Poulenc
P445/1, for Sacking, by Jeff Schroeder

That should be all of the outstanding Proposals. Ballot soon to come...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: recognition correction
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:14:59 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

P362/1 should have been P362/2 instead.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: motion recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:42:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's a few more:

M30/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Poulenc
M31/0, Motion for Repayment, by Poulenc
M32/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Poulenc
M33/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Poulenc

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: election notice
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:49:24 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just counted it out and it turns out that The Kid's second term as OSJ 
ends this nweek! So, we do have an election on the Ballot, between The Kid 
and Zagarna for OSJ.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:52:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A long ballot this time. This has been the most active nweek *ever*, I 
think.

Proposals for nweek 17:

P362/2, Political Go, by Joel
P430/0, Against a monopoly of power, by Poulenc
P431/1, Go Stones, by Poulenc
P432/0, let's vote ourselves rich, by jonno
P433/0, Money for Nothing, by PurpleBob
P434/0, Thug Fix, by Joel
P435/0, Just Because It's A Bank, Doesn't Mean It Should Be Bankrupt, by 
Dave
P436/1, Tax the Rich!, by Poulenc
P437/0, Debt Overdue Charges, by Poulenc
P438/1, Lynching, by Joerg
P439/0, The Very Small Black Hole, by Joel
P440/0, Hail Eris!, by Blest Lax Monk Pal
P441/0, Prevention of Voting Manipulation, by PurpleBob
P442/0, Names of Agents, by Joerg
P443/0, A Little Heresy, by Dave
P444/1, Sack the lazy, by Jeff Schroeder
P445/1, for Sacking, by Jeff Schroeder
P446/0, Judge Selection, by Jeff Schroeder
P447/1, How to vote, by Joerg
P448/0, The Tribune, by Zagarna
P449/0, cards, by PurpleBob
P450/0, Omnibus Proposal, by Joel
P451/0, Another [Away] patch, by relet
P452/0, A reward for voting, by Poulenc
P453/0, Debts Fix I, by Poulenc
P454/0, Mediocrity fix, by Poulenc

Motions for nweek 17:

M31/0, Motion for Repayment, by Poulenc

Elections for nweek 17:

* Officer of Supreme Justice

The Kid
Zagarna

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:54:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: More Bank
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Blest Lax Monk Pal returned a judgement on RFJ 32 +2
Jeff Schroeder returned a judgement on RFJ 34 +2

The Bank transfers 2 points to Blest Lax Monk Pal
The Bank transfers 2 points to Jeff Schroeder

Poulenc

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:57:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Banker's Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Bank Property:
406 points
5 extra votes

The Bank owed no debts
These debts were owed to the Bank
---------------------------------
Poulenc		-60		nweek 12
Joerg	        -7              nweek 16
Joel Uckelman   -24             nweek 17
sabby           -5              nweek 17

Joel Uckelman   -13             nweek 18
Joerg           -10             nweek 18

events:

Poulenc paid eir debt of 60 points

Poulenc returned judgement on RFJ 36 +2
Joerg returned judgement on RFJ 31 +2
relet returned judgement on RFJ39 +2
zagarna returned judgement on RFJ 28 +2
Benjamin returned judgement on RFJ 38 +2
Joel returned judgement on RFJ 33 +2
Blest Lax Monk Pal returned a judgement on RFJ 32 +2
Jeff Schroeder returned a judgement on RFJ 34 +2

The Bank transfered 2 points to Poulenc
The Bank transfered 2 points to Joerg
The Bank transfered 2 points to relet
The Bank transfered 2 points to zagarna
The Bank transfered 2 points to Benjamin
The Bank transfered 2 points to Joel
The Bank transfered 2 points to Blest Lax Monk Pal
The Bank transfered 2 points to Jeff Schroeder

These debts are owed to the Bank
--------------------------------
Joerg           -7              nweek 16
Joel Uckelman   -24             nweek 17
sabby           -5              nweek 17

Joel Uckelman   -13             nweek 18
Joerg           -10             nweek 18

Bank Property:
--------------
450 points
5 extra votes

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:29:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oh, better strike nweekly from that last bankers report.  I didn't
actually mean to send it: it was my report-in-progress.  But it is
accurate, to the best of my knowledge.  Any RFJs not recognized in it will
get into the next one.  

> 
> I did, on RFJ 35.

Oops.  I guess I missed a whole bunch!

PurbleBob returned judgement on RFJ 35 +2
The Bank transfers 2 points to PurpleBob

Poulenc

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:34:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Re: Ballot, nweek 17 (votes)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> P362/2, Political Go, by Joel

No.

> P430/0, Against a monopoly of power, by Poulenc

Yes.

> P431/1, Go Stones, by Poulenc

No.

> P432/0, let's vote ourselves rich, by jonno
> P433/0, Money for Nothing, by PurpleBob
> P434/0, Thug Fix, by Joel
> P435/0, Just Because It's A Bank, Doesn't Mean It Should Be Bankrupt, by
> Dave
> P436/1, Tax the Rich!, by Poulenc
> P437/0, Debt Overdue Charges, by Poulenc
> P438/1, Lynching, by Joerg

Yes to the above.

> P439/0, The Very Small Black Hole, by Joel

Abstain.

> P440/0, Hail Eris!, by Blest Lax Monk Pal
> P441/0, Prevention of Voting Manipulation, by PurpleBob
> P442/0, Names of Agents, by Joerg
> P443/0, A Little Heresy, by Dave
> P444/1, Sack the lazy, by Jeff Schroeder

Yes to the above.

> P445/1, for Sacking, by Jeff Schroeder
> P446/0, Judge Selection, by Jeff Schroeder
> P447/1, How to vote, by Joerg
> P448/0, The Tribune, by Zagarna
> P449/0, cards, by PurpleBob
> P450/0, Omnibus Proposal, by Joel
> P451/0, Another [Away] patch, by relet

Yes to the above.

> P452/0, A reward for voting, by Poulenc

No.

> P453/0, Debts Fix I, by Poulenc
> P454/0, Mediocrity fix, by Poulenc

Yes to the above.

> Elections for nweek 17:
> * Officer of Supreme Justice
>
> The Kid
> Zagarna

On the rationale that change is good, I vote for Zagarna.

...dave

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Limitation
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:57:31 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As we had and still have some RFJs that apply to a lot of past game =
actions, I think it's a good idea to limit the power of RFJs.

I make the following proposal:

\begin{proposal}
\title{Statute of Limitation}

Create a new rule entitled "Statute of Limitation" with the following =
text:

"No Judgement shall change the effect of actions performed more than two =
nweeks before the corresponding RFJ was made, even if those actions were =
illegal or impossible. Such actions shall always be treated as if they =
were legal and possible.

[[If you think something is illegal, you'd better make an RFJ at =
once.]]"

\end{proposal}

This means for example if RFJ 30 had been ruled false (i.e. no RFJ was =
possible before Nov. 11, 2000), all RFJs made before would still have =
happened, etc.

Do you think two nweeks is too short? Too long?

Joerg

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:19:32 +0100
To: spoon-business <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: relet is [Away]
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request the [Away] attribute. My Date Of Expected Return is 2001-04-04.

-relet

-- 
thomas hirsch | [email-masked]
advanced network technologies
phone   +49 (0)30 76 67 80 72
mobile  +49 (0)173 4 55 97 85

From: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:54:20 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wish a judgement on the following statement:

"The actions of a Player who holds an Office are actions that are committed
by the Player and the Officer."

>> But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting
>> began.
>
>Actually, I didn't.  The Bank did... [snip]

The statements above seems to indicate that the Officer and the Player are
different entities.  I believe that they are the same entity that perform
different tasks depending on the situation and the applicable Rules.  The
Player Joel states that the Player Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment,
and Poulenc claims that e did not, the Bank did.  I want a ruling on
whether Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment in his role as an Officer or
if the Banker as a separate entity made the Motion.

jeff

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:59:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
 
> I wish a judgement on the following statement:
> 
> "The actions of a Player who holds an Office are actions that 
> are committed
> by the Player and the Officer."

Recognised as RFJ#42 and assigned to Dave.

--
The Kid

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:12:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 42
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Statement:

"The actions of a Player who holds an Office are actions that are
committed by the Player and the Officer."

Ruling:

TRUE

Plaintiff's Analysis:

>> But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting
>> began.
>
>Actually, I didn't.  The Bank did... [snip]

The statements above seems to indicate that the Officer and the Player are
different entities.  I believe that they are the same entity that perform
different tasks depending on the situation and the applicable Rules.  The
Player Joel states that the Player Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment,
and Poulenc claims that e did not, the Bank did.  I want a ruling on
whether Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment in his role as an Officer or
if the Banker as a separate entity made the Motion.

Judge's Analysis:

Rule 108/0: "A Player holding an Office is an Officer. Officers have
certain duties and privileges by virtue of their Offices..."

This makes it clear that "Officer" is a subset of "Player," specifically a
Player who holds an Office as defined elsewhere in the Rules, and who
holds "certain duties and privileges."

Examples:

Rule 318/0: "The Office of The Banker is an elective office. It is the
responsibility of the Banker to post actions to the public forum for the
Bank... It is up to the Banker to decide what actions the Bank will take."

Rule 321/0: "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The
OBC is responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object
currently owned by each Agent."

Rules 208/1, 310/0, and 324/0 all work in roughly the same way: defining
an Office, and clarifying that duties are attached to an Office, which
(per 108/0) is merely a set of special privileges and responsibilities
assigned to a Player.

In general, actions of an Officer are in fact committed by the Player
holding that office, and as such I rule TRUE.

There are a few specific exceptions (like Rule 317/2, where the Banker
orders the Bank to submit a motion, but the motion is NOT actually
submitted by the Banker), but all the exceptions of which I am aware are
sufficiently clear in the Rules.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 17
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:52:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here are the results of Proposal voting:

P362/2 passed (8-4-0-6)
P430/0 passed (10-2-0-6)
P431/1 passed (9-3-0-6)
P432/0 failed (3-9-0-6)
P433/0 passed (8-3-1-6)
P434/0 passed (11-1-0-6)
P435/0 passed (8-4-0-6)
P436/1 passed (6-5-1-6)
P437/0 failed (6-6-0-6)
P438/1 failed (5-7-0-6)
P439/0 failed (4-7-1-6)
P440/0 failed (4-8-0-6)
P441/0 passed (8-4-0-6)
P442/0 passed (7-5-0-6)
P443/0 failed (4-7-0-7)
P444/1 failed (6-6-0-6)
P445/1 failed (4-8-0-6)
P446/0 passed (11-1-0-6)
P447/1 passed (11-1-0-6)
P448/0 passed (7-5-0-6)
P449/0 passed (9-3-0-6)
P450/0 passed (11-1-0-6)
P451/0 passed (10-2-0-6)
P452/0 passed (8-4-0-6)
P453/0 passed (12-0-0-6)
P454/0 passed (10-2-0-6)

And the resultant scoring, in no particular order:

Joel 18 (7, 0, 7, 0, -3, 0, 0, 7)
Dave 4 (0, 0, 7, -3, 0)
jonno -3 (0, 0, -3, 0, 0, 0, 0)
relet 7 (0, 0, 0, 0, 7)
The Kid 0 (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
Poulenc 39 (7, 7, 0, 0, 7, -3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 7, 7)
PurpleBob 21 (7, 0, 7, 0, 7, 0)
Joerg 11 (0, -3, 7, 7)
Benjamin 0 (0, 0)
Blest Lax Monk Pal -3 (0, 0, -3, 0, 0, 0)
Jeff Schroeder 1 (0, 0, 0, -3, -3, 7, 0, 0, 0)
Zagarna 7 (0, 0, 7, 0)

Election results and the actual Rule updates to come later today... (and 
not "later today" as in "tomorrow"---I mean it this time!).

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:41:57 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Concertmaster
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Given that it's a cool title and has no responsibilities associated with it in
the rules, I declare myself Concertmaster of Mediocrity. :)

--
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:38:13 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ Now that we've got these decks of Cards, we might as well play a game with
them. I now present the rules for a variant of Poker that I call Pooker. ]]

\begin{proposal}
\title{Pooker}
1. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: Definitions" with the following text:

Pooker is a game played with Nomic Cards. The object of the game is to exchange
Cards with other Players so that you have the best Poker Hand or combination of
Poker Hands.

A Trade is the process by which two Players exchange a specified number of
Cards. In a Trade, the dealer takes the Cards which one Player wishes to trade
to the other Player and changes their ownership to the other Player, thus
adding them to the other Player's hand. E then takes an equal number of Cards
which the other Player wishes to trade and changes their ownership to the first
Player in the same way. Both Players involved in a trade must trade an equal
number of Cards.

A game of Pooker ends in a Showdown, in which all Cards in play are revealed
and a prize of a certain number of Points goes to the Player
or Players with the highest total Score of Poker Hands. After a Showdown, all
Cards are returned to the Deck to start a new game of Pooker.

2. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: Trading" with the following text:

Any Player who has one or more Cards may arrange a Trade with any other Player
who has one or more Cards. They do this by making offers and counter-offers
with each other privately, and then notifying the Dealer of the Trade they wish
to make - both which Card or Cards e will give, and which Card or Cards e plans
to recieve.

The Dealer must be notified of the same trade by both Players involved
in the trade. The Players also must each pay the Dealer a transaction fee of
one Point [[you'll notice that there's no other way for the Dealer to get
Points from this game]].

3. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: the Showdown" with the following
text:

A Player may make a Motion to Show Cards at any time as long as no such Motion
is already pending. A Motion to Show Cards is a Secondary Approvable Motion
which passes by being voted for by a majority of Players. When a Motion to Show
Cards passes, a Showdown occurs. The Dealer then posts a message to a public
Forum including the Cards held by each Player and the highest-scoring
arrangement of each Player's Cards into Poker Hands.

Additionally, if a transfer of Cards (such as by Dealing) causes one Player to
own ten or more Cards, a Showdown automatically occurs.

The Player who has the highest total Score of eir Poker Hand(s) is awarded a
number of Points from the Bank equivalent to the total Score of eir Poker
Hand(s). If there is a tie for the highest Score, that number of Points is
given from the Bank and divided among the Player(s) involved in the tie.

4. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: Scoring" with the following text:

A Poker Hand is a set of one to five Cards owned by the same Player. A Player
may arrange eir Cards into more than one Poker Hand if it would result in a
higher Score or if e owns more than five Cards.

Poker Hands are scored as follows (statements at the top take precedence):

If a Poker Hand contains five Cards of the same Rank, it is a Five of a Kind,
and has a Score of 80.

If a Poker Hand contains five Cards with the Ranks Ace, King, Queen, Jack, and
10, and those Cards are all of the same Suit, it is a Royal Flush, and has a
Score of 80.

If a Poker Hand contains five Cards with consecutive Ranks which are all of the
same Suit, it is a Straight Flush, and has a Score of 70.

If a Poker Hand contains four Cards of the same Rank, it is a Four of a Kind,
and has a Score of 60.

If a Poker Hand contains three Cards of one Rank and two cards of another, it
is a Full House, and has a Score of 50.

If a Poker Hand contains five Cards of the same Suit, it is a Flush, and has a
Score of 40.

If a Poker Hand contains five Cards with consecutive Ranks [[such as
7-8-9-10-Jack]], it is a Straight, and has a Score of 35.

If a Poker Hand contains three Cards of the same Rank, it is a Three of a Kind,
and has a Score of 25.

If a Poker Hand contains two Cards of one Rank and two cards of another Rank,
it is Two Pair, and has a Score of 15.

If a Poker Hand contains two Cards of the same Rank, it is a Pair, and has a
Score of 5.

If a Poker Hand contains none of the above, its Score is 0.
\end{proposal}

--
Rob Speer

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Card games proposal
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:37:45 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ooops, I should've sent that to the business list. Sorry.

\begin{proposal}
\title{Card Games}

Create a new rule entitled "Cards: Card Games" with the following text:

"Card games are a special type of parties. The name of a card game shall =
be of the form "Party of X Players", where X is the name of the game =
played within that party. Card games have three additional attributes: =
game status (either 'Playing' or 'Waiting'), minimum number of players =
and maximum number of players (which may be infinite).

Membership for card games shall be governed by the following rules:

1) When the game status is 'Playing', no new members my join the card =
game, and current members may leave the card game only if the rules =
allow them to do so.
2) When the game status is 'Waiting', and the number of members is =
smaller than the maximum number of players, new member may join the card =
game by publicly announcing that they do so. When the game status is =
'Waiting', current members may also leave the card game at any time =
without restriction.

The rules of a card game shall be the rules for the game played within =
that party. They shall be available publicly and may be modified only by =
the player who created the card game, unless otherwise specified in the =
card game rules. They may never be modified when the game status is =
'Playing'.

The status of a newly created card game is always 'Waiting'. The status =
changes to 'Playing' when the conditions for starting the game specified =
in the card game rules are met (or, if the rules don't specify any =
conditions, when all members agree to start the game) and the number of =
members is wihtin the limits of the minimum and maximum number of =
players.

The status changes from 'Playing' to 'Waiting' when the rules specify =
the game to be over."

\end{proposal}

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Thug employer
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 21:34:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As per R344/1, the Bean Counter shall randomly select an employer for the 
Thug whenever it has no employer. I rolled my d12, and it told me that 
Blest Lax Monk Pal gets the Thug.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:27:59 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Results of Similarity Challenge #4
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Here's Similarity Challenge #4. Find the connection between these 
> > three things:
> > 
> > 1. Skydiving in Michigan
> > 2. 20 francs
> > 3. They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa

I got exactly one response to the Similarity Challenge, from Joerg. Thus, there
is no winner, and Joerg's entry fee is refunded.

Here is Joerg's response (which was correct):

> All of these are related to Napoleon.
> 
> Skydiving in Michigan is made possible by the Napoleon Skydiving Center.
> 
> Napoleon is the person shown on the front of a historic (19th century) 20 franc coin.
> 
> They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa is a song originally recorded by Napoleon XIV.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:37:10 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Similarity Challenge #5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay. Here's Similarity Challenge #5. I hope more people try this one.

What is the connection between these things?

1. J.P.
2. Captain
3. Nwabudike

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:06:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: prop: dunce cap
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

\begin{proposal}
\title{The Dunce Cap}
create a rule entitle "The Dunce Cap" containing the following text:
The Dunce Cap is an object which may be transferred or altered only
as defined within the rules. The Dunce Cap indicates that its owner has
done something especially stupid.

The Initial Owner of the Dunce Cap is Benjamin.

At any time, any Player may make a Motion of Stupidity, naming the Dunce,
and eir act of stupidity. A Motion of Stupidity is a Secondary Approvable
Motion subject to Voting. If the Motion of Stupidity passes, then
(ownership of) the Dunce Cap is transferred to the Dunce named in the
Motion.

If two such motions are approved within the same nweek, the later motion
shall prevail.

\end{proposal}

- Benjamin Bradley - "..."
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal deactivation
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:52:30 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I deactivate my Card Games proposal. It doesn't make much sense without =
a card distribution proposal, which we don't have yet.

Hopefully we have some more activity next nweek...

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Proposal recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:56:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are (belatedly) recognized:

P455/0, Statute of Limitation, by Joerg
P456/0, Pooker, by PurpleBob
P457/0, Card Games, by Joerg
P458/0, The Dunce Cap, by Benjamin

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 18
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 23:14:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's the Ballot for nweek 18:

P455/0, Statute of Limitation, by Joerg
P456/0, Pooker, by PurpleBob
P458/0, The Dunce Cap, by Benjamin

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results, etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 23:29:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's the result of last nweek's OSJ election:

Zagarna: 8
The Kid: 3
abstain: 1

Looks like the electorate was in the mood for change last nweek.

Also, M31 passed (5-2-3-8), with one vote being cast for "banana" counted 
as an abstention (as per R225/1).

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:14:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ #40
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

     If a rule states certain conditions under which points should be
     transfered, and those conditions are met, then those points should
     be transfered without any action by the current owner of the
     points.

Ruling: FALSE

Analysis:

As a blanket statement, this is very difficult to judge true.  There are
rules which transfer a player's points automatically, such as R351,
Automatic Debt Payment.  There are also rules which instead create a debt
for the required amount or which require the Administrator to make the
transfer.  However, with the exception of R351, the the transfer of a
player's points is not allowed without the consent of that player.  The
player of a contest would normally have to points eir entry to the Public
Forum, and this post also counts as a point transfer.  However, the
simmiliarity challenge is an exception to this in which the joining posts
are only sent to the contestmaster.  It is still an entry, however, and
the action of joining a simmilarity challenge still includes a point
transfer.  The Contestmaster should include with eir end-of-contest report
a summary of the point transfers involved.

Poulenc
[[The Bankers report will be done soon.  Am very busy this week]]

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Judge selection for RFJs 37 40 41
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:42:25 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

M'cachessilnath is recused from judgment on RFJ 37/0
Poulenc is recused from judgment on RFJ 40/0
Joel is recused from judgment on RFJ 41/0

RFJ 37/0 is assigned to Jonno
RFJ 40/0 is assigned to Blest Lax Monk Pal
RFJ 41/0 is assigned to The Kid

--=20

zagarna

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

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Nomic Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ #37
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:31:28 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[I may as well rule on this properly, given I've done it once already...]]

RFJ:
> > "The Player Poulenc performed several actions after the Motive Order
> > for repayment was issued, and therefore did not perform the
> > required action
> > 'as soon as possible' as stated in Rule 319/0."

Judgement: true

Analysis:
The action required to repay the debt (which the Player Poulenc was able to
do as e had enough points) was to post a message to a public forum stating
that the points are transferred. As Poulenc posted other messages to public
fora before posting this message or the equivalent (i.e. before the points
were transferred) I feel justified in assuming that he was capable of
posting the required message, and as he did not do so before carrying out
other similar actions he obviously did not perform the required action 'as
soon as possible'.

[[I could have argued for false as well, citing vagueness of 'as soon as
possible' and admissibility of all that isn't strictly prohibited, but as
this is too late to affect anything anyway...]]

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Ruling: RFJ#41
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:00:22 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

RFJ#41: A debt is payable to the debtor unless e transferred ownership of
the debt.

The main point of this RFJ relies on the line from R347/0 "the debt is
always owned by its creator". What the RFJ did not quote was the first half
of that sentence. In it's entirety the line is "Unless specified otherwise
by the rules or a legislative, administrative, or judicial order the debt is
always owed by its creator."

This part of R347/0 is allowing Agents to create Debts. As such the debt is
first created so that the creator owes emself the points. The debt is then
transferred as needed. 

In R358/0 a debt is implicitly created. Who created these debts? It does not
explicitly say who created the debt, but it does explicitly say who is the
debtor and who is the creditor. The debt is created by the Rules, not by any
Agent. (The Rules are not an Agent.) Therefore I believe that it is
"specified otherwise by the rules" that the debt in this case is not owed by
the creator.

The conclusion I come to is this:

When an Agent creates a debt by posting their intent to the Public Forum,
the debt is payable to the debtor until the debtor transfers ownership of
the debt.

When a debt is created by the Rules, a debtor and a creditor are specified
and the debt is owed by the debtor to the creditor until the creditor
transfers ownership of the debt (or the debt is paid).

So the statement is sometimes true, sometimes false. However, because it is
not *always* true, my ruling is FALSE.

I make the following Judicial Orders:

1. The actions taken by Joerg on 15 Mar 2001 20:18:25 -0000 attempting to
pay his debts to himself are invalid. As such he still owes the bank the 17
points that he owed to the bank at that time. (Plus or minus any legitimate
variances since that time.)

2. Debts that are created by the Rules shall be payable by the specified
debtor to the specified creditor. The creditor shall be the initial owner of
the debt.

--
The Kid

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:28:43 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I submit a new RFJ:

The recusal of player Poulenc from the judgement on RFJ#40/0 and the
assignement of RFJ#40/0 to player Blest Lax Monk Pal were invalid.

--=20

zagarna

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:45:13 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:28:43 +0200, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote
:

>I submit a new RFJ:
>
>The recusal of player Poulenc from the judgement on RFJ#40/0 and the
>assignement of RFJ#40/0 to player Blest Lax Monk Pal were invalid.

Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno
--=20

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Go move
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:57:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, I'm taking possession of my free stone for the nweek, and placing it at 
d4. The board now looks as so:

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Current territory:

360 Joel

(Not for long, I'll wager.)

It occurs to me that the board state is something that needs to be kept 
very current, and at present the best way to do that is for each person to 
resend the updated board state whenever e makes a move, or otherwise note 
eir move, resend the old board state, and let someone else apply it.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:05:04 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 04:57:23PM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> So, I'm taking possession of my free stone for the nweek, and placing it at 
> d4. The board now looks as so:
> 
>    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      
>  5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> Current territory:
> 
> 360 Joel
> 
> (Not for long, I'll wager.)
> 
> It occurs to me that the board state is something that needs to be kept 
> very current, and at present the best way to do that is for each person to 
> resend the updated board state whenever e makes a move, or otherwise note 
> eir move, resend the old board state, and let someone else apply it.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 

Ah ha! I forgot about Political Go.
I'll take my stone and place it at 15e.

    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      
  5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Is there some convention for what letter to use? I'm not sure whether to be R
for Rob or P for PurpleBob, so I'm taking the letter in between. :) Plus this
way nobody else will think I'm stealing their letter.)

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:11:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I also claim my free stone and play it at o4
(marked with C for Poulenc)

>     a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>   1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .      
>   5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
>  13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
>  16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
>  17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
>  18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:27:55 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I claim my stone and place it at p17 (with a S for Schroeder).

Banker, don't forget to apply Rule 378/0, I can see how it could be forgotten.

Question about Rule 368/0 number 1. "Stones may not be placed so as to 
repeat a previous Board configuration"  to what extent is this valid?  Is 
this between different games?  Who defines the previous Board configuration?

I guess I need to learn how to play Go before I go any farther... :)

At 08:11 PM 3/29/01, you wrote:
>I also claim my free stone and play it at o4
>(marked with C for Poulenc)
>
> >     a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
> >   1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
> >   5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> >  18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:37:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I purchase a second stone at a cost of 4 points and put it into play at k5

> > >     a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
> > >   1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >   2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >   3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
> > >   4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
> > >   5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >   6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >   7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >   8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >   9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> > >  18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > >  19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Business' <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:59:23 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ok, I never really understood the whole Go proposal, so let me just check
this. I get one free stone per nweek and get place it anywhere in the grid,
yes? And can someone explain in simple language what the point of the game
is?

Well, I'll take my free stone and put it k10 (K for Kid)

    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
  5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . . .
 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Go move
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:20:27 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'll buy a stone for 4 points and place it at e2.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:58:43 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This was meant to go to the business list, of course :-(
--

I take my free stone and place it at c 17.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies. Might be =
useful to also copy this with each mail (like the board):

    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none

Joerg

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:39:36 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Shoud have sent that to the Business list.

I place my free stone at (s 19).

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies. Might
be useful to also copy this with each mail (like the board):

    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none
 Z  Zagarna                   none
--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:21:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I claim my free stone and play at O10.

>    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
>  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
>  5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
> 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

> Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies. Might
> be useful to also copy this with each mail (like the board):

>     Name                      Allies
> ----------------------------------------
>  J  Joel                      none
>  Q  PurpleBob                 none
>  C  Poulenc                   none
>  S  Jeff Schroeder            none
>  K  The Kid                   none
>  G  Joerg                     none
>  Z  Zagarna                   none
>  B  Benjamin                  none

- Benjamin Bradley - "peaks and valleys"
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:54:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I suppose I should post this to the BUSINESS list to make it official.
Oops. :)

I claim my free stone and play at B10.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies.

    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none
 Z  Zagarna                   none
 B  Benjamin                  none
 D  Dave                      none

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Nomic Business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:25:26 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[Despite the fact I don't know how to play Go and have no intention of
finding out]]

I claim my free stone and play at G6.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies.

    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none
 Z  Zagarna                   none
 B  Benjamin                  none
 D  Dave                      none
 M M'cachessilnath    none

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:44:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I propose an alliance with PurpleBob

Poulenc

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:42:43 +1000 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: RFJ 37
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The topic under consideration was:

"The player Poulenc performed several actions after the Motive Order for
repayment was issued, and therefore did not perform the required action
'as soon as possible' as stated in Rule 319/0.

Ruling:

True

Judge's Analysis and Orders:

Motion 22/0: states "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".

Rule 101/0 "Follow the rules" states "All game entities must always abide
by the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in
efffect. This Rule takes precedence over all other rules".

Rule 105: "Agents" states in part "An Agent is an entity capable of
action".

Rule 115/0: "Execution of orders" states "An Agent who is the recipient
of an Order must execute he Order in a timely fashion".

Rule 305: "Required Actions" states (in part) "an outstanding 'as soon as
possible' actions must be performed before any other actions may be
performed by that Agent." and "The time allowed for actions required to be
performed 'within a reasonable amount of time' varies depending on what is
reasonable for the action, but in no case is it longer than one week".

Rule 317 - "The bank" states in part "The bank is an agent".

Rule 318 "The Banker" states in part "It is the responsibility of the
Banker to post actions to the public forum for the Bank. There are some
decisions that must be made and some actions that must be performed by the
bank. This office acts as the decision-making and action-performing part
of the bank. If a CFJ finds that the banker has not allowed the Bank to
preform its required duties within a reasonable length of time e is
expelled from the office and fined 50 points".

Although the RFJ did not specify which motive order was not followed by
Poulenc, a reading of motions current at the time the RFJ was made shows
Motion 22 is the only motion which discusses a debt Poulenc owes to the
Bank.

This motion puts the onus for action on the Bank, not on the player
Poulenc. But According to rule 318, responsibility for actions taken by
the bank rests with the Banker, and specifies actions must be taken with
"a reasonable length of time".

Rule 305 states "a resonable length of time" can be no more than 1 nweek.

As the Banker (who is also player Poulenc) did not reclaim 30 points from
the player Poulenc within 1 nweek of the passage of Motion 22/0, the
Banker has not allowed the Bank to perform it's required duties within a
reasonable length of time, and e is expelled from office and fined 50
points.

Have a nice day.

Jonno.

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:49:10 +1000 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I refuste to hear this judgement on the grounds that it lacks a clear
stateent. There is no indicaton as to why the plaintiff believes the
action was invalid.

Regards,

Jonno.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Antonio wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:28:43 +0200, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote
> :
> 
> >I submit a new RFJ:
> >
> >The recusal of player Poulenc from the judgement on RFJ#40/0 and the
> >assignement of RFJ#40/0 to player Blest Lax Monk Pal were invalid.
> 
> Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno
> -- 
> 
> zagarna
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:06:36 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:44:44AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> 
> I propose an alliance with PurpleBob

I'm not sure if this is necessary, but: I accept the alliance.

-- 
Rob Speer