Subject: spoon-discuss: new lists
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:37:45 -0500

I just discovered that the list names conflicted with the account name, 
i.e. I knew they were the same, but I didn't know they would conflict. So, 
to fix the problem, I changed the list names to spoon-business and 
spoon-discuss. Why spoon? It was the first thing that came to mind.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:37:52 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>I just discovered that the list names conflicted with the account name, 
>i.e. I knew they were the same, but I didn't know they would conflict. So, 
>to fix the problem, I changed the list names to spoon-business and 
>spoon-discuss. Why spoon? It was the first thing that came to mind.

You crazy man.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: rule 104
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:51:17 CDT
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What does it actually do?  Anything?  It would seem that 116 renders it moot,
since 104 does not prohibit any action.  If it's designed to prevent stupid 
judgements, then it seems as if it should fall under a category other than 
"Rule".

And what's this "spoon" shit?  Are the mailing lists going to change when we 
get a real name?  Now I'm all for Joel being spontaneous and crazy, but 
g1-blah@ had already been announced on the Nomic BBS.  

Later, yo

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: rule 104 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:59:39 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Tom Plagge sprach:
>What does it actually do?  Anything?  It would seem that 116 renders it moot,
>since 104 does not prohibit any action.  If it's designed to prevent stupid 
>judgements, then it seems as if it should fall under a category other than 
>"Rule".

Perhaps rule 116 covers rule 104, but it would only do so implicitly
if rule 104 were not present. Maybe this was just one of Suber's
initial means of encouraging rule-changing. Think of it: even if there's
a rule saying anything's allowed, whether or not one can change the
rules could be the source of a great deal of argument, so stating
explicitly that rule-changing (and self-reference) are allowed makes
things run more smoothly. Recall, the initial motivation for Nomic
was to model things like the Constitution, where it was actually
under issue whether the document had the authority to modify itself.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: rule 104 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:04:21 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Tom Plagge:
> What does it actually do?  Anything?  It would seem that 116 renders it moot,
> since 104 does not prohibit any action.  If it's designed to prevent stupid 
> judgements, then it seems as if it should fall under a category other than 
> "Rule".

Q.v. Josh's message.

> And what's this "spoon" shit?  Are the mailing lists going to change when we 
> get a real name?  Now I'm all for Joel being spontaneous and crazy, but 
> g1-blah@ had already been announced on the Nomic BBS.  

Whether the list names change will depend on (1) whether we decide that the 
list names should reflect the game name, and (2) if so, whether the game is 
called "spoon". And if you check the Nomic Board, you'll see that I've 
already posted a correction there.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: rule 104 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:31:20 CDT
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Q.v. Josh's message.

Guess it doesn't hurt to be explicit.  

>Whether the list names change will depend on (1) whether we decide that the 
>list names should reflect the game name, and (2) if so, whether the game is 
>called "spoon". And if you check the Nomic Board, you'll see that I've 
>already posted a correction there.

You _posted_ a correction?  The Nomic Board is on your computer, so can't 
you manipulate it to your own nefarious ends?  :)

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: rule 104 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:39:49 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Tom Plagge:
> >Q.v. Josh's message.
> 
> Guess it doesn't hurt to be explicit.  
> 
> >Whether the list names change will depend on (1) whether we decide that the 
> >list names should reflect the game name, and (2) if so, whether the game is 
> >called "spoon". And if you check the Nomic Board, you'll see that I've 
> >already posted a correction there.
> 
> You _posted_ a correction?  The Nomic Board is on your computer, so can't 
> you manipulate it to your own nefarious ends?  :)

Um, I suppose I *could* manually correct the message, but it's really not 
something I should be doing. I just host the Board, so it's not mine to 
mess with.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:49:49 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Nathan D Ellefson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Out of curiosity, what is this list for? :)

At 07:37 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I just discovered that the list names conflicted with the account name, 
>i.e. I knew they were the same, but I didn't know they would conflict. So, 
>to fix the problem, I changed the list names to spoon-business and 
>spoon-discuss. Why spoon? It was the first thing that came to mind.
>
>-- 
>J.
>
>--
>Play Nomic!
>http://www.nomic.net
> 

**********************************************************************

"It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness."

		-Adage

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:50:32 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Nathan D Ellefson <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Forget the last message; I figured it out :)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

**********************************************************************

"Every Prime Minister needs a Willie."

		-Margret Thatcher, with regards to her close friend
			and confidant Willie Whitelaw

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:52:21 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The new nomic game, Nate. Duh. :)

Quoth Nathan D Ellefson:
> Out of curiosity, what is this list for? :)
> 
> At 07:37 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I just discovered that the list names conflicted with the account name, 
> >i.e. I knew they were the same, but I didn't know they would conflict. So, 
> >to fix the problem, I changed the list names to spoon-business and 
> >spoon-discuss. Why spoon? It was the first thing that came to mind.
> >
> >-- 
> >J.
> >
> >--
> >Play Nomic!
> >http://www.nomic.net
> > 
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 
> "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness."
> 
> 		-Adage
> 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 223 typo. 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:02:34 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>[[Do I have to explicitly state that this is a legislative order ?]]
>
>A legislative order to correct the wording of rule 223.
>
>The original (incorrect) text states:
>
>" Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
>A Proposal is adopted iff, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
>one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
>executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
>0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
>
>
>It will be changed to:
>
>" Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
>A Proposal is adopted if, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
>one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
>executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
>0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
>
>[[The fifth word of the text 'iff' changed to 'if'.]]

What's wrong with the biconditional?

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 5 typo. 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:24:45 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>[[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
>to 'interpolated'.]]

Jesus, Joel, did you run the ruleset through an OCR scanner or were
you just knackered while typing it in? :)

Josh

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

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:27:20 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: how to become a player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am publicly announcing "I am a player."

I wish to be known by Ed.  Now how uninteresting is that?

Ed

At 10:14 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
>At 00:00:00 UTC today, the nomic served by this list began. At 00:30:00, 
>the Administrator declared this list, [email-masked], to be a 
>public forum as per R219/0. As such, public business may be conducted here.
>
>On that note, I'd like to welcome everyone to the new game! To become a 
>Player, you need to publicly announce that you are one, and indicate by 
>what name you wish to be known (q.v. Rules 2, 105, 106, 209). Until then, 
>you're all just non-Player Agents, and can't do much...
>
>-- 
>J.
>
>--
>Play Nomic!
>http://www.nomic.net
> 

Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:39:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: how to become a player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I do hereby announce myself as a player. I've got a 40 and some j's. Where
be my hos?
I wish to go by the name Benjamin Bradley

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

On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Yo
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:41:13 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Suggestion: create an office called "The Pedant" or something like
that, give it the duty of spotting and correcting typographical
and similar mistakes in rules and other official documents.
Pay them a small stipend of points.

Then, retract the plethora of new proposals correcting said
errors, and wait until there is a Pedant to correct them.

Josh

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 223 typo. 
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:59:47 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

> What's wrong with the biconditional?

It is out of context for the sentence and Rule containing it.  ;op

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Fix Rule 223 typo. 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:58:23 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>> >[[The fifth word of the text 'iff' changed to 'if'.]]
>
>> What's wrong with the biconditional?
>
>It is out of context for the sentence and Rule containing it.  ;op

If that proposal hadn't preceded a flurry of spelling fixes, maybe
I'd buy that explanation. :P

Josh

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

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:00:15 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: all those proposals out there
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What sort of agent are you if you aren't a player?
I don't remember Kieron Jarvis declaring himself a player (maybe I missed
it) but it would seem by rule 105 that if e hasn't, e isn't an agent, so e
can't submit proposals, so all those corrections to the rules haven't been
proposed.

Ed

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Yo
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:05:23 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Suggestion: create an office called "The Pedant" or something like
> that, give it the duty of spotting and correcting typographical
> and similar mistakes in rules and other official documents.
> Pay them a small stipend of points.
>
> Then, retract the plethora of new proposals correcting said
> errors, and wait until there is a Pedant to correct them.

Once through the current rules should fix them up. I would assume then that
corrections for future rules would be made while they were still proposals.
I have put them up as separate proposals to allow each to be judged on it's
own merits.

XnJester

Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:02:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am pretty sure that he wants to know the point of having this huge number 
of separate lists.  I just file them into the same mailbox for Nomic.  What 
is the difference between spoon-discuss and spoon-business?  Isn't all 
discussion related to game business?  If there is a functional difference 
between the two lists, what happens (since I just dump everything into one 
mailbox) if I hit reply on something and send a message of importance to 
the wrong list?  Is it ignored or is there a mechanism to either redirect 
or handle the message anyway? Is the old list now defunct?

jeff

At 08:52 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
>The new nomic game, Nate. Duh. :)
>
>Quoth Nathan D Ellefson:
> > Out of curiosity, what is this list for? :)
> >
> > At 07:37 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > >I just discovered that the list names conflicted with the account name,
> > >i.e. I knew they were the same, but I didn't know they would conflict. 
> So,
> > >to fix the problem, I changed the list names to spoon-business and
> > >spoon-discuss. Why spoon? It was the first thing that came to mind.

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: all those proposals out there
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:10:52 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> What sort of agent are you if you aren't a player?
> I don't remember Kieron Jarvis declaring himself a player (maybe I missed
> it) but it would seem by rule 105 that if e hasn't, e isn't an agent, so e
> can't submit proposals, so all those corrections to the rules haven't been
> proposed.

> Ed

Yeah, OK. So maybe I didn't make it official at first. But I had that
corrected before your message was sent. I made the same mistake as you. I
didn't read all the messages before I sent my own.  :o(

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: how to become a player 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:16:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> I do hereby announce myself as a player. I've got a 40 and some j's. Where
> be my hos?

That would be a "playa" (or some variation thereof). Those aren't defined 
in the rules, but you can sip your gin and juice if you want. :)

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: all those proposals out there 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:25:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Andrew Proescholdt:
> 
> What sort of agent are you if you aren't a player?

One that can't do much. Players are a proper subset of Agents. Agents have 
scores, but no way of scoring points at present, and I think they can 
request judgments, if I remember correctly.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:37:36 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> I am pretty sure that he wants to know the point of having this huge number 
> of separate lists.  I just file them into the same mailbox for Nomic.  What 
> is the difference between spoon-discuss and spoon-business?  Isn't all 
> discussion related to game business?  If there is a functional difference 
> between the two lists, what happens (since I just dump everything into one 
> mailbox) if I hit reply on something and send a message of importance to 
> the wrong list?  Is it ignored or is there a mechanism to either redirect 
> or handle the message anyway? Is the old list now defunct?
> 
> jeff

Ah. I probably didn't explain that very well (maybe not at all). The reason 
I separated the lists was to ease automagically dealing with certain 
actions. Fewer messages to my script means (1) less process time used to 
run it, and (2) that it doesn't need to be able to differentiate between 
things quoted with ">"s and the things themselves (among other 
difficulties). The list filter isn't up yet, but this will help when it is.

As for replies, the Reply-To headers for both lists are set to 
spoon-discuss, so you can't accidentally send a reply to the business list. 
As for sending business to the discussion list... well, you'll be heckled 
by everyone and the action will never be recognized. C'est la vie.

The old list ([email-masked]) is still out there, and will be kept in 
reserve as a backup list in case something awful happens to my server and 
the spoon lists are unusable.

> At 08:52 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >The new nomic game, Nate. Duh. :)
> >
> >Quoth Nathan D Ellefson:
> > > Out of curiosity, what is this list for? :)
> > >
> > > At 07:37 PM 10/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >I just discovered that the list names conflicted with the account name,
> > > >i.e. I knew they were the same, but I didn't know they would conflict. 
> > So,
> > > >to fix the problem, I changed the list names to spoon-business and
> > > >spoon-discuss. Why spoon? It was the first thing that came to mind.
> 
> 

-- 
J.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 01:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: request for judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm too tired to go look this up in the ruleset (it's 2 AM), but could
someone check and see if non-players can request judgements?

In the meantime, I desire to become a player.  You can all call me DW by
my initials.

DW

On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Andrew Proescholdt wrote:

> I request a judgement on the following statement:
> Those that have declared emselves players are not players.
> 
> Analysis:
> 
> Since rule 105 prohibits people from making emselves Agents, and rule 209
> requires an entity to be an Agent before making emself a Player, those that
> have declared emselves players are not players.  [[And, among other things,
> I probably can't make this RFJ.]]
> 
> 209 states:
> During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player
> may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so.
> 
> 105 states:
> An Agent is an entity capable of action. The status of entities as Agents
> may be altered only as specified in the rules. An entity may cause emself
> to lose eir Agency, but may not, solely on eir own authority become an Agent.
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:57:40 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmmm.

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

This is the only rule concerning actions in Fora and I do not see any 
differentiation between the discuss list and the business list in the rules 
as they are both public Fora.  Therefore, just to be an ass, I won't send 
any mail to the business list.  :)

j

>As for replies, the Reply-To headers for both lists are set to
>spoon-discuss, so you can't accidentally send a reply to the business list.
>As for sending business to the discussion list... well, you'll be heckled
>by everyone and the action will never be recognized. C'est la vie.

Oh, my actions WILL be recognized!  muhahahaha <evil laugh>

From: "Kelly Christians" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Enter
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:10:11 -0500
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

-4T2

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Yo
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:10:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Sun, 01 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Wbfu Xbegorva:
> Suggestion: create an office called "The Pedant" or something like
> that, give it the duty of spotting and correcting typographical
> and similar mistakes in rules and other official documents.
> Pay them a small stipend of points.
>
> Then, retract the plethora of new proposals correcting said
> errors, and wait until there is a Pedant to correct them.
>
>
>

Then I suggest that anyone who doesn't like the spelling proposals to vote 
against them.  This will cause the owners of the proposals to lose 5 point 
for each failed proposal.  Then maybe people will stop making them and the 
only way to fix spelling errors will be to create an office to do so.  
Oh, and I volunteer for the job of arbitrarily modifying the rules in the 
name of spelling.  >:->
With a devilish grin,
God

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

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:03:52 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: how to become a player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I announce my existence and my player status to the list.
I may be referred to as Zagarna.
also is business an actual english word? As in "I'm in a state of business right
now, please call me later" ;)

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

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

From: "Kelly Christians" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: owe yaw
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:39:36 -0500
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

-4T2> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Yo 
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:17:37 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Adam Tomjack sprach:
>(Sun, 01 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Wbfu Xbegorva:
>> Suggestion: create an office called "The Pedant" or something like
>> that, give it the duty of spotting and correcting typographical
>> and similar mistakes in rules and other official documents.
>> Pay them a small stipend of points.
>>
>> Then, retract the plethora of new proposals correcting said
>> errors, and wait until there is a Pedant to correct them.
>
>Then I suggest that anyone who doesn't like the spelling proposals to vote 
>against them.  This will cause the owners of the proposals to lose 5 point 
>for each failed proposal.  Then maybe people will stop making them and the 
>only way to fix spelling errors will be to create an office to do so.  

I was considering that, but I thought I would offer a nicer alternative
at first.

I'd also welcome the return of no-benefit proposals, to be used for
things like this.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:48:23 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> Hmmm.
> 
> According to Rule 112:
> "Fora are the means by which Players communicate. All Fora are either 
> public or private. A Player using a Forum is considered to be "in" that 
> Forum at the time of its use. Actions may be taken only in public Fora, 
> unless otherwise specified in the Rules."
> 
> This is the only rule concerning actions in Fora and I do not see any 
> differentiation between the discuss list and the business list in the rules 
> as they are both public Fora.  Therefore, just to be an ass, I won't send 
> any mail to the business list.  :)
> 
> j

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

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

And Rule 219:

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

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

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

-- 
J.

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:06:55 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Mon, 02 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> I assign number 1 to the RFJ I made yesterday, and select myself as Judge:
>
> Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.
> . . .
> . . .  so I want to be sure I am ruling
> correctly. If anyone would like to make further argument why my
> interpretation is incorrect, I would be glad to consider it before making
> the judgment (tomorrow evening, probably).

I think perhaps we should ask the question, are there any players at all?  I 
could submit a Request for Judgement on the following statement:  The Player 
called Joel Uckelman is incapable of passing the Turning Test, and thus is 
not a player.  Since Joel's status as a player is called into question, could 
he be a judge?  And who would administer the Turing Test?  Perhaps we need an 
Officer in Charge of Administering Turing Tests.
Of course I won't submit such an RFJ lest, for that act of sabotage, I be 
crucified. ;)
God

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: all those proposals out there 
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:03:40 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Andrew Proescholdt:
>>
>> What sort of agent are you if you aren't a player?

> One that can't do much. Players are a proper subset of Agents. Agents have
> scores, but no way of scoring points at present, and I think they can
> request judgments, if I remember correctly.

Well actually it would appear from Rule 221 that I could submit Proposals as
an Agent even if I hadn't become a player (I have become a player, so it's a
moot point in my case). This is a loophole I'd like to close later.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:42:09 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If Joel rules against RFJ1 then he may not be able to definitively prove
himself to be a Player either. If he's not a Player then he is not
Administrator (R208).

I don't know whether he has sent a message to the list stating that he
desires to be a Player (R209). I haven't seen one since I joined.

I'm not going to call an RFJ on this. I am not attacking Joel. I do want to
avoid a situation where weeks later we find that Joel is not officially a
Player and has been voting etc and RFJing as a Player. So, I'll trust him to
do the right thing or let someone else call the RFJ.

XnJester

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

(Mon, 02 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> I assign number 1 to the RFJ I made yesterday, and select myself as Judge:
>
> Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.
> . . .
> . . .  so I want to be sure I am ruling
> correctly. If anyone would like to make further argument why my
> interpretation is incorrect, I would be glad to consider it before making
> the judgment (tomorrow evening, probably).

I think perhaps we should ask the question, are there any players at all?  I
could submit a Request for Judgement on the following statement:  The Player
called Joel Uckelman is incapable of passing the Turning Test, and thus is
not a player.  Since Joel's status as a player is called into question,
could
he be a judge?  And who would administer the Turing Test?  Perhaps we need
an
Officer in Charge of Administering Turing Tests.
Of course I won't submit such an RFJ lest, for that act of sabotage, I be
crucified. ;)
God

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:20:26 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> If Joel rules against RFJ1 then he may not be able to definitively prove
> himself to be a Player either. If he's not a Player then he is not
> Administrator (R208).
> 
> I don't know whether he has sent a message to the list stating that he
> desires to be a Player (R209). I haven't seen one since I joined.
> 
> I'm not going to call an RFJ on this. I am not attacking Joel. I do want to
> avoid a situation where weeks later we find that Joel is not officially a
> Player and has been voting etc and RFJing as a Player. So, I'll trust him to
> do the right thing or let someone else call the RFJ.
> 
> XnJester

Point taken, but I think I'm safe on this one. I didn't need to declare 
myself a Player because I stipulated when starting the game that I was 
already a Player (to avoid exactly the problem you describe).

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:26:59 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> (Mon, 02 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> > I assign number 1 to the RFJ I made yesterday, and select myself as Judge:
> >
> > Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.
> > . . .
> > . . .  so I want to be sure I am ruling
> > correctly. If anyone would like to make further argument why my
> > interpretation is incorrect, I would be glad to consider it before making
> > the judgment (tomorrow evening, probably).
> 
> I think perhaps we should ask the question, are there any players at all?  I 
> could submit a Request for Judgement on the following statement:  The Player 
> called Joel Uckelman is incapable of passing the Turning Test, and thus is 
> not a player.  Since Joel's status as a player is called into question, could
>  
> he be a judge?  And who would administer the Turing Test?  Perhaps we need an
>  
> Officer in Charge of Administering Turing Tests.
> Of course I won't submit such an RFJ lest, for that act of sabotage, I be 
> crucified. ;)
> God

My (admittedly bad) solution to this is to take Playerhood to be 
self-evident in some (many?) cases. This is a rather Godel-esque problem, 
in that there seems to be no satisfactory way to handle certain questions 
within the system, e.g. "No one is a Player.", "No one is eligible to be a 
Judge.", and other variations on the same theme. If someone can think of a 
principled way to deal with these, we should give em a medal or something. 
We were never able to do so in Berserker...

-- 
J.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:30:00 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Actually, I think the rules imply Joel is a player.  One rule defines Joel
as the administrator.  Since the administror is an office, and an officer
must be a player, Joel must be a player.
I don't know how this works with the rule about nothing stopping players
from forfeiting....

Ed

At 12:20 AM 10/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
>> If Joel rules against RFJ1 then he may not be able to definitively prove
>> himself to be a Player either. If he's not a Player then he is not
>> Administrator (R208).
>> 
>> I don't know whether he has sent a message to the list stating that he
>> desires to be a Player (R209). I haven't seen one since I joined.
>> 
>> I'm not going to call an RFJ on this. I am not attacking Joel. I do want to
>> avoid a situation where weeks later we find that Joel is not officially a
>> Player and has been voting etc and RFJing as a Player. So, I'll trust
him to
>> do the right thing or let someone else call the RFJ.
>> 
>> XnJester
>
>Point taken, but I think I'm safe on this one. I didn't need to declare 
>myself a Player because I stipulated when starting the game that I was 
>already a Player (to avoid exactly the problem you describe).
>
>-- 
>J.
>
>--
>Play Nomic!
>http://www.nomic.net
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists 
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:38:27 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

The game will be run, in part, by a computer. Having a second list
makes it easy on the programmer. I don't think it's all that much
more difficult to send business to the business list. In fact,
I think it's easier than marking up business posts by hand. WTF?

Josh

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: new lists
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:26:27 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Tue, 03 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Wbfu Xbegorva:
> Benjamin Bradley sprach:
> >this is pretty silly.
> >remind me again why we have different mailing lists for business and
> >discussion?
> >since I'm not a player yet, I can't make any proposals, so this is my

Agents can make proposals.  It might be that only Players may vote though.  

> The game will be run, in part, by a computer. Having a second list
> makes it easy on the programmer. I don't think it's all that much
> more difficult to send business to the business list. In fact,
> I think it's easier than marking up business posts by hand. WTF?
>
> Josh

Personally I like having the two lists, because I have my mail client filter 
the messages into two separate folders.  It is easier to find the actual 
proposals and actions when you don't have to sift through all the discussion. 
 Additionally, I find it easier to maintain the formal business style of 
writiing when I don't have to mix it with discussion.

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:42:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> My (admittedly bad) solution to this is to take Playerhood to be
> self-evident in some (many?) cases. This is a rather Godel-esque problem,
> in that there seems to be no satisfactory way to handle certain questions
> within the system, e.g. "No one is a Player.", "No one is eligible to be a
> Judge.", and other variations on the same theme. If someone can think of a
> principled way to deal with these, we should give em a medal or something.
> We were never able to do so in Berserker...

If Joel rules that those who have expressed their desires to become players 
are not players, and Joel's playerhood were called into question, he could 
forfeit, thus ending the game (??  Or would he have to make a proposal and 
vote?)  Anyway, when the game which may or may not have started ends, we can 
(from outside of a yet-to-be started game) add some rules such as these:

Any entity capable of communicating via any forum shall be considered capable 
of action and thus is an Agent.

The entity (or Agent) which initiates the nomic for the first time shall 
enter the game as a Player with the status of Administrator.

All actions directed towards indefinitely vacant offices shall be handled by 
the Administrator.  (Or something like this so that there will always be an 
eligible judge so long as there is an Administrator)

The Administrator may not resign eir office or forfeit the game (need to 
change the forfeit rule) until a successor is chosen. (So that there will 
always be an Administrator.  Of course then you need a way to end the game 
with players still in the game, because the Admin can't forfeit without a 
successor)

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: list stuff
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:13:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The lists archive is now available online.

Also, there are digest versions of both lists, spoon-business-digest and 
spoon-discuss-digest. To subscribe, send a message with 'subscribe' in the 
body to [email-masked] or 
[email-masked], respectively.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: on the profusion of RFJs
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:20:52 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think making excessive RFJs should be classified as an infraction of some 
sort, with a corresponding penalty. Also, I think we would benefit from a 
method of combining similar RFJs. That said, I have a few comments on the 
outstanding RFJs, by number:

2. I think the Judge for this one is bound by 124/0 to follow the precedent 
set in J1.

3-5. I checked the list archives, with the following results: Neither Ed 
nor DW declared themselves players on the _business_ list. Nor did Benjamin 
Bradley by that name, though he did later declare himself to be "Benjamin".

The judicial stuff will be making its way to the page tomorrow.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: on the profusion of RFJs
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:29:59 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I think making excessive RFJs should be classified as an infraction of
some
> sort, with a corresponding penalty. Also, I think we would benefit from a
> method of combining similar RFJs.

I think we should be rewarded for the Judgments we make and possibly
penalized if a Judgment goes against us.

> That said, I have a few comments on the outstanding RFJs, by number:

> 2. I think the Judge for this one is bound by 124/0 to follow the
precedent
> set in J1.

I am not bound by R124 to follow that precedent. I am bound by R124 to
"...provide in eir analysis justification for doing so."  You'll see that
I've already ruled in favor of the precedent.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Discussion'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player.
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:37:56 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

NB: This is still not being sent as an RFJ because I'd like to avoid having
to restart the game due to paradox. C'mon Joel, make yourself a Player
before the paradox becomes worse.

I would state:
The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player.

My reasons for this statement are as follows:

The Agent Joel Uckelman has sent no posts to the business list stating a
desire to become a Player.

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

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

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

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

The Agent Joel Uckelman has fulfilled neither of these requirements.

I expect that e would argue from

Rule 208:
"...The Player whose real name is Joel Uckelman is the Administrator..."

I would argue that the explicit requirements of becoming a Player would
override the implicit assumption of R208 that e is a Player.

Again, I remind you that I will drop the matter if he just sends a post to
explicitly request becoming a Player.

Yours Sincerely,

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: on the profusion of RFJs 
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:37:52 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>> I think making excessive RFJs should be classified as an infraction of
>some
>> sort, with a corresponding penalty. Also, I think we would benefit from a
>> method of combining similar RFJs.
>
>I think we should be rewarded for the Judgments we make and possibly
>penalized if a Judgment goes against us.

Fuck the losers some more, you mean? This is not very tenable, since
some RFJs are made in good faith, and the court system exists to resolve
RFJs.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: on the profusion of RFJs 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:42:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> > I think making excessive RFJs should be classified as an infraction of
> some
> > sort, with a corresponding penalty. Also, I think we would benefit from a
> > method of combining similar RFJs.
> 
> I think we should be rewarded for the Judgments we make and possibly
> penalized if a Judgment goes against us.

That's a hard thing to determine, and easily manipulated. I could put 
myself on the other 'side' of an RFJ simply by inserting a negative in it 
somewhere.
-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player. 
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:46:35 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>NB: This is still not being sent as an RFJ because I'd like to avoid having
>to restart the game due to paradox. C'mon Joel, make yourself a Player
>before the paradox becomes worse.
>
>I would state:
>The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player.
>
>My reasons for this statement are as follows:
>
>The Agent Joel Uckelman has sent no posts to the business list stating a
>desire to become a Player.
>
>
>Rule 106:
>"A Player is an Agent who...has become a Player in the manner proscribed in
>the Rules."
>
>makes it clear that an Agent may only become a Player as proscribed in the
>Rules. The only rules that allow an Agent to become a player are these two.

Does it make it clear?

Compare:

A Player is an Agent who... (conditions).

An apple is a fruit which is red.

>Rule 208:
>"...The Player whose real name is Joel Uckelman is the Administrator..."
>
>I would argue that the explicit requirements of becoming a Player would
>override the implicit assumption of R208 that e is a Player.

The Administrator is an officer.
Officers are players.
Joel is the Administrator.
Therefore, Joel is a player.

?

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:06:35 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> NB: This is still not being sent as an RFJ because I'd like to avoid having
> to restart the game due to paradox. C'mon Joel, make yourself a Player
> before the paradox becomes worse.
> 
> I would state:
> The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player.
> 
> My reasons for this statement are as follows:
> 
> The Agent Joel Uckelman has sent no posts to the business list stating a
> desire to become a Player.
> 
> 
> Rule 106:
> "A Player is an Agent who...has become a Player in the manner proscribed in
> the Rules."
> 
> makes it clear that an Agent may only become a Player as proscribed in the
> Rules. The only rules that allow an Agent to become a player are these two.
> 
> Rule 209:
> "During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player
> may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so."
> 
> Rule 210:
> "Any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become one if a Motion to Add
> naming em is adopted..."
> 
> 
> The Agent Joel Uckelman has fulfilled neither of these requirements.
> 
> I expect that e would argue from
> 
> Rule 208:
> "...The Player whose real name is Joel Uckelman is the Administrator..."
> 
> I would argue that the explicit requirements of becoming a Player would
> override the implicit assumption of R208 that e is a Player.
> 
> Again, I remind you that I will drop the matter if he just sends a post to
> explicitly request becoming a Player.
> 
> Yours Sincerely,
> 
> XnJester
> 

There is nothing inconsistent with starting the game as a Player. To do so 
_assumes_ that I am a Player. That's what an initial condition is--an 
assumption that something is true of the game state at time 0. By R106 and 
the assumption of my Playerhood, it follows by definition that I consent 
and have "become a Player in the manner proscribed in the Rules". If you 
reject one of the initial conditions, viz. that I started as a Player, then 
we're just not playing the same game.

Besides, even if you're right, the solution isn't as easy as declaring 
myself a Player, because if I'm not a Player I'm not the Admin, and if I'm 
not the Admin I couldn't have created the business list as a public forum, 
so *no* legal actions could yet have been taken, or will ever be possible, 
since there is no way to become Admin.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player. 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 01:13:16 CDT
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
>> NB: This is still not being sent as an RFJ because I'd like to avoid 
having
>> to restart the game due to paradox. C'mon Joel, make yourself a Player
>> before the paradox becomes worse.
>> 
>> I would state:
>> The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player.
>> 
>> My reasons for this statement are as follows:
>> 
>> The Agent Joel Uckelman has sent no posts to the business list stating a
>> desire to become a Player.
>> 
>> 
>> Rule 106:
>> "A Player is an Agent who...has become a Player in the manner 
proscribed in > the Rules."
>> 
>> makes it clear that an Agent may only become a Player as proscribed in the
>> Rules. The only rules that allow an Agent to become a player are these 
two. > 
>> Rule 209:
>> "During the first nweek of play, any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player
>> may become one by publicly declaring eir desire to be so."
>> 
>> Rule 210:
>> "Any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become one if a Motion 
to Add > naming em is adopted..."
>> 
>> 
>> The Agent Joel Uckelman has fulfilled neither of these requirements.
>>
>> I expect that e would argue from
>> 
>> Rule 208:
>> "...The Player whose real name is Joel Uckelman is the Administrator..."
>> 
>> I would argue that the explicit requirements of becoming a Player would
>> override the implicit assumption of R208 that e is a Player.
>> 
>> Again, I remind you that I will drop the matter if he just sends a post to
>> explicitly request becoming a Player.
>> 
>> Yours Sincerely,
>> 
>> XnJester
>> 
>
>There is nothing inconsistent with starting the game as a Player. To do so 
>_assumes_ that I am a Player. That's what an initial condition is--an 
>assumption that something is true of the game state at time 0. By R106 and 
>the assumption of my Playerhood, it follows by definition that I consent 
>and have "become a Player in the manner proscribed in the Rules". If you 
>reject one of the initial conditions, viz. that I started as a Player, then 
>we're just not playing the same game.

I would say that when the game starts there are zero (0) Players in the 
game and they are all added in the manner stated in the rules.  I would 
not make the assumption that since you started the game, you are by 
default a Player.

I would also state that by the wording of Rule 106, "A Player is an 
Agent who...has become a Player in the manner proscribed in the Rules," 
that the Agent must, through some action (other than assumption, and 
perhaps even other than a Rule with higher numerical value (are lower 
numerical Rules having precedence over higher ones in this game?)), actively 
BECOME a Player from something other than a Player (Agent).

>Besides, even if you're right, the solution isn't as easy as declaring 
>myself a Player, because if I'm not a Player I'm not the Admin, and if I'm 
>not the Admin I couldn't have created the business list as a public forum, 
>so *no* legal actions could yet have been taken, or will ever be possible, 
>since there is no way to become Admin.

That is the point of the game!  Confusion raineth supreme!

jeff

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:15:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognized proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Would it be possible, when the proposals get listed on the website, to
have a short list somewhere containing a list of the proposals (names?),
who submitted them, a very brief (ie one phrase or a sentence) summary,
and maybe the type of proposal (ie typo/spelling correction, etc). Thanks!

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

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> This is a listing of all recognized proposals. All are version 0 unless 
> otherwise noted.
> 
> The following proposals by XnJester are recognized:
> 
> ----
> Proposal 301
> Fix Rule 4 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:51:30
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> 
> Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> 
> Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable' and 'differientiate' to
> 'differentiate'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 302
> Fix Rule 5 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:51:42
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
> Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
> its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
> the intrerpolated string "n/r", where q is the sum of the base number for T
> and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
> [[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
> the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
> Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
> its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
> the interpolated string "n/r", where n is the sum of the base number for T
> and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
> [[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
> the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
> to 'interpolated'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 303
> Fix Rule 8
> 2 Oct 2000 03:51:53
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 8/0 : Comments
> The following two non-whitespace characters:
> [ ]
> 
> are considered "reserved characters when appearing in Official Documents in
> ways defined herein.
> 
> Excepting any text in the Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
> text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
> considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
> its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 8/0 : Comments
> The following two non-whitespace characters:
> [ ]
> 
> are considered "reserved" characters when appearing in Official Documents in
> ways defined herein.
> 
> Excepting any text in this Rule prior to and including this sentence, any
> text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
> considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
> its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[Added quotes for "reserved". I have changed 'the Rule' to 'this Rule' to
> help prevent ambiguity.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 304
> Fix Rule 102
> 2 Oct 2000 03:52:14
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
> The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
> be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisiable.
> Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base Rule number is 300.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 102/0 : Rules and The Ruleset
> The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may
> be altered only as provided therein. Rules are revisable.
> Every Rule must have a unique Rule number. The base number for Rules is 0.
> Serial numbering of Rules start from 300.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[I have changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable'. I have corrected the last
> sentence and added an extra sentence to help prevent ambiguity about base
> numbers (as in Rule 5)]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 305
> Fix Rule 114 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:52:34
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 114.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 114/0 : Orders
> An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient,
> requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
> one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
> action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
> Courts.
> An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
> Private.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 114/0 : Orders
> An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known as the recipient,
> requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
> one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
> action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
> Courts.
> An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
> Private.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[The word 'a' changed to 'as'.]]
> 
> ----
> The following Proposal by God is recognized:
> 
> Proposal 306
> [[no title]]
> 2 Oct 2000 21:59:56
> 
> I propose that the following rule be added to the ruleset:
> 
> A forum not declared to be a public forum by the Administrator is not a 
> public forum.  Actions taken in a forum that is not a public forum are not 
> recognized.
> 
> ----
> The following Proposals by XnJester are recognized:
> 
> Proposal 307
> Fix Rule 223 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 02:59:39
> 
> A legislative order to correct the wording of rule 223.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
> A Proposal is adopted iff, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
> one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
> executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 223/0 : Adoption of Proposals
> A Proposal is adopted if, at the close of voting, its passage ratio exceeds
> one-half. Legislative Orders in the text of an adopted Proposal shall be
> executed in a timely fashion by the appropriate Officers.
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[The fifth word of the text 'iff' changed to 'if'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 308
> Fix Rule 114 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:02:10
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 114.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 114/0 : Orders
> An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known a the recipient,
> requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
> one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
> action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
> Courts.
> An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
> Private.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 114/0 : Orders
> An Order is a command directed to some Agent, known as the recipient,
> requiring em to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing
> one or more actions. Any Order that does not unambiguously specify what
> action is to be taken in its execution may be declared invalid by the
> Courts.
> An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
> Private.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[The word 'a' changed to 'as'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 309
> Fix Rule 4 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:08:51
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[changed 'revisable' to 'revisable' and 'differentiate' to
> 'differentiate'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 310/0
> Fix Rule 4 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:08:51
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[changed 'revisable' to 'revisable' and 'differentiate' to
> 'differentiate'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 310/1
> Fix Rule 4 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:10:02
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 4.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisiable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> Revision numbers differientiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 4/0 : Versions and Revision Numbers
> Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
> play creates a new version of it.
> Revision numbers differentiate versions of revisable objects. Each time a
> revisable object is altered, its revision number is incremented. The initial
> revision number is 0.
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[changed 'revisiable' to 'revisable' and 'differientiate' to
> 'differentiate'.]]
> 
> ----
> Proposal 311
> Fix Rule 5 typo
> 2 Oct 2000 03:18:52
> 
> This is a legislative order to correct the wording of rule 5.
> 
> The original (incorrect) text states:
> 
> " Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
> Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
> its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
> the intrerpolated string "n/r", where q is the sum of the base number for T
> and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
> [[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
> the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> 
> It will be changed to:
> 
> " Rule 5/0 : Serial Numbers
> Every revisable object has a serial number unique for the set of objects of
> its type. The serial number of a revisable object of type T is defined as
> the interpolated string "n/r", where n is the sum of the base number for T
> and the object's number, and r is the object's revision number.
> [[Example: The serial number for version 0 of Rule 101 would be 101/0, while
> the serial number for Rule 203, version 17 would be 203/17.]]
> 
> 0. Initial Rule, 2 October 2000"
> 
> [[I believe that 'q' should actually be 'n'. I have changed 'intrerpolated'
> to 'interpolated'.]]
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognized proposals 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:42:11 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>Would it be possible, when the proposals get listed on the website, to
>have a short list somewhere containing a list of the proposals (names?),
>who submitted them, a very brief (ie one phrase or a sentence) summary,
>and maybe the type of proposal (ie typo/spelling correction, etc). Thanks!

This would work out better if people submitted such summaries with
their proposals.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ: reflexivity of "to be" 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 14:15:47 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>I request judgement on the following statements regarding Rule 105/0:
>
>STATEMENT 1:
>The english verb "to be" is considered reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y
>is x.']. 
>
>{{as a side note, this problem would never happen in spanish, since
>there are two different verbs for "to be", one of which indicates a
>(permanent) characteristic and the other indicates a (temporary) state}}
>

Yo, get a dictionary.

First of all, "to be" itself can't be reflexive. You mean the specific
form "is".

Second, there are many different uses of "is". If we were to judge your
statement true, we would be forced to hold true that

An apple is a fruit.

and

A fruit is an apple.

which is parently false, because oranges are fruits which aren't apples.

Josh

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:40:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ: reflexivity of "to be"
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Gee golly gosh batman! you're right!

joel- how do I cancel the first RFJ and just leave the second one?

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

> A fruit is an apple.
> 
> which is parently false, because oranges are fruits which aren't apples.

my mom is parently false.

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player.
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:03:56 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Wed, 04 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
>
> There is nothing inconsistent with starting the game as a Player. To do so
> _assumes_ that I am a Player. That's what an initial condition is--an
> assumption that something is true of the game state at time 0. By R106 and
> the assumption of my Playerhood, it follows by definition that I consent
> and have "become a Player in the manner proscribed in the Rules". If you
> reject one of the initial conditions, viz. that I started as a Player, then
> we're just not playing the same game.
>
> Besides, even if you're right, the solution isn't as easy as declaring
> myself a Player, because if I'm not a Player I'm not the Admin, and if I'm
> not the Admin I couldn't have created the business list as a public forum,
> so *no* legal actions could yet have been taken, or will ever be possible,
> since there is no way to become Admin.

I don't see any rules prohibiting Agents from holding Offices or being 
Officers.  The rules only state (R108): "A Player holding an Office is an 
Officer."  This mentions nothing about Agents, so it must not be prohibited 
for an Agent to be Administrator.

As I see it, we needn't assume Joel was a Player at the outset.  He could 
have been (and could still be) an Agent.  We must assume though, that if the 
spoon-business list is a Public Forum, it must have been declared so by an 
Administrator.  Since the only Agent (or Player) who made such a declaration 
is Joel, then if it is a Public Forum, Joel is the Administrator, but not 
necessarily a Player.  

We would still have to assume that Joel was the Administrator from the 
Beginning.  If Joel is not a Player, things get difficult, but not impossible 
so long as he is still Administrator.

It boils down to this:  The rules don't prohibit initial assumptions about 
the game.  The only thing that is prohibited is an inconsistent initial 
state.  We can make things easy and assert that Joel was a Player from the 
start, so long as it isn't inconsisted with the state of the game.  ((We can 
assert or assume this.  It doesn't have to logically follow from anything.  
We can do what we please so long as it is consistent.))  Part of the game's 
state is it's ruleset.  If Joel's Playerhood is inconsistent with the rules, 
then the game hasn't started.  The only rule (I think) concerning this is 
R106: 

A Player is an Agent who is capable of passing the Turing Test, consents to 
said designation as a Player, and has become a Player in the manner 
proscribed in the Rules.

I think Joel can pass a Turing Test ;) and he certainly consents to being a 
player.  Has he become a player in a manner proscribed in the Rules?   I 
don't think the rules proscribe a manner for becoming a player.  They list 
some properties that a player must possess (the ability to pass a TT and a 
desire to become a P), but they don't say how to become one.  Therefore, 
since there is no manner in which Joel can become a Player, he is not one.  
By that argument, I am not a player, nor is anybody else.  If it is assumed 
that having the required properties of a player is the manner in which one 
becomes a player, then Joel is a player.  If this is also the case, then in 
my opinion, all those RFCs I made regarding who was not a player should have 
been ruled false.  To consent is to give agreement.  I think it is possible 
to consent privately to oneself without notifying anybody else.  Hence those 
who posted to the non-public list clearly gave consent to be players, if to 
nobody but themselves.  Since they convinced me of their sentience, I would 
say they've passed the Turning test. ;)

God.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognized proposals 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:56:38 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Benjamin Bradley sprach:
> >Would it be possible, when the proposals get listed on the website, to
> >have a short list somewhere containing a list of the proposals (names?),
> >who submitted them, a very brief (ie one phrase or a sentence) summary,
> >and maybe the type of proposal (ie typo/spelling correction, etc). Thanks!
> 
> This would work out better if people submitted such summaries with
> their proposals.
> 
> Josh

Noted. When I enter the proposals into the DB (in just a few minutes, 
actually), I can have it churn out a report listing just numbers, owners, 
and titles, with links to the full texts. As for summaries, Josh is 
right--I don't have any summaries to post. Anyway, have we had any 
proposals yet that are so long they need summaries?

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The Agent Joel Uckelman is not a Player. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:11:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff N Schroeder:
<snip>
> >
> >There is nothing inconsistent with starting the game as a Player. To do so 
> >_assumes_ that I am a Player. That's what an initial condition is--an 
> >assumption that something is true of the game state at time 0. By R106 and 
> >the assumption of my Playerhood, it follows by definition that I consent 
> >and have "become a Player in the manner proscribed in the Rules". If you 
> >reject one of the initial conditions, viz. that I started as a Player, then 
> >we're just not playing the same game.
> 
> I would say that when the game starts there are zero (0) Players in the 
> game and they are all added in the manner stated in the rules.  I would 
> not make the assumption that since you started the game, you are by 
> default a Player.

That's beside the point. I *stipulated* that I was a player when the game 
began--i.e., it was a statement of the game state when the game started. 
Nothing happened in the game prior to that point, nor were the rules in 
effect. The rules simply don't apply to extra-game occurrences, especially 
those predating the existence of the game.

This seems analogous to denying that x = 3 when a math problem tells you to 
assume "x = 3".

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ: reflexivity of "to be" 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:34:01 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

That is a wonderful question, one which I was pondering yesterday. As it 
stands, I am required to recognize all RFJs "in a timely fashion", so there 
really is no way to withdraw them--which is why I'll be proposing a rule 
allowing actions to be rescinded before they are recognized.

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> Gee golly gosh batman! you're right!
> 
> joel- how do I cancel the first RFJ and just leave the second one?
> 
> - You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 
> > A fruit is an apple.
> > 
> > which is parently false, because oranges are fruits which aren't apples.
> 
> my mom is parently false.
> 

-- 
J.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 01:02:03 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal on rescinding actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> There seems to be a need for being able to take back actions, so I'm
> offering a proposal to allow that:
> 
> <Proposal>
> <Title>Rescinding Actions</Title>
> 
> A Agent may rescind any unrecognized action e has taken at any time by
> publicly indicating that e is doing so. The recognition of a rescinded
> action by any Officer is prohibited.
> </Proposal>
> 
> This should work fine assuming there is at least a little lag between
> actions and there recognition.
> 
> --
> J.
> 
wouldnt it be better to allow players to withdraw RFJ just like proposals, that
is both before\after they have been recognized? 
This proposal is IMHO a good thing(TM)but what happens if the action (eg an RFJ)
has already been recognized but has also become somehow obsolete?

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining (again) and a new proposal.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> list and still pass all of it's classes.  Oh well, I struggle onwards.

All semicolons deserve to be shot.

Pouelnc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognized proposals 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:45:00 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Noted. When I enter the proposals into the DB (in just a few minutes, 
>actually), I can have it churn out a report listing just numbers, owners, 
>and titles, with links to the full texts. As for summaries, Josh is 
>right--I don't have any summaries to post. Anyway, have we had any 
>proposals yet that are so long they need summaries?

I think the idea was that it's kind of a pain in the ass to find
(any) interesting proposals in that mess of pedantry.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining (again) and a new proposal. 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:48:03 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sprach:
>
>> list and still pass all of it's classes.  Oh well, I struggle onwards.
>
>
>All semicolons deserve to be shot.

Apostrophes, too.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:55:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joining (again) and a new proposal. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Dan Waldron sprach:
> >
> >> list and still pass all of it's classes.  Oh well, I struggle onwards.
> >
> >
> >All semicolons deserve to be shot.
> 
> Apostrophes, too.

(no, just this one, "*").

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joining (again) and a new proposal. 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:59:28 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sprach:
>> 
>> Dan Waldron sprach:
>> >
>> >> list and still pass all of it's classes.  Oh well, I struggle onwards.
>> >
>> >
>> >All semicolons deserve to be shot.
>> 
>> Apostrophes, too.
>
>(no, just this one, "*").

Asterisk. Keep trying!

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:34:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: rescinding actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

RFJs go through a process similar to proposals (RFJ/judge
selection/judgement vs proposal/placed on ballot/voting) so maybe we could
amend the proposal to specifically allow RFJs to be rescinded any time
before they are decided.

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

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, zagarna wrote:

> Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > 
> > There seems to be a need for being able to take back actions, so I'm
> > offering a proposal to allow that:
> > 
> > <Proposal>
> > <Title>Rescinding Actions</Title>
> > 
> > A Agent may rescind any unrecognized action e has taken at any time by
> > publicly indicating that e is doing so. The recognition of a rescinded
> > action by any Officer is prohibited.
> > </Proposal>
> > 
> > This should work fine assuming there is at least a little lag between
> > actions and there recognition.
> > 
> > --
> > J.
> > 
> wouldnt it be better to allow players to withdraw RFJ just like proposals, that
> is both before\after they have been recognized? 
> This proposal is IMHO a good thing(TM)but what happens if the action (eg an RFJ)
> has already been recognized but has also become somehow obsolete?
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognized proposals 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

the reason I thought of it was the first batch of proposals was all typos
fixes, and I had to read through all of it anyway.
I think this might be what Josh said, but I don't know what pedantry is.

also, if we could have a copy of the number/title/subject/summary/whatever
list at  the beginning of the balot... I don't know nevermind.

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

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Wbfu Xbegorva wrote:
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >Noted. When I enter the proposals into the DB (in just a few minutes, 
> >actually), I can have it churn out a report listing just numbers, owners, 
> >and titles, with links to the full texts. As for summaries, Josh is 
> >right--I don't have any summaries to post. Anyway, have we had any 
> >proposals yet that are so long they need summaries?
> 
> I think the idea was that it's kind of a pain in the ass to find
> (any) interesting proposals in that mess of pedantry.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognized proposals 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:13:46 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>the reason I thought of it was the first batch of proposals was all typos
>fixes, and I had to read through all of it anyway.
>I think this might be what Josh said, but I don't know what pedantry is.

It's kind of like pederasty, except less messy.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Pedantics. 
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:54:23 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Hey - it takes a pedant to know one.

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:45:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: timing of RFJs
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Are RFJs supposed to be judged based on the game state at the current
time, the time the RFJ was made, or the time of the event in question (if
any) ?

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:27:38 +0200
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> Most of the proposals etc so far seem to be about correcting spelling errors
> and discussion if X is a player or not. So, I thought I'd submit something
> *completely* different...
> 
> Proposal: Subliminal Religious Indoctrination
> 
> If at any time a Player submits a proposal which will cause the creation or
> alteration of a rule so that the rule would subsequently contain the text of
> one or more verses(*) from a Recognised Religious Text(**), then that Player
> shall secretly become a Humble Disciple.
>.....[rest snipped].......

Lol! and a very nice one too!
minor suggested correctons follow:
 
>
> If the proposal of a Humble Disciple is passed without the Humble Disciple
> being Accused of Heresy, then the Humble Disciple shall claim to have
                                                    ^^^^^
> Preached to the Unbelievers and offer the proof. If their claim is accepted
> then they have Achieved Enlightenment and are blessed with 30 points.

Maybe it would be better to substitute "shall" with "may" and also
provide a time limit for the claim, this in case someone submits a
subliminal religious indoctrination without noticing.

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

Lol again!
> 
> --
> The Kid

you have my vote kid 

Zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:35:12 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

State sponsored religion? What kind of fascist are you?

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:42:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> State sponsored religion? What kind of fascist are you?

I realize that was probably a joke, but being the mental wanker that I am,
I have to disagree. The American notion of "separation of church and
state" is pretty fucked up to begin with. Church and State necessarily
must be bound together. Church defines morality and state implements that
morality. Separation of church and state would (and does!) create a
morally inconsistent nation.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:46:25 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>> State sponsored religion? What kind of fascist are you?
>
>I realize that was probably a joke, but being the mental wanker that I am,
>I have to disagree. The American notion of "separation of church and
>state" is pretty fucked up to begin with. Church and State necessarily
>must be bound together. Church defines morality and state implements that
>morality. Separation of church and state would (and does!) create a
>morally inconsistent nation.

Apparently you've never heard of secular humanism?

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:49:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Apparently you've never heard of secular humanism?

No, I haven't.

What is secular humanism?
Please note: I'm not a philosophy major by any means I just dabble in
mental wanking and have taken a couple philosophy classes.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:08:36 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Apparently you've never heard of secular humanism?
> 
> No, I haven't.
> 
> What is secular humanism?
> Please note: I'm not a philosophy major by any means I just dabble in
> mental wanking and have taken a couple philosophy classes.

Woah! Let's not get into this! My proposal was meant to be a light hearted
one. And it's not about state sponsored religion anyway. I just like the
idea of people trying to sneak stuff into the rules without others noticing.
This was just a nice way of wrapping it all up.

Zagarna, thanks for your comments. I'll have a look at putting a time limit
in. It never occured to me that someone could do it without realising. How
do I modify a proposal? Do I just submit a modification, or withdraw the
proposal and submit a new one?

--
The Kid

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:10:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Thu, 05 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Harrison, Andrew:
> Most of the proposals etc so far seem to be about correcting spelling
> errors and discussion if X is a player or not. So, I thought I'd submit
> something *completely* different...
>
> Proposal: Subliminal Religious Indoctrination

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

Hmm, I don't know if( this->Idea.Quality == GOOD ) 
God

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:50:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I realize that was probably a joke, but being the mental wanker that I am,
> I have to disagree. The American notion of "separation of church and
> state" is pretty fucked up to begin with. Church and State necessarily
> must be bound together. Church defines morality and state implements that
> morality. Separation of church and state would (and does!) create a
> morally inconsistent nation.

State-implemented morality has been a central part of the most
recognizable totalitarian states in the 20th century, that is, Stalinist
Russia and Fascist Germany.  Not that I would group anyone on this list
with those movements; I just feel that it is something that can easily be
turned to bad ends.  If moral inconsistancy is the price we must pay to
preserve our freedom of speech and expression the so be it.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: wanton display of proposals
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:10:49 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If I had entered any Proposals but P301 into the DB, you would now be able to see them on the page now. Anyway, that P301 shows up is proof that it works, so I'll be able to bring the Proposal listings up to date this evening (and maybe the Judicial stuff, too). Thanks for your patience, everyone.
 
-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:33:47 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
>..... How
> do I modify a proposal? Do I just submit a modification, or withdraw the
> proposal and submit a new one?
> 
> --
> The Kid

from the ruleset:
Rule 117/0(l) : Proposals 

A Proposal, when submitted, must consist of one or more potential Legislative
Orders--the text--and optionally, a title.
If it is a revision to an existing Proposal, it must also include the Proposal
number. The title is the Proposal's name. The text may not exceed 5000
characters in length. 

so you can just submit a proposal revision, but I dont know if we will then have
to vote on both proposal and revision proposal

Zag

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

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:39:33 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

zagarna wrote:
> 
> "Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> >
> >..... How
> > do I modify a proposal? Do I just submit a modification, or withdraw the
> > proposal and submit a new one?
> >
> > --
> > The Kid
> 
> from the ruleset:
> Rule 117/0(l) : Proposals
> 
> A Proposal, when submitted, must consist of one or more potential Legislative
> Orders--the text--and optionally, a title.
> If it is a revision to an existing Proposal, it must also include the Proposal
> number. The title is the Proposal's name. The text may not exceed 5000
> characters in length.
> 
> so you can just submit a proposal revision, but I dont know if we will then have
> to vote on both proposal and revision proposal
> 
> Zag

stupid me, an even more fitting rule follows:
Rule 221/0(l) : Proposal Submission and Alteration 

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

sorry, I'll be more careful nextime

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:23:00 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth zagarna:
> "Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> > 
> >..... How
> > do I modify a proposal? Do I just submit a modification, or withdraw the
> > proposal and submit a new one?
> > 
> > --
> > The Kid
> 
> from the ruleset:
> Rule 117/0(l) : Proposals 
> 
> A Proposal, when submitted, must consist of one or more potential Legislative
> Orders--the text--and optionally, a title.
> If it is a revision to an existing Proposal, it must also include the Proposa
> l
> number. The title is the Proposal's name. The text may not exceed 5000
> characters in length. 
> 
> so you can just submit a proposal revision, but I dont know if we will then h
> ave
> to vote on both proposal and revision proposal
> 
> Zag

The answer to that would be "no". A revision does not create a new 
proposal, just a new version of an old one.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Numbering & withdrawal of Proposals. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:19:03 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> I was just looking at the Rules and found something interesting.
> 
> It would appear that R220 doesn't require the Administrator to tell us what
> the Proposal number of a Proposal is.

I suppose maybe I'm not required by R220 to publicize the Proposal numbers, 
but I certainly intend to. The reason some Proposals haven't been assigned 
numbers yet is that I haven't gotten to them yet. And R207 could be 
construed to require me to do that anyway...

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

Hmm. I guess it would.

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

Probably, but my proposal for rescinding actions would allow it anyway.

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

To explain:

What you're looking at is the Proposal Archive--withdrawn Proposals won't 
disappear from that. Instead, they'll be marked as withdrawn. If you want 
to see which Proposals are active, the Live Proposals page will serve you 
better (once it's up, of course). That the web site is several days behind 
the game reflects the fact that I've had to do a bunch of coding (because I 
didn't anticipate certain situations) instead of just entering the data, a 
situation which, w/r/t Proposals at least, should be remedied by 1pm 
tomorrow.

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

Yes and no. I have this big queue of actions right now that I'll probably 
recognize all at once. I believe the withdrawal of your proposals is among 
them. As I mentioned above, recognition should follow more quickly once I'm 
caught up.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ Benjamin on Roster. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:23:14 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Check Benjamin's message of 3 Oct 2000 05:16:37 to the business list:

> Agent Benjamin makes the following statement:
> I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as
> Benjamin

J4 refers to Benjamin Bradley, not Benjamin (though they are the same 
person).

-- 
J.

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

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

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

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

To: [email-masked]
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:32:35 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dammit, this is what happens when I turn off the feature that traps the 
word "unsubscribe"...

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> approve darius_fugazi unsubscribe [email-masked]
> approve darius_fugazi unsubscribe [email-masked]
> end
> -- 
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net
> 
> 

-- 
J.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:10:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: bug
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The mechanism for copying proposal text to the live proposals or proposal
archive is deleting spaces; I think the spaces deleted were ones that
occurred at the end of a line in the original email. This may only be a
problem with text formatted by some mail clients.  This may introduce a
large number of typos into the ruleset if not fixed soon.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: bug 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:43:08 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The mechanism for copying proposal text to the live proposals or proposal
> archive is deleting spaces; I think the spaces deleted were ones that
> occurred at the end of a line in the original email. This may only be a
> problem with text formatted by some mail clients.  This may introduce a
> large number of typos into the ruleset if not fixed soon.
> 
> Poulenc.

Thanks for pointing this out. What's happening is that newlines are being 
removed that shouldn't be. It's difficult to make a program distinguish 
between a newline put there by the author of the message and one inserted 
to break up long lines by the email client (or majordomo or something else 
in between), though it's easy for us to do. I'll see what I can do about 
this.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: bug 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:47:54 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> Quoth Dan Waldron:
> > 
> > The mechanism for copying proposal text to the live proposals or proposal
> > archive is deleting spaces; I think the spaces deleted were ones that
> > occurred at the end of a line in the original email. This may only be a
> > problem with text formatted by some mail clients.  This may introduce a
> > large number of typos into the ruleset if not fixed soon.
> > 
> > Poulenc.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. What's happening is that newlines are being 
> removed that shouldn't be. It's difficult to make a program distinguish 
> between a newline put there by the author of the message and one inserted 
> to break up long lines by the email client (or majordomo or something else 
> in between), though it's easy for us to do. I'll see what I can do about 
> this.
> 
> -- 
> J.

The problem is fixed now. I used a heuristic method [read: kluge] for 
distinguishing between user- and client-inserted newlines, so I can't 
guarantee that it will always work. If anyone sees any irregular output on 
any of the automatically generated pages, let me know so I can correct what 
little slips by.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 11:10:37 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: more proposal recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

When does the voting start & end?
--
The Kid

Joel Uckelman wrote:

> The following Proposals are recognized. [I decided not to resend the
> proposals to the list, as you can see them on the web page now.]
> ----
> Proposal 311
> Joel Uckelman
> 4 Oct 2000 22:22:56
> Rescinding Actions
>
> ----
> Proposal 312
> Poulenc
> 4 Oct 2000 23:27:14
> [[no title]]
>
> ----
> Proposal 313
> XnJester
> 5 Oct 2000 04:49:42
> Pedantics
>
> ----
> Proposal 314
> Joel Uckelman
> 5 Oct 2000 05:13:51
> Motion to Amend Trivially
>
> ----
> Proposal 315
> The Kid
> 5 Oct 2000 13:03:23
> Subliminal Religious Indoctrination
>
> ----
>
> Move along now, nothing else to see here.
>
> --
> J.
>
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: more proposal recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 12:01:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth andy_harrison:
> When does the voting start & end?
> --
> The Kid
> 
> 

Voting starts at the beginning of the eighth day and ends on the tenth (last) day of each nweek. This nweek, voting will begin at 00:00:00 UTC on 10 October.

-- 
J.

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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:28:03 EDT
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ Benjamin on Roster.
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

how do i get off this list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:28:27 EDT
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Numbering & withdrawal of Pro...
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

how do i get off this list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:28:53 EDT
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal 
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

how do i get off this list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:29:18 EDT
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Subliminal Proposal
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

how do i get off this list

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: more judicial stuff 
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 19:13:20 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Well how bout that.

Josh, the twice recused
=> re-recused
:. cused

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ13, continued... 
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 21:13:37 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Adam Tomjack sprach:
>(Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Adam Tomjack:
>> (Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
>> > XnJester's RFJ of 6 Oct 2000 03:47:31:
>> >
>> > 13, God: Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.
>>
>> In the matter:
>> 	Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster.
>>
>> I rule true.
>>
>> In the message of Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:18:00 -0500 (CDT) by the entity
>> Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>, I find the following text.
>> "I desire to be a player in this game of nomic. I wish to be known as
>> Benjamin."  Since Benjamin has declared eir desire to be a Player on a
>> public forum in accord with Rule 209 and Rule 112, e is a Player.
>>
>> God
>
>I have made an error.
>
>The correct ruling is that the statement above is false.
>
>The statement "Benjamin should not be listed on the Roster" is false because 
>Benjamin is a player by my previous reasoning.  Since e is a Player, e should 
>be listed on the Roster.
>
>Based on this, by Rule 214, I make the Judical Order to the Administrator not 
>to remove Benjamin from the Roster.
>
>God
>
>P.S.  Oops, sorry :(  

You've already made a judgement. The preceding is simply some other
hoo-ha that for some reason you posted to the list.

Josh

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ Benjamin on Roster.
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:55:14 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ooops,
my mistake.
Sorry guys.

If we could withdraw actions :o) I would, but I can't so I won't.

XnJester

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

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

Zagarna

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

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:05:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Interestingly enough, his reasoning contradicts his ruling.  (After 
Kortbeins response to Joel's RFJ)  It says clearly that Benjamin is a 
player in the judgement.  However, he should not be listed on the roster 
according to the ruling.

Odd, eh? :)

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: P312
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:19:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey Poulenc! Possibly you might want to have P312 (the Criminal Code 
proposal) create more than one rule. As it stands, that would be a really 
long rule, and contain a few things that could reasonably be separate, viz. 
the paragraphs that name specific crimes.

-- 
J.

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13)
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:49:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

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

If you'll note in my original judgement, I gave no Judicial Order.  I 
explicitly gave an Order in the second post which ordered the Administrator 
not to remove Benjamin from the Roster.  I see no reason why a Judgement and 
the corresponding Judicial Order need to be in the same physical (virtual??) 
message, nor why the Judicial Order needs to logically follow from the 
Judgement.  ;)

God 

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: P311, P314 revision
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:53:28 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You don't have the authority to change P313. That's the Proposal I made. Try
again with P314.

XnJester.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joel Uckelman
Sent: Monday, 9 October 2000 2:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: P311, P314 revision

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

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

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

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

1. Amend R120/0 to read:

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

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

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

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

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

3. Repeal R221/0.

4. Delete the second paragraph of R222/0.

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

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

6. Amend R228/0 to read:

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

7. Amend R229/0 to read:

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

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

8. Repeal R223/0.

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

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

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

and replace the last sentence with:

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

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

"Motions to Add are Secondary Approvable Motions."

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

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

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

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

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

----

So, there we go.
--
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13) 
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:50:59 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Adam Tomjack sprach:
>(Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
>
>> Yeah, I knew this was going to happen. This is one of the *BAD* things
>> about our judicial system. Now I'm not sure if Benjamin is a Player--is
>> "should not be listed on the Roster" equivalent to "is not a Player"? I
>> don't know. If they are, I need only execute a removal of Benjamin from the
>> Roster within a reasonable time. 
>
>If you'll note in my original judgement, I gave no Judicial Order.  I 
>explicitly gave an Order in the second post which ordered the Administrator 
>not to remove Benjamin from the Roster.  I see no reason why a Judgement and 
>the corresponding Judicial Order need to be in the same physical (virtual??) 
>message, nor why the Judicial Order needs to logically follow from the 
>Judgement.  ;)

However, I would say that once you issued the first judgment, you
no longer had the power to issue Judicial Orders as regards that
case.

At least, the rules had better be that way, or there's some fixin'
needs to be done.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment 
 on RFJ13)
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 23:52:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> (Sun, 08 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> 
> > Yeah, I knew this was going to happen. This is one of the *BAD* things
> > about our judicial system. Now I'm not sure if Benjamin is a Player--is
> > "should not be listed on the Roster" equivalent to "is not a Player"? I
> > don't know. If they are, I need only execute a removal of Benjamin from the
> > Roster within a reasonable time. 
> 
> If you'll note in my original judgement, I gave no Judicial Order.  I 
> explicitly gave an Order in the second post which ordered the Administrator 
> not to remove Benjamin from the Roster.  I see no reason why a Judgement and 
> the corresponding Judicial Order need to be in the same physical (virtual??) 
> message, nor why the Judicial Order needs to logically follow from the 
> Judgement.  ;)
> 
> God 

I'm not sure about the first part, but I think R214 requires that Judicial Orders make sense in light of the Judgment.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:00:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RFJ on God
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I request Judgement on the following statement:

God is a big fat liar.

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13)
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:03:13 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> I'm not sure about the first part, but I think R214 requires that Judicial
> Orders make sense in light of the Judgment.

Whoops, my bad.

Yet, R214 says the Judge may issue orders to bring the game state into 
"accord" with the judgement.  Could we say that the original judgement was 
discordant, thus my Judicial Order was valid? ;)  

God

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RFJ on God 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:07:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is on the discussion list, so it won't be recognized. If it were, the 
Judge would have reasonable grounds for dismissing it, I think, since it 
doesn't address a game matter (that's not to say that God's propensity for 
truth-telling wouldn't impact on the game, but that it's just not addressed 
by the rules).

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> I request Judgement on the following statement:
> 
> God is a big fat liar.
> 
> - You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 

-- 
J.

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Oops
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:06:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Note to self:  Don't make judgements while high on endorphins and tired from 
running!

Sorry Benjamin!  

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: page updates
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:16:20 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What is and will remain mostly current:

new Proposals
Judgments
the Rulesets

What is presently not current:

the Roster
Proposal revisions

I will attempt to update the things that are not current tomorrow; the 
pages for live Proposals and Judgments may come up as well.

Soon I intend to create a page with an event calendar, which should help 
everyone keep track of when judgeships end and when voting begins and ends.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RFJ on God 
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:37:13 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>This is on the discussion list, so it won't be recognized. If it were, the 
>Judge would have reasonable grounds for dismissing it, I think, since it 
>doesn't address a game matter (that's not to say that God's propensity for 
>truth-telling wouldn't impact on the game, but that it's just not addressed 
>by the rules).

More importantly, it's not decideable with the information at hand.
Maybe God is quite svelte. We just don't know.

Josh

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RFJ on God
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:48:26 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Mon, 09 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Wbfu Xbegorva:
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >This is on the discussion list, so it won't be recognized. If it were, the
> >Judge would have reasonable grounds for dismissing it, I think, since it
> >doesn't address a game matter (that's not to say that God's propensity for
> >truth-telling wouldn't impact on the game, but that it's just not
> > addressed by the rules).
>
> More importantly, it's not decideable with the information at hand.
> Maybe God is quite svelte. We just don't know.
>
> Josh

I do run a great deal. ;-)
God

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 17
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:26:18 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<grin> Nice one god. Can I take it that after all of that, Benjamin is a
player and on the roster and we're all happy and smiley again?

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Tomjack [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 09 October 2000 06:39
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 17
> 
> 
> >
> > 17, God: You guys are out to get me.
> >
> > There you go, God. Knock yourself out.
> 
> [[ 
> I rule True!  
> 
> Obviously "me" is me.  I think you guys are out to get me because I 
> retardedly didn't proofread my judgement.
> 
> Oops, by Rule 8, this is a comment.  Here, let me try again...
> ]]
> 
> On the truth of the statement:
> 	"You guys are out to get me."
> 
> I rule false.
> 
> Since this RFJ came from Benjamin, I will assume that "me" 
> referers to em.  I 
> will also assume "You guys" refers to all Players in this 
> nomic, since "guys" 
> is commonly used to address groups of same or mixed gender.  
> I rule that The 
> Players of this nomic, except for Benjamin, are out to get 
> Benjamin is false 
> because [[ while I, God, am out to get Benjamin >:-> ]] 
> clearly the other 
> Players are making an effort to resolve the issue of whether 
> or not Benjamin 
> should be on the Roster[[ and because that leaves me as the 
> sole Player out 
> to get Benjamin, there are no "guys" in the plural sense]].  
> 
> [[ Sorry, Benjamin.  I'm not really out to get you. ]]
> 
> God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adam Tomjack
> [email-masked]
> http://www.adamtj.com
> 

Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 14:26:22 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: discussion nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: 32 messages!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

wow people, that's really what I want to see when a new nomic starts up!
keep up the good work

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rule 237 typo
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:06:55 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Don't know if the pedant caught this one, but "germain" -> "germane".

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:09:37 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Tom Plagge sprach:
><PROPOSAL>
><TITLE>Tomjack's mom cannot be a judge</TITLE>
>Amend Rule 235 to read:
>
>Within a reasonable time after receipt of a Request for Judgment, the 
>Administrator shall assign the Request the next Judgment number, and 
>shall select a Player to serve as Judge as per the Rules on Judge 
>selection.
></PROPOSAL>

Suggestion: modify the rules for Offices so that Offices need not
be unique (or, each Judge sitting on a case is considered to be sitting
in a unique office), and then make Judgeships Offices.

Josh

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: UTC
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:05:48 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

When is 00:00:00 UTC??

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: UTC 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:09:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> When is 00:00:00 UTC??

That would be 18:00:00 for those of us in the Central Time Zone in the US.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: pages
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:05:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There are now pages for Live Proposals and Live Judgments (though not quite 
up to date yet), and an accurate Roster.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 14
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:25:44 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I thought the whole point was that spoon-business was a public forum in
which game actions can be taken, but spoon-discuss is *not* a public forum,
it is a discussion list, and as such game actions *cannot* be taken in it.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Waldron [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 October 2000 07:17
> To: 'nomic-business'
> Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> > 14, Poulenc: [email-masked] is not a public forum.
> 
> On Sunday, the first of October, Joel sent the following to
> [email-masked]
> 
> >At 00:00:00 UTC today, the nomic served by this list began. 
> At 00:30:00, 
> >the Administrator declared this list, 
> [email-masked], to be a 
> >public forum as per R219/0. As such, public business may be conducted
> >here.
> 
> 
> I was unable to find any simmilar post to the business list 
> that game the
> discussion list public status.  Since the forum has not been decalred
> public by the administrator, it is not.  For the list
> [email-masked] to be a public forum, Joel would have had to
> designate it as such before he designated the 
> [email-masked] to
> be public.  If this had been the case, the above post to the 
> business list
> would have no weight because the designation would have had 
> to be posted
> to spoon-discussion.
> 
> 
> This judgement was requested and designated in 
> [email-masked].
> On the assumption that this is a valid RFJ, I must rule TRUE.  I do,
> however, issue a judicial order to Joel Uckleman, to post to 
> the public
> forum a statement of all fora he has to this point designated 
> as public,
> even if done so privately.  This should clear up the issue 
> once and for
> all.
> 
> Poulenc
> 

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 14
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> I thought the whole point was that spoon-business was a public forum in
> which game actions can be taken, but spoon-discuss is *not* a public forum,
> it is a discussion list, and as such game actions *cannot* be taken in it.
> 

And that is exaclty what my ruling said.  spoon-discuss is not a public
forum, but spoon-business is.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:06:14 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the ballot. Here's a 
>corection:
>
>Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on Wednesday for 
>those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game days always 
>begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that is, in which 
>case days will begin at 6pm, I think).

Why was it we had them in UTC, again? :)

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:46:40 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Wbfu Xbegorva [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on 
> Wednesday for 
> >those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game 
> days always 
> >begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever 
> that is, in which 
> >case days will begin at 6pm, I think).
> 
> Why was it we had them in UTC, again? :)

Does that make UTC the same as GMT then? Or am I an hour out?

It's all gone a bit quiet hasn't it? Where's everyone gone?

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting reminder
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:30:08 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the 
> ballot. Here's a 
> corection:
> 
> Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on 
> Wednesday for 
> those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game 
> days always 
> begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that 
> is, in which 
> case days will begin at 6pm, I think).

Can I just check that I understood that. Rule 3 states that 00:00:00 is the
beginning of the day, so the game started at the 00:00:00 on October 2nd,
voting started at the beginning of October 9th, and voting ends at the
beginning of October 12th, or more precisely at the end (23:59:59) of
October 11th. Is that right?

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:42:59 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Are you sure its a 7 hour difference?
I have something that says there is a 5 hour difference between CST and GMT.

Ed

At 12:24 AM 10/11/00 -0500, Joel wrote:
>Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the ballot. Here's a 
>corection:
>
>Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on Wednesday for 
>those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game days always 
>begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that is, in which 
>case days will begin at 6pm, I think).
>
>So, everyone remember to vote. Your vote may actually make a difference in 
>a polity this small... (Assuming that I agree with it--otherwise I'll 
>delete it, doctor the logs, and deny ever receiving it.) :)
>
>-- 
>J.
>
>--
>Play Nomic!
>http://www.nomic.net
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:50:47 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Andrew Proescholdt [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Are you sure its a 7 hour difference?
> I have something that says there is a 5 hour difference 
> between CST and GMT.
> 
> Ed

According to the clock on Windows, you can choose from the following:
GMT -5:00 = Eastern Time
GMT -6:00 = Central Time
GMT -7:00 = Mountain Time
GMT -8:00 = Pacific Time

However, if I understood Joel properly, you are in Daylight Savings time at
the moment, so you need to subtract another hour for that. Of course for me
it's easy cos I only have to make the hour adjustment for BST, which doesn't
really make much difference unless I start playing Nomic in the middle of
the night.

When does Daylight Saving end for you? Our BST ends 29th October. If it's
the same in the States then maybe it's worth changing the time system in the
Nomic to something that's easier to work.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting reminder 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:20:27 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 
> > Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the 
> > ballot. Here's a 
> > corection:
> > 
> > Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on 
> > Wednesday for 
> > those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game 
> > days always 
> > begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that 
> > is, in which 
> > case days will begin at 6pm, I think).
> 
> Can I just check that I understood that. Rule 3 states that 00:00:00 is the
> beginning of the day, so the game started at the 00:00:00 on October 2nd,
> voting started at the beginning of October 9th, and voting ends at the
> beginning of October 12th, or more precisely at the end (23:59:59) of
> October 11th. Is that right?
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

Yes, that's correct.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:28:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Um, yeah. I'm dumb. Ed's right, hat would be 9pm, not 7pm. 

Quoth Andrew Proescholdt:
> Are you sure its a 7 hour difference?
> I have something that says there is a 5 hour difference between CST and GMT.
> 
> Ed
> 
> At 12:24 AM 10/11/00 -0500, Joel wrote:
> >Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the ballot. Here's a 
> >corection:
> >
> >Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on Wednesday for 
> >those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game days always 
> >begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that is, in which 
> >case days will begin at 6pm, I think).
> >
> >So, everyone remember to vote. Your vote may actually make a difference in 
> >a polity this small... (Assuming that I agree with it--otherwise I'll 
> >delete it, doctor the logs, and deny ever receiving it.) :)
> >
> >-- 
> >J.
> >
> >--
> >Play Nomic!
> >http://www.nomic.net
> > 
> 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:31:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >Duh. I was wrong about when voting ends when I sent the ballot. Here's a 
> >corection:
> >
> >Voting ends at 00:00:00 UTC 12 October 2000. (That's 7 pm on Wednesday for 
> >those of us in the Central Time Zone). Which means that game days always 
> >begin at 7pm (until Daylight Savings Time ends, whenever that is, in which 
> >case days will begin at 6pm, I think).
> 
> Why was it we had them in UTC, again? :)

Aha. That's because I have my server's clock set to UTC, and I use one of 
the times in the a Received header to date events. This makes for easy time 
comparisons between events, and will ensure consistency if/when the server 
is no longer in the this time zone.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:07:21 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Um, yeah. I'm dumb. Ed's right, hat would be 9pm, not 7pm. 
> 
> Quoth Andrew Proescholdt:
> > Are you sure its a 7 hour difference?
> > I have something that says there is a 5 hour difference 
> between CST and GMT.
> > 

Now I'm confused again. A five hour time difference make 00:00 = 19:00,
you'd need a three hour difference for 00:00 == 21:00.

Taking a quick look at the mail logs, 00:00:00 converts to local time as
follows:

Joel, Josh, Remo, Ed, Benjamin, Jeff, 4T2, god, Potter
19:00:00 (-05:00)

Poulenc
20:00:00 (-04:00)

The Kid
01:00:00 (+01:00)

Zagarna
02:00:00 (+02:00)

XnJester
10:00:00 (+10:00)

That's assuming your system clock is set to 'local time' and this is picked
up properly in your email client.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:08:03 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Aha. That's because I have my server's clock set to UTC, and I use one of 
>the times in the a Received header to date events. This makes for easy time 
>comparisons between events, and will ensure consistency if/when the server 
>is no longer in the this time zone.

Lame.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:04:31 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:

> Taking a quick look at the mail logs, 00:00:00 converts to local time as
> follows:

> Zagarna
> 02:00:00 (+02:00)
> 

> That's assuming your system clock is set to 'local time' and this is picked
> up properly in your email client.
> 
> --
> The Kid

That's correct, I live in Italy (GMT+1) and we have the legal hour on so it's +2
in total.
My question is: why are we using this unknown UTC acronim for something
everybody all around the world knows as Greenwich Meridian Time ?

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Voting. 
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:48:21 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Little late for that.

Josh

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Clock
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:02:26 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey Joel,
	Why don't you put a clock on the nomic website?  Then we wouldn't have to 
worry about adjusting for time, we could just check the official clock.  

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Voting. 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:58:46 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

> Little late for that.

Yeah, I know. I blame my ISP. After 2 1/2 days Mail and Internet was only
just restored today.

XnJester.

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting reminder 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:07:31 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> XnJester
> 10:00:00 (+10:00)
>
> That's assuming your system clock is set to 'local time' and this is
picked
> up properly in your email client.

Yeah, that's right for me down here in Australia. The only thing I have
noticed is that Outlook claims that the time sent is +1:00 from when it was
sent. When I open the letter the header has the correct (?) time on it. At
least it's correct for my own messages. If I need to confirm an absolute
time for something I check the archive and hope that's right.

Anybody know of a setting in Outlook 2000 that I must have set wrong ?

XnJester.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:45:52 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

<snip!>

> Some scoring took place--in what 
> amounts I have yet to calculate.

How do scores get rounded? The rules don't specify this. Since the points
awarded are multiples of the passage-ratio, they will often need to be
rounded. This week this has only happened once: the three people who voted
against P315 get 3.5 points each. What should happen here? I'd suggest that
fractions < 0.5 get rounded down, and fractions >= 0.5 get rounded up. Which
means that those three players get 4 points each (and no, I'm not one of
them; it's my proposal).

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Clock 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:31:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> Hey Joel,
> 	Why don't you put a clock on the nomic website?  Then we wouldn't have 
> to 
> worry about adjusting for time, we could just check the official clock.  

Good idea. And how might I do that?

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Voting. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:30:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

No, your votes were ok.

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

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: timing of RFJs 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:07:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> Are RFJs supposed to be judged based on the game state at the current
> time, the time the RFJ was made, or the time of the event in question (if
> any) ?
> 
> - You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 

I just noticed I hadn't responded to this, and I still want to...

My interpretation would be that RFJs should be decided based on the game 
state at the time they are made, though the rules really don't specify. 
This would be a good thing to have in the rules... (hint hint).

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: dates and times
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:13:23 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Just so everyone knows, the dates I use for events are taken from the date 
in the first Received line in each message in the business list message log.

All these lines look something like this:

Received: (qmail 2400 invoked by uid 91); 9 Oct 2000 03:00:00 -0000

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:44:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> <snip!>
> 
> > Some scoring took place--in what 
> > amounts I have yet to calculate.
> 
> How do scores get rounded? The rules don't specify this. Since the points
> awarded are multiples of the passage-ratio, they will often need to be
> rounded. This week this has only happened once: the three people who voted
> against P315 get 3.5 points each. What should happen here? I'd suggest that
> fractions < 0.5 get rounded down, and fractions >= 0.5 get rounded up. Which
> means that those three players get 4 points each (and no, I'm not one of
> them; it's my proposal).
> 
> --
> The Kid

I don't see a rule that says scores must be integers, so I don't think any 
rounding happens at all.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:49:27 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I don't see a rule that says scores must be integers, so I 
> don't think any 
> rounding happens at all.

Sorry, I misread rule 121. Forgot that 'scalar' didn't mean 'integer'.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Clock 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:02:16 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C03465.CAC58F20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> > Hey Joel,
> > 	Why don't you put a clock on the nomic website?  Then 
> we wouldn't have 
> > to 
> > worry about adjusting for time, we could just check the 
> official clock.  
> 
> Good idea. And how might I do that?

Try this attachment...

--
The Kid

------_=_NextPart_000_01C03465.CAC58F20
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="clock.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="clock.html"

<html>
<head>
   <title>Nomic Clock</title>

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE=3D"JavaScript">

function isodatetime()
{
	var now =3D new Date();

	var year =3D now.getYear();
	var yearUTC =3D now.getYear();
	if(year < 2000)	year =3D year + 1900;
	if(yearUTC < 2000) yearUTC =3D yearUTC + 1900;

	var monthnames =3D new Array("January", "February", "March", "April", =
"May", "June", "July", "August", "September", "October", "November", =
"December");
	var month =3D monthnames[now.getMonth()];
	var monthUTC =3D monthnames[now.getUTCMonth()];

	var day =3D now.getDate();
	var dayUTC =3D now.getUTCDate();
	var daysuffix;
	var daysuffixUTC;
	if(day =3D=3D 1 || day =3D=3D 21 || day =3D=3D 31) daysuffix =3D "st";
	else if(day =3D=3D 2 || day =3D=3D 22) daysuffix =3D "nd";
	else if(day =3D=3D 3 || day =3D=3D 23) daysuffix =3D "rd";
	else daysuffix =3D "th";
	if(dayUTC =3D=3D 1 || dayUTC =3D=3D 21 || dayUTC =3D=3D 31) =
daysuffixUTC =3D "st";
	else if(dayUTC =3D=3D 2 || dayUTC =3D=3D 22) daysuffixUTC =3D "nd";
	else if(dayUTC =3D=3D 3 || dayUTC =3D=3D 23) daysuffixUTC =3D "rd";
	else daysuffixUTC =3D "th";

	var hour =3D now.getHours();
	var hourUTC =3D now.getUTCHours();
	if(hour < 10) hour =3D "0" + hour;
	if(hourUTC < 10) hourUTC =3D "0" + hourUTC;

	var minute =3D now.getMinutes();
	var minuteUTC =3D now.getUTCMinutes();
	if(minute < 10) minute =3D "0" + minute;
	if(minuteUTC < 10) minuteUTC =3D "0" + minuteUTC;

	var second =3D now.getSeconds();
	var secondUTC =3D now.getUTCSeconds();
	if(second < 10) second =3D "0" + second;
	if(secondUTC < 10) secondUTC =3D "0" + secondUTC;

	var localtime =3D " " + hour + ":" + minute + ":" + second + " " + day =
+ daysuffix + " " + month + " " + year;
	var utctime =3D " " + hourUTC + ":" + minuteUTC + ":" + secondUTC + " =
" + dayUTC + daysuffix + " " + monthUTC + " " + yearUTC;

	document.isoclock.displaylocal.value =3D localtime;
	document.isoclock.displayutc.value =3D utctime;

	window.setTimeout("isodatetime();", 500);
}
</script>

</head>

<BODY OnLoad=3D"isodatetime()">

<center>
<table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0">
<form name=3Disoclock>
  <tr>
	<td> Local Time: </td> <td><input type=3Dtext name=3Ddisplaylocal =
size=3D28 ></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
	<td> Nomic Time: </td> <td><input type=3Dtext name=3Ddisplayutc =
size=3D28 style=3D"border:0;"></td>
  </tr>
</form>
</table>
</center>

</body>
</html>

------_=_NextPart_000_01C03465.CAC58F20--

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: clock
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:34:47 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I put The Kid's clock script on its own page for now, at clock.html. I'll 
eventually migrate it (or maybe the perl script that Benjamin sent) into a 
calendar page. Thanks!

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: event log
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:16:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Event Log is now available online, so you can see at what times things 
(supposedly) happened.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:16:14 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" sprach:
>> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
><snip!>
>
>> Some scoring took place--in what 
>> amounts I have yet to calculate.
>
>How do scores get rounded? The rules don't specify this. Since the points
>awarded are multiples of the passage-ratio, they will often need to be
>rounded. This week this has only happened once: the three people who voted
>against P315 get 3.5 points each. What should happen here? I'd suggest that
>fractions < 0.5 get rounded down, and fractions >= 0.5 get rounded up. Which

What a strange and unusual way of rounding you have. In what faraway
land did some mystical guru impart this skill to you? :)

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:37:00 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: comments on judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I initially had these as bracketed comments in my judgement, but they 
aren't really germane to the judgement itself, and as such probably 
shouldn't be included with it in any sort of permanent record.  I'll give 
them here.

Dammit Joel, the definition of active rules in 222/0 sucks.  It says, "Live 
Proposals not deactivated are 'active'; all other Live Proposals are 
'inactive'."  Active proposals are defined by not being inactive, and 
inactive proposals are defined by not being active.  I know jack about 
symbolic logic, so for all I know this may work just fine, but it would be 
nice to have an independent statement on what constitutes an active or 
inactive proposal in there for those of us who don't necessarily believe 
language is essentially mathematical. :P

As it stands, the beginning voting period creates a de facto 'end of the 
nweek,' since any proposals made after the beginning of the voting period 
will fall on the subsequent nweek's ballot as though they were activated in 
that nweek.  While it sort of works, this lame duck period is ugly and I'm 
sure will offend Joel's sense of taxonomical clarity.  We should probably 
resolve it somehow in the near future.

Potter

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:41:53 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 22
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Fun with Eudora...it sent the judgement out on my not-listed-in-Nomic email 
address.  Since I didn't sign it, it might not be 'official.'  This one is 
being sent out on my mpotter@iastate account, and I'm signing it, so if the 
first one 'didn't happen' since it wasn't officially by a player, this one 
will be official.  This is identical to the first.

>On the matter of RFJ 22, "Motions requiring a vote introduced during an 
>nweek's voting will not become Ballot Issues," I rule False.
>
>According to Rule 110/0, "Voting on a nweek's Ballot opens at the start of 
>the eighth day of that nweek, and closes at the end of the tenth day of 
>that nweek."  The voting period lies entirely within the nweek during 
>which the proposals on that ballot were made; and the termination of the 
>voting period is concurrent with the end of its nweek.
>
>Rule 201/0 states that, prior to the end of the voting period, the 
>Adminstrator shall "distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. 
>Each nweek's Ballot shall list all Ballot Issues for the nweek."  This 
>rule may seem to imply that only proposals initiated or activated during 
>the current nweek are eligible for the ballot, but it does not explicitly 
>make the point.  Also, there exists precedence, in rule 227/0, for 
>proposals active in one nweek to remain active into the next nweek.  So, 
>it would appear that it is possible for an active proposal to remain 
>active into subsequent nweeks, though this can only occur through specific 
>instances outlined in the Ruleset, from dirty pool by the Administrator, 
>or by an undesirable coincidence of timing and Ruleset semantics.
>
>The requirements for a Rule to be included in a ballot are given in Rule 
>202/0.  The first is "Proposals then active," which includes all active 
>proposals, regardless of how they came to be active.  This requirement is 
>not explicitly limited or modified by other rules.
>
>Rule 222/0 states that all proposals are live, unless they are declared 
>dead.  A proposal can only become dead by being voted on in a weekly 
>Ballot, or by being withdrawn.  All live rules are active unless they have 
>been deactivated by their owners, according to rule 221/0.  This rule does 
>not explicitly deactivate proposals which are active prior to the issuing 
>of the Ballot, but not included in the Ballot and not voted on.  Thus, 
>proposals remain active--and as such, eligible for the ballot--until they 
>are withdrawn, deactivated, or voted upon.
>
>As such, proposals made or activated after the issuing of a Ballot, but 
>before the end of an nweek, remain active into the subsequent 
>nweek.  Since the Ballot for the following nweek includes all active 
>proposals, and does not exclude proposals that 'should' have been voted on 
>in previous weeks, they are eligible for that Ballot and should be voted 
>on.  I rule False.
>
>
>
>
Potter

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:54:44 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
>> > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> 
>> <snip!>
>> 
>> > Some scoring took place--in what 
>> > amounts I have yet to calculate.
>> 
>> How do scores get rounded? The rules don't specify this. Since the points
>> awarded are multiples of the passage-ratio, they will often need to be
>> rounded. This week this has only happened once: the three people who voted
>> against P315 get 3.5 points each. What should happen here? I'd suggest that
>> fractions < 0.5 get rounded down, and fractions >= 0.5 get rounded up. Which
>> means that those three players get 4 points each (and no, I'm not one of
>> them; it's my proposal).
>> 
>> --
>> The Kid
>
>I don't see a rule that says scores must be integers, so I don't think any 
>rounding happens at all.

Ha HA!

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 22 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:24:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's not a problem. Email addresses aren't regulated by the rules, so the 
first one was good.

Quoth Matthew G Potter:
> Fun with Eudora...it sent the judgement out on my not-listed-in-Nomic email 
> address.  Since I didn't sign it, it might not be 'official.'  This one is 
> being sent out on my mpotter@iastate account, and I'm signing it, so if the 
> first one 'didn't happen' since it wasn't officially by a player, this one 
> will be official.  This is identical to the first.
> 
> 
> 
> >On the matter of RFJ 22, "Motions requiring a vote introduced during an 
> >nweek's voting will not become Ballot Issues," I rule False.
> >
> >According to Rule 110/0, "Voting on a nweek's Ballot opens at the start of 
> >the eighth day of that nweek, and closes at the end of the tenth day of 
> >that nweek."  The voting period lies entirely within the nweek during 
> >which the proposals on that ballot were made; and the termination of the 
> >voting period is concurrent with the end of its nweek.
> >
> >Rule 201/0 states that, prior to the end of the voting period, the 
> >Adminstrator shall "distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. 
> >Each nweek's Ballot shall list all Ballot Issues for the nweek."  This 
> >rule may seem to imply that only proposals initiated or activated during 
> >the current nweek are eligible for the ballot, but it does not explicitly 
> >make the point.  Also, there exists precedence, in rule 227/0, for 
> >proposals active in one nweek to remain active into the next nweek.  So, 
> >it would appear that it is possible for an active proposal to remain 
> >active into subsequent nweeks, though this can only occur through specific 
> >instances outlined in the Ruleset, from dirty pool by the Administrator, 
> >or by an undesirable coincidence of timing and Ruleset semantics.
> >
> >The requirements for a Rule to be included in a ballot are given in Rule 
> >202/0.  The first is "Proposals then active," which includes all active 
> >proposals, regardless of how they came to be active.  This requirement is 
> >not explicitly limited or modified by other rules.
> >
> >Rule 222/0 states that all proposals are live, unless they are declared 
> >dead.  A proposal can only become dead by being voted on in a weekly 
> >Ballot, or by being withdrawn.  All live rules are active unless they have 
> >been deactivated by their owners, according to rule 221/0.  This rule does 
> >not explicitly deactivate proposals which are active prior to the issuing 
> >of the Ballot, but not included in the Ballot and not voted on.  Thus, 
> >proposals remain active--and as such, eligible for the ballot--until they 
> >are withdrawn, deactivated, or voted upon.
> >
> >As such, proposals made or activated after the issuing of a Ballot, but 
> >before the end of an nweek, remain active into the subsequent 
> >nweek.  Since the Ballot for the following nweek includes all active 
> >proposals, and does not exclude proposals that 'should' have been voted on 
> >in previous weeks, they are eligible for that Ballot and should be voted 
> >on.  I rule False.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Potter
> 
> 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: comments on judgement 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:31:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Matthew G Potter:
> I initially had these as bracketed comments in my judgement, but they 
> aren't really germane to the judgement itself, and as such probably 
> shouldn't be included with it in any sort of permanent record.  I'll give 
> them here.
> 
> Dammit Joel, the definition of active rules in 222/0 sucks.  It says, "Live 
> Proposals not deactivated are 'active'; all other Live Proposals are 
> 'inactive'."  Active proposals are defined by not being inactive, and 
> inactive proposals are defined by not being active.  I know jack about 
> symbolic logic, so for all I know this may work just fine, but it would be 
> nice to have an independent statement on what constitutes an active or 
> inactive proposal in there for those of us who don't necessarily believe 
> language is essentially mathematical. :P

The definition is not reducible to "active = not inactive" because 
(de)activation is an action and "(in)active" is a state. What it comes to 
is that any live proposal that no one has bothered to deactivate is in an 
active state, and any that someone has deactivated are in an inactive 
state. By analogy:

Your lights are "off" by default. When someone activates your lights, they 
are considered to be "on", and if no one has touched your lights, they must 
still be "off". The state of your lights is defined in reference to actions 
that affect them.

Does that help, or do you still see it as problematic? 

> As it stands, the beginning voting period creates a de facto 'end of the 
> nweek,' since any proposals made after the beginning of the voting period 
> will fall on the subsequent nweek's ballot as though they were activated in 
> that nweek.  While it sort of works, this lame duck period is ugly and I'm 
> sure will offend Joel's sense of taxonomical clarity.  We should probably 
> resolve it somehow in the near future.
> 
> Potter 

Maybe it would make more sense to start the nweek when voting *starts* 
rather than when voting ends...

-- 
J.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:42:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: comments on judgement 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
>
> > As it stands, the beginning voting period creates a de facto 'end of the
> > nweek,' since any proposals made after the beginning of the voting period
> > will fall on the subsequent nweek's ballot as though they were 
> activated in
> > that nweek.  While it sort of works, this lame duck period is ugly and I'm
> > sure will offend Joel's sense of taxonomical clarity.  We should probably
> > resolve it somehow in the near future.
> >
> > Potter
>
>Maybe it would make more sense to start the nweek when voting *starts*
>rather than when voting ends...

Although it's kind of arbitrary either way, that might create problems, 
since we'd have various orders, movements, and so forth being enacted at 
the beginning of an nweek rather than the end.  We might also at some point 
run into problems with the gamestate being changed after some proposals for 
the nweek have been made, but before others.  Or it might not affect 
anything.  The simplest solution might be to vote in a rule making 
proposals during the voting period invalid.

Potter

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:18:14 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> The following proposals are recognized:
> ----
> 
> 319/0
> The Kid
> 10 Oct 2000 13:04:09
> Eligible Voters
> 
> The following entities are Eligible Voters:
> Players, as defined in Rule 106.
> 
> ----

You can't do that. At 14:51:55 UTC today I recinded that proposal. "The
recognition of a rescinded action by any Officer is prohibited." is part
of the Rule created by your own passed proposal (P311). I don't know the
new Rule number as it isn't on the web site yet. I suggest you recind
your recognition ;-)

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:20:40 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: clock
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> I put The Kid's clock script on its own page for now, at clock.html. I'll
> eventually migrate it (or maybe the perl script that Benjamin sent) into a
> calendar page. Thanks!

It should be fairly easy to put it on the main page. Just cut & paste
the sections into the header and body. The only part that you might need
to watch out for is the extra bit in the <body> tag.

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:27:49 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: comments on judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Matthew G Potter wrote:
> 
> anything.  The simplest solution might be to vote in a rule making
> proposals during the voting period invalid.

How about 'Proposals made during the voting period shall not be
recognised until the next nweek'.

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

This could be done more efficiently using the Criminal Code.  Just amend
the Criminal Code rule by adding a paragraph describing the crime of
falsification or whatever you will call it.  It will get less confusing in
the long run to if we keep things consistant.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:04:37 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth andy_harrison:
> Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > 
> > The following proposals are recognized:
> > ----
> > 
> > 319/0
> > The Kid
> > 10 Oct 2000 13:04:09
> > Eligible Voters
> > 
> > The following entities are Eligible Voters:
> > Players, as defined in Rule 106.
> > 
> > ----
> 
> You can't do that. At 14:51:55 UTC today I recinded that proposal. "The
> recognition of a rescinded action by any Officer is prohibited." is part
> of the Rule created by your own passed proposal (P311). I don't know the
> new Rule number as it isn't on the web site yet. I suggest you recind
> your recognition ;-)
> 
> --
> The Kid

Um, that depends on whether P311/1 actually passed (see several of the 
outstanding RFJ's). We'll see, I guess.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:10:11 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Good idea. Otherwise the Roster would fill up with non-players and other 
undesirables. :)

-- 
J.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Suggestion for minor changes to the web site.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel, can request link at the bottom of each rules page to the other rules
pages, ie. to rules 101-200 at the bottom of 1-100?  It would make it
easier for me to poke through the ruleset looking for scams, err... ideas.  
Likewise, it would be really great if you could put a link at the top and
bottom of each page that goes back to the main page of the nomic,
otherwise I have to press "back" umpteen times if I want to go look at the
live proposals.

thanks, Dan

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Suggestion for minor changes to the web site.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On a simmilar note, looking around the website I notice that you have set
up mailto links for all of the players.  In the last week or so there has
been an increase in the amount of email spam I have recieved.  Could you
please rearrange my email address in such a way as it will be clear to a
human but will not be of use to a simple 'bot?  Thanks again,
Dan.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Suggestion for minor changes to the web site. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:11:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> On a simmilar note, looking around the website I notice that you have set
> up mailto links for all of the players.  In the last week or so there has
> been an increase in the amount of email spam I have recieved.  Could you
> please rearrange my email address in such a way as it will be clear to a
> human but will not be of use to a simple 'bot?  Thanks again,
> Dan.
> 
> 

I added a space on either side of the @. I think that will throw off the 
bots, but shouldn't confuse a real person. Is this ok?

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Suggestion for minor changes to the web site. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:25:20 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> Joel, can request link at the bottom of each rules page to the other rules
> pages, ie. to rules 101-200 at the bottom of 1-100?  It would make it
> easier for me to poke through the ruleset looking for scams, err... ideas.  
> Likewise, it would be really great if you could put a link at the top and
> bottom of each page that goes back to the main page of the nomic,
> otherwise I have to press "back" umpteen times if I want to go look at the
> live proposals.
> 
> thanks, Dan
> 

There's a Home link at the top of each page, and links to the other pages 
of the same type at the bottom now.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Suggestion for minor changes to the web site. 
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:47:18 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sprach:
>
>On a simmilar note, looking around the website I notice that you have set
>up mailto links for all of the players.  In the last week or so there has
>been an increase in the amount of email spam I have recieved.  Could you
>please rearrange my email address in such a way as it will be clear to a
>human but will not be of use to a simple 'bot?  Thanks again,
>Dan.
>
>

I haven't noticed any significant increase in the amount of spam
I've gotten.

Josh

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

From: Adam Tomjack <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Clock
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:34:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(Wed, 11 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> > Hey Joel,
> > 	Why don't you put a clock on the nomic website?  Then we wouldn't have
> > to
> > worry about adjusting for time, we could just check the official clock.
>
> Good idea. And how might I do that?

You could also use server side includes, which are pretty easy to set up.
Then, including this:
<!--#exec cmd="date" -->
in your html would then replace the comment with the output from the 'date' 
command.

God

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal recognition 
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:42:32 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Um, that depends on whether P311/1 actually passed (see 
> several of the 
> outstanding RFJ's). We'll see, I guess.

Ok, I've obviously missed something here. I saw all the RFJ's that XnJester
but missed the actual point of them all. Looking back now I see that he is
questioning if the issues on this weeks ballot were correct. I would say
that the ballot was the contents of Joels email. The rules state that "The
Administrator shall, prior to the close of voting each nweek, distribute to
all Players the Ballot for that nweek." Therefore, what Joel distributed was
the ballot. We've already seen that when an official action is taken it is
binding, even if it is quite clearly wrong (i.e. the ruling on RFJ13), and I
wouldn't have said the ballot was clearly wrong.
The ballot was distributed, the issues were voted on, quorum was reached,
the Administrator declared the results and recognised the addition of three
new rules. It all happened:

Rule 113:
Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora. Non-action events--i.e.,
events not caused by Agent--occur at exactly the times specified in the
Rules. Events may occur only in the present, and may not alter the past.

The judgements that have been submitted cannot alter what has happened, only
guide future interpretation of the Rules:

Rule 124:
A Judgment shall guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a
subsequent Judgment contradicts it. A Judge reversing or modifying past
precedent shall provide in eir analysis justification for doing so.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judment on RFJ 20
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:01:52 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> In the matter:
> Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not 
> recognised by the start
> of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.
> 
> I rule:
> FALSE

<snip!>

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

Lol!
Nice one. Unfortunately I don't think it'll work. Even though we've had a
previous RFJ where the judgement didn't agree with the ruling and still had
to be accepted, I don't think this is the same. While I'll agree that your
reasoning and judgement are impeccable, I don't think you can make a
judicial order like that.

Rule 214/0 : Judicial Orders 

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

So you are only allowed to issue Judicial Orders in order to 'bring the game
state into accord with the result of the Judgment', and I don't believe that
your order does this, and is therefore invalid.

:-)

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:14:04 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judment on RFJ 20
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> > From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > In the matter:
> > Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not
> > recognised by the start
> > of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.
> >
> > I rule:
> > FALSE
> 
> <snip!>
> 
> > Judicial orders:
> > 1) The administrator shall credit the player Zagarna 500 points.
> 
> Lol!
> Nice one. Unfortunately I don't think it'll work. Even though we've had a
> previous RFJ where the judgement didn't agree with the ruling and still had
> to be accepted, I don't think this is the same. While I'll agree that your
> reasoning and judgement are impeccable, I don't think you can make a
> judicial order like that.
> 
> Rule 214/0 : Judicial Orders
> 
> A Judicial Order is an Order issued by a Judge or Appeals Court in
> conjunction with eir Judicial duties. A Judge may, in the course of making a
> Judgment, issue one or more Judicial Orders to bring the game state into
> accord with the result of the Judgment.
> 
> So you are only allowed to issue Judicial Orders in order to 'bring the game
> state into accord with the result of the Judgment', and I don't believe that
> your order does this, and is therefore invalid.
> 
> :-)
> 
> --
> The Kid

:) part of the stuff you snipped said that i judged my reasoning to be soo good
that I deserved to win the game: the order I issued was precisley meant to
"bring the game state into accord with the result of the Judgment."

:-)

Zagarna

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judment on RFJ 20
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:18:37 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<unsnip!> Therefore I rule the statement to be FALSE and since I am such a
good judge that I deserve a win.

> :) part of the stuff you snipped said that i judged my 
> reasoning to be soo good
> that I deserved to win the game: the order I issued was 
> precisley meant to
> "bring the game state into accord with the result of the Judgment."

May I refer you to:

Rule 237/0 : Judgments 

A Judge shall, within three days of eir selection, give one of the following
responses to the Request for Judgment to which e was assigned, accompanied
by analysis and Judicial Orders as appropriate: 

1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
Statement or is not germain to the game. 
2. True: The Statement is true. 
3. False: The Statement is false. 
4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment whether
the Statement is true or false.

Therefore your judgement was FALSE, anything else was analysis or Judicial
Orders.

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:35:01 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judment on RFJ 20
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> Therefore your judgement was FALSE, anything else was analysis or Judicial
> Orders.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Ok, that's true, but still, an order was given and the admin must react in a
timley fashion, what was done cannot be unmade (until, I suppose, an RFJ is made
and judged).

Zagarna

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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:32:51 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: execution of order
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> I suppose I have to do this, though I suspect it will be vacated soon:
> 
> 1. Zagarna is credited with 500 points.
> 2. Zagarna is credited with a win.
> 
> --
> J.

Yay!!!
zagarna dances a little gig

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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:17:05 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: discussion nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

it appears we have a problem:
Joel's judgment on RFJ 21 and my judgement on RFJ 20 contradict:

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

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

The reason behind this is the contradicting view Joel and myself have of the
definition of Ballot, Joel intends it as "the list of all ballot issues" while I
intend it as "the list of all Ballot issues posted by the administrator".

It seems to me we must let proposals clear things up.
this is my version, I'm posting it on the discusion list so that everyone can
express their opinion before I officially propose it.

so here it is:
_______________________start proposal_________________

1) amend Rule 201 : "The Ballot" to read in full: "The Administrator shall,
prior to the close of voting each nweek, distribute to all Players a list of all
Ballot Issues for that nweek, this list shall be known as 'the Ballot'."

2) amend Rule 202 : "Ballot Issues" to read in full:"The following become Ballot
Issues at the start of a nweek's voting: 
1. Proposals then active 
2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting 
3. Elections to replace elected Officers whose terms expire that nweek 
4. Elections to fill vacant elected Offices

Proposals that are Ballot Issues may be altered after the start of the nweek's
voting but not if they are on that week's Ballot."

_______________________end proposal_____________________

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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:48:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Kid <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
> it appears we have a problem:
> Joel's judgment on RFJ 21 and my judgement on RFJ 20 contradict:

That doesn't matter, see Rule 124:
"A Judgment shall guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a
subsequent Judgment contradicts it."

So that means that Joel's judgement guided play until you passed your
judgement. Now your's superseeds Joel's and should be used to guide play.

--
The Kid

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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:44:16 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re:Orders
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Kid wrote:
> 
> From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
> >
> >I issue a Personal Order to Joel Uckelman to set my score to >500 points.
> 
> Rule 121 says "No Agent may voluntarily reduce eir Score to less than zero
> Points", so I can't reduce my own score, but it says nothing about reducing
> other player's scores.
> 
> I hereby reduce the score of all players except myself to minus one million
> points. [[Note, this is not an order, this is an action.]]
> 
> Now can we please stop mucking about with the scores.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 
Lol!

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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:49:16 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Kid wrote:
> 
> From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
> > it appears we have a problem:
> > Joel's judgment on RFJ 21 and my judgement on RFJ 20 contradict:
> 
> That doesn't matter, see Rule 124:
> "A Judgment shall guide interpretation of the Rules until such time as a
> subsequent Judgment contradicts it."
> 
> So that means that Joel's judgement guided play until you passed your
> judgement. Now your's superseeds Joel's and should be used to guide play.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 
Oh, once again, you're right.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:32:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: RFJ on on Judgement on RFJ 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, zagarna wrote:

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

The Kid's action was posted to the discussion list, not the business list.
As such, we can only assume that it was a joke and not meant as an actual
action. ;-)

Poulenc

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 21
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:52:56 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

This was a result of bad sentence construction on my part. Try the same
phrase with these brackets and you should see what I intended to say. "(A
revision of an item) which has not become a Ballot Issue"

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:42:10 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> ______________________start proposal_________________
>
> 1) amend Rule 201 : "The Ballot" to read in full: "The Administrator
shall,
> prior to the close of voting each nweek, distribute to all Players a list
of all
> Ballot Issues for that nweek, this list shall be known as 'the Ballot'."
>
> 2) amend Rule 202 : "Ballot Issues" to read in full:"The following become
Ballot
> Issues at the start of a nweek's voting:
> 1. Proposals then active
> 2. Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's voting
> 3. Elections to replace elected Officers whose terms expire that nweek
> 4. Elections to fill vacant elected Offices
>
> Proposals that are Ballot Issues may be altered after the start of the
nweek's
> voting but not if they are on that week's Ballot."
>

I would vote against this Proposal. I don't like this mutability of
Proposals during the voting period.

Consider the following (unlikely) scenario:

At a point in the future the Office of Administrator falls upon a Player
good at scamming.
This Administrator proposes a fairly minor rule change which we all vote in
favour of. E delays publication of the Ballot. 10 minutes (or less) before
the close of voting e makes wholesale changes to eir Proposal, recognises
eir Proposal, and publishes the Ballot. E could take over the whole game.

Another way that a flexible Proposal system could be abused is by
withdrawing your Proposal if voting is going against it and the Ballot
hasn't been published.

I don't like the thought that I can't reliably vote until the Ballot is
published and the Ballot can be published any time within the voting period.
When the voting period falls across a weekend I only get one day to vote as
my e-mail access is at work (during my lunch break). I would rather see the
published Ballot as informative only and not affecting game state.

Another problem with flexible Proposals until the publication of the Ballot
is one for the Administrator. When e prepares the ballot for publication, e
needs to ensure that all Proposal revisions are incorporated. In a busy
voting period, this could mean that e runs out of time to publish it one day
so e puts it over to the next. Then on the next day there's another rash of
Proposal revisions which have to be acknowledged before e can publish the
Ballot which could conceivably delay publication another day. And what
happens to the revision that is sent 5 seconds before publication of the
Ballot. It should be on the Ballot but it wasn't recognised in time.

While I like some flexibility, I don't like the flexibility which this
Proposal would allow.

I think I've spent long enough on the soapbox, time to get down.

XnJester.

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Consider the following (unlikely) scenario:
> 
> At a point in the future the Office of Administrator falls upon a Player
> good at scamming.
> This Administrator proposes a fairly minor rule change which we all vote in
> favour of. E delays publication of the Ballot. 10 minutes (or less) before
> the close of voting e makes wholesale changes to eir Proposal, recognises
> eir Proposal, and publishes the Ballot. E could take over the whole game.
>

For this to happen it would have to be possible for revisions to be
submitted after voting.  Under my proposal this is not possible.  The only
regard in which this proposal system is any more flexible is that it
forces the recognition of all revisions made up to the start of voting.

Now consider the following situation under the present rules:

The administratorship falls into the hands of a player good at scamming.
He submits a proposal claiming to be some minor fix for something but
which actually contains a mistake that would allow him to take over the
game.  He then revises the proposal (and fixes the "mistake) but only
recognizes this after the voting starts.  The players assume they are
voting on the new version but actually their votes are cast on the old one
(it wouldn't be too hard for a clever administrator to arrange this).  You
can figure the results out for yourself.

> 
> Another way that a flexible Proposal system could be abused is by
> withdrawing your Proposal if voting is going against it and the Ballot
> hasn't been published.

My proposal would not allow the withdrawing or revising of proposals after
voting starts unless they were submitted before the start of voting, in
which case we would all be aware of them.  Without this amendment we
cannot be sure of what we are voting on until the ballot is published, and
maybe not even then.

I think you might have misread some of my proposal, or perhaps I made a
serious error in its design.  I will check it over for mistakes and see if
I can revise it before voting starts.  It does actually make the proposal
system less open to tampering by the administrator, not more, and many of
the things you imply that it would allow are actually things I took great
pains to prohibit.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: RFJ on on Judgement on RFJ 26
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:55:59 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Dan Waldron [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> The Kid's action was posted to the discussion list, not the 
> business list.
> As such, we can only assume that it was a joke and not meant 
> as an actual
> action. ;-)

No, it went to the business list, check the list archive.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ on on Judgement on RFJ 26
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:19:54 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> the order was:" 1)  The Administrator will remove any points 
> from Zagarna's
> score, and any Wins on his record, that may have been awarded 
> as a result of the
> judgement on RFJ 20 "
> 
> Rule 114/0 clearly states: "An Order is a command directed to 
> some Agent, known
> a the recipient, requiring em to perform exactly one 
> action.". Potter's order
> requires the administrator to perform two actions, remove 
> points and remove wins
> on my record.

Nothing states that an action may not have more than one part to it. I refer
you to St. Patrick's explanation of the Holy Trinity.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Privileged Motion
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:36:02 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The following is a Privileged Motion for which I request 
> Unanimous Consent.
> 
> 3. The proposals that were recognized as passed [[Joels email 
> 12 Oct 2000
> 00:59:21]] shall be adopted immediately, and points awarded as per the
> rules.

To support this can I point out that Zagarna ruled FALSE on RFJ20. [[This
superseeds the ruling on RFJ21, as it was given later.]]

In essence, Zagarna ruled that:
Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are recognised during the
nweek's voting DO alter the Ballot Issues.

Therefore the Ballot as it was distributed and voted upon should stand. If
it wasn't for all the fun with the points we would have sorted this out by
now. There are currently no outstanding RFJ's which would cause the Ballot
to be invalid.

--
The Kid

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:13:43 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ on on Judgement on RFJ 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> > From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > the order was:" 1)  The Administrator will remove any points
> > from Zagarna's
> > score, and any Wins on his record, that may have been awarded
> > as a result of the
> > judgement on RFJ 20 "
> >
> > Rule 114/0 clearly states: "An Order is a command directed to
> > some Agent, known
> > a the recipient, requiring em to perform exactly one
> > action.". Potter's order
> > requires the administrator to perform two actions, remove
> > points and remove wins
> > on my record.
> 
> Nothing states that an action may not have more than one part to it. I refer
> you to St. Patrick's explanation of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> --
> The Kid

I don't care what St. Patrick has to say on that, "exactly one action" is one
action and that's just common sence(spelling?).

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ on on Judgement on RFJ
	 26
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:18:43 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> > Nothing states that an action may not have more than one 
> part to it. I refer
> > you to St. Patrick's explanation of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> I don't care what St. Patrick has to say on that, "exactly 
> one action" is one
> action and that's just common sence(spelling?).

"Reversing the effects of the Order" is one action, in the same way as
walking is one action. However, in order to walk, you have to move your left
foot forward and place it on the ground, shift your weight to your left
foot, lift you right foot, move it forward, place it on the ground, shift
your weight to your right foot. Etc, etc.

Potter was simply detailing how to perform the action of "Reversing the
effects of the Order".

--
The Kid

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ruling on RFJ25
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:15:39 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> RFJ25: Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will
not
> become Ballot Issues.
>
> <snip supporting statements from judge>
>
> Therefore I find that the phrase "since the previous nweek's voting"
should
> be interpreted as "since the start of the previous nweek's voting" and not
> "since the end of the previous nweek's voting"
>
> I rule FALSE.

OK. That's better. A definitive answer to the RFJ given. Now I will accept
the judgment happily. It doesn't matter to me that the judgment went against
me, just so long as we have clarification.

XnJester.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Privileged Motion 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:49:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Woah. I object to this, at least until I get a chance to bring stuff up to 
date again, which should be tomorrow. (Anyway, I'm not sure this is 
legal...)

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> The following is a Privileged Motion for which I request Unanimous Consent.
> 
> 1. All players scores shall be reset to zero.
> 2. All credits for wins, loses and draws shall be removed from players and
> from the event log.
> 3. The proposals that were recognized as passed [[Joels email 12 Oct 2000
> 00:59:21]] shall be adopted immediately, and points awarded as per the
> rules.
> 4. The proposals that were recognized as failed [[Joels email 12 Oct 2000
> 00:59:21]] shall be declared dead immediately, and points awarded as per the
> rules.
> 5. All outstanding RFJ's on these matters shall be refused.
> 6. No further RFJ's may be raised on these matters.
> 7. No further Orders, Actions or any other method of altering Agents Scores,
> other than that specifically detailed in the Rules, shall be taken.
> 8. Players who found loopholes and exploited them to potentially be credited
> with a win shall be recognized as being "Clever Gits".
> 9. We shall get on with playing the game.
> [[10. Please.]]
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Privileged Motion 
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:19:57 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Woah. I object to this, at least until I get a chance to 
> bring stuff up to 
> date again, which should be tomorrow. (Anyway, I'm not sure this is 
> legal...)
> 

It was perfectly legal as far as I can tell. What part do you object to? I
honestly am still convinced that the proposals we voted on should have
passed. The only reason that they were never implemented was cos of
XnJester's RFJ's. Now that most of them have been ruled on we can see which
way it went. (Should the judges that haven't ruled yet have been recused by
now?) In my understanding the ruling on RFJ20 says that "Alterations to
Active Proposals or Motions which are recognised during the nweek's voting
DO alter the Ballot Issues." So this means that your recognition of the
proposal alterations was valid, the ballot was valid, the vote was valid,
your recognition of the proposals passing was valid. What is there that is
stopping these proposals passing? I can't see anything. I don't want to RFJ
on this cos the whole situation is getting silly. If there is something I've
missed, please tell me.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ruling on RFJ25
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:20:30 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Kieron Jarvis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > I rule FALSE.
> 
> OK. That's better. A definitive answer to the RFJ given. Now 
> I will accept
> the judgment happily. It doesn't matter to me that the 
> judgment went against
> me, just so long as we have clarification.

Ok, that's cool ;-)

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Privileged Motion 
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:28:01 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> Woah. I object to this, at least until I get a chance to 
> bring stuff up to 
> date again, which should be tomorrow. (Anyway, I'm not sure this is 
> legal...)

Oh, and I think you're supposed to recognize it, assign it a number, and
*then* object to it ;-)

--
The Kid

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:39:53 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> For this to happen it would have to be possible for revisions to be
> submitted after voting.  Under my proposal this is not possible.  The only
> regard in which this proposal system is any more flexible is that it
> forces the recognition of all revisions made up to the start of voting.
>
> <snip>
>
> My proposal would not allow the withdrawing or revising of proposals after
> voting starts unless they were submitted before the start of voting, in
> which case we would all be aware of them.  Without this amendment we
> cannot be sure of what we are voting on until the ballot is published, and
> maybe not even then.

I can't see where revisions are not possible after voting commences. I would
like to see revisions limited to the period before voting commences, but I
don't see it here. Maybe I'm missing something.

XnJester.

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I see the source of the confusion.  You commented on a proposal by
zagarna, which I vigorously defended, thiking you were referring to my
proposal which would do almost exaclty the same thing, except would not
allow gratuitous alterations within the voting period.  My proposal was
submitted a little while ago but has not been recognized yet.

Poulenc

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Kieron Jarvis wrote:

> > For this to happen it would have to be possible for revisions to be
> > submitted after voting.  Under my proposal this is not possible.  The only
> > regard in which this proposal system is any more flexible is that it
> > forces the recognition of all revisions made up to the start of voting.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > My proposal would not allow the withdrawing or revising of proposals after
> > voting starts unless they were submitted before the start of voting, in
> > which case we would all be aware of them.  Without this amendment we
> > cannot be sure of what we are voting on until the ballot is published, and
> > maybe not even then.
> 
> I can't see where revisions are not possible after voting commences. I would
> like to see revisions limited to the period before voting commences, but I
> don't see it here. Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> XnJester.
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: updates, etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:22:03 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm starting to get the proposal revisions up on the page--I have a 
passable way to do it now, so some of the really old ones are there now.

I'll try to take care of the Judicial stuff and the newer revisions and 
proposals tonight or tomorrow if time allows--I have a paper due on Friday 
which demands attention, but I hope to have the proposals recognized before 
voting starts so we don't have the same problem again that we did last time.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:55:06 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thank you for clearing that up. I was wondering how you could say that
(Zaganra's) proposal stopped revisions. I've looked at your proposal and
like it.

XnJester

> I see the source of the confusion.  You commented on a proposal by
> zagarna, which I vigorously defended, thiking you were referring to my
> proposal which would do almost exaclty the same thing, except would not
> allow gratuitous alterations within the voting period.  My proposal was
> submitted a little while ago but has not been recognized yet.
>
> Poulenc
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Kieron Jarvis wrote:
>
> > > For this to happen it would have to be possible for revisions to be
> > > submitted after voting.  Under my proposal this is not possible.  The
only
> > > regard in which this proposal system is any more flexible is that it
> > > forces the recognition of all revisions made up to the start of
voting.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > My proposal would not allow the withdrawing or revising of proposals
after
> > > voting starts unless they were submitted before the start of voting,
in
> > > which case we would all be aware of them.  Without this amendment we
> > > cannot be sure of what we are voting on until the ballot is published,
and
> > > maybe not even then.
> >
> > I can't see where revisions are not possible after voting commences. I
would
> > like to see revisions limited to the period before voting commences, but
I
> > don't see it here. Maybe I'm missing something.
> >
> > XnJester.

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:56:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: incompatibility in judgements
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Kieron Jarvis wrote:

> Thank you for clearing that up. I was wondering how you could say that
> (Zaganra's) proposal stopped revisions. I've looked at your proposal and
> like it.
> 

There is one mistake in my proposal:  it covers only revisions, and not
withdrawals and the like.  I have drafted a revised version but I cannot
submit it until the original is recognized.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: updates, etc.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:52:40 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'll try to take care of the Judicial stuff and the newer 
> revisions and 
> proposals tonight or tomorrow if time allows--I have a paper 
> due on Friday 
> which demands attention, but I hope to have the proposals 
> recognized before 
> voting starts so we don't have the same problem again that we 
> did last time.

You're too late, the voting should have started at 00:00:00 19th October.
About twenty minutes before you sent that mail.

I think we should have a Deputy Administrator that can recognise things if
the Administrator is unavailable. I'll draft up a proposal. Hopefully it
might one day get recognised ;-)

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: updates, etc.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:06:31 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C039AB.DF0A5100
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Joel, here's an updated Clock page. It should fit in better with the look of
your existing pages. I've also added a voting countdown timer.

--
The Kid

------_=_NextPart_000_01C039AB.DF0A5100
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="clock.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="clock.html"

<html>
<head>
   <title>Nomic Clock</title>

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE=3D"JavaScript">

function nomictime()
{
	var LocalTime =3D new Date();

	var LocalYear =3D LocalTime.getYear();
	if(LocalYear < 2000)	LocalYear =3D LocalYear + 1900;

	var MonthNames =3D new Array("January", "February", "March", "April", =
"May", "June", "July", "August", "September", "October", "November", =
"December");
	var LocalMonth =3D MonthNames[LocalTime.getMonth()];

	var LocalDay =3D LocalTime.getDate();
	var LocalDaySuffix;
	if(LocalDay =3D=3D 1 || LocalDay =3D=3D 21 || LocalDay =3D=3D 31) =
LocalDaySuffix =3D "st";
	else if(LocalDay =3D=3D 2 || LocalDay =3D=3D 22) LocalDaySuffix =3D =
"nd";
	else if(LocalDay =3D=3D 3 || LocalDay =3D=3D 23) LocalDaySuffix =3D =
"rd";
	else LocalDaySuffix =3D "th";

	var LocalHrs =3D LocalTime.getHours();
	var LocalMins =3D LocalTime.getMinutes();
	var LocalSecs =3D LocalTime.getSeconds();
	if(LocalHrs < 10) LocalHrs =3D "0" + LocalHrs;
	if(LocalMins < 10) LocalMins =3D "0" + LocalMins;
	if(LocalSecs < 10) LocalSecs =3D "0" + LocalSecs;

	var LocalTimeStr =3D " Local Time: " + LocalHrs + ":" + LocalMins + =
":" + LocalSecs + " " + LocalDay + LocalDaySuffix + " " + LocalMonth + =
" " + LocalYear;

	var NomicStart =3D new Date(2000, 9, 2);
	var ElapsedTime =3D (LocalTime.getTime() - NomicStart.getTime()) + =
(LocalTime.getTimezoneOffset()*60*1000);

	var NomicWeek =3D Math.floor((ElapsedTime/(1000*60*60*24*10)))+1;
	var NomicDay =3D Math.floor((ElapsedTime/(1000*60*60*24))%10)+1;
	var NomicHrs =3D Math.floor((ElapsedTime/(1000*60*60))%24);
	var NomicMins =3D Math.floor((ElapsedTime/(1000*60))%60);
	var NomicSecs =3D Math.floor((ElapsedTime/1000)%60);

	var CountDay =3D 10-NomicDay;
	var CountHrs =3D 23-NomicHrs;
	var CountMins =3D 59-NomicMins;
	var CountSecs =3D 60-NomicSecs;
	if(CountSecs =3D=3D 60)
	{
		CountSecs =3D 0;
		CountMins++;
	}
	if(CountMins =3D=3D 60)
	{
		CountMins =3D 0;
		CountHrs++;
	}
	if(CountHrs =3D=3D 24)
	{
		CountHrs =3D 0;
		CountDay++;
	}

	if(NomicHrs < 10) NomicHrs =3D "0" + NomicHrs;
	if(NomicMins < 10) NomicMins =3D "0" + NomicMins;
	if(NomicSecs < 10) NomicSecs =3D "0" + NomicSecs;

	if(CountHrs < 10) CountHrs =3D "0" + CountHrs;
	if(CountMins < 10) CountMins =3D "0" + CountMins;
	if(CountSecs < 10) CountSecs =3D "0" + CountSecs;

	var NomicTimeStr =3D " Nomic Time: " + NomicHrs + ":" + NomicMins + =
":" + NomicSecs + " Day " + NomicDay + " Nweek " + NomicWeek;

	var CountDownStr =3D " " + CountHrs + ":" + CountMins + ":" + =
CountSecs;

	if(NomicDay < 8)
	{
		CountDay =3D CountDay - 3;
	}

	if(CountDay =3D=3D 1)
	{
		CountDownStr =3D "   1 Day and" + CountDownStr;
	}
	else
	{
		CountDownStr =3D "  " + CountDay + " Days and" + CountDownStr;
	}
	if(NomicDay < 8)
	{
		CountDownStr =3D CountDownStr + " till Voting Starts";
	}
	else
	{
		CountDownStr =3D CountDownStr + " till Voting Ends";
	}

	document.isoclock.displaylocal.value =3D LocalTimeStr;
	document.isoclock.displaynomic.value =3D NomicTimeStr;
	document.isoclock.displaycount.value =3D CountDownStr;

	window.setTimeout("nomictime();", 1000);
}
</script>

</head>

<BODY OnLoad=3D"nomictime()">

<body text =3D "#000000" bgcolor =3D "#ffffff" link =3D "#0000ee" vlink =
=3D "#551a8b" alink =3D "#ff0000">

<a href =3D "http://www.nomic.net/~g1">Home</a><br>
<center>[Nomic Clock]</center>
<br><hr>

<center>
<form name=3Disoclock>
	<input type=3Dtext name=3Ddisplaylocal size=3D40 =
style=3D"border:0;"><br>
	<input type=3Dtext name=3Ddisplaynomic size=3D40 =
style=3D"border:0;"><br>
	<input type=3Dtext name=3Ddisplaycount size=3D40 =
style=3D"border:0;"><br>
</form>
</center>
<br><hr>
<center><font size =3D -1>Thu 19 Oct 2000 09:03:36 UTC</font></center>

</body>
</html>

------_=_NextPart_000_01C039AB.DF0A5100--

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Deputies
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:08:43 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following is a draft for a proposal, please let me know what you think
cos I realize that this may be a contentious issue. The basic summary of the
rule is that the Administrator may perform another Officers duty if he needs
to, and other players can do the Administrators duties if they need to.
Obviously I've put some restrictions on the latter, or else the whole thing
will just degenerate into a farce.

I Shot The Sheriff

If the Administrator deems that an Officer has not performed their duties in
a reasonable time, then the Administrator may declare emself to be the
Deputy of that Officer and perform those duties instead of the Officer
concerned.

If a Player deems that the Administrator has not performed eir duties in a
reasonable time, then the Player may declare emself to be the Deputy
Administrator. The Player must specify exactly what duties e thinks that the
Administrator should have performed. The Player must then wait 24 hours
before e may carry out these duties as Deputy Administrator. If another
player objects to the Player's Deputyship or the Administrator performs the
duties within those 24 hours then the Player may not perform those duties
concerned.

Special Case:
In the case that the duties the Deputy Administrator wishes to carry out
would affect the Ballot Issues for that nweek [[eg. Recognition of Proposal
submission or alteration]] and voting starts in less than 24 hours, then the
Deputy Administrator need only wait 6 hours to perform the duties. However
the duties do not officially happen until the second before voting starts,
so players may still object in the intervening time.

The following exceptions apply to the Deputy Administrator:
The Deputy Administrator may not recognize es own actions [[eg. Proposal
submission or alteration]].
The Deputy Administrator may not assign or recuse Judges for an RFJ in which
e is the Plaintiff or Defendant.
The Deputy Administrator may not credit any Player with a Win.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: updates, etc. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:42:02 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > I'll try to take care of the Judicial stuff and the newer 
> > revisions and 
> > proposals tonight or tomorrow if time allows--I have a paper 
> > due on Friday 
> > which demands attention, but I hope to have the proposals 
> > recognized before 
> > voting starts so we don't have the same problem again that we 
> > did last time.
> 
> You're too late, the voting should have started at 00:00:00 19th October.
> About twenty minutes before you sent that mail.
> 
> I think we should have a Deputy Administrator that can recognise things if
> the Administrator is unavailable. I'll draft up a proposal. Hopefully it
> might one day get recognised ;-)
> 
> --
> The Kid

What I'd like to see happen is to split off the judicial duties to a Clerk 
of Courts--that would help a lot, since I can handle the proposals and 
revisions as they come if I don't have to do anything with the RFJs.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: updates, etc. 
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:07:53 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> What I'd like to see happen is to split off the judicial 
> duties to a Clerk 
> of Courts--that would help a lot, since I can handle the 
> proposals and 
> revisions as they come if I don't have to do anything with the RFJs.

I'd be happy to help with anything that is needed. It should be made a
formal position cos the Rules say that the Administrator should do it. I'm
sure you could make some sort of Order to delegate part of your duties in
the mean time though.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: delays
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:30:08 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm sorry about missing the beginning of the voting period--it's unlikely 
that I'll be able to get things sorted out by the time it ends, since I 
have some work that must be done by tomorrow afternoon. My first priority 
this weekend will be to catch up on the game stuff, and hopefully be able 
to remain caught up after that.

Possibly I'll adapt what I wrote to automatically recognize proposals to 
the database structure I have now. The problem with doing so is that the 
full text of revisions must be supplied for this to work correctly--which 
would prevent the automatic recognition of simple revisions like "replace 
the word 'foo' with 'bar' everywhere it appears in P400". If that doesn't 
bother anyone, those sorts of revisions could still be recognized 
manually...
-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: updates, etc. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:35:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > What I'd like to see happen is to split off the judicial 
> > duties to a Clerk 
> > of Courts--that would help a lot, since I can handle the 
> > proposals and 
> > revisions as they come if I don't have to do anything with the RFJs.
> 
> I'd be happy to help with anything that is needed. It should be made a
> formal position cos the Rules say that the Administrator should do it. I'm
> sure you could make some sort of Order to delegate part of your duties in
> the mean time though.
> 
> --
> The Kid

The other important thing would be for any other officers to submit reports 
in a standardized format so they can be read directly into the 
db--otherwise it doesn't save me any work. By a standard format, I mean 
something simple, like:

RFJ #
Plaintiff
Judge
Statement
Analysis

It needs to be something with a regular pattern, so I can just cat the 
message to one of my scripts to get the info on the page.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:48:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Deputies
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I Shot The Sheriff
<rule body-snip!>
> --
> The Kid

You need to add a clause that states that if the deputy has performed the
actions, then the original officer no longer is required to
perform/regognize/etc them.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:39:56 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Deputies
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> 
> > I Shot The Sheriff
> <rule body-snip!>
> 
> You need to add a clause that states that if the deputy has performed the
> actions, then the original officer no longer is required to
> perform/regognize/etc them.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I'll add it in, thanks.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 319 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:55:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey, I think I fixed the problem.

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> 
> I withdraw proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
> I recind proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
> I deactivate proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
> I do not want you to vote on proposal 319, "Eligible Voters".
> 
> Please note that I still don't think that the proposal should not have been
> recognised in the first place, but I am performing all the actions I can
> think of in order that the proposal does not get voted on. Please note that
> Joel does not have to recognise these actions before the start of voting as
> only proposal submissions and alterations need to be recognised. I'd
> appreciate it if you did thogh Joel, just to be sure.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 
> 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: no more stuff tonight
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:47:48 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Getting very sleepy... I'll sort out the judicial stuff in the morning.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: clock
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:22:17 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Many thanks to The Kid for the clock script he wrote. Unfortunately, I 
realized this evening that since it's run on the client side, the accuracy 
of its output is entirely dependent on whether the client has a 
correctly-set system clock. So, I converted the script to Perl and am now 
using it as a server-side include (thanks to God for that idea [heh, that 
sounds funny, though not intentionally]). Also, this has the advantage of 
displaying if you're using Lynx, too (Josh does a lot, I think), since it's 
just text.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: current gamestate
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:43:17 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm currently attempting to determine which Proposals have passed to date. 
As I see the completed Judgments, though J20 seems to indicate that the 
Proposals listed on the first Ballot were the ones which were actually 
voted on and was decided after J21, no Judicial Orders were issued by the 
Judge of J20 to countermand the Orders that were part of J21. So, I think 
the Orders from J21 still stand, and P311, P312, P314, and P315 are all 
still active.

Does anyone see this differently?

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:32:18 +0200
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: current gamestate
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> I'm currently attempting to determine which Proposals have passed to date.
> As I see the completed Judgments, though J20 seems to indicate that the
> Proposals listed on the first Ballot were the ones which were actually
> voted on and was decided after J21, no Judicial Orders were issued by the
> Judge of J20 to countermand the Orders that were part of J21. So, I think
> the Orders from J21 still stand, and P311, P312, P314, and P315 are all
> still active.
> 
> Does anyone see this differently?
> 

seems right to me

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

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:59:12 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: current gamestate
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm not 100% happy with this, but it would just be silly to try and
argue differently at this stage. So yes, lets go with this since it
seems the easiest way to get on with the game. Is everyone still
playing? Having come back after being away for the weekend it seems that
noone has posted anything except Joel.

--
The Kid

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> I'm currently attempting to determine which Proposals have passed to date.
> As I see the completed Judgments, though J20 seems to indicate that the
> Proposals listed on the first Ballot were the ones which were actually
> voted on and was decided after J21, no Judicial Orders were issued by the
> Judge of J20 to countermand the Orders that were part of J21. So, I think
> the Orders from J21 still stand, and P311, P312, P314, and P315 are all
> still active.
> 
> Does anyone see this differently?
> 
> --
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 10:39:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: current gamestate
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, andy_harrison wrote:

> I'm not 100% happy with this, but it would just be silly to try and
> argue differently at this stage. So yes, lets go with this since it
> seems the easiest way to get on with the game. Is everyone still
> playing? Having come back after being away for the weekend it seems that
> noone has posted anything except Joel.
> 
> --
> The Kid

There are sooo many proposals on the go just now that it is very hard to
do anything new.  I need to know what the state of the rules is before I
submit my next batch!

Poulenc

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name !
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:03:35 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi All,
I think it's time we started thinking about a proper name for this game
we're playing.

Here's what I'd like to do.

1. An informal survey (brainstorming) for potential names for this game.
(discussion list)

2. At the start of the voting period (Oct 30) I'd like to distribute a list
of suggested names to be voted on. (still informal - discussion list)

3. At the start of next nweek (Nov 1) I'd then announce the results and make
a Proposal for changing the game name. (business list) We'd have until the
voting period began to nut out any changes in the Proposal wording.

4. Hopefully then at the start of nweek 5 we'd officially have a name for
our Nomic.

Here are my initial suggestions for Namics (Nomic names):

	An Unnamed Nomic
	Cimon
	Cimonomic
	Spoonomic
	Megalonomica
	Misnomic

I'm sure you can come up with better, submit your suggestions now !

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:26:02 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Hi All,
> I think it's time we started thinking about a proper name for this game
> we're playing.
> 
> Here's what I'd like to do.
> 
> 1. An informal survey (brainstorming) for potential names for this game.
> (discussion list)
> 
> 2. At the start of the voting period (Oct 30) I'd like to distribute a list
> of suggested names to be voted on. (still informal - discussion list)
> 
> 3. At the start of next nweek (Nov 1) I'd then announce the results and make
> a Proposal for changing the game name. (business list) We'd have until the
> voting period began to nut out any changes in the Proposal wording.
> 
> 4. Hopefully then at the start of nweek 5 we'd officially have a name for
> our Nomic.
> 
> 
> Here are my initial suggestions for Namics (Nomic names):
> 
> 	An Unnamed Nomic
> 	Cimon
> 	Cimonomic
> 	Spoonomic
> 	Megalonomica
> 	Misnomic
> 
> I'm sure you can come up with better, submit your suggestions now !
> 
> XnJester

Oh, man, here we go again.

I like:

Spoon (or variations thereof)
Gin and Nomic with a Twist of Lime
A Nomic (like it says at the top of the page)

What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?

I'm beginning to think that the only reason we need a name is to facilitate 
reference to our game in extra-game contexts, i.e. on the NNBB or the 
apparently-defunct internomic list. Internally, we know what game we're 
talking about. (So I guess Josh has converted me somewhat.)

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:25:22 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>I'm beginning to think that the only reason we need a name is to facilitate 
>reference to our game in extra-game contexts, i.e. on the NNBB or the 
>apparently-defunct internomic list. Internally, we know what game we're 
>talking about. (So I guess Josh has converted me somewhat.)

Imagine yourself saying this:

"We have a nomic. Go to

	www.nomic.net/~g1

to find out about it."

So simple. So easy. No dumbass name.

Josh

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

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:42:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Imagine yourself saying this:
> "We have a nomic. Go to
> 	www.nomic.net/~g1
> to find out about it. 
> So simple. So easy. No dumbass name.

I don't think the URL for the game will change if we get a name - I don't
know if the mailing lists would even change - if this is true, why are you
against having a name?
I still like Aphasia.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:47:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: webpage/new players
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On the webpage, it says to become a player you just have to subscribe to
the mailing list and announce yourself to be a player. According to the
rules, this only works during the first nweek of play (right) and
afterwards, a motion to add must be made. We should either change the
rules so that agents gain player-status by announcing such or have
Joel chagne the webpage to have wannabe players e-mail him or something.
(yes, that's chagne, like champagne :P )

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

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:00:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: picking nits
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The message archives will soon grow to disproportionate sizes. Joel - can
you offer them in a compressed format (like .zip or .gz)?

It would also be nice to have indices of the judgements - one index page
listing RFJ#/statement/Judgement#/ruling - with links to the expanded
judgement. I don't know how hard that would be to set up given the current
state of poop, but it'll make things a lot easier in the future when
judges look at previous judgements,etc.

yes, I am a whiny little bitch.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: picking nits 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:23:26 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> The message archives will soon grow to disproportionate sizes. Joel - can
> you offer them in a compressed format (like .zip or .gz)?

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I'll see what I can do. How important is 
it that the compressed vesions be up-to-date at the moment of download? I 
could easily have cron compress them once daily, but that would leave out 
up to 24 hours of messages.

> It would also be nice to have indices of the judgements - one index page
> listing RFJ#/statement/Judgement#/ruling - with links to the expanded
> judgement. I don't know how hard that would be to set up given the current
> state of poop, but it'll make things a lot easier in the future when
> judges look at previous judgements,etc.

This would be really, really easy, actually. I'll put this on the list of 
things to do.
 
> yes, I am a whiny little bitch.

It's helpful when people tell me how they (want to) use the page--the 
improvements I make are much less haphazard that way. :)

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: webpage/new players 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:28:04 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> On the webpage, it says to become a player you just have to subscribe to
> the mailing list and announce yourself to be a player. According to the
> rules, this only works during the first nweek of play (right) and
> afterwards, a motion to add must be made. We should either change the
> rules so that agents gain player-status by announcing such or have
> Joel chagne the webpage to have wannabe players e-mail him or something.
> (yes, that's chagne, like champagne :P )

Yep. I'll have to fix that.

As for changing the rule: I prefer the current (Motion to Add) rule, since 
it provides an easy check against skullduggery, viz. external factions 
attempting to take over our game, or internal attempts to become a player 
multiple times, etc.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:51:11 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>> Imagine yourself saying this:
>> "We have a nomic. Go to
>> 	www.nomic.net/~g1
>> to find out about it. 
>> So simple. So easy. No dumbass name.
>
>I don't think the URL for the game will change if we get a name - I don't
>know if the mailing lists would even change - if this is true, why are you
>against having a name?

Because it will invariably be dumb.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:03:23 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Benjamin Bradley sprach:
> >> Imagine yourself saying this:
> >> "We have a nomic. Go to
> >> 	www.nomic.net/~g1
> >> to find out about it. 
> >> So simple. So easy. No dumbass name.
> >
> >I don't think the URL for the game will change if we get a name - I don't
> >know if the mailing lists would even change - if this is true, why are you
> >against having a name?
> 
> Because it will invariably be dumb.

Josh is just mad that we rejected his suggestions when naming Berserker oh 
so long ago. :)

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:07:49 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
>> 
>> Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>> >> Imagine yourself saying this:
>> >> "We have a nomic. Go to
>> >> 	www.nomic.net/~g1
>> >> to find out about it. 
>> >> So simple. So easy. No dumbass name.
>> >
>> >I don't think the URL for the game will change if we get a name - I don't
>> >know if the mailing lists would even change - if this is true, why are you
>> >against having a name?
>> 
>> Because it will invariably be dumb.
>
>Josh is just mad that we rejected his suggestions when naming Berserker oh 
>so long ago. :)

http://renoir.vill.edu/faculty/bartlow/html/mat1220/arrowthm.html

SOMEONE will think it's dumb.

Josh

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:21:58 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Wbfu Xbegorva [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Benjamin Bradley sprach:
> >> Imagine yourself saying this:
> >> "We have a nomic. Go to
> >> 	www.nomic.net/~g1
> >> to find out about it. 
> >> So simple. So easy. No dumbass name.
> >
> >I don't think the URL for the game will change if we get a 
> name - I don't
> >know if the mailing lists would even change - if this is 
> true, why are you
> >against having a name?
> 
> Because it will invariably be dumb.

'Dumbic'

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: picking nits 
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:25:24 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > The message archives will soon grow to disproportionate 
> sizes. Joel - can
> > you offer them in a compressed format (like .zip or .gz)?
> 
> Yeah, I was thinking about that. I'll see what I can do. How 
> important is 
> it that the compressed vesions be up-to-date at the moment of 
> download? I 
> could easily have cron compress them once daily, but that 
> would leave out 
> up to 24 hours of messages.

Would it be possible to also have an unzipped version that has only the last
10 days worth of messages but was up to date? Then we could have a small and
upto date version for quick access, and a full zipped version for going
further back.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:26:12 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > >I don't think the URL for the game will change if we get a 
> > name - I don't
> > >know if the mailing lists would even change - if this is 
> > true, why are you
> > >against having a name?
> > 
> > Because it will invariably be dumb.
> 
> 'Dumbic'

Utensilomic

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Another proposal proposal
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:36:54 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's another proposal I'm working on. It sets up the basics for a system
of ownership and trading. On it's own it doesn't do anything, it just
defines a framework for defining and trading in game objects. What do people
think?

Proposal: Market Economy

Create a rule entitled 'Market Economy' with the following text:

"Agents within the game may have Objects associated with them such that the
Agent is said to own that Object. Agents may only own Objects that are
defined within the Ruleset. Agents may only gain ownership or lose ownership
of objects in the manner defined in the Ruleset. Agents may own more than
one of a specific type of object, unless prohibited elsewhere in the
Ruleset. Agents may not own a negative or non-integral number of a specific
type of object, unless allowed elsewhere in the Ruleset.

Agents may freely trade in Objects by mutual agreement, unless prohibited
elsewhere in the Ruleset. Objects that are not defined in the Ruleset may
not be traded. Agents may not trade Objects in return for a Game Action or
in return for the promise of a Game Action. [[eg. You can't offer a player
some Object in return for them voting 'yes' on your proposal.]]

All Players involved in a trade must submit the terms of the trade, or an
agreement to previously submitted terms, to a public forum. The trade is
deemed to occur when the Administrator (or other relevent Officer) publicly
Recognises the trade.

A trade must not occur if the resulting ownership of Objects produces an
illeagal or invalid game state, or if one of the Players involved in the
trade would win the game as a result of the trade.

Non-Player Agents may only participate in trades if it is specifically
allowed elsewhere in the Ruleset."

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: clock
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:12:37 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel, your perl script is one day out on the voting period. Voting for the
third nweek starts on 29th October, not 30th October. The vote end is
correct, although I'd call it 23:59:59 on the 31st October, rather than
00:00:00 on the 1st November (Rule 111 states that the voting closes at the
end of the tenth day, not the start of the first day of the next nweek.)

Nweek 1:  2nd-11th Oct, voting  9th-11th Oct
Nweek 2: 12th-21st Oct, voting 19th-21st Oct
Nweek 3: 22nd-31st Oct, voting 29th-31st Oct
Nweek 4:  1st-10th Nov, voting  8th-10th Nov

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 22 October 2000 07:22
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: clock
> 
> 
> Many thanks to The Kid for the clock script he wrote. 
> Unfortunately, I 
> realized this evening that since it's run on the client side, 
> the accuracy 
> of its output is entirely dependent on whether the client has a 
> correctly-set system clock. So, I converted the script to 
> Perl and am now 
> using it as a server-side include (thanks to God for that 
> idea [heh, that 
> sounds funny, though not intentionally]). Also, this has the 
> advantage of 
> displaying if you're using Lynx, too (Josh does a lot, I 
> think), since it's 
> just text.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: clock 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:36:52 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Joel, your perl script is one day out on the voting period. Voting for the
> third nweek starts on 29th October, not 30th October. The vote end is
> correct, although I'd call it 23:59:59 on the 31st October, rather than
> 00:00:00 on the 1st November (Rule 111 states that the voting closes at the
> end of the tenth day, not the start of the first day of the next nweek.)
> 
> Nweek 1:  2nd-11th Oct, voting  9th-11th Oct
> Nweek 2: 12th-21st Oct, voting 19th-21st Oct
> Nweek 3: 22nd-31st Oct, voting 29th-31st Oct
> Nweek 4:  1st-10th Nov, voting  8th-10th Nov

Are you sure? If voting runs from the beginning of 29 October until the end 
of 31 October, that would make three, not two, days of voting.

Also, the reason I have the end of voting as 00:00:00 on 1 November instead 
of 23:59:59 on 31 October is that at 23:59:59 on 31 October there is still 
one second of voting left. Voting is an interval open on one end, and 
closed on the other: i.e, voting period = (00:00:00 30 October, 00:00:00 1 
November]

> --
> The Kid

-- 
J.

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: 100 points
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:02:52 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> <proposal title="100 points to start with">
> {{add a new rule with the following text:}}
> <title>100 initial points</title>
> When a new player is added to the roster, they will be credited with 100
> points. These points are called the 100 initial points.
> If it is decided by a judge as judgement on an RFJ that a player or
> players have not been credited with their 100 initial points, a judicial
> order shall be made crediting said players each with 100 initial points.
>
> </proposal>
> This will allow point deductions to occur (as punishments) from the start
> of the game -- remember point levels cannot go below 0.
>
> is 100 too much?
>

I think you should amend the proposal to give the current players their
'initial' points as well. (That way we can be punished too. ;o)

XnJester.

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: clock 
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:16:52 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Are you sure? If voting runs from the beginning of 29 October until the
end
> of 31 October, that would make three, not two, days of voting.

Three, not two, days of voting is our correct entitlement by R111.  ;o)

Rule 111/0 : Nweekly Voting
Voting on a nweek's Ballot opens at the start of the eighth day of that
nweek, and closes at the end of the tenth day of that nweek.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:18:36 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 	Cimon
> 	Cimonomic
Oh, man, here we go again.

I like:

Spoon (or variations thereof)
Gin and Nomic with a Twist of Lime
A Nomic (like it says at the top of the page)

What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?

I'm beginning to think that the only reason we need a name is to facilitate
reference to our game in extra-game contexts, i.e. on the NNBB or the
apparently-defunct internomic list. Internally, we know what game we're
talking about. (So I guess Josh has converted me somewhat.)

--
J.

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:22:43 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ooops, a slight slip on the keyboard there. Let's try this again.....

> >	Cimon
> > 	Cimonomic
>
> What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?

The second is a Palindrome and the first might appeal to Monty Python fans
if we called it a palindrome.
"A palindrome ?  But the palindrome of Nomic would be Cimon, it don't
work." - Dead parrot sketch (almost).

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: clock 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:26:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> > Are you sure? If voting runs from the beginning of 29 October until the
> end
> > of 31 October, that would make three, not two, days of voting.
> 
> Three, not two, days of voting is our correct entitlement by R111.  ;o)
> 
> Rule 111/0 : Nweekly Voting
> Voting on a nweek's Ballot opens at the start of the eighth day of that
> nweek, and closes at the end of the tenth day of that nweek.
> 
> XnJester
> 

Wow. I wrote that rule, and I didn't even know that. It's fixed now, though.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:27:55 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Ooops, a slight slip on the keyboard there. Let's try this again.....
> 
> > >	Cimon
> > > 	Cimonomic
> >
> > What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?
> 
> The second is a Palindrome and the first might appeal to Monty Python fans
> if we called it a palindrome.
> "A palindrome ?  But the palindrome of Nomic would be Cimon, it don't
> work." - Dead parrot sketch (almost).
> 
> XnJester

Hey, that's neat. I hadn't noticed. I like Cimonomic too.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:09:45 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I like Nomicimon

At 11:27 PM 10/25/00, you wrote:
>Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> > Ooops, a slight slip on the keyboard there. Let's try this again.....
> >
> > > >   Cimon
> > > >   Cimonomic
> > >
> > > What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?
> >
> > The second is a Palindrome and the first might appeal to Monty Python fans
> > if we called it a palindrome.
> > "A palindrome ?  But the palindrome of Nomic would be Cimon, it don't
> > work." - Dead parrot sketch (almost).
> >
> > XnJester
>
>Hey, that's neat. I hadn't noticed. I like Cimonomic too.
>
>
>--
>J.
>
>--
>Play Nomic!
>http://www.nomic.net

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:29:12 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Roland of Gilead <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name ! 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:09 AM 10/26/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I like Nomicimon

<old hag> You will never possess the Nominomicon! </old hag>

Potter

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:27:28 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name !
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Kieron Jarvis wrote:
> 
> Ooops, a slight slip on the keyboard there. Let's try this again.....
> 
> > >     Cimon
> > >     Cimonomic
> >
> > What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?
> 
> The second is a Palindrome and the first might appeal to Monty Python fans
> if we called it a palindrome.
> "A palindrome ?  But the palindrome of Nomic would be Cimon, it don't
> work." - Dead parrot sketch (almost).

How about 'Notlobic' (Notlob (i.e. Bolton) was the palindrome used in
the sketch)

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:13:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: 100 points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Kieron Jarvis wrote:
> > If it is decided by a judge as judgement on an RFJ that a player or
> > players have not been credited with their 100 initial points, a judicial
> > order shall be made crediting said players each with 100 initial points.
> >
> I think you should amend the proposal to give the current players their
> 'initial' points as well. (That way we can be punished too. ;o)

I already put this clause in there to handle that - I figured an RFJ would
be the easiest way to handle something like that, or are you saying I
should add something within the proposal which is not a new rule, which
just adds the points?

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:18:09 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Zagarna:
> I propose the following rule:
> <start proposal>
> title: Motion to Remove Players
> text: Any Agent qualified as a Player may cease to be one if a Motion to
> Remove naming em is adopted. Motions to Remove are Privileged Motions. A
> Motion to Remove is adopted if its passage ratio is at least two-thirds. 
> 
> The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Remove directs
> the Administrator to remove the named Agent from the Roster. 
> <end proposal>
> 
> It seems we should get rid of all the people that are not actually
> playing the game and keep getting nominated as judges.
> 
> Zagarna

Hmm. I'm not sure that means they're not playing, (e.g. Remo). It may be 
that they don't read their nomic mail more than every few days (unlike the 
rest of us, who sit at our computers eagerly awaiting each and every new 
message).

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal 
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:19:14 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Quoth Zagarna:
>> I propose the following rule:
>> <start proposal>
>> title: Motion to Remove Players
>> text: Any Agent qualified as a Player may cease to be one if a Motion to
>> Remove naming em is adopted. Motions to Remove are Privileged Motions. A
>> Motion to Remove is adopted if its passage ratio is at least two-thirds. 
>> 
>> The Motive Order corresponding to an adopted Motion to Remove directs
>> the Administrator to remove the named Agent from the Roster. 
>> <end proposal>
>> 
>> It seems we should get rid of all the people that are not actually
>> playing the game and keep getting nominated as judges.
>> 
>> Zagarna
>
>Hmm. I'm not sure that means they're not playing, (e.g. Remo). It may be 
>that they don't read their nomic mail more than every few days (unlike the 
>rest of us, who sit at our computers eagerly awaiting each and every new 
>message).

Some of us are just fucking busy. Try instituting a point penalty to
accompany recusal rather than, uh, booting our asses.

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:10:08 +0100
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wbfu Xbegorva wrote:
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >Quoth Zagarna:
> >>
> >> It seems we should get rid of all the people that are not actually
> >> playing the game and keep getting nominated as judges.
> >
> >Hmm. I'm not sure that means they're not playing, (e.g. Remo). It may be
> >that they don't read their nomic mail more than every few days (unlike the
> >rest of us, who sit at our computers eagerly awaiting each and every new
> >message).
> 
> Some of us are just fucking busy. Try instituting a point penalty to
> accompany recusal rather than, uh, booting our asses.

Rather than chucking people off the game, how about just making them
'inactive' and passing a rule that inactive players cannot be picked as
Judges and cannot be counted towards quorum.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: 100 points 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:17:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> <proposal title="100 points to start with">
> {{add a new rule with the following text:}}
> <title>100 initial points</title>
> When a new player is added to the roster, they will be credited with 100
> points. These points are called the 100 initial points.
> If it is decided by a judge as judgement on an RFJ that a player or
> players have not been credited with their 100 initial points, a judicial
> order shall be made crediting said players each with 100 initial points.
> 
> </proposal>
> This will allow point deductions to occur (as punishments) from the start
> of the game -- remember point levels cannot go below 0.
> 
> is 100 too much? 

A few thoughts: you might want to replace "they" in the first sentence with 
"e", and also capitalize the *special* rules-defined words, e.g. Player, 
Points, etc.

Also, you could avoid the need for an RFJ (which will surely be made almost 
immediately if this passes) by adding to the prop a second section that 
just adds 100 Points to everyone's then-current scores upon passage.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new proposal: 100 points 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> A few thoughts: you might want to replace "they" in the first sentence with 
> "e", and also capitalize the *special* rules-defined words, e.g. Player, 
> Points, etc.
> 
> Also, you could avoid the need for an RFJ (which will surely be made almost 
> immediately if this passes) by adding to the prop a second section that 
> just adds 100 Points to everyone's then-current scores upon passage.
> 

My interpretation of the rules is that an RFJ could not be used for that
purpose, that it is for judgement only on matters of the rules.  There
could be some kind of motion that would deal with that, however.

On that note, something I would like to do sometime is to get the score
calculations into the hands of another player.  Perhaps we could appoint
an officer who will track the scores and issue orders to Joel to change
them when nescessarry.  The format for those orders could probably be
automated fairly easily.  That way it's less work for our good Admin.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new proposal: 100 points 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:22:09 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> > 
> > A few thoughts: you might want to replace "they" in the first sentence with
>  
> > "e", and also capitalize the *special* rules-defined words, e.g. Player, 
> > Points, etc.
> > 
> > Also, you could avoid the need for an RFJ (which will surely be made almost
>  
> > immediately if this passes) by adding to the prop a second section that 
> > just adds 100 Points to everyone's then-current scores upon passage.
> > 
> 
> My interpretation of the rules is that an RFJ could not be used for that
> purpose, that it is for judgement only on matters of the rules.  There
> could be some kind of motion that would deal with that, however.
> 
> On that note, something I would like to do sometime is to get the score
> calculations into the hands of another player.  Perhaps we could appoint
> an officer who will track the scores and issue orders to Joel to change
> them when nescessarry.  The format for those orders could probably be
> automated fairly easily.  That way it's less work for our good Admin.
> 
> Poulenc

The scoring delay stems from the fact that I haven't added in the scoring 
part of the db yet. So even if I had calculated the scores, they probably 
wouldn't be on the page yet. This should be trivial, though; I'll 
definitely have it done by the time the upcoming voting period is over.

On that note, I've been thinking about proposing some election rules--we'll 
probably need some way of filling offices, unless we want them to be 
something other than elective.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:41:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: prop recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> P322/1, "balot fix 2", by Poulenc

that should be "ballot fix 2"

> P329/1, "100 points to start with", by Benjamin

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: P324
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:04:04 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just noticed that P324 says it's supposed to amend R270, but there is 
currently no R270. Poulenc, you might want to fix that before voting starts.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: business: revision of P324
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I revise P324 by replacing "270" with "217"

Thanks for catching that.  Who knows what havoc it might have wreaked on
the ruleset!

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: gah!
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:47:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Take a look at P325/0--Poulenc transposed his numbers in that one, too. It 
says to amend R273 instead of R237 (presumably).

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:09:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: gah!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Take a look at P325/0--Poulenc transposed his numbers in that one, too. It 
> says to amend R273 instead of R237 (presumably).

gah.  I guess we'll all have to vote agaginst it and I'll get it right
next time.  Aren't you glad I'm a musician and not a surgeon or a chip
designer?

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: gah! 
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:14:28 CDT
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sprach:
>
>
>On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:
>
>> Take a look at P325/0--Poulenc transposed his numbers in that one, too. It 
>> says to amend R273 instead of R237 (presumably).
>
>gah.  I guess we'll all have to vote agaginst it and I'll get it right
>next time.  Aren't you glad I'm a musician and not a surgeon or a chip
>designer?

Or a philosopher.

Oh, wait.

Josh

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:02:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: corrected Ballot
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What about proposal 306/0  by God?  It's on the web page

Dan W

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: clock 
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:50:02 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Wow. I wrote that rule, and I didn't even know that. It's fixed now,
though.

LOL

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: The game needs a name !
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:26:37 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > >     Cimon
> > > >     Cimonomic
> > >
> > > What's the deal with "Cimon" and "Cimonomic"?
> >
> > The second is a Palindrome and the first might appeal to Monty Python
fans
> > if we called it a palindrome.
> > "A palindrome ?  But the palindrome of Nomic would be Cimon, it don't
> > work." - Dead parrot sketch (almost).
>
> How about 'Notlobic' (Notlob (i.e. Bolton) was the palindrome used in
> the sketch)

The pet shop owner's brother lied.
Well, you can't blame British Rail for that.

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Game names - vote now !
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:28:45 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here is the list of suggested game names. Please take the time to reply in
favour, neutral, or against on these names. Mark as many against and as many
in favour as you like. You may also nominate one particular name that you'd
really like and one which you'd really hate, these two nominations are worth
2 votes when I count the votes. I will accept one unambiguous vote from each
Player. These votes may be sent to discussion list or direct to my e-mail.
After the end of the nweek I will score the votes received and will make a
Proposal to adopt the top-scoring name.

Here are the Namics (Nomic names):

	A Nomic
	An Unnamed Nomic
	Aphasia
	Cimon
	Cimonomic
	Dumbic
	Gin and Nomic with a Twist of Lime
	Megalonomica
	Misnomic
	Nomicimon
	Nominomicon
	Notlobic
	Spoon
	Spoonomic
	Utensilomic

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Game names - vote now !
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:34:18 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

And here are my votes:

yea	A Nomic
yea	An Unnamed Nomic
pass	Aphasia
yea	Cimon
yea	Cimonomic
nay	Dumbic
nay	Gin and Nomic with a Twist of Lime
pass	Megalonomica
nay	Misnomic	
yea	Nomicimon
nay	Nominomicon
yea	Notlobic
pass	Spoon
pass	Spoonomic
pass	Utensilomic

The one I like most is:	Cimon
The one I hate most is:	Dumbic

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judgement on RFJ 24
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:57:36 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > in the matter: A vote which names a revision of an item which has > not
become
> > a Ballot Issue can not be counted.
> >
> > I rule: Refused
> >
> > The statement is not very clear, what is it that has not become a
> > ballot issue? the item or the revision?
> >
> oops! I am really sorry 'bout this, I just found the plaintiff's
> analysis on the website, you see, I was looking for it in my mailbox and
> couldn't find it :(
> I beg your forgiveness

<The plaintiff wanders out of the courtroom mumbling under his breath
something about the justice system and judges who can't read and.....>   ;o)

Actually, I think we've pretty well resolved the issue now anyway. I'm not
going to pursue it any further.

XnJester.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Game names - vote now ! 
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:19:16 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>Here is the list of suggested game names. Please take the time to reply in
>favour, neutral, or against on these names. Mark as many against and as many
>in favour as you like. You may also nominate one particular name that you'd
>really like and one which you'd really hate, these two nominations are worth
>2 votes when I count the votes. I will accept one unambiguous vote from each
>Player. These votes may be sent to discussion list or direct to my e-mail.
>After the end of the nweek I will score the votes received and will make a
>Proposal to adopt the top-scoring name.
>
>Here are the Namics (Nomic names):
>
>	A Nomic
>	An Unnamed Nomic
>	Aphasia
>	Cimon
>	Cimonomic
>	Dumbic
>	Gin and Nomic with a Twist of Lime
>	Megalonomica
>	Misnomic
>	Nomicimon
>	Nominomicon
>	Notlobic
>	Spoon
>	Spoonomic
>	Utensilomic

Come up with all the names and voting schemes you want, I'm going
to vote no on your proposal.

Josh

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:23:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Game names - vote now ! 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Come up with all the names and voting schemes you want, I'm going
> to vote no on your proposal.
> 
> Josh

And so am I.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: corrected Ballot 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:43:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> What about proposal 306/0  by God?  It's on the web page
> 
> Dan W
> 
> 

That one failed during the first voting period--the page will reflect that 
following the end of this voting period.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: still time to vote
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:34:40 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Remember to vote! Better than that, remember to vote, and then actually 
vote. You have another 9.5 hours or so...

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results 
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:20:36 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Unfortunately, we failed to meet quorum again--there are thirteen players, 
>and only six voted. This time, there were no procedural snafus (the ballot 
>went out on time and was correct, voting times are listed on the page, 
>etc.), so I'm wondering what happened. There were quite a few proposals on 
>which to vote (20, by my count), so maybe some players felt overwhelmed and 
>didn't vote. That's counterproductive, though, since all of the proposals 
>will just be held over until the next voting period. There won't be less 
>next time unless some of them are withdrawn. Really frustrating, it is.
>
>On a related note, I think we need to do something about the way quorum 
>works. Either:
>
>1. have some way to declare players inactive so they don't count against 
>quorum

"Limbo"

To pass a Limbo rule, you need to make quorum at least once, though.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:07:57 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >Unfortunately, we failed to meet quorum again--there are thirteen players, 
> >and only six voted. This time, there were no procedural snafus (the ballot 
> >went out on time and was correct, voting times are listed on the page, 
> >etc.), so I'm wondering what happened. There were quite a few proposals on 
> >which to vote (20, by my count), so maybe some players felt overwhelmed and 
> >didn't vote. That's counterproductive, though, since all of the proposals 
> >will just be held over until the next voting period. There won't be less 
> >next time unless some of them are withdrawn. Really frustrating, it is.
> >
> >On a related note, I think we need to do something about the way quorum 
> >works. Either:
> >
> >1. have some way to declare players inactive so they don't count against 
> >quorum
> 
> "Limbo"
> 
> To pass a Limbo rule, you need to make quorum at least once, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh

Yes, I realize that. I think we should be able to make quorum next time, though. More than one person who I expected to vote this time did not, and we were only one short.

-- 
J.

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