Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name.
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:05:32 CST

"Kieron Jarvis" sprach:
>[[Well, I was underwhelmed with responses (is it vacation time in the US ?).
>But the votes are in and the provisional winner is.....
>
>With 2 votes in favour - 'Aphasia'.

2 votes is a "winner"? Consider reconsidering your method for selecting
a name.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:50:18 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> [[Well, I was underwhelmed with responses (is it vacation time in the US ?).
> But the votes are in and the provisional winner is.....

Um, since most of us are students, I'd be surprised if anyone were on 
vacation right now. We're currently stuck firmly in the morass that is the 
fall semester, and won't have a break until late this month.

> With 2 votes in favour - 'Aphasia'.

Hmm. Possibly I forgot to vote. Cimonomic is my favorite...
 
> I will accept late votes during the week, but if no more votes are received
> then this proposal will go to the vote.]]
> 
> Here is the proposal entitled "What's in a Name":
> 
> I propose that Rule 1/0 : The Game be amended to read
> 
> "Aphasia shall refer to the specific instance of Nomic game which possesses
> the body of rules containing this definition, unless it is made clear,
> whether explicitly or via the context, that Aphasia refers to something
> else. To this end, all permutations of letter case of Aphasia shall be
> considered equivalent."
> 
> [[Regardless of what name we have, I think we should have a name so that we
> can be referred to unambiguously on the Nomic web site and related database
> (at least).
> 
> XnJester]]

A suggestion: when we attempted to chose a name for Berserker, people 
submitted names and then ranked them in order of preference. We had a large 
number of names ( >20, I think), which makes ranking more difficult. A 
common complaint was that below some threshold, our preferences don't 
differentiate between alternatives very well. E.g. do my preferences really 
have such high resolution for me to see a difference between what I ranked 
30th and 31st? Since there are relatively fewer suggestions on your list, 
however, this problem might be avoidable, and a ranking may produce a 
better result than it did for Berserker (which few seemed to like, though 
it won), especially if you include a 'status quo' option, i.e. stick with 
no name.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:05:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>... especially if you include a 'status quo' option, i.e. stick with 
> no name.

Yes, and you should.  I'm going to side with Josh on this one.  In regards
to naming this nomic, I will vote for the status quo; that is, I will vote
against any proposal that attempts to force a name on our unsuspecting
ruleset.  This is a game that defies categorization, and we should not try
to force it into a category with a name.  Long live the resistance!

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:07:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I propose the following name:
<begin name>
This is a game that defies categorization, and we should not try
to force it into a category with a name.  Long live the resistance!
<hereends the name>
- You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:06:16 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>I propose the following name:
><begin name>
>This is a game that defies categorization, and we should not try
>to force it into a category with a name.  Long live the resistance!
><hereends the name>

Names bite. Even pseudo-clever anti-names.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:55:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> I hereby withdraw my Proposal titled "What's in a name".
> 
> XnJester.
> 
> [[I don't know if you guys are trying to drive off anyone who wasn't in
> Berserker but you're doing a good job of it. So far, I haven't heard
> anything about any of my posts which looked particularly positive.

Well, I'm not. I haven't been in favor of your proposals; that doesn't mean 
I want you to go away.

> Now, I
> didn't think I was doing anything wrong. I tried to follow the rules, to
> make some corrections to the rules, and just generally to participate. But
> now I've had enough. I'm going to send this whinge letter then sit in the
> corner of the game and sulk. I will participate only minimally for now, but
> don't expect anything progressive from me until I work out what it is you
> guys really want. Oh, and Joel, when you get around to adding this nomic to
> the net nomic database what name will you use ?  Or do you think this
> particular nomic is above listing there ?  I don't always like every name I
> see or even have some involvement with, but to assume that a name is
> unneeded is insular and arrogant.]]

I *do* think we should have a name so the game can be referred to by the 
outside world. Maybe I didn't make that clear. I know Josh (and one other 
player, I don't remember whom) doesn't want a name, but that's only one 
vote against it.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:56:08 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>> see or even have some involvement with, but to assume that a name is
>> unneeded is insular and arrogant.]]
>
>I *do* think we should have a name so the game can be referred to by the 
>outside world. Maybe I didn't make that clear. I know Josh (and one other 
>player, I don't remember whom) doesn't want a name, but that's only one 
>vote against it.

We are a vast "silent majority".

Josh
thinking of untitled paintings; are the artists insular and arrogant?

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:51:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As one of the last players to join Berserker before the collapse, I
noticed a simmilar phenomenon.  There were some proposals that I made and
thought were particularly clever that were voted down.  I now realize that
it simply takes time for the members of a game to get used to the style of
any new joiner.  We come to assume a sort of unwritten set of conventions
about what can be done, and any change to this must come gradually.

Besides, this game is very much in the "just getting started" phase.  We
all have different ideas of where we want it to go; it is inevitable that
some ideas will be trampled down.

Josh and I are the only two that have voiced our categorical opposition to
any name whatsoever.  And no, clever attempts to get around that won't
fool me.  However, it might still be possible to get a name passed without
our support.  I think this must be a first, because if you look back at
Berserker, I don't think we ever agreed on anything.

Poulenc

> 
> [[I don't know if you guys are trying to drive off anyone who wasn't in
> Berserker but you're doing a good job of it. So far, I haven't heard
> anything about any of my posts which looked particularly positive. Now, I
> didn't think I was doing anything wrong. I tried to follow the rules, to
> make some corrections to the rules, and just generally to participate. But
> now I've had enough. I'm going to send this whinge letter then sit in the
> corner of the game and sulk. I will participate only minimally for now, but
> don't expect anything progressive from me until I work out what it is you
> guys really want. Oh, and Joel, when you get around to adding this nomic to
> the net nomic database what name will you use ?  Or do you think this
> particular nomic is above listing there ?  I don't always like every name I
> see or even have some involvement with, but to assume that a name is
> unneeded is insular and arrogant.]]

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:32:00 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sprach:
>Josh and I are the only two that have voiced our categorical opposition to
>any name whatsoever.  And no, clever attempts to get around that won't
>fool me.  However, it might still be possible to get a name passed without
>our support.  I think this must be a first, because if you look back at
>Berserker, I don't think we ever agreed on anything.

And obviously, my dissent in the last name-choosing didn't matter
ONE DAMN BIT.

I wonder what congressmen whose bills aren't voted in feel like.

Josh

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:55:01 +0100
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: discuss nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: my proposal has no title listed: why?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

why is this? in the text of the proposal it clearly says title:Motion to
Remove Players.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Players that are [Away] 
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 02:45:38 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Zagarna sprach:
>create a new rule 
>named:"Players that are [Away]" 
>that reads:"Any Player may gain or lose the [Away] attribute by sending
>a message to this effect to a public forum. Players that have not voted
>in the last three nweeks automatically gain the [Away] attribute.
>Players that are [Away] may not vote, make proposals, be selected as
>judges, gain or lose points. Players that are away are not required to
>make any action if that action was imposed on them while they were
>[Away].

You should take into account duties imposed by offices. If an officer
goes [Away], it would make more sense to remove him from office (this
is what we've done in the past) rather than continue to require him
to fulfil his duties, which seems to be what the above would
require (possibly after a judgment to clarify, since it's only implied).

Josh

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:51:05 +0100
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Players that are [Away]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wbfu Xbegorva wrote:

> 
> You should take into account duties imposed by offices. If an officer
> goes [Away], it would make more sense to remove him from office (this
> is what we've done in the past) rather than continue to require him
> to fulfil his duties, which seems to be what the above would
> require (possibly after a judgment to clarify, since it's only > implied).
> 
> Josh
> 
> josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/

ye'r right, a correction is being processed.
please wait.....

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 10:37:24 +0100
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Kieron Jarvis wrote:

> [[I don't know if you guys are trying to drive off anyone who wasn't in
> Berserker but you're doing a good job of it. So far, I haven't heard
> anything about any of my posts which looked particularly positive...

I wasn't in the original berserker either, and I liked you name
proposal,
You shouldn't have cancelled it just because two playes said they didn't
like it. Hell, I should complain too, my RFJ has been waiting for half a
month and it still has not been closed, if the rules actualy meant
anything more than 5 different judges should have been nominated for it,
as it is, I'm still waiting for 4T2-The Supreme Ruler of Unanswered
RFJ's to speak up.

__________________________________________________
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: Proposal: What's in a Name. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 11:53:44 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Zagarna:
> Kieron Jarvis wrote:
> 
> > [[I don't know if you guys are trying to drive off anyone who wasn't in
> > Berserker but you're doing a good job of it. So far, I haven't heard
> > anything about any of my posts which looked particularly positive...
> 
> I wasn't in the original berserker either, and I liked you name
> proposal,
> You shouldn't have cancelled it just because two playes said they didn't
> like it. Hell, I should complain too, my RFJ has been waiting for half a
> month and it still has not been closed, if the rules actualy meant
> anything more than 5 different judges should have been nominated for it,
> as it is, I'm still waiting for 4T2-The Supreme Ruler of Unanswered
> RFJ's to speak up.

Hey! I forgot about that one. I'll assign a new judge for it when I process a bunch of stuff after lunch.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: my proposal has no title listed: why? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:37:42 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ah. I see that you wanted the proposal and the rule it would create to have 
the same name. I'll fix that.

Quoth Zagarna:
> why is this? in the text of the proposal it clearly says title:Motion to
> Remove Players.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
> 

-- 
J.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:59:37 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Roland of Gilead <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a
  Name. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> >I *do* think we should have a name so the game can be referred to by the
> >outside world. Maybe I didn't make that clear. I know Josh (and one other
> >player, I don't remember whom) doesn't want a name, but that's only one
> >vote against it.
>
>We are a vast "silent majority".

Actually, you're precisely the opposite--a highly vocal minority.
%)

I suppose I should go on record as saying I'm in favor of naming the game; 
and while I may not be thrilled with a name like Aphasia Nomic or 
Cimonomic, if such a name gets voted in I don't have any particular problem 
with it.

Potter
(whose favorite names to date are Fucking Nomic, Joel the Crazy Drunken 
Nomic, and Necronomicon)

Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:51:40 +0100
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
>
>

you still forgot about the Judge selection

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

Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:56:41 +0100
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything is recused from RFJ27/0, and The Kid is
> selected in his place.
> 

Ahhh! it really seems this is fate punishing me for my stupidity, cant
even read. please disregard previous message

_________________________________________________________
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: Game names - vote now !
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:27:37 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry I never replied to this earlier. Dunno if it's too late, but I'll vote
now cos I do think that the nomic should be named, but I don't really mind
what. I think of this lot Nomicimon or Cimonomic would be my prefered
choice.

> 	A Nomic
No

> 	An Unnamed Nomic
No

> 	Aphasia
No

> 	Cimon
Yes

> 	Cimonomic
Yes

> 	Dumbic
No

> 	Gin and Nomic with a Twist of Lime
Yes

> 	Megalonomica
No

> 	Misnomic
Yes

> 	Nomicimon
Yes

> 	Nominomicon
No

> 	Notlobic
No

> 	Spoon
No

> 	Spoonomic
No

> 	Utensilomic
No

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: recognition
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:19:17 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything is recused from RFJ27/0, and 
> The Kid is 
> selected in his place.

Oh, err.. hang on I'll have to go and look it up, I can't remember what that
RFJ was.

> Also, a reminder: we have a huge number of proposals up for 
> voting soon. I 
> still have the votes of everyone who voted last time. If you 
> want those to 
> count as your votes for this time as well, let me know when 
> you vote. (NB: 
> there will probably be a few more props on the ballot this 
> time, so you'll 
> still want to vote on those, even if you tell me to use your 
> votes from 
> last time.)

Yeah just count mine the same as last time, unless I tell you otherwise.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:55:49 +0100
From: Zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> > From: Harrison, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > >
> > > 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything is recused from RFJ27/0, and
> > > The Kid is
> > > selected in his place.
> >
> > Oh, err.. hang on I'll have to go and look it up, I can't
> > remember what that RFJ was.
> 
> Zagarna: "The Judicial Order made by Potter in the Judgement on RFJ26 was
> invalid."
> 
> Ah, that one. I rule FALSE.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Gaahh! The Kid's crushing pound ***ANNIHILATES*** Zagarna

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Discuss' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Who is still playing?
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:42:34 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Are the following people still playing?

Remo, last heard from on 9th Oct
Ed, last heard from on 11th Oct
god, last heard from on 13th Oct
4T2, last heard from on 14th Oct

Joel, did any of these people vote since these dates?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Who is still playing? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:54:40 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Are the following people still playing?
> 
> Remo, last heard from on 9th Oct
> Ed, last heard from on 11th Oct
> god, last heard from on 13th Oct
> 4T2, last heard from on 14th Oct
> 
> Joel, did any of these people vote since these dates?
> 
> --
> The Kid

No, none have done anything since those dates. I should just ask Remo, 
since we live in the same apartment. I saw god yesterday at the rec, but 
didn't think to mention it. I haven't heard from Ed or 4T2 in a while.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Who is still playing? 
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:27:07 -0600
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm here.  Just been rather busy of late.
-Remo

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Who is still playing? 
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:46:58 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>since we live in the same apartment. I saw god yesterday at the rec, but 
>didn't think to mention it.

Working his lats again?

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

Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 14:16:28 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Andrew Proescholdt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Who is still playing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm still playing.
Yesterday I finally read all these messages that I haven't been keeping up
with, so I'll probably even vote this time around.

Ed

At 05:42 PM 11/7/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Are the following people still playing?
>
>Remo, last heard from on 9th Oct
>Ed, last heard from on 11th Oct
>god, last heard from on 13th Oct
>4T2, last heard from on 14th Oct
>
>Joel, did any of these people vote since these dates?
>
>--
>The Kid
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Who is still playing? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:47:22 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >since we live in the same apartment. I saw god yesterday at the rec, but 
> >didn't think to mention it.
> 
> Working his lats again?

Running, actually.

-- 
J.

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

From: Kieron Jarvis <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: What's in a Name
	.
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:25:22 +1100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Kieron Jarvis wrote:
> 
> > [[I don't know if you guys are trying to drive off anyone 
> who wasn't in
> > Berserker but you're doing a good job of it. So far, I haven't heard
> > anything about any of my posts which looked particularly positive...
> 
> I wasn't in the original berserker either, and I liked you name
> proposal,
> You shouldn't have cancelled it just because two playes said 
> they didn't
> like it. Hell, I should complain too, my RFJ has been waiting 
> for half a
> month and it still has not been closed, if the rules actualy meant
> anything more than 5 different judges should have been 
> nominated for it,
> as it is, I'm still waiting for 4T2-The Supreme Ruler of Unanswered
> RFJ's to speak up.

I would mind dissent if I also had assent. I had one player respond to me
with votes for the names. E replied privately so I won't name em, e knows
who e is. (Is that right, I still get messed up with these neuter pronouns.)

XnJester <still sulking>

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Ballot?
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:40:30 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, what's on this week's ballot then? Voting started last night by my
reckoning.

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 17:18:04 +0000
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: my votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Antone wrote:

> snip html junk <

Sorry,  that was me, I just reinstalled my OS and that was the result.
Should I resubmit my votes?

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Ballot? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:49:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> So, what's on this week's ballot then? Voting started last night by my
> reckoning.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

I'm composing the Ballot right now. The presidential election was occupying 
my attention last night (understandably, I think).

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: my votes 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 12:17:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth zagarna:
> 
> 
> Antone wrote:
> 
> > snip html junk <
> 
> Sorry,  that was me, I just reinstalled my OS and that was the result.
> Should I resubmit my votes?
> 
> zagarna

No need to, I received them ok.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 19:13:25 +0000
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Ballot?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What election was that then?

--
The Kid

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > So, what's on this week's ballot then? Voting started last night by my
> > reckoning.
> >
> > --
> > The Kid
> >
> 
> I'm composing the Ballot right now. The presidential election was occupying
> my attention last night (understandably, I think).
> 
> --
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Ballot? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 16:46:24 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oh, yeah. I forgot that several of us don't live in the USA. We attempted 
to elect a new president yesterday, and it's been the closest election 
since 1968. As of now, the votes still haven't been completely counted in 
Florida, and whoever wins Florida will have a majority of the electoral 
votes, and thus be the next president. So, it's a real nail-biter.

Quoth andy_harrison:
> What election was that then?
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 
> 
> Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > 
> > Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > So, what's on this week's ballot then? Voting started last night by my
> > > reckoning.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Kid
> > >
> > 
> > I'm composing the Ballot right now. The presidential election was occupying
> > my attention last night (understandably, I think).
> > 
> > --
> > J.
> > 
> > --
> > Play Nomic!
> > http://www.nomic.net
> 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: scores, voting
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:29:27 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Standings are now current, and the Proposal Histories now reflect the first 
nweek's voting. By the end of the night, all of the voting information 
should be current.

To come: a summary of how everyone has voted on the Proposals thus far.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Ballot? 
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:05:09 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<grin> I was just joking. We have had coverage of the US election over here,
although I guess it's not quite as fever-pitch as you've got it. I hadn't
really been following it but I'd gathered it all hangs on a few hundres
votes in Florida. I'd heard something about it not being 100% settled till
January, so what happens then?

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 08 November 2000 22:46
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Ballot? 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah. I forgot that several of us don't live in the USA. 
> We attempted 
> to elect a new president yesterday, and it's been the closest 
> election 
> since 1968. As of now, the votes still haven't been 
> completely counted in 
> Florida, and whoever wins Florida will have a majority of the 
> electoral 
> votes, and thus be the next president. So, it's a real nail-biter.
> 
> Quoth andy_harrison:
> > What election was that then?
> > 
> > --
> > The Kid
> > 
> > 
> > Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > > 
> > > Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > > So, what's on this week's ballot then? Voting started 
> last night by my
> > > > reckoning.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Kid
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I'm composing the Ballot right now. The presidential 
> election was occupying
> > > my attention last night (understandably, I think).
> > > 
> > > --
> > > J.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Play Nomic!
> > > http://www.nomic.net
> > 
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Ballot? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 09:52:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> <grin> I was just joking. We have had coverage of the US election over here,
> although I guess it's not quite as fever-pitch as you've got it. I hadn't
> really been following it but I'd gathered it all hangs on a few hundres
> votes in Florida. I'd heard something about it not being 100% settled till
> January, so what happens then?

Though the electors are sworn to vote for their candidate, there's nothing 
stopping them from changing their votes. Though this virtually never 
happens, it's thought to be more likely when the candidate who won the 
popular vote didn't also win sufficient states to win the electoral vote. 
So, it's remotely possible for Bush to have more electors sworn to vote for 
him in the electoral college, yet for enough of them to cast votes for Gore 
so that he'd be president instead.

> The Kid
> 
> 

<snip>

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 4 
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:39:49 -0600
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> P311/2, Rescinding Actions, by Joel Uckelman

Yes

> P312/2, Criminal Code, by Poulenc

Yes

> P315/2, Subliminal Religious Indoctrination, by The Kid

Yes

> P316/1, make crime rule for liars, by Benjamin

No

> P317/0, Motion Reform, by Joel Uckelman

Yes

> P318/0, Tomjack's mom cannot be a judge, by Remo

Yes

> P319/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Joel Uckelman

Yes

> P320/0, Oversight in Roster Maintanence, by Poulenc

Yes

> P321/0, ballot fix 1, by Poulenc

Yes

> P322/1, ballot fix 2, by Poulenc

Yes

> P323/0, quorum change, by Poulenc

Yes

> P324/1, Vacating Orders fix, by Poulenc

No

> *P325/1, Salary for Judges, by Poulenc

No

> P326/0, Required Actions, by Poulenc

Yes

> P327/0, append 237/judgment timing, by Benjamin

Yes

> P328/0, no title [[integer points]], by Joel Uckelman

No

> P329/1, 100 initial points, by Benjamin

No

> P330/0, I Shot the Sheriff, by The Kid

Yes

> P331/1, Motion to Remove Players, by Zagarna

No

> *P332/0, Quorum Fix, by Joel Uckelman

Yes

> *P334/1, Players that are [Away], Zagarna

Yes

> *P335/0, Officers that are [Away], Zagarna

Yes

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

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:16:26 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: non public fora & votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Tom Plagge wrote:
> 
> > P311/2, Rescinding Actions, by Joel Uckelman
> 
> Yes
> 
> > P312/2, Criminal Code, by Poulenc
> 
> Yes
.
.

do votes sent to non public fora count as valid ?

_________________________________________________________
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: non public fora & votes
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:23:18 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Tom Plagge wrote:
> > 
> > > P311/2, Rescinding Actions, by Joel Uckelman
> > 
> > Yes
> > 
> > > P312/2, Criminal Code, by Poulenc
> > 
> > Yes
> .
> .
> 
> 
> do votes sent to non public fora count as valid ?

I guess votes that go to the Administrator but not to a public forum are
counted as private votes. The fact that the votes went to everyone else as
well does not really matter.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: non public fora & votes 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:45:18 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 
> > Tom Plagge wrote:
> > > 
> > > > P311/2, Rescinding Actions, by Joel Uckelman
> > > 
> > > Yes
> > > 
> > > > P312/2, Criminal Code, by Poulenc
> > > 
> > > Yes
> > .
> > .
> > 
> > 
> > do votes sent to non public fora count as valid ?
> 
> I guess votes that go to the Administrator but not to a public forum are
> counted as private votes. The fact that the votes went to everyone else as
> well does not really matter.
> 
> --
> The Kid

I agree. That's how I'm going to count them, unless a court says otherwise. 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting results, sort of
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:56:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Voting ends in an hour, but I'm leaving in a few minutes and won't return 
until Sunday. I would post the results now, but I'm explicitly prohibited 
from doing so until voting is over... Sorry about this, I'll try to make it 
to a computer tomorrow to see if I can get the results out then.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:19:50 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: discussion nomic list <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: votes?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

where can I see what other players voted?
what do the numbers beside each proposal mean?
>P311/2, Rescinding Actions, passed (8-3-0-2)
my guess is: (votes_for-votes_against-abstained-did_not_vote>

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: votes? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:25:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth zagarna:
> where can I see what other players voted?

I'll post the individual voting results sometime later today.

> what do the numbers beside each proposal mean?
> >P311/2, Rescinding Actions, passed (8-3-0-2)
> my guess is: (votes_for-votes_against-abstained-did_not_vote>

This is correct.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:21:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of Supreme Justice
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey Kid - can you add something in there that says if the office is vacant
(For whatever reason) then the responsibilities revert to the
administrator, or something to that effect.

> I submit the following proposal entitled 'The Officer of Supreme Justice'

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of S
	upreme Justice
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:25:16 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Benjamin Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Hey Kid - can you add something in there that says if the 
> office is vacant
> (For whatever reason) then the responsibilities revert to the
> administrator, or something to that effect.

That's sort of handled by Rule 110 already, although that is specifically
dealing with the resignation of Officers I would think it covers newly
created Offices as well. I don't know really, do you think we need a more
general statement?

--
The Kid

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:37:59 +0000
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal: modification of 302/0, Subliminal 
 ReligiousIndoctrination
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Matthew G Potter wrote:
> 
> I propose modifying the second paragraph of Rule 302/0 to read:
> 
> "Anytime before the close of voting on proposals, a Player may make an RFJ
> accusing a another Player of Heresy by accusing em of being a Humble
> Disciple, and present the evidence.  If the Player is found by the Judge to
> be Guilty of Heresy, then the Judge shall award the accuser with 30 points. "
> 
> [[ As I saw it, the original rule had no provisions for deciding whether a
> Player had committed Heresy.  This proposal should treat Accusations as
> traditional RFJs; if someone thinks they'd be better handled by some other
> method, let me know and I'll adjust the proposal accordingly ]]

I disagree with this on a couple of points. 

Firstly, the purpose of RFJ's is to clarify a point of law. That is if
the Rules are ambiguous about something and Players cannot agree on the
correct interpretation, then an RFJ is used. An RFJ isn't something that
should be used during the course on normal gameplay.

Secondly, when I wrote the Rule I assumed that once the Heresy is
pointed out then it should be obvious. For example "Look, your proposal
would create a rule that says 'xxx' and in Genesis 1:2 it says 'xxx'
therefore you have commited Heresy". Given that none of us are running
for President (snigger) I would think that we'd play fair and admit it
if we get caught. When I was drafting the Rule I had initially put in a
bit that if the Player denies the Heresy then an RFJ should be used, but
I didn't feel there was any need for it as it was implied anyway (as in
the first point, if the two Players disagree on something, one calls for
an RFJ).

To be perfectly honest, I only wrote the Rule for a bit of fun. I
seriuosly doubt if it will ever come into play, I just liked the idea of
there being some back-door way of sneaking some points in.

--
The Kid

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:04:24 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of Supreme 
 Justice
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> > From: Benjamin Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > Hey Kid - can you add something in there that says if the
> > office is vacant
> > (For whatever reason) then the responsibilities revert to the
> > administrator, or something to that effect.
> 
> That's sort of handled by Rule 110 already, although that is specifically
> dealing with the resignation of Officers I would think it covers newly
> created Offices as well. I don't know really, do you think we need a more
> general statement?
> 
> --
> The Kid

simply put a line stating that the supreme officer of supreme justice is an
office, and it should be ok.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:12:10 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: Market Economy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal entitled 'Market Economy'
> 
> Create a rule entitled 'Market Economy' with the following text:
> 
[snip]
> 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.]]

Why this? I don't like it, bribery is the salt of democracy ;) and how exactly
do you plan to enforce it ?
 
> 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 relevant Officer) > publicly Recognises the trade.

Even worse, why must the administrator recognize it? this just generates clutter
on the mailing list and slows the game.

> A trade must not occur if the resulting ownership of
> Objects produces an illegal or invalid game state, or if one of the > Players involved in the trade would win the game as a result of the trade.

So in the end what's the point in doing it?

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:36:14 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Roland of Gilead <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: modification of 302/0, Subliminal 
  eligiousIndoctrination
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
>Firstly, the purpose of RFJ's is to clarify a point of law. That is if
>the Rules are ambiguous about something and Players cannot agree on the
>correct interpretation, then an RFJ is used. An RFJ isn't something that
>should be used during the course on normal gameplay.

The RFJ just seemed to be the well-defined, existing mechanism for deciding 
matters which require arbitration.  If you have a better method, that's 
fine--but doing it as an RFJ would work, and would do so with the existing 
ruleset.  I understand having aesthetic concern for the 'true' function of 
RFJs, but I'm personally not too concerned with it.

>Secondly, when I wrote the Rule I assumed that once the Heresy is
>pointed out then it should be obvious. For example "Look, your proposal
>would create a rule that says 'xxx' and in Genesis 1:2 it says 'xxx'
>therefore you have commited Heresy". Given that none of us are running
>for President (snigger) I would think that we'd play fair and admit it
>if we get caught.

Based on the way I've seen Nomic games progress in the past, I 
guaran-fucking-tee you that someone might resort to stonewalling, 
conspiracy, or other dirty tricks, given the opportunity and incentive.  I 
know the Biblical texts are fairly self-apparent if one is caught trying to 
sneak a verse by; but I wouldn't be surprised if there were only one or two 
(if that) copies of the "ISO/IEC 14882, Standard for the C++ Programming 
Language" among the group of Nomic players.  I certainly don't own one.  It 
would be easy for owners of said texts to simply deny whether or not such a 
passage exists (or make one up on the fly).

Or on the other hand, such an incident might never occur.  Whatever.

Potter

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting generalization
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:53:15 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, it occurs to me that voting on Proposals and the voting we might do for 
elections are similar enough that maybe we should have a generalized voting 
procedure to cover both. But, voting can be seen as a game which takes 
certain inputs and gives a single output, the "winner". In the case of 
voting on Proposals, the winner (yea or nay) is, barring some complications 
introduced by quorum, the one which matches more votes. Though we don't 
have any use for it at the moment, a different winner function could be 
used--one that, for instance, picks out a minimum or median. If we defined 
something like a "simple game", of which "voting" is a particular type, the 
conceptual framework for doing things like playing Mediocrity and such 
would be available should we decide to do so. Is anybody interested in 
something like this?

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of Supreme Justice 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:55:56 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> I submit the following proposal entitled 'The Officer of Supreme Justice'
> 
> Create a new rule entitled 'The Officer of Supreme Justice' with the
> following text: 
> "The Officer of Supreme Justice (OSJ) is an elected position. The OSJ is
> responsible for recognising RFJ's, selecting Judges and recusing Judges."
> 
> Alter Rule 235 so that the words "the Administrator shall" are replaced with
> "the Officer of Supreme Justice shall".
> 
> Alter Rule 238 so that the words "The Administrator shall" are replaced with
> "The Officer of Supreme Justice shall".
> 
> Append the following text to the end of Rule 205:
> "During the first seven days of the fifth nweek of an Officer's Term [[ie.
> before the voting starts]] Players may put themselves forward for election
> to Office. The current Officer is automatically put up for election unless e
> publicly specifies otherwise. If no Player other than the current Officer
> puts themselves forward then the current Officer is automatically elected
> for another five nweeks and no election is required. In the event that the
> election is tied, the Administrator shall select one of the tied players to
> hold the Office, but the Term of Office is reduced to one nweek."
> 
> In Rule 227 replace the line "3. all Ballot Item Elections are held again in
> the next nweek" with the following text:
> "3. Ballot Item Elections for non-vacant Offices are held again in the next
> nweek. The current Officer keeps their Office for another nweek. Candidates
> must put themselves forward for election again.
> 4. Ballot Item Elections for vacant Offices shall carry on the majority of
> votes cast."
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

If you're creating the Office of Supreme Justice, why not refer to the 
Officer as simply the "Supreme Justice" instead of the longer (and more 
cumbersome) "Officer of Supreme Justice"?

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of Supreme Justice 
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:53:38 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>If you're creating the Office of Supreme Justice, why not refer to the 
>Officer as simply the "Supreme Justice" instead of the longer (and more 
>cumbersome) "Officer of Supreme Justice"?

"Officer of Supreme Justice" DOES sound cooler.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of 
 Supreme Justice
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:17:28 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >If you're creating the Office of Supreme Justice, why not refer to the 
> >Officer as simply the "Supreme Justice" instead of the longer (and more 
> >cumbersome) "Officer of Supreme Justice"?
> 
> "Officer of Supreme Justice" DOES sound cooler.
> 
> -- 
> josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
> 

Well how about "Grand Master of Gamely Justice"? Actually, I prefer "Clerk 
of Courts", since I think its a better description of what this Officer 
would do.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of Supreme Justice 
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:14:54 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sprach:
>Quoth Wbfu Xbegorva:
>> 
>> Joel Uckelman sprach:
>> >If you're creating the Office of Supreme Justice, why not refer to the 
>> >Officer as simply the "Supreme Justice" instead of the longer (and more 
>> >cumbersome) "Officer of Supreme Justice"?
>> 
>> "Officer of Supreme Justice" DOES sound cooler.
>> 
>> -- 
>> josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
>> 
>
>Well how about "Grand Master of Gamely Justice"? Actually, I prefer "Clerk 
>of Courts", since I think its a better description of what this Officer 
>would do.

LAME.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:31:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just looked at the vote tallies and it appears that some of my  private
votes were not counted - joel - my private e-mail to you is attached. was
this not in time for  the count or what?

it looks like if my votes had been counted, then 332/0 quorum  fix would
have passed.
(334 and 335 passed anyway, and apparently, you did count my vote for 325)

should I make an rfj or what?

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 19:30:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Subject: private votes for ballot4
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:
    <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

please use my votes from last week on the old proposals.
here are listed my votes for the new proposals (as marked by you with
asterisks):

> *P325/1, Salary for Judges, by Poulenc
yes

> *P332/0, Quorum Fix, by Joel Uckelman
sure

> *P334/1, Players that are [Away], Zagarna
yes

> *P335/0, Officers that are [Away], Zagarna
yes

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..? 
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:52:03 CST
From: Wbfu Xbegorva <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Benjamin Bradley sprach:
>I just looked at the vote tallies and it appears that some of my  private
>votes were not counted - joel - my private e-mail to you is attached. was
>this not in time for  the count or what?
>
>it looks like if my votes had been counted, then 332/0 quorum  fix would
>have passed.
>(334 and 335 passed anyway, and apparently, you did count my vote for 325)
>
>should I make an rfj or what?

I must warn you that if you seek legal action we may, of course,
ask for recounts of all other ballots involved. Why don't you just
admit that the people have expressed their will, and let the
transition process begin?

Josh

-- 
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: Proposal: The Officer of S
	upreme  Justice
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:44:18 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > >
> > > Hey Kid - can you add something in there that says if the
> > > office is vacant
> > > (For whatever reason) then the responsibilities revert to the
> > > administrator, or something to that effect.
> > 
> > That's sort of handled by Rule 110 already, although that 
> is specifically
> > dealing with the resignation of Officers I would think it 
> covers newly
> > created Offices as well. I don't know really, do you think 
> we need a more
> > general statement?
> 
> simply put a line stating that the supreme officer of supreme 
> justice is an
> office, and it should be ok.

Oh right, I'd never thought to explicitly state that. I'll put it in.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: Market Economy
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:56:47 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: zagarna [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 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.]]
> 
> Why this? I don't like it, bribery is the salt of democracy 
> ;) and how exactly
> do you plan to enforce it ?

This is exactly the point. Bribery is lot part of <legal> democracy, it just
happens behind the scenes. The point of that bit of the rule is that offer
such a bribe it is not legally binding. Any legal trade must happen as a
single event so you don't get one party holding back on their side of the
bargain. I'm quite sure that bribing may occur, but it should not be defined
in the rules. Maybe I should change it so that it says such trades are "not
legally binding" ie. you offer the bribe at your own risk and if the other
party doesn't come up with the goods (eg they don't vote for your proposal)
then tough.

> > 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 relevant 
> Officer) > publicly Recognises the trade.
>
> Even worse, why must the administrator recognize it? this 
> just generates clutter
> on the mailing list and slows the game.

The trade needs to be recognised by somebody. At the moment there isn't any
defined things we can trade, but once there is who is going to keep track of
them? Players aren't going to keep tally of their own objects, in the same
way as they don't keep their own score. I was going to create a new Officer
to deal with it, but I didn't want to put too much in one proposal. This is
just the groundwork, once this is revised to peoples liking and passed then
I'll add the rest of it.

> > A trade must not occur if the resulting ownership of
> > Objects produces an illegal or invalid game state, or if 
> one of the > Players involved in the trade would win the game 
> as a result of the trade.
> 
> So in the end what's the point in doing it?

I meant that you can't win as a direct result of the trade. Eg, if it
becomes possible to trade points, and you have 300 points you cannot trade
something for another 200 points cos then you'd have 500 points and win. You
could trade for 199 points and earn the rest by some other means, just not
through trading. Doesn't really matter at the moment cos thereis nothing to
trade yet!

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: elective offices proposal
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:01:07 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

> 1. Create a Rule entitled "Elective Offices" with the following text:

Looks good. I don't think my proposal clashes with this, or do you think I
should modify my one?

> Whichever candidate receives a plurality of the votes cast 

What does that mean? Surely 'plurality' means more than one? But several
candidates could get more than one vote?

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: event ordering proposal
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:06:14 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> "Legislative Orders are to be executed in a sequence 
> corresponding to the 
> Proposals which created them. Specifically, for any given Legislative 
> Order, if there exists an outstanding Legislative Order issued by the 
> adoption of a lower-numbered Proposal than the Proposal which 
> caused the 
> issuance of the Legislative Order in question, said 
> Legislative Order must 
> not be executed."

That last bit, is that 'must not be executed ever' or 'must not be executed
till after the first one is executed'?

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of S
	upreme Justice 
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:03:43 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If you're creating the Office of Supreme Justice, why not 
> refer to the 
> Officer as simply the "Supreme Justice" instead of the longer 
> (and more 
> cumbersome) "Officer of Supreme Justice"?

Simply cos I liked the sound of it. And shortening it to OSJ is easy enough.
I was also going to create some more Offices and call them Officer of XX.
Has a nice uniform feel to it.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Officer of S
	upreme Justice 
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:04:10 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Joel Uckelman sprach:
> >If you're creating the Office of Supreme Justice, why not 
> refer to the 
> >Officer as simply the "Supreme Justice" instead of the 
> longer (and more 
> >cumbersome) "Officer of Supreme Justice"?
> 
> "Officer of Supreme Justice" DOES sound cooler.

Thank you ;-)

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: modification of 302/0, Subliminal  eligiousInd
	octrination
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:12:17 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Roland of Gilead [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Based on the way I've seen Nomic games progress in the past, I 
> guaran-fucking-tee you that someone might resort to stonewalling, 
> conspiracy, or other dirty tricks, given the opportunity and 
> incentive.  I 
> know the Biblical texts are fairly self-apparent if one is 
> caught trying to 
> sneak a verse by; but I wouldn't be surprised if there were 
> only one or two 
> (if that) copies of the "ISO/IEC 14882, Standard for the C++ 
> Programming 
> Language" among the group of Nomic players.  I certainly 
> don't own one.  It 
> would be easy for owners of said texts to simply deny whether 
> or not such a 
> passage exists (or make one up on the fly).
> 
> Or on the other hand, such an incident might never occur.  Whatever.

I wasn't sure about putting the C++ Standard in there, but I wanted
something like that and that was the first thing that came to mind. We can
change that if you like, or add new texts.

If in the event that there is a disagreement over the Heresy then an RFJ can
be used. I just don't want it as an explicit part of the Rule. If it was
then it would have to be used every time. I only want it to be used if
necessary.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: individual voting
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:31:17 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Individual voting for last nweek may now be found on the page at: 
> 

Can you add the votes for P306 & P311 too? Thanks.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:04:02 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wbfu Xbegorva wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Bradley sprach:
> >I just looked at the vote tallies and it appears that some of my  private
> >votes were not counted - joel - my private e-mail to you is attached. was
> >this not in time for  the count or what?
> >
> >it looks like if my votes had been counted, then 332/0 quorum  fix would
> >have passed.
> >(334 and 335 passed anyway, and apparently, you did count my vote for 325)
> >
> >should I make an rfj or what?
> 
> I must warn you that if you seek legal action we may, of course,
> ask for recounts of all other ballots involved. Why don't you just
> admit that the people have expressed their will, and let the
> transition process begin?
> 
> Josh
> 
> --

Lol!

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:20:31 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: Market Economy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:

> 
> I meant that you can't win as a direct result of the trade. Eg, if it
> becomes possible to trade points, and you have 300 points you cannot trade
> something for another 200 points cos then you'd have 500 points and win. You
> could trade for 199 points and earn the rest by some other means, just not
> through trading. Doesn't really matter at the moment cos thereis nothing to
> trade yet!
> 
> --
> The Kid

in my mind it's unnesessary, why cant someone win through trade? I't not
like we will all be offering players all of our points in a desperate
attempt to make them win :)
I suppose it's not that bad after all, it's just that i like having the
highest number of options available, and i feel this rule to be
limiting.

Zagarna

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

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:14:23 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: elective offices proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
>
> Voters may cast a vote for only one candidate on each list for such
> Ballot Issues.
>
> J.
> 
You should add a line stating that if a player votes for more than one
candidate all votes regarding that election sumitted by the player for
that nweek are invalid/are not counted

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: elective offices proposal
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:23:27 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
> > Voters may cast a vote for only one candidate on each list for such
> > Ballot Issues.
> > 
> You should add a line stating that if a player votes for more than one
> candidate all votes regarding that election sumitted by the player for
> that nweek are invalid/are not counted

I reckon we should set up an electoral collage system for voting on
proposals and elections. :-)

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:05:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Aha. I must have missed those. (That's why it's so important that results 
be posted, so people can check their votes!) I'll fix that sometime today.

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> I just looked at the vote tallies and it appears that some of my  private
> votes were not counted - joel - my private e-mail to you is attached. was
> this not in time for  the count or what?
> 
> it looks like if my votes had been counted, then 332/0 quorum  fix would
> have passed.
> (334 and 335 passed anyway, and apparently, you did count my vote for 325)
> 
> should I make an rfj or what?
> 
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 19:30:11 -0600 (CST)
> From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
> To: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
> Subject: private votes for ballot4
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID:
>     <[email-masked]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> please use my votes from last week on the old proposals.
> here are listed my votes for the new proposals (as marked by you with
> asterisks):
> 
> > *P325/1, Salary for Judges, by Poulenc
> yes
> 
> > *P332/0, Quorum Fix, by Joel Uckelman
> sure
> 
> > *P334/1, Players that are [Away], Zagarna
> yes
> 
> > *P335/0, Officers that are [Away], Zagarna
> yes
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 
> 

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: elective offices proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:06:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> > 1. Create a Rule entitled "Elective Offices" with the following text:
> 
> Looks good. I don't think my proposal clashes with this, or do you think I
> should modify my one?
> 
> > Whichever candidate receives a plurality of the votes cast 
> 
> What does that mean? Surely 'plurality' means more than one? But several
> candidates could get more than one vote?
> 
> --
> The Kid

"Plurality" is the voting term for "mode". Now that you mention it, though, 
I need to include something to negotiate ties.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: individual voting 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:07:59 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > 
> > Individual voting for last nweek may now be found on the page at: 
> > 
> 
> Can you add the votes for P306 & P311 too? Thanks.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

I'll add all of the other voting sometime this week.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: P338
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:15:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I noticed that P338 doesn't affect the way Judges are selected, which may 
be a bad thing. Currently, the Officer responsible for selecting Judges may 
do so any way e wishes. Because I select Judges in my capacity as 
Administrator, I see the fair selection of Judges as something like a 
sacred trust. However, someone elected to the proposed OSJ may not see it 
the same way, and under the current rules could be as arbitrary in Judge 
selection as e wanted. Maybe this should be corrected.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: P338
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:57:31 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I noticed that P338 doesn't affect the way Judges are 
> selected, which may 
> be a bad thing. Currently, the Officer responsible for 
> selecting Judges may 
> do so any way e wishes. Because I select Judges in my capacity as 
> Administrator, I see the fair selection of Judges as something like a 
> sacred trust. However, someone elected to the proposed OSJ 
> may not see it 
> the same way, and under the current rules could be as 
> arbitrary in Judge 
> selection as e wanted. Maybe this should be corrected.

Ok, I'll add a bit that says the selection must be 'random' and that the OSJ
should say exactly how the selection was determined if someone asks. I also
think that the OSJ should be able to exclude further people from the
selection if they would have a vested interest in the judgement. At the
moment the Plantiff is exluded and there is no notion of a Defendant. In
some RFJ's there would be another Player who the RFJ is against, clearly
this Player should be excluded from Judgement too. Since the OSJ is elected
we can always vote them out if they abuse their positiion.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..? 
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:43:08 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Just noticed that the voting page shows that neither Zagarna or Potter voted
on P331, yet they both voted publicly and voted 'yes'. This might have been
missed cos the ballot was first published as P331/1 and then corrected to
P331/0, but both players correctly voted on the correct revision. This
doesn't actually affect the outcome, but I'm sure the they are keen that
they aren't 'disenfranchised of their constitutional right to vote'.

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:51:34 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Matthew G Potter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..? 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Just noticed that the voting page shows that neither Zagarna or Potter voted
>on P331, yet they both voted publicly and voted 'yes'. This might have been
>missed cos the ballot was first published as P331/1 and then corrected to
>P331/0, but both players correctly voted on the correct revision. This
>doesn't actually affect the outcome, but I'm sure the they are keen that
>they aren't 'disenfranchised of their constitutional right to vote'.

Bah.  If old duffers like Potter can't even read the ballot correctly, then 
they're obviously too stupid to have their views included in the election 
process anyway.  Being "confused" is no excuse!

Potter

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P338 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:13:49 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 
> > I noticed that P338 doesn't affect the way Judges are 
> > selected, which may 
> > be a bad thing. Currently, the Officer responsible for 
> > selecting Judges may 
> > do so any way e wishes. Because I select Judges in my capacity as 
> > Administrator, I see the fair selection of Judges as something like a 
> > sacred trust. However, someone elected to the proposed OSJ 
> > may not see it 
> > the same way, and under the current rules could be as 
> > arbitrary in Judge 
> > selection as e wanted. Maybe this should be corrected.
> 
> Ok, I'll add a bit that says the selection must be 'random' and that the OSJ
> should say exactly how the selection was determined if someone asks. I also
> think that the OSJ should be able to exclude further people from the
> selection if they would have a vested interest in the judgement. At the
> moment the Plantiff is exluded and there is no notion of a Defendant. In
> some RFJ's there would be another Player who the RFJ is against, clearly
> this Player should be excluded from Judgement too. Since the OSJ is elected
> we can always vote them out if they abuse their positiion.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Actually, I don't see non-random judge selection as a bad thing 
necessarily, but maybe a five nweek term distances abuses too much from 
ultimate accountability. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not opposed to 
discretionary powers granted to Officers, so long as there exist checks on 
the abuse of those powers.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: P338 
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:05:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Actually, I don't see non-random judge selection as a bad thing 
> necessarily, but maybe a five nweek term distances abuses too 
> much from 
> ultimate accountability. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm 
> not opposed to 
> discretionary powers granted to Officers, so long as there 
> exist checks on 
> the abuse of those powers.

I see what you mean. That would really need to be a seperate proposal. I'll
see what I can come up with.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..? 
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:03:53 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Hmmm. I'm not sure how I missed that. It actually does affect 
> the outcome 
> for P331, since those two votes are enough for quorum, so P331 fails.

Ha! Two extra votes get counted, both of which are 'yes' and it causes the
proposal to fail. Someone should tell Gore.

On a completely non-nomic subject, I thought anyone there in the US might
like to see a mail that's been going round the UK and came my way today:

-----
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

To the citizens of the United States of America, 

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to 
govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your 
independence, effective today. 

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over 
all states, commonwealths and other territories.  Except Utah, which she 
does not fancy.  Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for 
the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world 
outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need 
for further elections.  Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.  A 
questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you 
noticed. 

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules 
are introduced with immediate effect: 

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.  Then 
look up "aluminium".  Check the pronunciation guide.  You will be amazed at 
just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.  Generally, you should raise 
your vocabulary to acceptable levels.  Look up "vocabulary".  Using the same

twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you 
know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.  Look up 
"interspersed". 

2. There is no such thing as "US English".  We will let Microsoft know on 
your behalf. 

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents.  It 
really isn't that hard. 

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the 
good guys. 

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", 
but only after fully carrying out task 1.  We would not want you to get 
confused and give up half way through. 

6. You should stop playing American "football".  There is only one kind of 
football.  What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.

The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders 
may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football.  You will no 
longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. 
Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls.  It is a difficult

game.  Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby 
(which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for 
a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like 
nancies).  We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 
2005. 

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if 
they give you any merde.  The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is

a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky.  The Russians 
have never been the bad guys.  "Merde" is French for "sh*t". 

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday.  November 8th will be a new 
national holiday, but only in England.  It will be called "Indecisive Day". 

9. All American cars are hereby banned.  They are crap and it is for your 
own good.  When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 

10. Please tell us who killed JFK.  It's been driving us crazy. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 
-----

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: vote miscount..? 
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:14:18 CST
From: stuck outside of mobile with the memphis blues again <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" sprach:
>On a completely non-nomic subject, I thought anyone there in the US might
>like to see a mail that's been going round the UK and came my way today:

This changes dramatically each time I see it. The list of requirements
was much funnier when it was more curt, and more reminiscent of royal
commands.

Josh

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: No mail.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:56:34 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi All,
A quick check on the web page tells me that you're all still sending mail,
but I'm no longer receiving any. I've got our boffins chasing up at this end
in case some spam filter has killed it or something. Joel, can you check if
things are OK from that end ?

Yes, I am still playing (and sulking, remember). It's too hard to wade
through the archive on the web, so I'll just sit here, wait and hope.

Yours Sincerely,

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: No mail. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:30:44 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Hi All,
> A quick check on the web page tells me that you're all still sending mail,
> but I'm no longer receiving any. I've got our boffins chasing up at this end
> in case some spam filter has killed it or something. Joel, can you check if
> things are OK from that end ?
> 
> Yes, I am still playing (and sulking, remember). It's too hard to wade
> through the archive on the web, so I'll just sit here, wait and hope.
> 
> Yours Sincerely,
> 
> XnJester

Hmm. I tried contacting you about that, but everything that I or the list 
sends you bounces. I didn't change anything on my end. Actually, I'm not 
sure that you'll get this at all.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: No mail. 
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:31:55 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel, I don't mean to be pushy but are you going to recognise my proposals?
The ballot starts this evening.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: No mail. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:33:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Joel, I don't mean to be pushy but are you going to recognise my proposals?
> The ballot starts this evening.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Yes. I was planning to take care of all outstanding stuff this morning.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: P343 suggestion
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:32:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The addition to R227, "4. Ballot Item Elections for vacant Offices shall 
carry on the majority of votes cast." is ambiguous. To what does the 
"majority" refer?
This could be especially troublesome if no candidate received a simple 
majority or if no votes were cast at all.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 21:03:33 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Submission: Officers and Gentlemen
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> Create a new Rule entitled 'Officers and Gentlemen' with the following text:

hmm, I just realized that this rule would permit us to boot the administrator.

__________________________________________________
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: Proposal Submission: 
 Officers and Gentlemen
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:10:00 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth zagarna:
> "Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> > 
> > Create a new Rule entitled 'Officers and Gentlemen' with the following text
> :
> 
> 
> hmm, I just realized that this rule would permit us to boot the administrator
> .

Are you sure? The Prop applies only to Elected Offices.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:17:11 +0000
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Submission: Officers and 
 Gentlemen
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> Quoth zagarna:
> > "Harrison, Andrew" wrote:
> > >
> > > Create a new Rule entitled 'Officers and Gentlemen' with the following text
> >
> > hmm, I just realized that this rule would permit us to boot the administrator
> 
> Are you sure? The Prop applies only to Elected Offices.

Exactly. The proposal applies only to Elected Officers. The
Administrator is not elected. That was intentional. If we want to get
Joel out of office for any reason we can only do it by changing the rule
that says that he is Administrator.

--
The Kid

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:18:44 +0000
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P343 suggestion
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Strange, I only just got this mail. Oh well. Too late to modify the
proposal now, so I'll submit a revision to the rule next nweek, or you
can if you want.

--
The Kid

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> The addition to R227, "4. Ballot Item Elections for vacant Offices shall
> carry on the majority of votes cast." is ambiguous. To what does the
> "majority" refer?
> This could be especially troublesome if no candidate received a simple
> majority or if no votes were cast at all.
> 
> --
> J.
> 
> --
> Play Nomic!
> http://www.nomic.net

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Still no mail.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:44:21 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi All,
Joel has sent some decent information to help resolve the mail problem I'm
having. Canberra have told me that it should be working now. But, unless it
mysteriously starts appearing now (as of this message), they haven't fixed
anything.

Yes, I am still playing (and sulking, remember). It's too hard to wade
through the archive on the web, so I'll just continue to sit here, wait and
hope.

Yours Sincerely,

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:28:17 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Hi All,
> Joel has sent some decent information to help resolve the mail problem I'm
> having. Canberra have told me that it should be working now. But, unless it
> mysteriously starts appearing now (as of this message), they haven't fixed
> anything.
> 
> Yes, I am still playing (and sulking, remember). It's too hard to wade
> through the archive on the web, so I'll just continue to sit here, wait and
> hope.
> 
> Yours Sincerely,
> 
> XnJester

As of now, I haven't received a bounce from this message, so I expect that 
all is well once again.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:43:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> As of now, I haven't received a bounce from this message, so I expect that 
> all is well once again.
> 

Aaah the mail was repaired, votes were cast, and once again all was well
in nomicland.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:30:20 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> > 
> > As of now, I haven't received a bounce from this message, so I expect that 
> > all is well once again.
> > 
> 
> Aaah the mail was repaired, votes were cast, and once again all was well
> in nomicland.
> 
> Poulenc

And they ate Robin's minstrels, and there was great rejoicing. Yaaaay.

Nomicland---that sounds like a weird theme park. "You must be this tall to 
invoke R642."

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:08:06 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Nomicland---that sounds like a weird theme park. "You must be 
> this tall to 
> invoke R642."

Well we were looking for a name for our nomic, how about Nomicland, Nomic
Park, Theme Nomic, Nomic Tycoon?

Well, maybe not ;-)

--
The Kid

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:44:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Nomicland---that sounds like a weird theme park. "
> Well we were looking for a name for our nomic,
> Well, maybe not ;-)

Maybe not, but you've just given me some wonderful ideas for my first few
proposals when I finally get to be a player...

M'cachessilnath The Insane One

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:51:00 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > Nomicland---that sounds like a weird theme park. "
> > Well we were looking for a name for our nomic,
> > Well, maybe not ;-)
> 
> Maybe not, but you've just given me some wonderful ideas for 
> my first few
> proposals when I finally get to be a player...
> 
> M'cachessilnath The Insane One

That's what I like to see, some inventive ideas for proposals. I see you
have an NTL address, where abouts are you? And what's that name all about,
have you been reading too much Robert Jordan? It's a shame you where just
one day late to get on this nweeks ballot, so you'll have to wait till next
nweek. Still, you can join in the discussions, you just can't take any game
actions. Welcome to the party.

--
The Kid

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:09:16 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I see you
> have an NTL address, where abouts are you?

Essex. (The first person to laugh gets the wrong side of my talons.)

> And what's that name all about,
> have you been reading too much Robert Jordan?

I've only read one and a half Robert Jordan books, actually - if you want
the explanation behind my name (and there's a lot of explanation, just like
there's a lot of name) you could go to
http://www.geocities.com/mcachessilnath/theravine.htm.
If you want to call me something actually typeable, use 'Chess'.

> Still, you can join in the discussions, you just can't take any game
> actions. Welcome to the party.

<Chess puts on a purple paper crown, as befits a party>
<Chess lets loose some party poppers>
<Chess puts some loud music on>

M'cachessilnath The Insane One (mwahahahahaha)

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:24:16 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I see you
> > have an NTL address, where abouts are you?
> 
> Essex. (The first person to laugh gets the wrong side of my talons.)

Don't worry, I'm the only other Brit here, and I won't tell. ;-)

--
The Kid

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:57:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > I see you
> > > have an NTL address, where abouts are you?
> > 
> > Essex. (The first person to laugh gets the wrong side of my talons.)
> 
> Don't worry, I'm the only other Brit here, and I won't tell. ;-)

Well, only if you are only counting location.

Dan

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: scripts, for the curious
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:48:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The scripts I use to maintain the site are now available via the "Scripts" 
link on the game page.

A few things about the scripts:

poke.pl is used to update the database.
htmlizer.pl is used to generate the html.
scripts.conf.sample contains a bunch of configuration stuff
db.spec is a copy of the output of mysqlshow for the database and each of 
the tables in it.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 5
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:00:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rather light turnout this time, but quorum was met since this 
> was a quorum 
> vote.
> 
> Proposal 336/0 passed (4-1-0-8).
> Proposal 337/1 failed (2-3-0-8).
> Proposal 338/1 passed (3-2-0-8).
> Proposal 340/1 passed (4-1-0-8).
> Proposal 341/0 passed (4-1-0-8).
> Proposal 342/0 passed (3-2-0-8).
> Proposal 343/0 passed (3-2-0-8).

Arg! I completely forgot to vote! I was going to do it last night but got
somewhat distracted, so I guess I can't really complain that my prop fails
then. Can I ask those who voted against it why they did? I had a load of
other stuff I was going to propose this nweek using that rule as a basis, so
I'm thinking of submiting a revised version of 337, so if it would get
through in a revised form, let me know how.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal:  For consistancy
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:48:53 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The following is a new proposal titled "This game is an agent"
> ______
> Enact a new rule titled "This game is an agent" with text as follows:
> 
> This game is an agent.
> ______

That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do that then?

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:57:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal:  For consistancy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> > The following is a new proposal titled "This game is an agent"
> > ______
> > Enact a new rule titled "This game is an agent" with text as follows:
> > 
> > This game is an agent.
> > ______
> 
> That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do that then?

Because the rules say that an agent is an entity capable of action, and
that the status of agents may be modified only as specified in the rules.
I think it is better to do this than to have a fight about it later.

I have some other proposals coming up that might work better if there is
no argument that the game is an agent.

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal:  For consistancy
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:04:18 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > 
> > > This game is an agent.
> > 
> > That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do 
> that then?
> 
> Because the rules say that an agent is an entity capable of 
> action, and
> that the status of agents may be modified only as specified 
> in the rules.
> I think it is better to do this than to have a fight about it later.
> 
> I have some other proposals coming up that might work better 
> if there is
> no argument that the game is an agent.

Are you interpreting Rule 105 as:
If entity X is capable of action then entity X is an Agent.
or:
If entity X is an Agent then entity X is capable of action.
?

With the first interpetation I would say that the game is not capable of
action and therefore is not an Agent. However if you are using the second
interpretation and you want to introduce a rule that causes the game to
perform actions and you first want to make it an Agent, then that sounds
like fun...

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:10:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal:  For consistancy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> > > > 
> > > > This game is an agent.
> > > 
> > > That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do 
> > that then?
> > 
> > Because the rules say that an agent is an entity capable of 
> > action, and
> > that the status of agents may be modified only as specified 
> > in the rules.
> > I think it is better to do this than to have a fight about it later.
> > 
> > I have some other proposals coming up that might work better 
> > if there is
> > no argument that the game is an agent.
> 
> Are you interpreting Rule 105 as:
> If entity X is capable of action then entity X is an Agent.
> or:
> If entity X is an Agent then entity X is capable of action.
> ?
> 
> With the first interpetation I would say that the game is not capable of
> action and therefore is not an Agent. However if you are using the second
> interpretation and you want to introduce a rule that causes the game to
> perform actions and you first want to make it an Agent, then that sounds
> like fun...

I am worried that if we decide that the game is not an agent it will lose
the ability to order us around.  That wouldn't be any fun.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal:  For consistancy
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:08:41 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> I am worried that if we decide that the game is not an agent 
> it will lose
> the ability to order us around.  That wouldn't be any fun.

Order us around? Not sure I'm following you.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:29:29 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> The following is a new proposal titled "Property ownership"
> 

<snip>

Is that not basically the same as the Proposal of mine that just failed and
I was about to re-submit in a modified form?

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:15:34 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> The following is a new proposal titled "Property ownership"
> 

<snip>

Is not not basically the same as the Proposal of mine that just failed and I
was about to re-submit in a modified form?

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:36:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> > 
> > The following is a new proposal titled "Property ownership"
> > 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is not not basically the same as the Proposal of mine that just failed and I
> was about to re-submit in a modified form?

Yes, and no.

In any case, if you re-submit yours and it looks reasonable to me, I will
withdraw mine or reduce its scope so that they do not conflict.

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:38:26 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> In any case, if you re-submit yours and it looks reasonable 
> to me, I will
> withdraw mine or reduce its scope so that they do not conflict.

What part of my original proposal did you find unreasonable?

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:51:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> What part of my original proposal did you find unreasonable?

None of it.  I did feel that it was a little bit too restrictive about
what could be done with trades, and that some of those restricitons could
have been left up to other rules.  I felt that a less-restricted proposal
might have a better chance of passing, and I saw an opportunity to tie it
in with some other things I was working on, such as the game as an agent
and able to own property, and my corrupt voting system.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Points are transferrable objects 
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:36:46 -0600
From: Matt Potter <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Associated with each Agent is a scalar quantity known as eir score, the
> unit of which is the Point.  No player may voluntarily reduce eir score to
> less than zero points, nor may a player arbitrarily increase eir score.
> All scores are initially zero points.

You should also make it clear that a player cannot arbitrarily increase
or decrease anyone _else's_ score, either.  We've had conspiracies in the
past, as
well as people essentially saying "I think what that guy just did is
really cool, so I give him 500 points."

Potter

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  Transferrable votes
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:42:37 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> their owner at any time, and they are transferable objects. New Each
> Transferable Vote is marked with the serial number of the ballot item it

Don't you mean 'Each New Transferable Vote', not 'New Each Transferable
Vote'?

M'cachessilnath The Insane One (who is also a rotten pedant)

PS This email is almost guarunteed to contain at least one error, especially
since I can't spell 'guarunteed'.

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:22:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  Transferrable
 votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

oops.  will fix

pouelnc

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Chess wrote:

> > their owner at any time, and they are transferable objects. New Each
> > Transferable Vote is marked with the serial number of the ballot item it
> 
> Don't you mean 'Each New Transferable Vote', not 'New Each Transferable
> Vote'?
> 
> M'cachessilnath The Insane One (who is also a rotten pedant)
> 
> PS This email is almost guarunteed to contain at least one error, especially
> since I can't spell 'guarunteed'.
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:25:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Points are
 transferrable objects 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

With the exception of the object tag at the end, I have not changed the
content of the rule.

Now that points are defined as objects, however I ought to make a
creation-destruction clause and maybe some better kind of control over
them.

In fact, I left a bit out of transferable objects that needs to be in to
prevent this.  ack.  That means that these will all have to be revised.

Poulenc.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Matt Potter wrote:

> > Associated with each Agent is a scalar quantity known as eir score, the
> > unit of which is the Point.  No player may voluntarily reduce eir score to
> > less than zero points, nor may a player arbitrarily increase eir score.
> > All scores are initially zero points.
> 
> You should also make it clear that a player cannot arbitrarily increase
> or decrease anyone _else's_ score, either.  We've had conspiracies in the
> past, as
> well as people essentially saying "I think what that guy just did is
> really cool, so I give him 500 points."
> 
> Potter
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:30:56 +0000
From: andy_harrison <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Mine.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron wrote:
> 
> >
> > What part of my original proposal did you find unreasonable?
> 
> None of it.  I did feel that it was a little bit too restrictive about
> what could be done with trades, and that some of those restricitons could
> have been left up to other rules.  I felt that a less-restricted proposal
> might have a better chance of passing, and I saw an opportunity to tie it
> in with some other things I was working on, such as the game as an agent
> and able to own property, and my corrupt voting system.
> 
> Poulenc

My revised proposal looked like this:

"An Object is an entity that is owned by an Agent. Agents may gain
ownership or lose ownership of Objects only in the manner defined in the
Ruleset. Agents may only own a positive integral number of a specific
type of Object, unless it is otherwise specified elsewhere in the
Ruleset.

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

An Agent may trade Objects with another Agent by posting the details of
their trade to a public forum. All Agents involved in the trade must
publicly agree to the trade. The OBC shall within reasonable time
recognise the result of the trade."

I would probably split it into three rules, but I hadn't decided. As far
as I can see, the differences between this and what you proposed are:

1. I haven't got anything about the Game itself owning Objects, or that
the Players are Objects. You could quite easily add this in a seperate
proposal. (There is nothing to stop an Agent also being an Object)

2. I hadn't yet specified any actual Objects. I was waiting till the
first proposal passed till I did that. I was going to make points
Objects as you have, but I hadn't thought about doing the same with
votes.

3. In my version, there is a trade involving at least two Agents. In
yours there is only a transfer of ownership from one Agent to an other.
I see this as a major difference cos I think it has to be specified in
terms of a trade. If agents just transfer objects then there is no way
of making the return-transfer binding. I'll try to put that a bit more
clearly: If we agree that I'll give you my object X for your object Y,
and you post to the public forum "I transfer ownership of my object Y to
The Kid" and then I don't transfer X to you, then there isn't anything
you can do.

4. The OBC. Someone has to keep track of all these Objects, and I it
fits better with the rest of the game if the trades are formally
recognised.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:38:40 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > > The following is a new proposal titled "This game is an agent"
> > > ______
> > > Enact a new rule titled "This game is an agent" with text as follows:
> > > 
> > > This game is an agent.
> > > ______
> > 
> > That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do that then?
> 
> Because the rules say that an agent is an entity capable of action, and
> that the status of agents may be modified only as specified in the rules.
> I think it is better to do this than to have a fight about it later.
> 
> I have some other proposals coming up that might work better if there is
> no argument that the game is an agent.
> 
> Poulenc

Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea of the game being an Agent, simply 
because it doesn't appear to be one by the current definition of Agent. I 
suppose if you want to redefine the set of things with Agency as the union 
of {whatever meets the current definition of Agent} and {the Game}. I won't 
vote for this without a little more explanation--how is it exactly that the 
Game can take independent action?

-- 
J.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:13:25 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Some players may be AWAY
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Remember Joel, that if a player has not voted in the last three nweeks,
he automatically becomes [AWAY].
the players God and 4T2 may meet these requirements

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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:04:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: It's my Object and I'll cry if I want to
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My comments are interspersed between sections.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> I submit the following proposal entitled "It's my Object and I'll cry if I
> want to":
> 
> Create a Rule entitled 'Object Orientation' with the following text:
> "An Object is an entity that is owned by an Agent. Agents may gain ownership
> or lose ownership of Objects only in he manner defined in the Ruleset.
> Agents may only own a positive integral number of a specific type of Object,
> unless it is otherwise specified elsewhere in the Ruleset."
> 

I don't like the idea of defining an object only by its ownership.  Then
we could get entity types of which some members are objects and others are
not.  I think this could be done in a better way by something like the
following:

All entities are owned.  Unless otherwise specified in the rules, the
owner of an entity is unchangeable, and always itself.  Entities of types
which are regulated by the rules may only be created, destroyed, or
otherwise modified as specified by the rules.

Objects are entites of which the ownership may change, but only as
described in the rules. An object may be owned only by itself or by an
agent.  Unless specified in the rules, the initial owner of an object is
itself.

> Create a Rule entitled 'The Officer of Bean Counting' with the following
> text:
> "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The OBC is
> responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object currently owned
> by each Agent."
>

I think that it is a good idea to specify how we keep track of objects.
This rule gets two thumbs up.
 
> Create a Rule entitled 'Trade Descriptions Act' with the following text:
> "An Agent may Trade a number of Objects with another Agent by posting the
> details of their Trade to a public forum. All Agents involved in the Trade
> must publicly agree to the Trade. The OBC shall within reasonable time
> recognise the result of the Trade."

I would still rather have non-restricted transfer plus binding contracts
than try to amalgamate them into one.  I think that the former way is more
versatile.

Poulenc.

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:21:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea of the game being an Agent, simply 
> because it doesn't appear to be one by the current definition of Agent. I 
> suppose if you want to redefine the set of things with Agency as the union 
> of {whatever meets the current definition of Agent} and {the Game}. I won't 
> vote for this without a little more explanation--how is it exactly that the 
> Game can take independent action?
> 

The game is an agent because it has ways of getting its component agents
and officers to do things for it.

I guess this would give the game the power to vote, make proposals, etc.
That might be interesting and I can see why you are nervous about it.
Perhaps declaring the game to be an agent might be a bad thing after all.

I will propose some sort of Bank, to own things for us, and perhaps also
do things like pay officer salaries, etc.

Dan

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:24:42 CST
From: "a man who never sees a pretty girl that he doesn't love her a little" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sprach:
>> 
>> Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea of the game being an Agent, simply 
>> because it doesn't appear to be one by the current definition of Agent. I 
>> suppose if you want to redefine the set of things with Agency as the union 
>> of {whatever meets the current definition of Agent} and {the Game}. I won't 
>> vote for this without a little more explanation--how is it exactly that the 
>> Game can take independent action?
>> 
>
>
>The game is an agent because it has ways of getting its component agents
>and officers to do things for it.

That explanation presupposes that it IS an agent.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:27:47 -0600
From: Matt Potter <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >
> >The game is an agent because it has ways of getting its component agents
> >and officers to do things for it.
> 
> That explanation presupposes that it IS an agent.
> 

I agree with Josh.  I'd prefer to view the game as some sort of entity
which is acted upon by players, rather than the other way around.  The
game could be said to be the "gamestate"--the aggregate combination of
ruleset, agents, objects, and so forth which exist within it at any given
time.  Sort of a biological way of looking at it--that the game is not a
single object, but an environment within which objects and actions exist.

Potter

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:50:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> I agree with Josh.  I'd prefer to view the game as some sort of entity
> which is acted upon by players, rather than the other way around.  The
> game could be said to be the "gamestate"--the aggregate combination of
> ruleset, agents, objects, and so forth which exist within it at any given
> time.  Sort of a biological way of looking at it--that the game is not a
> single object, but an environment within which objects and actions exist.
> 
> Potter

You could make the same kind of argument about a person: that it is not an
agent of itself but an environment within which the component organs and
cells exist and act.  A biological organism could be said to be a
"biological-state", the aggregate combination of a number of living cells
of various kinds which exist at any given time.

Having said this, I am no longer of the opinion that I think it would be a
good thing for the game to be an agent.

Poulenc.

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:16:33 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Submission: Officers and 
 Gentlemen
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

andy_harrison wrote:
> > > hmm, I just realized that this rule would permit us to boot the administrator
> >
> > Are you sure? The Prop applies only to Elected Offices.
> 
> Exactly. The proposal applies only to Elected Officers. The
> Administrator is not elected. That was intentional. If we want to get
> Joel out of office for any reason we can only do it by changing the rule
> that says that he is Administrator.

Sorry, my mistake.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:56:59 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> > 
> > Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea of the game being an Agent, simply 
> > because it doesn't appear to be one by the current definition of Agent. I 
> > suppose if you want to redefine the set of things with Agency as the union 
> > of {whatever meets the current definition of Agent} and {the Game}. I won't
>  
> > vote for this without a little more explanation--how is it exactly that the
>  
> > Game can take independent action?
> > 
> 
> 
> The game is an agent because it has ways of getting its component agents
> and officers to do things for it.
> 
> I guess this would give the game the power to vote, make proposals, etc.
> That might be interesting and I can see why you are nervous about it.
> Perhaps declaring the game to be an agent might be a bad thing after all.
> 
> I will propose some sort of Bank, to own things for us, and perhaps also
> do things like pay officer salaries, etc.

I already have a proposal written to create a Treasurer, Treasury, and Assessor, which I'll present as soon as I'm no longer working from this gimpy windows telnet terminal.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:00:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Matt Potter:
> > >
> > >The game is an agent because it has ways of getting its component agents
> > >and officers to do things for it.
> > 
> > That explanation presupposes that it IS an agent.
> > 
> 
> I agree with Josh.  I'd prefer to view the game as some sort of entity
> which is acted upon by players, rather than the other way around.  The
> game could be said to be the "gamestate"--the aggregate combination of
> ruleset, agents, objects, and so forth which exist within it at any given
> time.  Sort of a biological way of looking at it--that the game is not a
> single object, but an environment within which objects and actions exist.
> 
> Potter

That is a fair description of how I've always viewed it.

Woo hoo, looks like we have a real debate going on here...

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy 
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:01:34 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> The game is an agent because it has ways of getting its 
> component agents
> and officers to do things for it.
> 
> I guess this would give the game the power to vote, make 
> proposals, etc.
> That might be interesting and I can see why you are nervous about it.
> Perhaps declaring the game to be an agent might be a bad 
> thing after all.
> 
> I will propose some sort of Bank, to own things for us, and 
> perhaps also
> do things like pay officer salaries, etc.

I think that sounds better. Rather than have the game as an agent it's
better to define some other agent entity that performs specific actions
defined in the rules.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: It's my Object and I'll cry if I want to
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:20:46 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > "An Object is an entity that is owned by an Agent. Agents 
> may gain ownership
> > or lose ownership of Objects only in he manner defined in 
> the Ruleset.
> > Agents may only own a positive integral number of a 
> specific type of Object,
> > unless it is otherwise specified elsewhere in the Ruleset."
> 
> I don't like the idea of defining an object only by its 
> ownership.  Then
> we could get entity types of which some members are objects 
> and others are
> not.  I think this could be done in a better way by something like the
> following:

I don't see the problem. An Object can only be created within the bounds of
the Rules. How could the situation you describe occur? I defined Objects in
terms of ownership in the same way that an Agent is defined by it's ability
to perform actions. It was an attempt at some sort of consistency.

> All entities are owned.  Unless otherwise specified in the rules, the
> owner of an entity is unchangeable, and always itself.  
> Entities of types
> which are regulated by the rules may only be created, destroyed, or
> otherwise modified as specified by the rules.
>
> Objects are entites of which the ownership may change, but only as
> described in the rules. An object may be owned only by itself or by an
> agent.  Unless specified in the rules, the initial owner of 
> an object is
> itself.

I don't think there is any need to generalise this far. What is the point of
having everything owned by itself? We only really need to define Objects as
entities that are owned by something else.
 
> > Create a Rule entitled 'The Officer of Bean Counting' with 
> the following
> > text:
> > "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. 
> The OBC is
> > responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object 
> currently owned
> > by each Agent."
> 
> I think that it is a good idea to specify how we keep track 
> of objects.
> This rule gets two thumbs up.

Great ;-)

> > Create a Rule entitled 'Trade Descriptions Act' with the 
> following text:
> > "An Agent may Trade a number of Objects with another Agent 
> by posting the
> > details of their Trade to a public forum. All Agents 
> involved in the Trade
> > must publicly agree to the Trade. The OBC shall within 
> reasonable time
> > recognise the result of the Trade."
> 
> I would still rather have non-restricted transfer plus 
> binding contracts
> than try to amalgamate them into one.  I think that the 
> former way is more
> versatile.

What can you use binding contracts for other than Trading in Objects? A
binding contract would have to be defined in the same way as I have defined
Trading - both (or all) Agents have to agree in a public forum. Unless there
is something else it could apply to then there is no need to seperate out
the transfer of Objects.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Some players may be AWAY
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:21:25 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Remember Joel, that if a player has not voted in the last 
> three nweeks,
> he automatically becomes [AWAY].
> the players God and 4T2 may meet these requirements

He's right you know...

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:17:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: It's my Object and I'll cry if I want to
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> > I don't like the idea of defining an object only by its 
> > ownership.  Then
> > we could get entity types of which some members are objects 
> > and others are
> > not.  I think this could be done in a better way by something like the
> > following:
> 
> I don't see the problem. An Object can only be created within the bounds of
> the Rules. How could the situation you describe occur? I defined Objects in
> terms of ownership in the same way that an Agent is defined by it's ability
> to perform actions. It was an attempt at some sort of consistency.
>
> 
> I don't think there is any need to generalise this far. What is the point of
> having everything owned by itself? We only really need to define Objects as
> entities that are owned by something else.

What about unowned entites of types that are ownable?  They aren't
objects, so they are not covered under the object-ownership rules, but
they can be owned, so we will need even more rules and complexity to cover
them.  It just strikes me as an inelegant and unnescessarily complicated
way of doing things.

I think I am going to give my support to Joel's object definition.  I will
adapt my other proposals to agree with that.  There are things that it
leaves uncovered-such as any way of transferring objects, and ways to
create and destroy (or limit the creation and destruction of) objects, but
I think it elegantly and simply covers the definition issue.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Some players may be AWAY 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:01:04 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > Remember Joel, that if a player has not voted in the last 
> > three nweeks,
> > he automatically becomes [AWAY].
> > the players God and 4T2 may meet these requirements
> 
> He's right you know...
> 
> --
> The Kid
>

I guess I'll have to alter the voting results, then. It won't materially affect the results, just the number of eligible voters.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Some players may be AWAY 
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:56:16 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > Remember Joel, that if a player has not voted in the last 
> > > three nweeks,
> > > he automatically becomes [AWAY].
> > > the players God and 4T2 may meet these requirements
> > 
> > He's right you know...
> 
> I guess I'll have to alter the voting results, then. It won't 
> materially affect the results, just the number of eligible voters.

I don't think you have to alter results that have gone, just declare them to
be Away as of now and take it into account in future votes.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:09:27 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> In the interest of keeping everything fairly sane and try to keep the
> proposals compatible:
> ______________
> 
> I recind my proposal entitled "It's my Object and I'll cry if I want to"
> ______________
> 
> I propose the following proposal entitled 'The Officer of Bean Counting':
> 
> Create a Rule entitled 'The Officer of Bean Counting' with the following
> text:
> "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The OBC is
> responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object currently owned
> by each Agent."
> ______________
> 
> [[Suggestions to Poulenc for his proposals:
> Make Transferable Votes to be Objects rather than entities.
> Remove the Administrator from the equation as far as points go. If the rules
> specify that a Player should be awarded points then the Bank should go ahead
> and do it rather than wait for the Administrator to say so.
> Do the same for buying the extra votes from the bank, why does the
> Administrator need to get involved?]]
> 
> --
> The Kid
>

I concur.

A thought: since there are a bunch of proposals right now that rely on each other, what happens if one of those that all the rest depend on fails, but the others pass? That could get us into a messy situation. I'm not sure a rule is the best way to handle this, though. Maybe some Legislative Orders should be stated as "Create a new rule with the following text if Proposal nnn passes:" or something like that.

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:10:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[Suggestions to Poulenc for his proposals:
> Make Transferable Votes to be Objects rather than entities.
> Remove the Administrator from the equation as far as points go. If the rules
> specify that a Player should be awarded points then the Bank should go ahead
> and do it rather than wait for the Administrator to say so.
> Do the same for buying the extra votes from the bank, why does the
> Administrator need to get involved?]]

I will make Transferable votes objects rather than entities.  I meant to
but I must have forgotten to when I edited it.  Thanks for catching that
one.

I wanted to make points into objects while creating as little change as
possible in our existing system.  Currently the Administrator is the main
distributor of points, and I do not really see that changing any time in
the near future.  Joel's scoring report as part of the voting could easily
be changed into orders to the bank to change the points.  However, I see
now that it might be done more efficiently in the way you suggest, so I
will change it.

If the post of the Banker is ever held by anyone but Joel then we should
work out some kind of a system where Joel can quickly and easily take the
standings and ownership information from the banker's nweekly report.

With regards to the Transferable Votes thing, I deliberately set that to
go through the administrator to add another level of delay.  This way, The
Administrator and the Banker could strategically stop someone from getting
an extra vote that they wanted for a particular nweekly vote.  Instead,
people will have get the Extra Vote and wait.  It is a way of limiting the
power of the rule and give a little bit of influence to people who work
hard to keep this game playable.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Some players may be AWAY 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:14:47 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > > Remember Joel, that if a player has not voted in the last 
> > > > three nweeks,
> > > > he automatically becomes [AWAY].
> > > > the players God and 4T2 may meet these requirements
> > > 
> > > He's right you know...
> > 
> > I guess I'll have to alter the voting results, then. It won't 
> > materially affect the results, just the number of eligible voters.
> 
> I don't think you have to alter results that have gone, just declare them to
> be Away as of now and take it into account in future votes.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 

R307/0 seems to make them Away automatically, though, so I think I do need
to adjust the results from last time.

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:12:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> I concur.
> 
> A thought: since there are a bunch of proposals right now that rely on
> each other, what happens if one of those that all the rest depend on
> fails, but the others pass? That could get us into a messy situation.
> I'm not sure a rule is the best way to handle this, though. Maybe some
> Legislative Orders should be stated as "Create a new rule with the
> following text if Proposal nnn passes:" or something like that.
>  
> 

Yeah.  And most of the dependant proposals are mine.  This means another
full batch of revisions will be coming up sometime.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:10:13 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> A thought: since there are a bunch of proposals right now 
> that rely on each other, what happens if one of those that 
> all the rest depend on fails, but the others pass? That could 
> get us into a messy situation. I'm not sure a rule is the 
> best way to handle this, though. Maybe some Legislative 
> Orders should be stated as "Create a new rule with the 
> following text if Proposal nnn passes:" or something like that.

Yeah, that's why whenever I propose several rules that rely on each other I
always put them in the one proposal. Actually I think the only possible
problem this time is Poulenc's Extra Votes proposal which relies on the Bank
proposal. Any of the others can stand on their own, but just make more sense
with the othes.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Some players may be AWAY 
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:13:03 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > I guess I'll have to alter the voting results, then. It won't 
> > > materially affect the results, just the number of eligible voters.
> > 
> > I don't think you have to alter results that have gone, 
> just declare them to
> > be Away as of now and take it into account in future votes.
> 
> R307/0 seems to make them Away automatically, though, so I 
> think I do need
> to adjust the results from last time.

I see what you mean. I guess that means they became Away as of 00:00:00 on
11 Nov? (i.e. As soon as that Rule was created.)

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: AWAY 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:07:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> The following is a new Proposal entitled "AWAY players - slight change"
> 
> Change the second sentence of rule 307 to read as follows:
> 
> If at any time a player has not voted in the last three nweeks the
> Administrator shall, within a reasonable amount of time, grant them the
> [Away] attribute by posting a message to that effect to the public forum.
> 
> _____
> 
> [[I know this is but a slight modification, but it fixes the
> retroactive problem when we only notice the "Away" afterwards, and it also
> means that we will be warned when we are declared Away.]]
> 
> 
> Poulenc.
 
Definately a good change. Ensuring that everything happens in the present is alwyas a postive thing.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: P346, Transferable Voting
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:36:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Can you explain how this is supposed to work? I've read the Proposal twice now and I don't understand it.

Also, if you repeal R224, what's to prevent me from casting 300! votes?

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:15:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P346, Transferable Voting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Can you explain how this is supposed to work? I've read the Proposal twice now and I don't understand it.
> 
> Also, if you repeal R224, what's to prevent me from casting 300! votes? 

There is nothing to stop you from casting 300! votes, if you can find 300!
New Transferable Votes to cast them with.

Under Transferable Voting, at the start of the voting period, the Admin
distributes to each player one Transferable Vote for each ballot item. The
players can trade or do whatever they like with these votes, and then cast
them on the particular items they are for.  This records their vote for
the round.  Only one vote can be cast per token, but if you can get hold
of two tokens for one proposal then there is nothing that stops you from
casting two votes on that proposal.

poulenc.

PS. I think it might still have a couple of security holes, so I will
revise it yet again.  Also to finish bringing it in line with the new
object system.

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:49:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tax and Spend
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I like this idea, but I am not sure what owed and owing mean in context of
the game.  Are they equivalent to orders to transfer points?  Or are they
some kind of more delayed payment thing.  Please explain.

Poulenc.

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:19:20 +0000
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:
> 
> P344/0, R227/2 Amendment, by The Kid
> P345/0, Object proposal, by Joel Uckelman
> P346/0, Transferable Voting!, by Poulenc
> P347/0, The Bank, by Poulenc
> P348/0, Extra Votes, by Poulenc
> P349/0, The Officer of Bean Counting, by Poulenc
> P350/0, Points are transferrable objects, by Poulenc
> P351/0, AWAY players - slight change, by Poulenc
> P352/0, Salaries for Officers and Judges, by Poulenc

'The Officer of Bean Counting' was my proposal, not Poulenc's. Although
it was an easy mistake to make, nearly everything else was his!

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:41:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tax and Spend
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have proposed, in the banking proposal, a way that an agent can petition
to have debts owed to them required to be paid.  Why don't we try to
create some kind of way to handle (and protect) any bankrupt agent, not
just the bank.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tax and Spend 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:34:46 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> I like this idea, but I am not sure what owed and owing mean in context of
> the game.  Are they equivalent to orders to transfer points?  Or are they
> some kind of more delayed payment thing.  Please explain.
> 
> Poulenc.
>

E.g, in the time between the end of voting and the Banker paying out Points from voting, the Bank owes various Agents Points. The reverse applies to the Tax Collector. Possibly I should make this explicit, but I thought the Proposal defining the Banker did this, at least for that Office.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:36:49 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> I revise P350/0, Points are transferrable objects, by appending the
> following paragraph to the amended version of rule 121:
> 
> Upon the enactment of this rule, the previously-existing score of each
> player is converted into a number of points such that the score before and
> after the enactment is exactly the same.  The administrator may not
> perform any scoring operations resulting from the end of voting until this
> has been done.  This paragraph will then self-delete.
> 
> _____
> Poulenc
 
Um, what does this do? Scores are already measured in Points. Making them Objects or transferrable just adds another characteristic to them. I don't see the need for conversion.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:41:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth andy_harrison:
> Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > 
> > The following Proposals are recognized:
> > 
> > P344/0, R227/2 Amendment, by The Kid
> > P345/0, Object proposal, by Joel Uckelman
> > P346/0, Transferable Voting!, by Poulenc
> > P347/0, The Bank, by Poulenc
> > P348/0, Extra Votes, by Poulenc
> > P349/0, The Officer of Bean Counting, by Poulenc
> > P350/0, Points are transferrable objects, by Poulenc
> > P351/0, AWAY players - slight change, by Poulenc
> > P352/0, Salaries for Officers and Judges, by Poulenc
> 
> 'The Officer of Bean Counting' was my proposal, not Poulenc's. Although
> it was an easy mistake to make, nearly everything else was his!
> 
> --
> The Kid

I checked on the page and found that I attributed it correctly there, so the problem is fixed.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: New religious text to be added. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:56:25 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is a new Proposal titled "Nomic: not just a game but a way
> of life!"
> 
> Append "The Rules of this game" to the list of recognized religious texts
> in rule 302.
> _____
> 
> Poulenc.

Depending on how R302 is interpreted, this would cause everyone who submits a Proposal--or very nearly so-- to be a Humble Disciple. Why? Here is the relevant portion of R302:

"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."

There has yet to be a Proposal that, if adopted, would not "cause the creation or alteration of a rule". Of course, these changes would become part of the Rules, which would qualify them as part of a "Recognized Religious Text". So, virtually any successful Proposal would contain a part of the Rules, since that's the very nature of Proposals.

Even if the timing is restricted such that the determination is made prior to the adoption of Proposals, many Proposals will easily contain "one or more complete sentences totaling fifteen or more words" from the existing Rules.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Revision: The Bank 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:00:26 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is the first revision of my proposal 347
> 
> [[This is a major revision.  I have essentially rewritten the whole thing
> here and added in a lot of stuff, including rules for dealing with
> debtors, ways for the Banker to act on behalf of the bank, Motions
> submittable by any agent that can require (and allow) the bank to take a
> wide variety of actions.]]
> 
> 
> Enact a rule entitled "The Bank" with text as follows:
> 
> The Bank is an agent, but not an eligible voter.
> 
> If a debt owed the Bank is overdue the Bank may submit a Motion for
> Repayment of that debt, at the discretion of the Banker.
> 
> A Bank Motion is a motion that, once submitted, becomes a Ballot Item on
> the next nweekly voting.  A Bank Motion should describe one or more
> actions to be performed by the Bank.  If it passes, a Motive Order is
> issued for the Bank to perform those actions.
> _____
> 
> Enact a rule entitled "The Banker" with text as follows:
> 
> The Office of The Banker is an elective office.  It is the responsibility
> of the Banker to post actions to the public forum for the Bank.  There are
> some decisions that must be made and some actions that must be performed
> by the bank.  This office acts as the decision-making and
> action-performing part of the Bank.
> 
> If a CFJ finds that the Banker has not allowed the Bank to perform its
> required duties within a reasonable length of time e is expelled from the
> office and fined fifty points.
> 
> It is up to the Banker to decide what actions the Bank will take, and post
> those actions to the public forum.  Eir nweekly report should include a
> summary of all actions taken by the Bank in that nweek, and also a list of
> the scores of each player and all debts owed by or owed to the bank.

Why should the Banker be responsible for Player's scores? Shouldn't the Bean Counter do that, especially since the Bean Counter (if we have one) will be doing that anyway?

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:33:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: New religious text
 to be added. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Depending on how R302 is interpreted, this would cause everyone who
> submits a Proposal--or very nearly so-- to be a Humble Disciple. Why?
> Here is the relevant portion of R302:
> 
> "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."
> 
> There has yet to be a Proposal that, if adopted, would not "cause the
> creation or alteration of a rule". Of course, these changes would
> become part of the Rules, which would qualify them as part of a
> "Recognized Religious Text". So, virtually any successful Proposal
> would contain a part of the Rules, since that's the very nature of
> Proposals.
> 
> Even if the timing is restricted such that the determination is made
> prior to the adoption of Proposals, many Proposals will easily contain
> "one or more complete sentences totaling fifteen or more words" from
> the existing Rules.

Not quite true.  Rule 302 only kicks in if the proposal would "...cause
the creation or alteration of a rule so that the rule would subsequently
contain the text of one or more verses..."

This means that a quote of a pre-existing rule would not, in itself, cause
the proposer to become a humble disciple.  It is fairly clear that the
point at which the proposer may become a holy disciple is a before their
proposal is passed, so I do not think that we need have a dispute about
that.

Now all we need to worry about are rule amendments that keep the rule
substantially the same, and new rules that actually quote old rules.

Anyway, I have as my root argument on this one that it is the most logical
and sensible thing to do, considering the nature of the proposal and the
nature of this game.  To leave this very game off the list of recognised
religions would be a heresy in itself.

;-) Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Salary proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:39:50 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is a revised version of my proposal 352.
> _____
> 
> [[I have made this compatible with Joel's proposal and my idea for a debt
> system]]
> 
> Enact a new rule with the title "Salaries for Officers and Judges" and
> with text as follows:
> 
> The Offical Salary and the Judicial Salary are values associated with this
> game.  They may be changed only as specified by the rules.  Initially, the
> value of each is zero.
> 
> At the end of each nweek, the bank owes one Official Salary, in points, to
> each agent who hold one or more paid offices.  An agent that holds
> multiple offices cannot recieve more that one Official Salary.
> 
> When a judge returns a judgement, the bank owes one Judicial Salary to
> em.
> 
> Once per nweek, with a post to the public forum, the Banker may set the
> values of the Official Salary and the Judicial Salary such that the value
> of each is neither less than zero nor greater than twenty.
> 
> _____
> 
> Poulenc
 
Two suggestions:

1. You probably mean "holds" instead of "hold" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

2. The third paragraph of R237/2 sets the the Judicial Salary at present. Most likely you should include in this proposal an Order to strike that paragraph.

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:37:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Revision: The Bank
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Why should the Banker be responsible for Player's scores? Shouldn't
> the Bean Counter do that, especially since the Bean Counter (if we
> have one) will be doing that anyway?
> 

errr... yeah. 

For that matter, why not combine the offices!  I will change banker to
bean counter in my proposal, and then one person can do both.

Poulenc. 

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:40:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Salary proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>  
> Two suggestions:
> 
> 1. You probably mean "holds" instead of "hold" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
> 
> 2. The third paragraph of R237/2 sets the the Judicial Salary at present. Most likely you should include in this proposal an Order to strike that paragraph.

Of course.  I'm full of mistakes today!
 Poulenc

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:45:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tax and Spend 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> E.g, in the time between the end of voting and the Banker paying out
> Points from voting, the Bank owes various Agents Points. The reverse
> applies to the Tax Collector. Possibly I should make this explicit,
> but I thought the Proposal defining the Banker did this, at least for
> that Office.

Yes but what did you actually mean in terms of the game.  I don't
understand the details of your usage of the word "owes" here.  Does it
agree with how I have begun to define it in my banking proposal, or were
you thinking of something different?

Poulenc.

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:49:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal recognition 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>  Um, what does this do? Scores are already measured in Points. Making
> them Objects or transferrable just adds another characteristic to
> them. I don't see the need for conversion.
>  

Well, right now the functional object is the player score, and "points"
are a convenient term for measuring it.  If the proposal passes, the
functional object will be the point, and "score" will be a convenient way
of talking about a lot of them.

If I was in a game where that happened, I might try to scam the difference
with a cleverly worded action and RFJ.  I might either try to set all
players' scores to zero, or get myself a lot of free points.

I am quite pleased with my score in this game so far and I would hate to
see it all dissapear just because someone made a cleverly-worded RFJ.
Therefore, I have tried to cover all the possible (even if unlikely)
mis-interpretations of my rule and keep it as free of scams as I can.  If
you really think this is unnescessary then I will remove it, but otherwise
I would like to keep it in, just in case.

poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Revision: The Bank 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:02:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> > 
> > Why should the Banker be responsible for Player's scores? Shouldn't
> > the Bean Counter do that, especially since the Bean Counter (if we
> > have one) will be doing that anyway?
> > 
> 
> errr... yeah. 
> 
> For that matter, why not combine the offices!  I will change banker to
> bean counter in my proposal, and then one person can do both.
> 
> Poulenc. 

I think I like it better with them seperate. Then an independent officer will be in charge of the accounting, and would be able to stay out of conflicts between the Tax Collector and Banker over monetary policy.

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 01:00:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Motion to Add 1 received unanimous consent about a minute or so ago, so M'cachessilnath is now a Player.
> 
> Everyone say "hi" to Chess.
>  

"Hi," Chess.

I'm poulenc.  I don't really make as many proposals as it looks like I do,
it's just that the ones I _do_ make are alway full of mistakes and have to
be revised five or twenty times before they are ready.

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: New religious te
	xt to be added. 
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:13:17 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I agree, there are just too many possible conflicts with this. Adding new
RT's is good, but I don't think the Rules themselves can be used.

--
The Kid

> Quoth Dan Waldron:
> > 
> > The following is a new Proposal titled "Nomic: not just a 
> game but a way
> > of life!"
> > 
> > Append "The Rules of this game" to the list of recognized 
> religious texts
> > in rule 302.
> > _____
> > 
> > Poulenc.
> 
> Depending on how R302 is interpreted, this would cause 
> everyone who submits a Proposal--or very nearly so-- to be a 
> Humble Disciple. Why? Here is the relevant portion of R302:
> 
> "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."
> 
> There has yet to be a Proposal that, if adopted, would not 
> "cause the creation or alteration of a rule". Of course, 
> these changes would become part of the Rules, which would 
> qualify them as part of a "Recognized Religious Text". So, 
> virtually any successful Proposal would contain a part of the 
> Rules, since that's the very nature of Proposals.
> 
> Even if the timing is restricted such that the determination 
> is made prior to the adoption of Proposals, many Proposals 
> will easily contain "one or more complete sentences totaling 
> fifteen or more words" from the existing Rules.
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Revision: The Ban
	k 
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:19:07 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yeah, if you are going to have a Bank with a player acting as Banker, they
are hacing a lot to do already. It would be better to have the seperate
officer keeping track of all the Objects cos there seems that there are
going to be a lot of them. The point of the Officers is so that the
Administrator doesn't have to do all the work, so the more we split it up,
the better. There is nothing stopping one player holding two or more
Offices.

--
The Kid

> Quoth Dan Waldron:
> > > 
> > > Why should the Banker be responsible for Player's scores? 
> Shouldn't
> > > the Bean Counter do that, especially since the Bean Counter (if we
> > > have one) will be doing that anyway?
> > > 
> > 
> > errr... yeah. 
> > 
> > For that matter, why not combine the offices!  I will 
> change banker to
> > bean counter in my proposal, and then one person can do both.
> > 
> > Poulenc. 
> 
> I think I like it better with them seperate. Then an 
> independent officer will be in charge of the accounting, and 
> would be able to stay out of conflicts between the Tax 
> Collector and Banker over monetary policy.
>   
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new Player
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:20:04 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Motion to Add 1 received unanimous consent about a minute or 
> so ago, so M'cachessilnath is now a Player.
> 
> Everyone say "hi" to Chess.
> 

Hi Chess.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new Player
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:22:45 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'm poulenc.  I don't really make as many proposals as it 
> looks like I do,
> it's just that the ones I _do_ make are alway full of 
> mistakes and have to
> be revised five or twenty times before they are ready.

Poulenc, I haven't actually counted how many proposals you have submitted at
the moment, but I thought I'd draw your attention to Rule "An Agent may
never own more than ten live Motions of any one type" just in case.

--
The Kid

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tax and Spend
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:19:53 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Whenever a Proposal fails, the Bank is owed:
> 
> 1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner"

And owes the Opposed Minority Award to agents who voted for it?

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Proposal 346
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:35:28 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Repeal rule 224 [[This allows one vote and one vote only.  This is
> unnescessary, even a hinderance since player will now vote through the
> use of the NTVs rather than the old system.]]

You still need to state in your NTV proposal somewhere that this is the only
way by which eligable voters can place votes on ballot items, otherwise you
run into the 'whatever is not restricted is permitted' rule and problems
occur.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tax and Spend 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:44:04 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Chess":
> > Whenever a Proposal fails, the Bank is owed:
> > 
> > 1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner"
> 
> And owes the Opposed Minority Award to agents who voted for it?

By R231, Opposed Minority Scoring applies only to adopted Proposals. It would be interesting to apply it to every Proposal, though.

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:13:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Proposal 346
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> You still need to state in your NTV proposal somewhere that this is the only
> way by which eligable voters can place votes on ballot items, otherwise you
> run into the 'whatever is not restricted is permitted' rule and problems
> occur.

That is already in there.  Towards the end of the third paragraph of the
proposed rule (counting the comments) is "No vote may be cast except
through this use and consequent destruction of a New Transferable Vote."
I added that sentence in the last revision to fix precicely the security
problem you describe.

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:21:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Poulenc, I haven't actually counted how many proposals you have submitted at
> the moment, but I thought I'd draw your attention to Rule "An Agent may
> never own more than ten live Motions of any one type" just in case.

Well lets see.

I have submitted:
Banking,
NTVs,
Points,
Religion,
Salary,
AWAY fix,
Extra Votes

There are also two that I started to sumbmit but recinded
Objects,
The game as an agent.

They were from the earlier versions of the ideas that the other proposals
use.

So I only have seven.  Hmm, I wonder what I will put in the last three.

Poulenc.

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:16:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Win Token Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oooh this one looks good.

> 
> 1. possesses 500 or more Points
> 2. holds some Elected Office for a full Term
> 3. renders a Judgment as a Judge

It's just that I don't like the conditions very much.  Perhaps we could
buy a win token from the bank for 500 points in a way similar to my Extra
Votes proposal, so you could get the required number by getting lots of
points.  It seems possible just now to get about 100 points per week, so
wins by wins by points would take quite a while.  I think that win tokens
should not be given out as a reward for giving a judgement.  The knowledge
that you are giving someone else a win token would act to prevent people
from making RFJs.

Also, what is the number of tokens required?

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Win Token Proposal 
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:18:26 CST
From: "a man who never sees a pretty girl that he doesn't love her a little" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sez:
>wins by wins by points would take quite a while.  I think that win tokens
>should not be given out as a reward for giving a judgement.  The knowledge
>that you are giving someone else a win token would act to prevent people
>from making RFJs.

Well, I read it as just a way of saying "you can't win if you aren't
active enough."

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Win Token Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:47:56 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "a man who never sees a pretty girl that he doesn't love her a little":
> 
> Dan Waldron sez:
> >wins by wins by points would take quite a while.  I think that win tokens
> >should not be given out as a reward for giving a judgement.  The knowledge
> >that you are giving someone else a win token would act to prevent people
> >from making RFJs.
> 
> Well, I read it as just a way of saying "you can't win if you aren't
> active enough."
> 
> 
> Josh

That's sort of how I meant it. Holding Office and returning a Judgment when selected as a Judge are analogous to civic duties; something like that.

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:07:14 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> Motion to Add 1 received unanimous consent about a minute or so ago, so M'cachessilnath is now a Player.
> 
> Everyone say "hi" to Chess.

Hello Chess, i'm being quiet in these days but I'm a player too :)
I am also quite overwhelmed by all the new complicated proposals, i feel like
just voting them all down *g*

Zagarna

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

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:32:23 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Roland of Gilead <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Home sweet Home
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
>"A Place is a special instance of Object, which has the additional variables
>'position', 'Player-capacity' and 'Object-capacity'. A Place may hold a
>given number of Players and a given number of Objects, and may be owned by
>more than one Player at one time. Places may be subdivided, but only into
>subcatagories such as 'rooms' which belong strictly to that Place - this
>part of this rule supersedes the relevant part of the rule entitled
>'Objects'."

Woohoo.  NomicMUD.
%)

Potter

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Still no mail. 
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:02:18 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > > I see you
> > > > have an NTL address, where abouts are you?
> > >
> > > Essex. (The first person to laugh gets the wrong side of
> my talons.)
> >
> > Don't worry, I'm the only other Brit here, and I won't tell. ;-)
>
> Well, only if you are only counting location.
>
> Dan
>

With typical SysAdmin.......

My hopes of ongoing.......

Damn, I can't think of any of the right words I'd like to use today. They're
not quite on the tip of my tongue. I hat it when I'm tired and have nothing
to blame for it.

What I wanted to say eloquently but couldn't is that they broke my mail
again. I got 11 messages including the one I sent then this one was the
last. The whole company's email has been down for the best part of a week,
so I waited patiently for them to fix it. Well they fixed the company mail,
but my Nomic stuff didn't get through.  Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!!!!

Maybe someday soon I'll get my mail back and can participate again.

XnJester.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Win Token Proposal 
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:52:13 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > >wins by wins by points would take quite a while.  I think 
> that win tokens
> > >should not be given out as a reward for giving a 
> judgement.  The knowledge
> > >that you are giving someone else a win token would act to 
> prevent people
> > >from making RFJs.
> > 
> > Well, I read it as just a way of saying "you can't win if you aren't
> > active enough."
> > 
> 
> That's sort of how I meant it. Holding Office and returning a 
> Judgment when selected as a Judge are analogous to civic 
> duties; something like that.

That was also the point of mine, so that to win you must have had a good
number of proposals pass. If they both pass I can easily make a revision to
make mine compatible with your win tokens. Unfortunately I can't modify my
proposal to do this cos it would have to add a bit to your rule, which it
can't do cos it wouldn't have been created in time cos yours is a later
proposal. Fortunately it doesn't matter if they both pass in their current
state, it just means that yours overwrites rule 211. You could always add
"4. possesses 20 or more Rules" to your "Win Tokens" Rule.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: wish list
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:09:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Once this semester is over (mid-December), I'll once again be able to 
devote time to improving the web page. A few things I intend to add:

indices for Proposals, Rules, Judgments, etc.
compressed message archives
a search feature
a categorized Ruleset

If anyone has something they'd like added to this list, let me know (--even 
if you've suggested it before.  If it didn't make it onto the list, there's 
a good chance I've forgotten about it.)

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: wish list
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:03:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Once this semester is over (mid-December), I'll once again be able to 
> devote time to improving the web page. A few things I intend to add:
> 
> indices for Proposals, Rules, Judgments, etc.
> compressed message archives
> a search feature
> a categorized Ruleset
> 
> If anyone has something they'd like added to this list, let 
> me know (--even 
> if you've suggested it before.  If it didn't make it onto the 
> list, there's 
> a good chance I've forgotten about it.)

I'd thought about the rule index myself, but it seemed to large an ongoing
job. How would you plan to do it? Would you try to automate it somehow, or
do it my hand?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: wish list 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:28:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > Once this semester is over (mid-December), I'll once again be able to 
> > devote time to improving the web page. A few things I intend to add:
> > 
> > indices for Proposals, Rules, Judgments, etc.
> > compressed message archives
> > a search feature
> > a categorized Ruleset
> > 
> > If anyone has something they'd like added to this list, let 
> > me know (--even 
> > if you've suggested it before.  If it didn't make it onto the 
> > list, there's 
> > a good chance I've forgotten about it.)
> 
> I'd thought about the rule index myself, but it seemed to large an ongoing
> job. How would you plan to do it? Would you try to automate it somehow, or
> do it my hand?

A numerical index would differ from the numerical listings only in how much 
information is displayed. Similar things could be said about a subject 
index and a (putative) categorized ruleset. So, a rule index won't be hard 
to generate automatically.

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: wish list 
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:03:02 CST
From: last chance for a slow dance <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Once this semester is over (mid-December), I'll once again be able to 
>devote time to improving the web page. A few things I intend to add:
>
>indices for Proposals, Rules, Judgments, etc.
>compressed message archives
>a search feature
>a categorized Ruleset
>
>If anyone has something they'd like added to this list, let me know (--even 
>if you've suggested it before.  If it didn't make it onto the list, there's 
>a good chance I've forgotten about it.)

I for one would like pictures of the many women the sex machine
has bedded.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: wish list 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:27:05 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth last chance for a slow dance:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sez:
> >Once this semester is over (mid-December), I'll once again be able to 
> >devote time to improving the web page. A few things I intend to add:
> >
> >indices for Proposals, Rules, Judgments, etc.
> >compressed message archives
> >a search feature
> >a categorized Ruleset
> >
> >If anyone has something they'd like added to this list, let me know (--even 
> >if you've suggested it before.  If it didn't make it onto the list, there's 
> >a good chance I've forgotten about it.)
> 
> I for one would like pictures of the many women the sex machine
> has bedded.

At Josh's behest, I'll be sure to add some pr0n to the page. :)

-- 
J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting, soon
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:51:14 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Voting begins in a little over an hour... What's left to be recognized will 
and the Ballot will be taken care of when I return from quiz bowl practice.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:27:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Private Votes made public (commentary)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> P359/0, The Name Game, by M'cachessilnath
no

I would have voted for this one except that it puts in place strict rules
about what should be capitalized and what should not.  Since my own rules
are remarkably inconsitant with regards to this sort of capitalization, I
am against the establishment of this sort of precedent.

I have another potential problem with this proposal, and that is that it
might begin to suggest a category into which this game very game might
fit.  I _know_ that this game defies categorization, and therefore I, as a
player will defy to the utmost any attempt to force a category upon it.

> P360/0, naming the nameless, by Benjamin
no

This is scary.  I don't want to get into the habit of requiring things to
have names.  Even seemingly unimportant things like rules and whatnot
could quickly set a precedent which would destabalise my argument on
certain other topics which shall remain namelss.

Let us rather celebrate an end to names and the return to smooth, flexible
game play and happy rules-wrangling.  Long live the.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:53:52 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Am I correct in saying that because I was the only player nominated for OSJ
then I get it by default, or do we still have a vote with just my name on
the ballot?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:19:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Am I correct in saying that because I was the only player nominated for OSJ
> then I get it by default, or do we still have a vote with just my name on
> the ballot?
> 
> --
> The Kid

Oh, yeah. I forgot that we have an election this time. The way I read it, 
so long as *someone* casts a vote for you, you are elected, since the 
election rule precludes write-ins.

-- 
J.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:40:51 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> Here is the Ballot for nweek 6. Voting ends at 00:00:00, 1 December 2000.
> 
> P344/0, R227/2 Amendment, by The Kid
yes

> P345/0, Object proposal, by Joel Uckelman
yes

> P346/1, Transferable Voting!, by Poulenc
no

> P347/2, The Bank, by Poulenc
no

> P348/0, Extra Votes, by Poulenc
yes

> P349/0, The Officer of Bean Counting, by The Kid
yes

> P350/1, Points are transferrable objects, by Poulenc
yes

> P351/0, AWAY players - slight change, by Poulenc
yes

> P352/2, Salaries for Officers and Judges, by Poulenc
no

> P353/0, Tax and Spend, by Joel Uckelman
yes

> P354/0, Nomic: not just a game but a way of life!, by Poulenc
no

> P355/0, Rule Cleanup, by Joel Uckelman
yes

> P356/0, Who owns the Rules?, by The Kid
no

> P357/0, Win Tokens, by Joel Uckelman
no

> P358/0, No place like home, by M'cachessilnath
yes

> P359/0, The Name Game, by M'cachessilnath
no

> P360/0, naming the nameless, by Benjamin
yes

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Why do I have 9 points.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:48:41 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi,
I'm back (I think).

Looking at the standings I note that I have risen to the lofty score of 9
points. When I look at the event log I cannot see how I was raised up to
this level. Can anyone explain it to me ?

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Why do I have 9 points. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:17:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Hi,
> I'm back (I think).
> 
> Looking at the standings I note that I have risen to the lofty score of 9
> points. When I look at the event log I cannot see how I was raised up to
> this level. Can anyone explain it to me ?
> 
> XnJester
> 

Hmm. I think this is an error, actually. By my count, you should have 2 
points. (3 + 2 + 2 - 5). I'm not sure how this happened. If the Bean 
Counter proposal passes, we should probably have everyone check their 
scores so the Bean Counter has accurate numbers from which to work. Maybe 
everyone should check their scores anyway, just in case.

-- 
J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Why do I have 9 points. 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:48:37 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Hmm. I think this is an error, actually. By my count, you 
> should have 2 
> points. (3 + 2 + 2 - 5). I'm not sure how this happened. If the Bean 
> Counter proposal passes, we should probably have everyone check their 
> scores so the Bean Counter has accurate numbers from which to 
> work. Maybe 
> everyone should check their scores anyway, just in case.

To get an accurate calculation of the scores, we need to know the individual
votes for each proposal so far.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Why do I have 9 points. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:19:22 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > Hmm. I think this is an error, actually. By my count, you 
> > should have 2 
> > points. (3 + 2 + 2 - 5). I'm not sure how this happened. If the Bean 
> > Counter proposal passes, we should probably have everyone check their 
> > scores so the Bean Counter has accurate numbers from which to 
> > work. Maybe 
> > everyone should check their scores anyway, just in case.
> 
> To get an accurate calculation of the scores, we need to know the individual
> votes for each proposal so far.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Are you sure? I think all you need to determine your score are the totals 
and how you voted. That said, I'll add the individual voting to my list o' 
things to do once the semester is over.

-- 
J.

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