Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: progress
From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:24:22 -0000

> BTW, does anyone have a preference for whether I make a 
> categorized ruleset 
> or a search script first?

Don't mind, but if you do the search script first you can use it to build
the categorised ruleset.

Hope everyone had an enjoyable Christmas and New Year.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: search
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:28:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've added a search form to the main page. It should accept most regular 
expressions, but its output will be rather ill-formatted until I hack on it 
some more.

Immanent additions:
-- checkboxes for including/excluding various pages from the search

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: contests
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:30:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A new Proposal and two changes:

----

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

A Contest is structure within the Game consisting of Contest Rules, 
Contestants, Prizes, and a Contestmaster.

An Agent may become a Contestant of a Contest by publicly consenting to 
inclusion in it, and by meeting any other qualifications established by the 
Contest Rules. Contest Rules are binding on Contestants, but may not 
supersede any Game Rules.

----

Strike everything in the P362, the Political Go Proposal, up to the clause 
which creates the Political Go Rule. Replace "Subgame Administrator" with 
"Contestmaster". Replace "Go player" with "Go Contestant". Replace 
"Subgame" with "Contest".

Append the following paragraph: 

"The first Go Consul is Joel Uckelman. Thereafter, the winner of the 
previous game shall become Go Consul."

----

Also, amend the P361 to read:

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

Paper-Rock-Scissors is a Contest for exactly two Contestants. To play, each 
Contestant shall notify the Contestmaster of eir choice of paper, rock, or 
scissors. Once the Contestmaster has received the selections of both 
Contestants, e shall announce a winner and transfer the Prizes to em.

The Contestmaster shall determine the winner as follows:

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

In the event that both Contestants make the same selection, neither wins, 
and the Contest must be repeated.

The winner of the previous Paper-Rock-Scissors becomes its new 
Contestmaster.

----
-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: C/RG
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:33:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I like the ideas in P372-3 and am interested in trying this. In order to 
avoid confusion, though, it might be better if those in charge of such 
games were not called "Admins". Also, would Benjamin be interested in 
adapting this Proposal to fit with my Contest Proposal?

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: oops
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:12:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I was wondering what happened to those messages that I sent while the list 
was down. They can safely be ignored, they're just duplicates.

-- 
J.

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: testing, ignore
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:15:11 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel,
I got this message but the list messages aren't getting through. I've been
on vacation and my sysadmin's been on vacation. The word from head office is
that they're not likely to fix it up for me. (Why spend company time and
effort on ensuring that private mailing works). So, it's not looking good
for me. I'll probably keep an (infrequent) eye on the website, but I know
I'm going to miss a lot as; 1. It's too hard to read the mail from the
on-line archives & 2. Work are cracking down on surfing during business
hours (even during lunch breaks) as it slows the network down. Don't worry
too much about it, I think I'll just have to find some other way to waste my
lunch hours. Don't unsubscribe me yet though. I'm not dead yet. (Yes, you
are. No I'm not. I can't take him.....)

Yours Sincerely,

XnJester

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joel Uckelman
> Sent: Sunday, 7 January, 2001 3:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: testing, ignore
>
>
> Test to see if XnJester receives this message.
>
> --
> J.
>
>
>

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: testing, ignore 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:32:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Joel,
> I got this message but the list messages aren't getting through.

I don't follow. This *was* a message from the list!

> I've been
> on vacation and my sysadmin's been on vacation. The word from head office is
> that they're not likely to fix it up for me. (Why spend company time and
> effort on ensuring that private mailing works). So, it's not looking good
> for me. I'll probably keep an (infrequent) eye on the website, but I know
> I'm going to miss a lot as; 1. It's too hard to read the mail from the
> on-line archives & 2. Work are cracking down on surfing during business
> hours (even during lunch breaks) as it slows the network down. Don't worry
> too much about it, I think I'll just have to find some other way to waste my
> lunch hours. Don't unsubscribe me yet though. I'm not dead yet. (Yes, you
> are. No I'm not. I can't take him.....)
> 
> Yours Sincerely,
> 
> XnJester
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joel Uckelman
> > Sent: Sunday, 7 January, 2001 3:24 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: spoon-business: testing, ignore
> >
> >
> > Test to see if XnJester receives this message.
> >
> > --
> > J.
> >
> >
> >

-- 
J.

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: testing, ignore 
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:37:14 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel,
It looks like you've fixed the problem for me then. I've had 3 other
messages since that one (one of which was mine).

ThankyouE12

Yours Sincerely,

XnJester

> Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> > Joel,
> > I got this message but the list messages aren't getting through.
>
> I don't follow. This *was* a message from the list!

<snip, snip, snip>

> > >
> > > Test to see if XnJester receives this message.
> > >
> > > --
> > > J.

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:03:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Don't forget to vote!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is just a reminder to everyone to vote.  I voted and so should you.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Don't forget to vote! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:01:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> This is just a reminder to everyone to vote.  I voted and so should you.
> 
> Poulenc

Yeah. Or we'll send the thugs after you. I know where you receive email.

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:36:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Calendar vs Clock
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The calendar at www.nomic.net/~g1/ is one day out of sync with the clock
on the same page.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Calendar vs Clock 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:00:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The calendar at www.nomic.net/~g1/ is one day out of sync with the clock
> on the same page.
> 

Thanks for noticing that. It's fixed now. While I was at it, it occured to 
me that the days of the week heading for each month was hopelessly screwed 
up. Since the game started on a Monday and there are 10 days in a nweek, it 
read:

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We

Sharp observers will notice that this is not cyclic as it should be, since 
Monday never immediately follows Wednesday. Why the impossibility of this 
didn't occur to me when I coded it I'm not sure.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting results
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:02:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Huzzah! We did get a quorum this time, so things can start happening again. 
I'll tally the votes either before I go to bed or in the morning.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Calendar vs Clock 
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:03:07 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Sharp observers will notice that this is not cyclic as it should be, since 
>Monday never immediately follows Wednesday. Why the impossibility of this 
>didn't occur to me when I coded it I'm not sure.

I don't think it's a priori true that Monday never follows Wednesday.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Calendar vs Clock 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:06:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Josh:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sez:
> >Sharp observers will notice that this is not cyclic as it should be, since 
> >Monday never immediately follows Wednesday. Why the impossibility of this 
> >didn't occur to me when I coded it I'm not sure.
> 
> I don't think it's a priori true that Monday never follows Wednesday.

I think I can confidently say that there has never been a Wednesday 
immediately followed by a Monday--even during September 1752 when the 
Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian, which resulted in the day 
after the 2nd being the 14th, 2 Sept. was Wednesday and 14 Sept was a 
Thursday. Names of weekdays, though strictly a convention, are not likely 
to be altered (cf. the French Revolution, though). So, though it is not 
impossible for our system to change, it remains impossible for Monday to 
immediately follow Wednesday within the system we currently use. I believe 
Kant might say that it's a priori synthetic, actually, since the names of 
days come from experience, while the structure onto which they are mapped 
is a purely mathematical object (natural numbers mod 7, I think).

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Calendar vs Clock 
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:12:12 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Quoth Josh:
>> 
>> Joel Uckelman sez:
>> >Sharp observers will notice that this is not cyclic as it should be, since 
>> >Monday never immediately follows Wednesday. Why the impossibility of this 
>> >didn't occur to me when I coded it I'm not sure.
>> 
>> I don't think it's a priori true that Monday never follows Wednesday.
>
>I think I can confidently say that there has never been a Wednesday 
>immediately followed by a Monday--even during September 1752 when the 
>Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian, which resulted in the day 
>after the 2nd being the 14th, 2 Sept. was Wednesday and 14 Sept was a 
>Thursday. Names of weekdays, though strictly a convention, are not likely 
>to be altered (cf. the French Revolution, though). So, though it is not 
>impossible for our system to change, it remains impossible for Monday to 
>immediately follow Wednesday within the system we currently use. I believe 
>Kant might say that it's a priori synthetic, actually, since the names of 
>days come from experience, while the structure onto which they are mapped 
>is a purely mathematical object (natural numbers mod 7, I think).

Boy, prick a philosopher, and you don't just get blood, you get
eleven lines of text. :)

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: similarity game
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:15:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey Similarity Officer, where's the game for this week? (I want to play.)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: page idea
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:45:58 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Would anyone find useful a "Recent Changes" page for the Rules?

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:10:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: page idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Would anyone find useful a "Recent Changes" page for the Rules?

I think perhaps a sorted-by-date-passed index of proposals would serve the
same purpose.

and why can't I sleep at 7 in the morning?!?!!?!

- 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: page idea
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:07:27 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> 
> and why can't I sleep at 7 in the morning?!?!!?!
> 

Cos your alarm went off?

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:04:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Award values
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I will set the award values to something reasonable, but this time I will
do it towards the end of the nweek so I have some idea of how many
proposals there will be.

Treasurer, could I ask you to set the penalty to something reasonable?    
The bank is now quite wealthy and I am not.                          

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Award values 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:13:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> I will set the award values to something reasonable, but this time I will
> do it towards the end of the nweek so I have some idea of how many
> proposals there will be.
> 
> Treasurer, could I ask you to set the penalty to something reasonable?    
> The bank is now quite wealthy and I am not.                          
> 
> Poulenc

Tax Collector, you mean? We don't have a Treasurer.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:26:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Award values 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Treasurer, could I ask you to set the penalty to something reasonable?    
> > The bank is now quite wealthy and I am not.                          
> 
> Tax Collector, you mean? We don't have a Treasurer.
> 

Yeah. That's what I mean.

I'm not sure I like the proposal.  I know it would let me off the hook for
my personal bankrupcy but I'm still not happy with it.  I think there is
another problem that we have overlooked.  This is that there are not, at
present time, enough points in the system to make it work.  I think we
need to add enough points to the game that the Bank has some margin of
error before becoming bankrupt.

I can't remember if you have ordered me to transfer myself an extra vote
yet.  I paid lots of points for that vote.  I think I'd like to have it in
two nweeks time when my motion for repayment comes up.  I remember I put
the Admin into that to add a delay so the banker couldn't get an extra
vote without an appropriate waiting period.  Ack!

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:12:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Award values 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[I'll take this as the order to transfer
> 
> So, I'll recognize Poulenc's purchase of an Extra Vote.
]]

The Bank transfers one extra vote to Poulenc.

poulenc.

Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:44:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: similarity officer name
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I wanted the position now known as the similarity officer to have a much
cooler and interesting sounding name, but for lack of imagination (and
sensible mnemonics) I used a plain title.  (I was trying to think up a
title with the mnemonic SAUCE, but failed).
Suggestions anyone?

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Motion of non confidence 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:18:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Motions of non confidence"
> 
> _____
> 
> Enact a new rule entitled "Motions of non confidence" and with text as
> follows:
> 
> A Motion of non confidence is a secondary approvable motion used to evict
> an elected officer who loses the support of the voters.  Upon submission,
> the submitter must specify the elected office to be targeted.  A Motion of
> non confidence may not be subject to unanimous consent and requires a
> passage ratio of two-thirds.
> 
> Upon the adotion of the motion of non confidence the term of the targeted
> office is set to expire at the end of the current nweek.
> _____
> 
> Poulenc

There's already a Rule for this: 315. I like this version better, though. 
Perhaps you want to amend 315 instead.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Motion of non confidence (fwd) 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:02:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> [[Drat.  That's what I get for not reading the ruleset first.  Here it
> goes again.  This brings the existing rule into line with the electoral
> system.]]
> 
> I rescind my attempt to create a new proposal entitled "Motions of non
> confidence."
> 
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Officers and Gentlemen Fix"
> 
> _____
> Amend rule 315 by changing it to read as follows:
> 
> A Motion of non confidence is a secondary approvable motion used to evict
> an elected officer who loses the support of the voters.  The motion must
> specify the elected office to be targeted.  A Motion of non confidence may
> not be subject to unanimous consent and requires a passage ratio of
> two-thirds.
> 
> Upon the adotion of the motion of non confidence the term of the targeted
> office is set to expire at the end of the current nweek.
> _____
> 
> Poulenc

Why not change the title of the Rule as well? That would make it easier to 
find.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal - Motion of non confidance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:05:00 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> [[Okay, one last time]]
> 
> I rescind my previous attempt to create a proposal.
> 
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Motions of no confidance"
> 
> _____
> 
> Amend rule 315 by changing its title to "Motions of no 
> confidance" and by
> replacing its text with the following two paragraphs:
> 
> A Motion of non confidence is a secondary approvable motion 
> used to evict
> an elected officer who loses the support of the voters.  The 
> motion must
> specify the elected office to be targeted.  A Motion of non 
> confidence may
> not be subject to unanimous consent and requires a passage ratio of
> two-thirds.
> 
> Upon the adotion of the motion of non confidence the term of 
> the targeted
> office is set to expire at the end of the current nweek.
> 

Why not kick them out of office immediately and have the Administrator take
over till the election?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal - Motion of non 
 confidance
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:05:15 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > 
> > [[Okay, one last time]]
> > 
> > I rescind my previous attempt to create a proposal.
> > 
> > The following is a new proposal entitled "Motions of no confidance"
> > 
> > _____
> > 
> > Amend rule 315 by changing its title to "Motions of no 
> > confidance" and by
> > replacing its text with the following two paragraphs:
> > 
> > A Motion of non confidence is a secondary approvable motion 
> > used to evict
> > an elected officer who loses the support of the voters.  The 
> > motion must
> > specify the elected office to be targeted.  A Motion of non 
> > confidence may
> > not be subject to unanimous consent and requires a passage ratio of
> > two-thirds.
> > 
> > Upon the adotion of the motion of non confidence the term of 
> > the targeted
> > office is set to expire at the end of the current nweek.
> > 
> 
> Why not kick them out of office immediately and have the Administrator take
> over till the election?
> 
> --
> The Kid

If we remove an Officer this way, it's probably because they're doing bad 
things or not doing their job, so I'd have to agree with The Kid.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: NomicHome 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:26:18 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Chess":
> Enact a Rule entitled "Home Alone" with the following text:
> 
> A NomicHome is a particular instance of Place as defined by the relevant
> rule. Every Player in A Nomic automatically owns a NomicHome.
> 
> A NomicHome has the following properties, changable by the owner:
> 
> Location: initially NomicTown
> Name: initially <PlayerName>'s Home
> Description: initially 'A boring house'
> Contents: initially just the Player who is the owner of the NomicHome
> Value: initially 0 points
> 
> All properties except Contents of a NomicHome can be assigned arbitary
> values, and the NomicHomes can be bought and sold in the same manner as any
> Object. Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere
> acquired, adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player
> already present.
> 
> To assign a new value to one or more properties of their NomicHome, a Player
> must post such modifications to any public forum, and these will be treated
> as a two-day unanimous consent motion [to allow for changes insulting anyone
> to be barred].
> 
> Anyone who quotes more than a sentance (or 10 words; minimum 4 words) of
> another Player's NomicHome description in their NomicHome description must
> pay that Player a fine of half the value of their NomicHome nweekly until
> they have submitted a modification to rectify the matter.
> [if you want the description, buy the home from the player!]

I would like to go on record saying that I like this Proposal, and look 
forward to owning my very own NomicHome.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Parties
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:33:36 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Poulenc, do you mean for section 3 of your Parties Proposal to constitute a 
Rule as well? If you do, you should probably include the clause to create a 
Rule from it. (I'm not sure what it will do without that, actually---a 
matter for the Courts, I guess.)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Extra Vote fix 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:08:56 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Extra Vote fix"
> ______
> amend rule 320 by changing both instances of "100" in the rule text to
> "50"
> ______
> 
> Poulenc

So, after buying one, you think it's too expensive, eh?

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:10:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Extra Vote fix 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> So, after buying one, you think it's too expensive, eh?

yup.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Negative Voting 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:53:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Foully voting AGAINST every
> single proposal on every ballot really drives me up the wall you will know
> if youre the one im talking to i really think something ought to be done
> about this blatant misuse of democratic principles and this is a holy
> crusade to restore truth and honor and justice and liberty to the world of
> nomic and anyone who stands against shall have to suffer the wrath of
> uuuuh me."
> 
> Enact a new rule, titled "Against negative voting" with text as follows:
> 
> If, on a ballot containing at least five proposals, an agent is found to
> vote against at least three and for no proposals then that agent shall owe
> a debt of 20 points to the first agent to point out eir breach of good
> conduct within three nweeks of the offence.
> 
> _____
> 
> Poulenc

Hmm. I'm not sure I like this. What if someone makes a slew of awful 
Proposals and I want to abstain on everything else? I'd still be penalized, 
since I didn't vote in favor of anything.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Mediocraty 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:56:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> Create a new proposal entitled "Mediocraty" with text as follows:
> _______
> 
> Enact a new rule entitled "C/RG: Mediocraty" with text as follows:
> 
> The Mediocraty game is an instance of a Challenge/Response game with the
> following attributes:
> 
> game name:  Mediocraty sub-game
> admin title: the Supremely Mediocre
> duration: until repealed
> repetetive: when finished
> entry fee: 2
> 
> The initial S.M should specify what limits are being used for the game
> set. The limits may contrain quantities that include those described below
> or others.  The bracketed number following each quantity is recommended as
> the minimum for that quantity.  However these quantities are only
> guidelines and do not determine compliance.  In some cases a maximum will
> also be listed here.
> 
> The limits may include: 
> 
> (x) The level of mediocraty game to be played (min. 1)
> (y) The number of players required for the C/R game to start (min 3) 
> (z) The number of level n-1 sub-games to play as part of each level n
> game.
> 
> The S.M is encouraged to be creative and come up with other limits that
> may apply to Mediocraty games.
> 
> A level n game of mediocraty sub-game consists of z n-1 sub games, unless
> n=1 in which case it consists of z individual challenges.
> 
> The challenge shall use the following form:  The S.M shall post to the
> public forum a message announcing the sub-game and asking players to
> submit their quantities.  Players then have three days to respond with
> their quantites by private email.
> 
> A valid entry specifies one quantity.
> 
> At the conclusion of a level n Mediocraty sub-game the winner is
> determined.  If n is greater than 1 the winner is the participant who won
> the most mediocre number of level n-1 sub-games during that level n game;
> that is whose number of level n-1 wins is exceeded by as many participants
> as it exceeds.  The winner of a level 1 sub-game is the player whose
> specified quantity is the most mediocre.
> 
> Prizes shall not be awarded for individual challenges making up a larger
> mediocraty game.  Instead, at the conclusion of the game announced by the
> first S.M of the game the entire collection of all entry fees
> collected for the individual challenges that made up that game
> shall be paid to the winner.  This is an exception to rule 336.
> 
> _______

Mediocrity is spelled "Mediocrity". :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Motion to Add or Remove Points. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:20:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Motions to Create or Destroy
> Points"
> 
> 1. Enact a new rule entitled "The Motion to Create points", with text
> as follows:
> 
> The Motion to Create Points is a Unilateral Secondary motion that may be
> submitted only by the Administrator.  It should specify a number of points
> to be created.  The Motion to Create Points does not take affect until the
> Banker and the Tax Collector both publicly announce eir consent.  Once
> created, the Motion to Create Points may not be revised, but may be
> withdrawn by its owner or the Administrator.  When the Motion to Create
> Points takes effect, a numer of points equal to the specified number shall
> be created, owned by the Bank.
> 
> 2. Enact a new rule entitled "The Motion to Destroy Points", with text as
> follows:
> 
> The Motion to Destroy Points is a Unilateral Secondary motion that may be
> submitted only by the Administrator.  It should specify a number of points
> to be destroyed.  The Motion to Destroy Points does not take affect until
> the Banker and the Tax Collector both publicly announce eir consent.  
> Once created, the Motion to Destroy Points may not be revised, but may be
> withdrawn by its owner or the Administrator.  When the Motion to Create
> Points takes effect, a number of points owned by the bank equal to the
> specified number are destroyed, provided that the bank owns at least that
> many points.  If the bank owns fewer points than the specified number then
> the Motion has no effect.
> ______
> 
> 
> Poulenc

A comment: is this intended to be amended eventually to allow others to 
make these motions? Otherwise, why state that the owner or the 
Administrator can withdraw the Motion, since they would be the same? Also, 
I was hoping to get the Admin out of the business of regulating the "money" 
supply. :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Negative Voting 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:24:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Foully voting AGAINST every
> single proposal on every ballot really drives me up the wall you will know
> if youre the one im talking to i really think something ought to be done
> about this blatant misuse of democratic principles and this is a holy
> crusade to restore truth and honor and justice and liberty to the world of
> nomic and anyone who stands against shall have to suffer the wrath of
> uuuuh me."
> 
> Enact a new rule, titled "Against negative voting" with text as follows:
> 
> If, on a ballot containing at least five proposals, an agent is found to
> vote against at least three and for no proposals then that agent shall owe
> a debt of 20 points to the first agent to point out eir breach of good
> conduct within three nweeks of the offence.
> 
> _____
> 
> Poulenc

Sorry, this is not a legal Proposal, since its title exceeds the maximum 
length for names, as established in Rule 2/0. Keep it at 255 characters or 
less, please. :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Negative Voting 
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:26:59 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Quoth Dan Waldron:
>> 
>> The following is a new proposal entitled "Foully voting AGAINST every
>> single proposal on every ballot really drives me up the wall you will know
>> if youre the one im talking to i really think something ought to be done
>> about this blatant misuse of democratic principles and this is a holy
>> crusade to restore truth and honor and justice and liberty to the world of
>> nomic and anyone who stands against shall have to suffer the wrath of
>> uuuuh me."
>> 
>> Enact a new rule, titled "Against negative voting" with text as follows:
>> 
>> If, on a ballot containing at least five proposals, an agent is found to
>> vote against at least three and for no proposals then that agent shall owe
>> a debt of 20 points to the first agent to point out eir breach of good
>> conduct within three nweeks of the offence.
>> 
>> _____
>> 
>> Poulenc
>
>Sorry, this is not a legal Proposal, since its title exceeds the maximum 
>length for names, as established in Rule 2/0. Keep it at 255 characters or 
>less, please. :)

Furthermore it's just not true. How does Dan know I'm being foul
about it?

Josh
exercising his democratic rights baby

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:56:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Negative Voting 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Hmm. I'm not sure I like this. What if someone makes a slew of awful 
> Proposals and I want to abstain on everything else? I'd still be penalized, 
> since I didn't vote in favor of anything.
> 

So all you have to do is propose one yourself that you would like to vote
for and you're all set.  There is currently no cost to create a proposal
and there are plenty of minor tweaks that need to be done to the rules.

Poulenc.

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:05:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Motion to Add or
 Remove Points. 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Poulenc
> 
> A comment: is this intended to be amended eventually to allow others to 
> make these motions? Otherwise, why state that the owner or the 
> Administrator can withdraw the Motion, since they would be the same? Also, 
> I was hoping to get the Admin out of the business of regulating the "money" 
> supply. :)
> 

This is to cover us in the unlikely event that the office of the
Administrator changes hands while such a proposal is in the air and the
new admin wants to get rid of it.  This is the only case when the owner
and the Administrator might be different people, but it is not impossible,
only unlikely.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Contract
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:23:29 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> [[I need money so I am going to sell my soul for points.  If multiple
> people are interested I can create more of these]]
> 
> I hereby create the following contract:
> 
> Activation condition: when signed by Poulenc and one agent, 
> other agent,
> referred to here as the Buyer.
> 
> The Buyer agrees to owe a debt of 15 points to Poulenc, and 
> to specify a
> proposal and a direction of vote for that proposal to Poulenc 
> by the end
> of the second-last day voting this nweek.
> 
> Poulenc aggrees that e will allow eir vote on the specified 
> proposal this
> nweek to be guided by the Buyer's specified direction.  If Poulenc is
> required to vote in a particular way on that proposal by one 
> or more other
> contract simmilar to this one then e shall vote in the 
> direction indicated
> by the majority of contracts, or default to abstain in the 
> case of a tie.
> 
> Poulenc
> 
> [[I think this has to be recognized by the OBC]]
> 

Does it? Hang on, let me just check the rules to see what I'm supposed to
do...

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:13:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Contract
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Does it? Hang on, let me just check the rules to see what I'm supposed to
> do...

I think you have to record it as being owned by me.  But I think the admin
has to assign it a serial number.  Im not sure on this.

Poulenc.

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:16:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Contract
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Ok, the above is recognised at Contract Offer #100.
> BTW Poulenc, you start by saying the contract is between you and one other
> agent, yet you end by saying what you'll do if there are more than one.
> Which is it?
> 
> --
> The Kid

Yes it is between me and one other agent.  The bit in the end is in case I
have signed several contracts with different people, in case they specify
opposite votes on the same proposal.

Poulenc.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Contract
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:13:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> > Ok, the above is recognised at Contract Offer #100.
> > BTW Poulenc, you start by saying the contract is between 
> you and one other
> > agent, yet you end by saying what you'll do if there are 
> more than one.
> > Which is it?
> 
> Yes it is between me and one other agent.  The bit in the end 
> is in case I
> have signed several contracts with different people, in case 
> they specify
> opposite votes on the same proposal.

But surely you have made one contract offer, so you can only sign one
contract? Can you sign the same contract several times with different
people?

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:21:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Contract
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> But surely you have made one contract offer, so you can only sign one
> contract? Can you sign the same contract several times with different
> people?
> 
> --
> The Kid

When I wrote it I wanted to keep open to possibility of signing several
contracts.  I still can--if there is a taker for the first one then I
will make more.  If I hadn't put that bit in then it would be unsafe to
make more.

Poulenc 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Contract
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:19:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> > But surely you have made one contract offer, so you can 
> only sign one
> > contract? Can you sign the same contract several times with 
> different
> > people?
> > 
> > --
> > The Kid
> 
> When I wrote it I wanted to keep open to possibility of 
> signing several
> contracts.  I still can--if there is a taker for the first one then I
> will make more.  If I hadn't put that bit in then it would be 
> unsafe to
> make more.
> 
> Poulenc 
> 

Ok, that makes sense.

--
The Kid

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: page idea
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:13:24 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Would anyone find useful a "Recent Changes" page for the Rules?
> 
> I think perhaps a sorted-by-date-passed index of proposals 
> would serve the
> same purpose.

How about a sorted by date of last change rules listing also ?

XnJester

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Negative Voting
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:35:05 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The following is a new proposal.  The title of the proposal
> is the first
> 255 characters of "Foully voting AGAINST every single
> proposal on every
> ballot really drives me up the wall you will know if youre the one im
> talking to i really think something ought to be done about
> this blatant
> misuse of democratic principles and this is a holy crusade to restore
> truth and honor and justice and liberty to the world of nomic
> and anyone
> who stands against shall have to suffer the wrath of uuuuh me So there
> :-P."
>
> Enact a new rule, titled "Against negative voting" with text
> as follows:
>
> If, on a ballot containing at least five proposals, an agent
> is found to
> vote against at least three and for no proposals then that
> agent shall owe
> a debt of 20 points to the first agent to point out eir breach of good
> conduct within three nweeks of the offence.

This gives the vote counter an unfair advantage. E's most likely to notice
and have the opportunity to point it out first. I don't know what a good
alternative would be. Perhaps the vote counter shall be allowed to point it
out and claim the points only during the third week after the breach of good
conduct ?

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: page idea 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:55:41 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> > > Would anyone find useful a "Recent Changes" page for the Rules?
> > 
> > I think perhaps a sorted-by-date-passed index of proposals 
> > would serve the
> > same purpose.
> 
> How about a sorted by date of last change rules listing also ?
> 
> XnJester

Ok, I'll add those to the list.  

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:08:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 11
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> P385/1 passed (4-1-0-6).

Since Proposal 385/1 contained three sentences quoted from the ISO/EEC
14882, Standard for the C++ Programming language, I, the Humble Disciple,
have Preached to the Unbelievers.  I demand my Enlightenment (and my
points).

The quote was this:

"The limits may contrain quantities that include those described below
or others.  The bracketed number following each quantity is recommended as
the minimum for that quantity.  However these quantities are only
guidelines and do not determine compliance."

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 11 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:19:53 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Heh. Way to go. I thought that Rule would never come into play!

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> 
> > P385/1 passed (4-1-0-6).
> 
> Since Proposal 385/1 contained three sentences quoted from the ISO/EEC
> 14882, Standard for the C++ Programming language, I, the Humble Disciple,
> have Preached to the Unbelievers.  I demand my Enlightenment (and my
> points).
> 
> The quote was this:
> 
> 
> "The limits may contrain quantities that include those described below
> or others.  The bracketed number following each quantity is recommended as
> the minimum for that quantity.  However these quantities are only
> guidelines and do not determine compliance."
> 
> Poulenc.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: similarity challenge winner 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:45:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> The winner of this week's similarity challenge winner is Dan Waldron.
> Thanks to Joel, Jeff and Dan for playing!
> 
> It feels like we should have some facility for publishing the responses -
> Dan's was quite impressive, spanning almost a whole page!

So, that reminds me of something. Has everyone taken a look at the 
NomicWiki? I was thinking that a Wiki might be a good way to allow Officers 
to post stuff to the site. Thoughts?
 
> The effects of the game (which I don't think have happened yet) are as
> follows:
> Joel, Dan, and Jeff each tronsfer two points to me (as the contestmaster)
> and I then transfer three points back to Dan. Dan is the contestmaster for
> the similarity game for the next week.
> 
> 
> Thoughts for the first week of the similarity game:
> Although Dan was by far the most thorough, he also submitted first,. If we
> ever have a really easy challenge, then whoever checks their e-mail most
> often will probably win, since there is no set time for the challenge to
> be posted. 

Huh? I don't get it. Why would this be?

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: delay
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:12:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I fixed what I broke now, so I'll be able to do the updates sometime 
tomorrow...

Also, how about posting entries for the Similarity Game, eh? I want to see 
what others submitted.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 11
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:09:32 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Well I'm impressed, well done Poulenc!

--
The Kid

> From: Dan Waldron [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> > P385/1 passed (4-1-0-6).
> 
> Since Proposal 385/1 contained three sentences quoted from the ISO/EEC
> 14882, Standard for the C++ Programming language, I, the 
> Humble Disciple,
> have Preached to the Unbelievers.  I demand my Enlightenment (and my
> points).
> 
> The quote was this:
> 
> 
> "The limits may contrain quantities that include those described below
> or others.  The bracketed number following each quantity is 
> recommended as
> the minimum for that quantity.  However these quantities are only
> guidelines and do not determine compliance."
> 
> Poulenc.
> 

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:06:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: similarity challenge responses
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

ok, the similarity challenge responses have been published on my personal
webspace, because it's the easiest.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/activist/anomic/

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:53:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: wiki and similraity game
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> So, that reminds me of something. Has everyone taken a look at the 
> NomicWiki? I was thinking that a Wiki might be a good way to allow Officers 
> to post stuff to the site. Thoughts?

Wiki has no security at all.
Fraud would be very easy.
We could use it for informal stuff, but I don't think we could rely on the
Wiki for any official game business.

> > Thoughts for the first week of the similarity game:
> > Although Dan was by far the most thorough, he also submitted first,. If we
> > ever have a really easy challenge, then whoever checks their e-mail most
> > often will probably win, since there is no set time for the challenge to
> > be posted. 
> 
> Huh? I don't get it. Why would this be?

We don't know when the challenge will be posted, since there's no set
time. The first "most-correct" answer wins. Theoretically, this could
create the opportunity for a scam (with a relatively small
impact). Probably I'm just driveling. Ignore me.

- 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: wiki and similraity game 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:03:54 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> > So, that reminds me of something. Has everyone taken a look at the 
> > NomicWiki? I was thinking that a Wiki might be a good way to allow Officers
>  
> > to post stuff to the site. Thoughts?
> 
> Wiki has no security at all.
> Fraud would be very easy.
> We could use it for informal stuff, but I don't think we could rely on the
> Wiki for any official game business.

Hmmm. I wonder, would having accounts on nomic.net for officers be a 
solution, then? Or, I suppose I could just make sure I'm linking to all 
off-site game material.
 
> > > Thoughts for the first week of the similarity game:
> > > Although Dan was by far the most thorough, he also submitted first,. If w
> e
> > > ever have a really easy challenge, then whoever checks their e-mail most
> > > often will probably win, since there is no set time for the challenge to
> > > be posted. 
> > 
> > Huh? I don't get it. Why would this be?
> 
> We don't know when the challenge will be posted, since there's no set
> time. The first "most-correct" answer wins. Theoretically, this could
> create the opportunity for a scam (with a relatively small
> impact). Probably I'm just driveling. Ignore me.

Oh, I get it now. If two people sent in the same answer, then the first one would win. I didn't catch that "first" part.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: prop: dependency 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:51:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> <proposal title="Dependency of Propositions">
> create a rule with the title 'Dependency of Propositions' and the
> following text:
> 
> if a (child) proposition is dependent on one or more other
> (parent) propositions, that means: the dependent proposition cannot pass
> (have effects) unless all of the propositions on which it depends also
> pass. If a dependent proposition passes, but any of its parents' fail, the
> text of the proposition is erased before it takes effect.
> 
> This rule applies only to child/parent propositions on the same ballot.
> </proposal>
> 
> Is this the best way to handle this? It sounds kind of awkward as I read
> it over, but I can't think of dhow to change it...

Why not make passage of parents a necessary condition for passage of children rather than erasing the text of the Proposal?

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: prop: dependency 
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:48:10 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > <proposal title="Dependency of Propositions">

<snip!>
 
> Why not make passage of parents a necessary condition for 
> passage of children rather than erasing the text of the Proposal?

Cos that way the proposal fails and points deducted accordingly, which is a
bit unfair when the proposal passed on it's own merits.

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:11:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: prop: dependency 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> > > <proposal title="Dependency of Propositions">
> 
> <snip!>
>  
> > Why not make passage of parents a necessary condition for 
> > passage of children rather than erasing the text of the Proposal?
> 
> Cos that way the proposal fails and points deducted accordingly, which is a
> bit unfair when the proposal passed on it's own merits.
> --
> The Kid

Well put a bit in about that too.  If we're gonna take the trouble to put 
this in the ruleset (I think a bit on each dependant prop is probably
fine) we may as well make it recursive.  Then it will be something fun
and worth having.  Can we have negative dependancy too, for mutually
incompatible proposals?

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: prop: dependency 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:13:17 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > <proposal title="Dependency of Propositions">
> 
> <snip!>
>  
> > Why not make passage of parents a necessary condition for 
> > passage of children rather than erasing the text of the Proposal?
> 
> Cos that way the proposal fails and points deducted accordingly, which is a
> bit unfair when the proposal passed on it's own merits.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Ok, well how about making the execution of the Legislative Orders in child 
Proposals conditional on the passage of parents? That way, the issue of 
penalties doesn't arise, and Proposal texts aren't munged.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:16:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: prop: dependency 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Ok, well how about making the execution of the Legislative Orders in child 
> Proposals conditional on the passage of parents? That way, the issue of 
> penalties doesn't arise, and Proposal texts aren't munged.
> 

But it's non-recursive.  Bah.

Populenc.

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:29:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: prop: dependency 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

dependency of proposals

how can it be recursive?

I understand negative dependency and will include that.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:32:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: prop: dependency 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> dependency of proposals
> 
> how can it be recursive?

So that if the parent of proposal x fails and causes x to fail, the
failure of x also causes any child of x to fail.  There would be potential
problems if the text of x is deleted by a dependant child still passes.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: prop: dependency 
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:58:27 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dan Waldron sez:
>
>
>> dependency of proposals
>> 
>> how can it be recursive?
>
>So that if the parent of proposal x fails and causes x to fail, the
>failure of x also causes any child of x to fail.  There would be potential
>problems if the text of x is deleted by a dependant child still passes.

There could also be mutual recursion? I.e. A and B depend on one another.

Josh

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:16:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: prop: dependency 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> There could also be mutual recursion? I.e. A and B depend on one another.
> 

That could be done even with the simple deletion or deactivation as well.

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:30:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: prop: dependency 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel - I need you to recognize my prop and give it a number so I can
revise it. Thanks.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: dependency rev 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:23:36 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> [[ I think this takes care of negativity, recursivity, and effects.
> It resolves the effects problem by simply withdrawing the proposal-
> that way, no points are changed at all. ]]
> 
> replace the P392 with the following:
> 
> <proposal revise action=revise title="Dependency of Propositions">
> create a rule with the title 'Dependency of Propositions' and the
> following text:
> 
> This rule applies only to child/parent propositions on the same ballot.
> 
> If a (subsidiary) proposition is dependent on one or more other
> (primary) propositions, and any of the (primary) propositions fail
> (either as defined by the rules, or because it <u>fails by
> dependence</u>),
> then the (subsidiary) proposition <u>fails by dependence</u>.
> 
> If a (subsidiary) proposition is negatively dependent on one or
> more other (primary) propositions, and any of those (primary)
> propositions pass, then the (subsidiary) proposition <u>fails by
> dependence</u>.
> 
> If a proposition <u>fails by dependence</u>, then it is considered
> "withdrawn" and "dead".
> 
> This rule superceedes R120:Motions, if the two conflict.
> 
> </proposal>
> 
> Can I put HTML in a proposal like that?

Yes and no. Yes, the HTML will display correctly. On the other hand, the 
HTML will technically be part of the proposal text, so shouldn't display at 
all! So, I'm not sure how to handle this.
 
> Does this revision satisfy everyone?

Looks good to me.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:25:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: web page idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Could you post the officers nweekly reports on the web page?

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: why so quiet?
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:52:12 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What's going on? Why has it been so quiet lately?

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:22:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: why so quiet?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Gee Joel, I don't know.
Could be that nasty beast procrastination.
It would get me down, except I get paid to sit and look busy.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> What's going on? Why has it been so quiet lately?
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:52:59 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":

<snip>
> Isn't there a way to create new points for the bank? This new way of
> handling points doesn't seem to be working properly. When points gets
> awarded or deducted by the rules, this should happen automatically, not wait
> for each player to 'action' it.
> 
> --
> The Kid

The motivation to have things be recognized was so we would always know 
(more or less) what the game state was---that is to say, things wouldn't 
just keep happening without anyone noticing. For actions that require some 
input by the Officer in charge of recognizing them, I still think this is a 
good way to go. E.g., I think it works ok for Proposals and Motions, since 
they need to be assigned numbers for reference. I still think it should 
work with point awards, just that we might want to streamline the operation 
a little, maybe by combining the Tax Collector and the Banker into the 
Treasurer, or something like that, and to introduce a little more order 
into Bank transactions, stipulate that the Bank conducts its business only 
once per nweek, say a reasonable amount of time following the publishing of 
voting results or something like that.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:54:46 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Recognised transfer of 45 points from bank to Poulenc.
> 
> Sorry that I've not been particularly involved lately, but things are
> getting particularly busy at work and I've had a few subtle 'you spend too
> much time on the web' comments from my manager ;-(
> 
> Isn't there a way to create new points for the bank? This new way of
> handling points doesn't seem to be working properly. When points gets
> awarded or deducted by the rules, this should happen automatically, not wait
> for each player to 'action' it.
> 
> --
> The Kid

An addendum: maybe the Bean Counter shouldn't be required to keep track of 
points, or be required to record transactions, but not recognize them.

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:04:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> An addendum: maybe the Bean Counter shouldn't be required to keep track of 
> points, or be required to record transactions, but not recognize them.

We could have everyone responsible for tracking their own point total like
socialnomic.  When you transfer points to someone you deduct them from
your total, and the recipient recognizes the transfer and updates theirs.
That might make this easier.  There could be a penalty for fraud.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:10:57 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> To satisfy outstanding debts, the bank transfers 45 points to poulenc.
> This satisfies:  Salaries and proposal debt to Poulenc from nweek 10 and
> 11, plus salaries Banker(13), Banker(14); and P377/0, P381/0, P384/0,
> P385/1.  This will leave the bank with 15 points.
> 
> The bank is experienceing a shortage of funds so nobody else will get
> paid until the bank gets some more points, unless they want to force the
> issue with a motion for payment.
> 
> The Tax collector should start collecting the overdue debts that were due
> at the end of nweek 12 sometime soon.
> 
> Joel, I think the bank could use a few hundred more points.  I would
> support any motion that increased the reserve I have to work with here.
> That would mean that I can pay people what they desrve as well.
> 
> Poulenc

Hmmm. Yeah, I agree that the Bank needs more funds as it currently stands. 
As it is, our economy is sort of odd. The Bank is the only "employer", yet 
no one "buys" much from the Bank. In such a situation, the Bank can't help 
but become impoverished---unless it has mint powers, which our Bank does. 
So, to keep afloat, the Bank will take the inflationary step of issuing 
more Points. Our current Rules and the traditional size relation among the 
Awards forces us into a position of continually devaluing our currency. On 
the other hand, we have an absolute goal, in the sense that the condition 
for winning is not relative to the total quantity of Points in circulation, 
which somewhat mitigates inflation. I'm not sure what to make of this---I'm 
no economist---but because of the win condition, there aren't any 
real-world analogues.

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:23:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > Hmmm. Yeah, I agree that the Bank needs more funds as it currently stands. 
> As it is, our economy is sort of odd. The Bank is the only "employer", yet 
> no one "buys" much from the Bank. In such a situation, the Bank can't help 
> but become impoverished---unless it has mint powers, which our Bank does. 
> So, to keep afloat, the Bank will take the inflationary step of issuing 
> more Points. Our current Rules and the traditional size relation among the 
> Awards forces us into a position of continually devaluing our currency. On 
> the other hand, we have an absolute goal, in the sense that the condition 
> for winning is not relative to the total quantity of Points in circulation, 
> which somewhat mitigates inflation. I'm not sure what to make of this---I'm 
> no economist---but because of the win condition, there aren't any 
> real-world analogues.

We could make it so that players have to buy the ability to make proposals
from the bank.  Instead of a failed proposal fine, usually large, that
whacks players when their proposals fail, we could charge 10 points to
make a proposal and give out maybe 15 when one passes.  The banker and tax
collector would have to adjust those values to keep the system about even.

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: economic musings
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:45:27 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I thought about this some today, and this as an idea:

We might consider imposing the following restraint on expenditures and 
income. (I hope this displays correctly for everyone---it's hard to 
represent equations in plain text.)

(1) e <= i 
     n    n+1

(The "n" and "n+1" are subscripts that are nweek numbers.) Well, duh. Of 
course we want the bank to avoid running a deficit. Trying to balance 
expenditures and income for the same nweek would be very difficult, 
however, so one nweek's income would be used to replenish the amount spent 
last nweek, when the extent of the expenditures are already in the past and 
thus fixed.

(2) i  = f  + t  + m
     n    n    n    n

So, a nweek's income would be the sum of fees (f), minting of new points 
(m), and taxes (t). So, we already have fees and minting, but what are 
taxes?

(3) t  = rp     
     n     total

This tax would be a property tax, automatically levied against the total 
points in circulation (p), at whatever rate (r) is necessary to make up a 
shortfall from fees. A further consideration is that the bank could still 
go bankrupt under this scheme in the event that a nweek's expenditures 
exceeded its income by more than the Bank had on hand. This too could be 
made up by the property tax, by adding the restriction that the bank (b) 
cannot end a nweek in debt:

(4) b >= 0

To offer further flexibility, we could modify the original restriction (1) 
by including a savings rate (s) to require the Bank to require an increase 
or allow a decrease in Bank holdings:

(5) e (1 + s) <= i
     n            n+1

For example, if the savings rate is 0.05, then this nweek's income must be 
greater than or equal to 105% of last nweek's expenditures, whereas if the 
savings rate is -0.10, this nweek's income needs be only 90% of last week's 
expenditures.

So, what I'm suggesting is adopting the system outlined in (2) - (5). The 
Banker would still do the same job, but would not control the savings rate. 
Instead, we could set the savings rate nweekly by some sort of referendum 
or something.

Thoughts?

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:59:16 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
>  > Hmmm. Yeah, I agree that the Bank needs more funds as it currently stands.
>  
> > As it is, our economy is sort of odd. The Bank is the only "employer", yet 
> > no one "buys" much from the Bank. In such a situation, the Bank can't help 
> > but become impoverished---unless it has mint powers, which our Bank does. 
> > So, to keep afloat, the Bank will take the inflationary step of issuing 
> > more Points. Our current Rules and the traditional size relation among the 
> > Awards forces us into a position of continually devaluing our currency. On 
> > the other hand, we have an absolute goal, in the sense that the condition 
> > for winning is not relative to the total quantity of Points in circulation,
>  
> > which somewhat mitigates inflation. I'm not sure what to make of this---I'm
>  
> > no economist---but because of the win condition, there aren't any 
> > real-world analogues.
> 
> We could make it so that players have to buy the ability to make proposals
> from the bank.  Instead of a failed proposal fine, usually large, that
> whacks players when their proposals fail, we could charge 10 points to
> make a proposal and give out maybe 15 when one passes.  The banker and tax
> collector would have to adjust those values to keep the system about even.
> 
> Poulenc.

Hmm. Proposals are anomalous. We want to encourage them since if there are 
no Proposals, there isn't much happening. So, it seems that we should offer 
some compensation for Proposals. On the other hand, their introduction 
creates wor, so it seems like we should charge a fee for making them. There 
is a tension here, since we cannot both charge and reward makers of 
Proposals. Your suggestion is a compromise between the two.

I'm not sure we should charge for the introduction of Proposals, since that 
might discourage Players from formalizing their suggestions. For example, 
if I have some idea, and aren't sure whether anyone will like it, I might 
toss a vague version of it out---free of charge--rather than writing up a 
specific Proposal, for which I would be charged a fee. This could hinder 
discussion if it diminished the number of formal Proposals posted on the 
page, since informal versions would be available only by email. (Of course, 
this is all speculative, since there hasn't been a lot of discussion going 
on lately.)

Another idea I had today was that the Banker could have at eir disposal 
several different fees, from which e would be free to choose which to 
implement each turn. Maybe a Proposal Fee could be one of these, so it 
could be employed, but need not be every turn.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:11:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: economics
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

my $0.02:
I don't like the idea of charging for proposals. That is bad.

I think the solution to creating a stable economy is not to arbitrarily
create more points when we need them.
I think we should immediately create a static number of points - say there
are ... 2000 in the game (?) or maybe related to the number of people in
the game... and not create more points after that, just make it so that no
one can hoard points.

more thoughts later. must get food.

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