Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions
From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:54:03 -0000

Actually, as I understand it, each individual player must transfer the
points they owe to the bank. This is exactly why I don't like it.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Schroeder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 31 January 2001 17:35
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank Actions 
> 
> 
> Sorrry to write so late, I am currently 
> moving to Boston and am writing this 
> on a hotel webTV thing.  Iwould  not 
> recommend it.
> 
> I did not realize that I had to actually 
> restate the Bankers point totals inorder 
> to complete the transfers of points 
> between the bank/Player.  All 
> outstanding debts owed to the Bank 
> are ordered transferred.  Hopefully this 
> will work
> 
> If anyone needs a roommate in Boston, 
> let me know!  Iwill get a real computer 
> on Monday.
> 
> jeff
> 
> > 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. > >
> 
> 

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: why so quiet?
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:20:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Some of us have been drowning in coursework; apologies.

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Player
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:47:09 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Ahem? I point you to the very first (numerically) motion, which I amended
not so long ago, which states that the game's name is indeed A Nomic...

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: web page idea 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:04:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> Could you post the officers nweekly reports on the web page?
> 
> Poulenc.
> 

I may have responded to this before, but I don't remember. I've made a 
start at posting reports here: http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Officers.Reports.htm
l

I think I'll list them by nweek, with a link to each report (at present, 
only 2 of the Banker's Reports are there), and all the reports for each 
office on a separate page. Is this ok?

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 01:10:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: web page idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I may have responded to this before, but I don't remember. I've made a 
> start at posting reports here: http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Officers.Reports.htm
> l
> 
> I think I'll list them by nweek, with a link to each report (at present, 
> only 2 of the Banker's Reports are there), and all the reports for each 
> office on a separate page. Is this ok?

perfect :-)

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: categorized ruleset
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:50:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I probably know the rules better than anyone, and I'm starting to have 
trouble finding things, so I take that as a sign that I've put off for too 
long my plans to make a categorized ruleset. In that vein, does anyone have 
suggestions for what the categories should be?

I was thinking something like this:

Voting
Motions
Officers
Definitions
Contests
Scoring
Miscellaneous

(I just dashed this off, so it probably isn't a great way to do it as is, of course.)

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:27:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: categorized ruleset
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I probably know the rules better than anyone, and I'm starting to have 
> trouble finding things, so I take that as a sign that I've put off for too 
> long my plans to make a categorized ruleset. In that vein, does anyone have 
> suggestions for what the categories should be?
> 
> I was thinking something like this:
> 
> Voting
> Motions
> Officers
> Definitions
> Contests
> Scoring
> Miscellaneous

I would make scoring "Objects and Scoring" or maybe "Objects and the Bank"  
instead, because the principle currency might conceivably change to
something other than points.

On another note, I've been looking over the rules and I have a nagging
suspiscion that there might still be a couple of potential security holes
in the debt system, although I can't quite pin them own.  Anyone?

I know that sounds foolish but I really want to get it ironed out and make
sure we are all interpreting it the same way.

Also, are any of the players here ex-acka players?  AFAIK Acka is dead
now, right?  What happened to the refugees?  If none came here we might
try opening some kind of communication with Agora--this descendant of
oft-whimsical Berserker (we haven't seen whimsicality much yet, but who
can forget pave-the-world) might be more to the taste of people who were
used to Acka's general looniness, rather than Agora's ultra-bureaucracy
(you think orders and debts are complicated here? Phew!).  I don't know
how many people the three games share(d).

Poulenc.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: tentative categorization
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 16:29:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here's what I have thus far. I realize this list is less useful than, say, 
the actual display of the Rules this way, which is what I'm inching toward, 
but this gives a sense of their organization, at least. (Note that some 
Rules are listed in multiple categories.)

Actions
109 112 113 301 305

Agents
105 204

The Bank
317 318 319 323 325

Contests
336 337 338 339 343

Contracts
329 330 331 332 333 334

Definitions, Conventions, Protocols
1 2 3 7 8 9

Fora
112 218 219

Judiciary
124 214 234 235 236 237 238 310

Motions
119 120 210 228 229 230 303 314 315 334 335 341 342 345

Objects
5 121 316 327 340

Offices, Officers
108 109 110 205 206 207 208 306 308 310 311 312 314 315 318 321 322 324

Orders
114 115 212 213 214 215 216 217 313

Players
106 107 203 210 307

Proposals
117 119 220 222 231 328

Scoring
121 231 302 323

The Game
1 101 102 103 122 123

The Rules
102 103 104 116 326

Voting
111 118 119 201 202 224 225 226 227 229 304 309 320 344

Winning
122 123 211

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: categorical index
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 17:32:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The categorical index is ready, though none of the links work yet. You can 
see it here:

http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Rules.Categorical.Index.html

Suggestions for improvements to the category structure are encouraged.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Categorical Ruleset
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 23:18:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There is now a functional Categorical Ruleset available:

http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Rules.Categorical.1.html

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:34:43 +0100
From: zagarna <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Categorical Ruleset
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> There is now a functional Categorical Ruleset available:
> 
> http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Rules.Categorical.1.html
> 
> --
> J.

I think R326 "who owns the rules" should also be listed under objects

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:47:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Motion to Add
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

wowie zowie! three adds this week!
what is that? five for the game?

now if only we could get people to play! X:)

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

From: "Kieron Jarvis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Bye all.
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:04:52 +1000
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi All,
I've sent this to the discussion list as I'd like you all to see it.

Joel, please unsubscribe me from the list.

Work have changed their policy on the use of work computers for private
pursuits. Whereas before we could do personal stuff on them during
lunchtimes and after work, it's now only after 5:30 pm. I have a wife and
children whom I would much rather spend my evenings with.

I'm sorry to have to go. I know I haven't been the most active participant,
but I still enjoyed the game. I'd like to rejoin sometime, but realistically
I don't expect that I'll get the opportunity for quite some time.

Thank you for the time.

Yours Sincerely

XnJester

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Bye all. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:59:11 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Kieron Jarvis":
> Hi All,
> I've sent this to the discussion list as I'd like you all to see it.
> 
> Joel, please unsubscribe me from the list.
> 
> Work have changed their policy on the use of work computers for private
> pursuits. Whereas before we could do personal stuff on them during
> lunchtimes and after work, it's now only after 5:30 pm. I have a wife and
> children whom I would much rather spend my evenings with.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to go. I know I haven't been the most active participant,
> but I still enjoyed the game. I'd like to rejoin sometime, but realistically
> I don't expect that I'll get the opportunity for quite some time.
> 
> Thank you for the time.
> 
> Yours Sincerely
> 
> XnJester

Sorry to see you go! I'll unsubscribe you... :(

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:24:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal, Motion recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Actually, by the required actions rule, you have to recognize the new
player first.  And you have to recognize proposals and motions in the
order in which they were made (I think)

I'm splitting hairs.

Oh, if you can get the points that everyone had as of the introduction of
the debt system, the nweekly reports and transfer records will get the
scores right.  Because we have to transfer our own points now, very little
scoring has actually taken place recently.  Everyone owes and is owed a
great deal of points.

Now that I have the debt transfer rules we can begin to smooth it all out.
I'll get the Banker's report up soon.

Poulenc.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> I make the following Motion to Amend Trivially:
> 
> Strike the double quotation marks (") in the middle of R227/4.
> 
> ----
> The following are recognized:
> 
> M15/0, Motion to Amend Trivially, by Joel Uckelman
> P396/0, Player Self-Creation, by PurbleBob
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Nweekly Changes
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:02:28 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There is now a Ruleset available that breaks down Rule changes by nweek:

http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Rules.Changes.14.html

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:53:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> I assume that since 3 days have passed since the request for 3-day unanimous
> consent, I am now a player.
> 
> That said, I'd like to make the following proposal, entitled "Expediency of
> Player Creation."
> 
> <proposal>
> 
> 1. Add a rule entitled "Player Self-Creation" with the following text:
> "A non-player Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may create a Motion
> to Add, provided that e is the Agent that would be made a Player by the
> motion.
> 
> An agent may create a Motion to Add emself by publicly indicating that he wou
> ld
> like to join the game, and indicating the name he would like to be known by."

I like PurpleBob's idea of shortening the UC period for adding Players, but 
someone should point out to me where in the Rules it says you have to be a 
Player to make a Motion to Add. As far as I can tell, you don't need to be 
a Player to make Motions, and R210/2 doesn't add any restrictions to that.

Aha! I see where you got that idea now. The blurb about becoming a Player 
on the front page is factually incorrect. So, I'll fix that. My suggestion 
is that you simply amend R210 to change the period for UC, since we don't 
really need a new Rule to handle this.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:11:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jorg Rathlev:
> Hi!

Welcome!

> > someone should point out to me where in the Rules it says you
> > have to be a
> > Player to make a Motion to Add. As far as I can tell, you don't
> > need to be
> > a Player to make Motions, and R210/2 doesn't add any restrictions to that.
> 
> Ok, then I make the following motion, subject to 3-day unanimous consent:
> 
> --
> Add the person with the real name Jorg Rathlev [[ that's me :-) ]] as a
> Player, named "Jorg".
> --

Noted.

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

Possibly two days would be better. The main reason I think we need some 
check on adding new Players is so we can stop an attempt at a "hostile 
takeover" of the game, should such a situation arise.
 
> What about this: If someone makes a motion to be added as a player, he is
> added as a "newbie player" immediately and becomes a regular player after
> three days unless someone disagrees.
> 
> Here's my proposal (title: "Newbie Players"):
> 
> --
> Change the title of rule 210 to "Becoming a Player" and the the content to:
> 
> Any Agent otherwise qualified as a Player may become a Newbie Player by
> publicly announcing that e wishes to become a Player. A Newbie Player will
> automatically become a Player if no eligible voter objects within a three
> day period.
> 
> If any eligible voter objects within that period, the Administrator shall
> create a Primary [[or Secondary?]] Approvabe Motion to add the Agent as a
> Player, and the Agent shall stay a Newbie Player until the end of the next
> voting period, after which e will become a Player if the motion to add em is
> adopted. If the motion is not adopted, e will lose eir status as a Newbie
> Player.
> 
> Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exception
> that they cannot become Officers or Judges.
> --
> 
> I think I didn't really get the difference between a primary and a secondary
> motion, could someone please explain it to me? Thanks!

Sure. Each sort of Primary Motion has its own numbering scheme, while all 
Secondary Motions are numbered together. At present, Proposals are the only 
Primary Motions. If Foo were also Primary Motions, they would be numbered 
independently of the Proposals, e.g., F1, F2, ... Fn. In contrast, M11 and 
M13 are totally different types of Motions (Add and Remove). This is mostly 
for my convenience in keeping records.

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

Your Proposal will have a higher number than PurpleBob's, but his doesn't 
modify R210, so we'd have two conflicting Rules. It would likely become a 
matter for the courts. If I were deciding the case, I would probably give 
priority to the more recently altered Rule, which would be R210, since the 
effects of Props adopted at the same time are executed in order by Prop 
number, from least to greatest.

Hmmm. A second thing just occurred to me, namely that Players *used* to be 
the only entities that could make Motions. I think I'll propose something 
to tweak that a little...

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:51:36 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I think I didn't really get the difference between a primary
> and a secondary
> > motion, could someone please explain it to me? Thanks!
>
> Sure. Each sort of Primary Motion has its own numbering scheme, while all
> (...)

Thanks, I got it now.

So, in my proposed rule, the Admin should make a secondary one rather than a
primary motion. I guess it should also be excluded from unanimous consent,
since in the case the motion is made, consent won't be given anyway. Newbie
Players also should not be eligible voters, since that would make a "hostile
takeover" possible. I'll fix that.

> > (PurpleBob: sorry this one conflicts with your proposal :-(, by the way,
> > what happens if both are adopted?)
>
> Your Proposal will have a higher number than PurpleBob's, but his doesn't
> modify R210, so we'd have two conflicting Rules. It would likely become a

Actually his *does* modify R210:

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

That's why I asked :-)

> Hmmm. A second thing just occurred to me, namely that Players
> *used* to be
> the only entities that could make Motions. I think I'll propose something
> to tweak that a little...

Yes, that seems to make sense.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:16:42 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =3D?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=3D:
> > Ok, then I make the following motion, subject to 3-day unanimous cons=
ent:
> >
> > --
> > Add the person with the real name Jorg Rathlev [[ that's me :-) ]] as=
 a
> > Player, named "Jorg".
> > --
> =

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

I was meaning to ask you about that, actually. I don't see why I shouldn'=
t =

be able to type an =F6. See, right there, I just did! :) If that comes =

through ok, then I see no reason why you can't have your name spelled =

correctly.
 =

> I withdraw my first motion and make the following:
> =

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

> =

> Joerg
> =

> =

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

-- =

J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:43:06 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I was meaning to ask you about that, actually. I don't see why I=20
> shouldn't=20
> be able to type an =F6. See, right there, I just did! :)

Simply because most international keyboards don't happen to have a key =
for those characters :-)

And some people using such keyboards might be using a keyboard driver =
that allows typing international characters, and can't change or don't =
want to change the driver and/or keyboard layout.

> If that comes=20
> through ok, then I see no reason why you can't have your name spelled=20
> correctly.

Hmmm, your character worked.

By comparing the mail headers of your mail with those of my mails, I =
found out that using the iso-8859-1 encoding is ok, but since the =
mailing list software seems to convert 8bit to 7bit, the 8bit characters =
have to be translated to 7bit-characters before the mailing list does =
so. And guess what some idiot at Microsoft set as the default for MIME =
encoding in Outlook? Yes, it's "none" :-(

To make things (i.e. Outlook) worse, if I set it to qouted-printable, =
Outlook can't insert line breaks any more (to avoid sending lines longer =
than 80 chars). Anyway, I've changed the setting now, so let's see if it =
works: =F6=D6=E4=C4=FC=DC=DF.

If it works, I'd like to be known as "J=F6rg", but anyone who cannot =
type an o-Umlaut character can also write "Joerg", I have no problem =
with that spelling (actually, it *is* correct).

Joerg,
or J=F6rg, whatever works best :-)

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:26:09 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[snip]
>> Ooops. My real name actually has a german o-umlaut character as the 
>sec= ond
>> one, but it doesn't seem to get through the list correctly... and think=
>ing
>> about it, you might also not be able to type that character :-), so ple=
>ase
>> use the transcribed version (i.e. Joerg) instead.
>
>I was meaning to ask you about that, actually. I don't see why I shouldn'=
>t =
>
>be able to type an =F6. See, right there, I just did! :) If that comes =
>
>through ok, then I see no reason why you can't have your name spelled =
>
>correctly.

I might be mistaken, but I see an =F6 up there... :)  When I read the 
letter it said M-v and in the original proposal by Joerg, it just said 
'Jorg'.  I guess my point is that every computer has a keyboard map that 
may or may not correspond to everyone else's for extended characters.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:48:09 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> I was meaning to ask you about that, actually. I don't see why I=20
>> shouldn't=20
>> be able to type an =F6. See, right there, I just did! :)
>
>Simply because most international keyboards don't happen to have a key =
>for those characters :-)
>
>And some people using such keyboards might be using a keyboard driver =
>that allows typing international characters, and can't change or don't =
>want to change the driver and/or keyboard layout.
>
>
>> If that comes=20
>> through ok, then I see no reason why you can't have your name spelled=20
>> correctly.
>
>Hmmm, your character worked.

Not for me!  i still see 'M-v' or '=F6' :)

>By comparing the mail headers of your mail with those of my mails, I =
>found out that using the iso-8859-1 encoding is ok, but since the =
>mailing list software seems to convert 8bit to 7bit, the 8bit characters =
>have to be translated to 7bit-characters before the mailing list does =
>so. And guess what some idiot at Microsoft set as the default for MIME =
>encoding in Outlook? Yes, it's "none" :-(

SMTP was created to only support 7bit characters, thus it does 8-7 
bit conversion to the sent mail.  This is usually fine, but extended 
characters (anything about 127 bits) have problems... :)  MIME and 
UUencoding (newsgroups) will encode the data to protect the 8 bit.

>To make things (i.e. Outlook) worse, if I set it to qouted-printable, =
>Outlook can't insert line breaks any more (to avoid sending lines longer =
>than 80 chars). Anyway, I've changed the setting now, so let's see if it =
>works: =F6=D6=E4=C4=FC=DC=DF.

Stupid Outlook!  It's very virus-prone as well...

>If it works, I'd like to be known as "J=F6rg", but anyone who cannot =
>type an o-Umlaut character can also write "Joerg", I have no problem =
>with that spelling (actually, it *is* correct).
>
>
>Joerg,
>or J=F6rg, whatever works best :-)

Anyone on UNIX who doesn't have MIME support will have trouble with this, 
but I can still figure out who you are... :)

jeff

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:10:32 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >Joerg,
> >or J=3DF6rg, whatever works best :-)
>=20
> Anyone on UNIX who doesn't have MIME support will have trouble with =
this,=20
> but I can still figure out who you are... :)

Ok, but (as you can see above), it stays wrong when you reply to a =
message containing extended characters. So, I'll stay with "Joerg" (and =
try to remember typing it that way *g*) to avoid any problems and =
possible misunderstandings.

Joerg

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:20:04 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:16:42AM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> I was meaning to ask you about that, actually. I don't see why I shouldn't 
> be able to type an \366. See, right there, I just did! :) If that comes 
> through ok, then I see no reason why you can't have your name spelled 
> correctly.

Extended characters like that tend not to come through in e-mail very reliably.
I don't think anyone has '\366' in eir name.

--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:49:18 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:16:42AM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > I was meaning to ask you about that, actually. I don't see why I shouldn't 
> > be able to type an \366. See, right there, I just did! :) If that comes 
> > through ok, then I see no reason why you can't have your name spelled 
> > correctly.
> 
> Extended characters like that tend not to come through in e-mail very reliabl
> y.
> I don't think anyone has '\366' in eir name.
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

Ok, point taken. I'll get those motions recognized tonight. Mail encoding 
is weird. It's too bad there's not some sort of universal encoding scheme. 
(Or is there? Isn't that what Unicode is?)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A proposal by the newbie 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:56:11 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> > Ok, then I make the following motion, subject to 3-day unanimous consent:
> >
> > --
> > Add the person with the real name Jorg Rathlev [[ that's me :-) ]] as a
> > Player, named "Jorg".
> > --
> 
> Ooops. My real name actually has a german o-umlaut character as the second
> one, but it doesn't seem to get through the list correctly... and thinking
> about it, you might also not be able to type that character :-), so please
> use the transcribed version (i.e. Joerg) instead.
> 
> I withdraw my first motion and make the following:
> 
> --
> Add the person with the real name Joerg Rathlev [[ now that *is* me, finally
> :-) ]] as a
> Player, named "Joerg".
> --
> 
> 
> Joerg

I just noticed that this wasn't sent to the business list, so I can't recognize it as an official action. (Resend the withdrawal of your first motion and the new one to the business list.)

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:23:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: names
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since (as Joerg pointed out), "Joerg" is generally accepted to be an
alternate version of--well I can't type it on this link but you know what
I mean--I don't see why we can't consider them to be typographically
equivalent.  We could even make a rule to that effect, but since it is an
established custom in english usage it probably doesn't even have to be a
rule.  It doesn't matter which is used because they are different
typographical representations of the same word, even the same letters.

Poulenc

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:58:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: similarity challenge?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey Dan! what happened? You're the current contestmaster for the
similarity challenge. let's go!

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

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: P398 revision
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:42:27 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> P398/0, Newbie Players, by Joerg

I revise P398, Newbie Players, as follows:

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

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

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: similarity challenge? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:58:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> Hey Dan! what happened? You're the current contestmaster for the
> similarity challenge. let's go!
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush

Yeah, the same thing just occurred to me while I was in the shower this 
morning. Let's have a similarity challenge!

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: similarity challenge? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:58:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> Hey Dan! what happened? You're the current contestmaster for the
> similarity challenge. let's go!
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush

Yeah, the same thing just occurred to me while I was in the shower this 
morning. Let's have a similarity challenge!

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: similarity challenge?
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:58:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> Hey Dan! what happened? You're the current contestmaster for the
> similarity challenge. let's go!
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush

Yeah, the same thing just occurred to me while I was in the shower this 
morning. Let's have a similarity challenge!

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Motion to Add 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:37:59 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Daniel Chapman:
> 
> As a non-player I'm not sure how to handle this, but I see that Motion 15/0
> is actually a "Motion to Ammend Trivially" to Strike double quotation marks
> in R227/4.  (which has since, passed).
> 
> Could I make another motion to attempt to add myself as the player "sabby"?
> 
> Thanks, all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add
> 
> 
> I'm making a Motion to Add the person Daniel Chapman as the player "sabby".
> 
> And recognizing this as Motion 15/0.
> 
> -- 
> J.

Um, I made some sort of numbering error here. Ah, I see what it was now. I 
recognized two Motions as M15/0. Actually, you are a Player already, since 
the real M15/0 passed on 12 Feb. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for 
pointing this out.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Motion to Add 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:27:15 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Daniel Chapman:
> 
> As a non-player I'm not sure how to handle this, but I see that Motion 15/0
> is actually a "Motion to Ammend Trivially" to Strike double quotation marks
> in R227/4.  (which has since, passed).
> 
> Could I make another motion to attempt to add myself as the player "sabby"?
> 
> Thanks, all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Motion to Add
> 
> 
> I'm making a Motion to Add the person Daniel Chapman as the player "sabby".
> 
> And recognizing this as Motion 15/0.
> 
> -- 
> J.

Ok, I think everything is straightened out now---you appear in the Roster 
like you should. I can't recognize this new Motion, since you're already a 
Player, and adding another sabby would conflict with the Naming rule. 
(Which is good, since you won't have to rescind it that way.) :)

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:59:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: similarity challenge?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Yeah, the same thing just occurred to me while I was in the shower this 
> morning. Let's have a similarity challenge!

OK I'm working on it.

It'll be ready real soon... I just have to track down the third word...

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Discuss' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Term of Office
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:54:14 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel, when does my term of office as OBC expire? I don't have as much time
lately to play and I thought one of the others might like to take over.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Term of Office 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:58:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Joel, when does my term of office as OBC expire? I don't have as much time
> lately to play and I thought one of the others might like to take over.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Since I seem to be incapable of remembering to announce elections, I'm not 
sure. It probably ended a long time ago. I *will* do something in the 
comming nweek to rectify this problem, though, so just hold on a little 
longer...

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:03:30 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P398 revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> Change "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exception that they cannot become Officers or Judges." to "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exception that they are not eligible voters and cannot become Officers or Judges."
> 

How is that really different from being an Agent?

--
Rob Speer

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: P398 revision
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:50:53 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> > Change "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players,=20
> with the exception that they cannot become Officers or Judges."=20
> to "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with=20
> the exception that they are not eligible voters and cannot become=20
> Officers or Judges."
> >=20
>=20
> How is that really different from being an Agent?

Oh well... since Agents can do almost everything, the main difference is =
probably that you can be [AWAY] ;-)

Seriously, the main difference is that you can make motions, even after =
the rules have been fixed so that Agents cannot. Joel, didn't you plan =
to make such a proposal?

I expected the other difference to be that as a Newbie Player, you can =
earn points, but looking at the rules again, I see that Agents in fact =
*do* have scores. Agents can even win the game.

Thinking about it, I realize that Newbie Players can safely become =
Officers. Officers are elected anyway, and I guess if the majority of =
Players does not agree with a Newbie becoming a Player, they won't elect =
him anyway. I'll revise my proposal to allow Newbies to become Officers.

Yet another thought, if there's no big difference between Players and =
Agents except Players can vote (well now that *is* a big difference, but =
the rules even leave a possibility for Agents to be voters), doesn't =
this show that Agents might have too many possibilities?

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P398 revision 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:11:24 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
>> > Change "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players,=20
>> with the exception that they cannot become Officers or Judges."=20
>> to "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with=20
>> the exception that they are not eligible voters and cannot become=20
>> Officers or Judges."
>> >=20
>>=20
>> How is that really different from being an Agent?
>
>
>Oh well... since Agents can do almost everything, the main difference is =
>probably that you can be [AWAY] ;-)
>
>Seriously, the main difference is that you can make motions, even after =
>the rules have been fixed so that Agents cannot. Joel, didn't you plan =
>to make such a proposal?
>
>I expected the other difference to be that as a Newbie Player, you can =
>earn points, but looking at the rules again, I see that Agents in fact =
>*do* have scores. Agents can even win the game.
>
>Thinking about it, I realize that Newbie Players can safely become =
>Officers. Officers are elected anyway, and I guess if the majority of =
>Players does not agree with a Newbie becoming a Player, they won't elect =
>him anyway. I'll revise my proposal to allow Newbies to become Officers.
>
>Yet another thought, if there's no big difference between Players and =
>Agents except Players can vote (well now that *is* a big difference, but =
>the rules even leave a possibility for Agents to be voters), doesn't =
>this show that Agents might have too many possibilities?

I realized this some time ago and have been meaning to exploit it, but 
haven't had the ambition to figure out how! :)  Really, I never 
understood why Joel changed the rules from: Players being really the only 
thing important in the game - to EVERYTHING that can move (ie "being 
capable of action") being in the game, but only the smart ones can vote 
and be officers, etc.  I think that he should also keep track of every 
agent and its score or lack thereof.  I think I may make a proposal as 
such pending the opinion of others... :)

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P398 revision 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:37:35 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> > Change "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with the exce
> ption that they cannot become Officers or Judges." to "Newbie Players shall b
> e treated like regular Players, with the exception that they are not eligible
>  voters and cannot become Officers or Judges."
> > 
> 
> How is that really different from being an Agent?
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

I just now read through Joerg's Proposal (sorry I didn't comment sooner), 
and I'd have to agree, that there isn't much difference.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: P398 revision 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:47:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> > > Change "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players,=20
> > with the exception that they cannot become Officers or Judges."=20
> > to "Newbie Players shall be treated like regular Players, with=20
> > the exception that they are not eligible voters and cannot become=20
> > Officers or Judges."
> > >=20
> >=20
> > How is that really different from being an Agent?
> 
> 
> Oh well... since Agents can do almost everything, the main difference is =
> probably that you can be [AWAY] ;-)
> 
> Seriously, the main difference is that you can make motions, even after =
> the rules have been fixed so that Agents cannot. Joel, didn't you plan =
> to make such a proposal?

Yes, but not for this nweek's voting (for which I'm compiling the Ballot 
right now). I'll submit it sometime tonight.

> I expected the other difference to be that as a Newbie Player, you can =
> earn points, but looking at the rules again, I see that Agents in fact =
> *do* have scores. Agents can even win the game.

Yep.
 
> Thinking about it, I realize that Newbie Players can safely become =
> Officers. Officers are elected anyway, and I guess if the majority of =
> Players does not agree with a Newbie becoming a Player, they won't elect =
> him anyway. I'll revise my proposal to allow Newbies to become Officers.
> 
> Yet another thought, if there's no big difference between Players and =
> Agents except Players can vote (well now that *is* a big difference, but =
> the rules even leave a possibility for Agents to be voters), doesn't =
> this show that Agents might have too many possibilities?
> 
> 
> Joerg

The purpose of Agents (as I had envisioned them) was as a superset of 
Players, so we could make Rules that cover both Players and Player-like 
entities together. Originally, R120/0 restricted Motions to Players, but 
that was unintentionally deleted when it was amended. The Proposal I've 
worked out fixes that, and restricts certain Motions to Players only again.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 14 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:23:57 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>P399/0, Joel must Randal, Corque

The author of this proposal should edit "camara" so that there is
no dispute over the existence of the recording object.

;)

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: random game fact
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:24:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus far, 81 Proposals have come to a vote. Of those, 58 (71%) passed and
23 (29%) failed. For comparison, the passage rate when Berserker died was 
55%.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:15:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

'Scuse my ignorance of American colloquialism, but what exactly is
Randalling?

Why do I get the feeling that I *really* should not have asked that
question....

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corque S [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 16 February 2001 14:16
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Proposal 399
> 
> 
> I wish to modify proposal 399 to contain the 'fixed' text:
> 
> "The Player known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once 
> within 10 days 
> after this rule takes effect.  The action of Randalling will 
> be recorded via 
> camera and posted to the Nomic web site.  These photographs 
> will remain for 
> a minimum of 6 months.  The recording device shall be simple 
> photography 
> which must contain at least 5 images at various stages of the 
> Randal.  A 
> video camera (or web-cam) can be used in place of photographs 
> to show the 
> Randal in its entirety."
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:12:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have lived in the US for 17 years and I also have no idea what that
means. Methinks it may be an in-joke with Joel's crowd. Perhaps someone
would be so kind as to define it for the rest of us?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 'Scuse my ignorance of American colloquialism, but what exactly is
> Randalling?
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that I *really* should not have asked that
> question....
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Corque S [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 16 February 2001 14:16
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: spoon-business: Proposal 399
> > 
> > 
> > I wish to modify proposal 399 to contain the 'fixed' text:
> > 
> > "The Player known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once 
> > within 10 days 
> > after this rule takes effect.  The action of Randalling will 
> > be recorded via 
> > camera and posted to the Nomic web site.  These photographs 
> > will remain for 
> > a minimum of 6 months.  The recording device shall be simple 
> > photography 
> > which must contain at least 5 images at various stages of the 
> > Randal.  A 
> > video camera (or web-cam) can be used in place of photographs 
> > to show the 
> > Randal in its entirety."
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > 
> 

- 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 399 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:33:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Corque S":
> I wish to modify proposal 399 to contain the 'fixed' text:
> 
> "The Player known as Joel Uckelman is ordered to Randal once within 10 days 
> after this rule takes effect.  The action of Randalling will be recorded via 
> camera and posted to the Nomic web site.  These photographs will remain for 
> a minimum of 6 months.  The recording device shall be simple photography 
> which must contain at least 5 images at various stages of the Randal.  A 
> video camera (or web-cam) can be used in place of photographs to show the 
> Randal in its entirety."
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Sorry, you can't do that. It's being voted on right now.

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:43:47 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I have lived in the US for 17 years and I also have no idea what that
> means. Methinks it may be an in-joke with Joel's crowd. Perhaps =
someone
> would be so kind as to define it for the rest of us?
>=20
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> > 'Scuse my ignorance of American colloquialism, but what exactly is
> > Randalling?
> >=20
> > Why do I get the feeling that I *really* should not have asked that
> > question....

It looks and sounds (if it is pronounced as I would expect) similar to =
the german word "randalieren", which would mean Joel has a serious =
problem with his neighbours if the proposal is adopted...

The translations of "randalieren" my dictionary tells me are "raise =
hell" and "riot".

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:53:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> > I have lived in the US for 17 years and I also have no idea what that
> > means. Methinks it may be an in-joke with Joel's crowd. Perhaps =
> someone
> > would be so kind as to define it for the rest of us?
> >=20
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> > > 'Scuse my ignorance of American colloquialism, but what exactly is
> > > Randalling?
> > >=20
> > > Why do I get the feeling that I *really* should not have asked that
> > > question....
> 
> It looks and sounds (if it is pronounced as I would expect) similar to =
> the german word "randalieren", which would mean Joel has a serious =
> problem with his neighbours if the proposal is adopted...
> 
> The translations of "randalieren" my dictionary tells me are "raise =
> hell" and "riot".
> 
> 
> Joerg

Ha! No, it's a joke among some of my friends that comes from the movie 
_Clerks_. I'd prefer not to have to explain it, since I doubt it would make 
much sense, being sort of an "in-joke", as Benjamin correctly guessed.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399 
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:44:36 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Ha! No, it's a joke among some of my friends that comes from the movie 
>_Clerks_. I'd prefer not to have to explain it, since I doubt it would make 
>much sense, being sort of an "in-joke", as Benjamin correctly guessed.

Don't worry, all will become clear once you randal for us.

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

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:12:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Only thing I see odd about allowing a player to add emself as a player,
which can later be rescinded, is that the player could add a good proposal,
no one notice that the player isn't a real player -- the player could be
removed from the roster (due to non-consent) but the items stick around, not
having been proposed by a player it could lead to a rule which isn't a rule,
etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 6:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: Revision to P396

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

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

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

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

--
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:54:40 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:12:50PM -0500, Daniel Chapman wrote:
> Only thing I see odd about allowing a player to add emself as a player,
> which can later be rescinded, is that the player could add a good proposal,
> no one notice that the player isn't a real player -- the player could be
> removed from the roster (due to non-consent) but the items stick around, not
> having been proposed by a player it could lead to a rule which isn't a rule,
> etc.

The player wouldn't be on the roster. In my rule the player makes an ordinary
Motion to Add, and only becomes a player after consent is given. I just don't
think it's necessary to make a "Newbie Player" class between Agent and Player.

--
Rob Speer

From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:17:59 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rob Speer:
> The player wouldn't be on the roster. In my rule the player makes an
ordinary
> Motion to Add, and only becomes a player after consent is given. I just
don't
> think it's necessary to make a "Newbie Player" class between Agent and
Player.

Change the wording to Lurker and I think it would sound better.  New
potential players would be said to be lurking until they have sent a Motion
to Add.  It makes it easier than trying to differentiate syntatically
between a player in real life and a player in regard to the rules.

404notfound
currently lurking emself -- only three more days to go.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:36:52 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Joel Ricker":
> Rob Speer:
> > The player wouldn't be on the roster. In my rule the player makes an
> ordinary
> > Motion to Add, and only becomes a player after consent is given. I just
> don't
> > think it's necessary to make a "Newbie Player" class between Agent and
> Player.
> 
> Change the wording to Lurker and I think it would sound better.  New
> potential players would be said to be lurking until they have sent a Motion
> to Add.  It makes it easier than trying to differentiate syntatically
> between a player in real life and a player in regard to the rules.
> 
> 404notfound
> currently lurking emself -- only three more days to go.

I concur.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:15:47 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:17:59PM -0500, Joel Ricker wrote:
> Rob Speer:
> > The player wouldn't be on the roster. In my rule the player makes an
> ordinary
> > Motion to Add, and only becomes a player after consent is given. I just
> don't
> > think it's necessary to make a "Newbie Player" class between Agent and
> Player.
> 
> Change the wording to Lurker and I think it would sound better.  New
> potential players would be said to be lurking until they have sent a Motion
> to Add.  It makes it easier than trying to differentiate syntatically
> between a player in real life and a player in regard to the rules.

Change the wording of what? The whole point I was making is that my proposal
does not have a "Newbie Player". You're an Agent before you make the Motion to
Add, you're still an Agent afterward, and when the Motion passes you're a
Player.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:22:06 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 14
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My votes:

YES to P396/1, Expediency of Player Creation, PurpleBob

YES to P397/0, Inheritance, Joel Uckelman
NO to P398/2, Newbie Players, Joerg
YES to P399/0, Joel must Randal, Corque

--
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:28:15 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 14
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:22:06PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
> My votes:
> 
> YES to P396/1, Expediency of Player Creation, PurpleBob
> 
> YES to P397/0, Inheritance, Joel Uckelman
> NO to P398/2, Newbie Players, Joerg
> YES to P399/0, Joel must Randal, Corque
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

Crap.

I'm tired.

--
Rob Speer

From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:58:14 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: "Rob Speer" <[email-masked]>
> Change the wording of what? The whole point I was making is that my
proposal
> does not have a "Newbie Player". You're an Agent before you make the
Motion to
> Add, you're still an Agent afterward, and when the Motion passes you're a
> Player.

My original thought was that becoming an agent was part of joining the
list -- not being a player but still being an agent.  Closer examination of
the rules I see that becoming an agent is inclusive to becoming a player --
they happen simultaneously.  Unless of course there is something else I
missed.  On the order hand, using a term like Newbie Player or even Lurker,
or pre-player or whatever, may bestow certain rights and actions to someone
who hasn't gotten involved in the game yet to do a few things to help
indoctrinate themselves.  Just my opinion.

Of course people lurking around can always just babble on about the rules
before being motioned in like I'm doing now.

404notfound
my $.02

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision to P396 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:38:17 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Joel Ricker":
> From: "Rob Speer" <[email-masked]>
> > Change the wording of what? The whole point I was making is that my
> proposal
> > does not have a "Newbie Player". You're an Agent before you make the
> Motion to
> > Add, you're still an Agent afterward, and when the Motion passes you're a
> > Player.
> 
> My original thought was that becoming an agent was part of joining the
> list -- not being a player but still being an agent.  Closer examination of
> the rules I see that becoming an agent is inclusive to becoming a player --
> they happen simultaneously.  Unless of course there is something else I
> missed.  On the order hand, using a term like Newbie Player or even Lurker,
> or pre-player or whatever, may bestow certain rights and actions to someone
> who hasn't gotten involved in the game yet to do a few things to help
> indoctrinate themselves.  Just my opinion.
> 
> Of course people lurking around can always just babble on about the rules
> before being motioned in like I'm doing now.
> 
> 404notfound
> my $.02

Hmm. My interpretation was that you become an Agent the moment you pipe up 
in a public forum. This could lead to some interesting legal battles if 
it's not straightened out soon...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 14 
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:50:06 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rob Speer sez:
>YES to P399/0, Joel must Randal, Corque

HERE COMES RAAANDAAALLLL....

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: new front page, search
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:00:17 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just finished making some improvements to the front page---I hope 
everyone finds it useful (or at least doesn't detest the new page). The 
search works a lot differently now, but I'm not going to explain how it's 
changed, as I want to test the effectiveness of the instructions I wrote 
for it. If you can't figure it out from the instructions, let me know.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results... 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:55:41 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>...will be ready in the morning, I need sleep right now...

HEEERRE COMES RAAANNNNDAAAALLLLLL

-- 
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 399 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:44:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yeah, but I need to know what I'm voting for...

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 16 February 2001 18:45
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel Uckelman sez:
> >Ha! No, it's a joke among some of my friends that comes from 
> the movie 
> >_Clerks_. I'd prefer not to have to explain it, since I 
> doubt it would make 
> >much sense, being sort of an "in-joke", as Benjamin 
> correctly guessed.
> 
> Don't worry, all will become clear once you randal for us.
> 
> -- 
> josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal 399 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:51:15 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Harrison, Andrew" sez:
>Yeah, but I need to know what I'm voting for...

There's no real way for most people to find out, UNLESS JOEL
RANDALS.

-- 
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: Revision to P396 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:48:34 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Hmm. My interpretation was that you become an Agent the 
> moment you pipe up 
> in a public forum. This could lead to some interesting legal 
> battles if 
> it's not straightened out soon...
> 

We haven't had a CFJ in a while.

--
The Kid

From: "Antonio" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:14:47 +0100
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules:
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 19 Feb 2001, at 15:46, Daniel Chapman wrote:

> With the passage of Rule 350/0 (which I voted for) I feel that it's time to
> pass a rule that will mildly limit the jurisdiction of new rules.  I don't
> want to see a new rule which requires me to buy a digital camera from a
> particular site or requires me to visit some web site.
> 
> <proposal>
> 
> Title: Jurisdiction of Rules
> 
> New rules may not be proposed which will require the player to take an
> action outside of the limits of public fora. 
> 
> [[ This should allow for rules which require Officers to keep track of
> points and other such data, as you're requiring the Officer to produce a
> correct report. ]]
> 
> New rules may also not be proposed which will restrict a player's actions
> outside of public fora.
> 
> </proposal>
> 
> In addition, I would also like to make a motion to recognize the website as
> a public forum.  I don't recall ever seeing any sort of recognition of it as
> such, but we all sort of assumed that it would be.
> 
> Even if this rule is ammended, due to its numbering, this should not affect
> Rule 350/0.  Good that we got that passed first.

I understand the reasoning behind this, but i think excluding 
actions made outside of a public forum is too severe a measure.
Follow me,

Example one:
the banker is required to do all the accounting for the bank.
He probably
1 reads all the mail
2 makes the accounting on a spare piece of paper with a pencil (of 
he uses some sort of computer program or whatever)
3 then he posts a message to the list with the results so that the 
players can read it.

Example two
Joel is requred by rule 350/0 to perform a series of  actions:
1 He must Randall
2 He must make a photograph of himself Randalling
3 He must post the result of this action on a public place where all 
the players can see it

Both these examples feature actions directed by the rules and 
made outside of a public forum. the only difference is that rule 
350/0 specifies the instrument to be used to record the process  
wheras the banker can use whatever he feels like to do his task

Sorry if my english is so bad today. :)

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules: 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:17:15 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Daniel Chapman:
> With the passage of Rule 350/0 (which I voted for) I feel that it's time to
> pass a rule that will mildly limit the jurisdiction of new rules.  I don't
> want to see a new rule which requires me to buy a digital camera from a
> particular site or requires me to visit some web site.
> 
> <proposal>
> 
> Title: Jurisdiction of Rules
> 
> New rules may not be proposed which will require the player to take an
> action outside of the limits of public fora. 
> 
> [[ This should allow for rules which require Officers to keep track of
> points and other such data, as you're requiring the Officer to produce a
> correct report. ]]
> 
> New rules may also not be proposed which will restrict a player's actions
> outside of public fora.
> 
> </proposal>

HEAR HEAR!
 
I have a suggestion, though: why not repeal R350, while you're at it, since 
it is clearly in violation of the spirit of this Proposal?

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

Hmm. I'm not sure that's a good idea, namely because what it means for 
something to be a public forum is that official actions may be taken there. 
If the site were a public forum, a page could be hidden away there where 
someone could do things that would be legal actions, but no one else in the 
game would have any reasonable way of finding out about, until such time as 
it was convenient to reveal them. Since I'm the only one who presently can 
edit the web pages, that someone could only be me. I don't really want to 
have the option of doing that, nor do I think you should give it to me. So, 
I'm not going to declare the site as a public forum, pending further 
argument to the contrary. (If you really want me to, keep trying. You need 
to come up with some  really persuasive reason, though.)

-- 
J.

From: "Antonio" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:27:43 +0100
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules: 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 19 Feb 2001, at 16:17, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Hmm. I'm not sure that's a good idea, namely because what it means for 
> something to be a public forum is that official actions may be taken there. 
> If the site were a public forum, a page could be hidden away there where 
> someone could do things that would be legal actions, but no one else in the 
> game would have any reasonable way of finding out about, until such time as 
> it was convenient to reveal them. Since I'm the only one who presently can 
> edit the web pages, that someone could only be me. I don't really want to 
> have the option of doing that, nor do I think you should give it to me. So, 
> I'm not going to declare the site as a public forum, pending further 
> argument to the contrary. (If you really want me to, keep trying. You need 
> to come up with some  really persuasive reason, though.)
> 
We could do this on a page per page basis, like 

the webpage http://www.nomic.net/~g1/
the webpage http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Rules.Numerical.1.html
the webpage http://www.nomic.net/~g1/Rules.Numerical.3.html
The webpage bla
The webpage foo
...
...

are all public forums
but that would be complicated too i reckon

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

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules: 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:14:34 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> HEAR HEAR!
> =20
> I have a suggestion, though: why not repeal R350, while you're at=20
> it, since=20
> it is clearly in violation of the spirit of this Proposal?

Because it won't help you anyway. You have to randall within 10 days, =
which is before the end of the next voting period. So, we can't repeal =
R350 early enough. Sorry.

Oh, and it's all your fault anyway. You could have told us what =
randalling is.

I might make a proposal to repeal that rule if the photos look like I'd =
better not see them on the web site everytime I go there ;-)

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:14:30 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> New rules may not be proposed which will require the player to take an
> action outside of the limits of public fora.=20
>=20
> [[ This should allow for rules which require Officers to keep track of
> points and other such data, as you're requiring the Officer to produce =
a
> correct report. ]]

I would interprete this so that Officers cannot be forced to prepare =
their records (otherwise rule 350 would also be legal since it "only" =
forces preparing the photos before taking a public action (posting the =
photos)).

Hmmm... I have no idea how to solve that. The problem is to decide =
what's game-related and what's not, basically. But anything that is a =
rule *is* game-related... even if it's not. Weird problem.

> Even if this rule is ammended, due to its numbering, this should=20
> not affect
> Rule 350/0.  Good that we got that passed first.

There *is* a rule which makes lower-numbered rules take precedence? I =
didn't find any. In fact, I did not found any rule about conflict =
resolution at all. Am I just stupid or don't we have any?

Joerg

From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:36:52 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio" <[email-masked]>

> I understand the reasoning behind this, but i think excluding
> actions made outside of a public forum is too severe a measure.

I agree.  I think its ok to to have intresting rules like Joel having to
Randall that may require doing things outside the fora of the game.  In my
experience, rules like that were generally approved.  Only when a rule
required all or most players to perform a particular action that was
difficult that the rule was struck down.

Another example of outside fora that may be needed:  If the rules ever
require secure private dice rolls, we would want to turn to a mail server
like [email-masked] to give them to us.

404

From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdiction of rules:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:45:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jörg Rathlev" <[email-masked]>
> There *is* a rule which makes lower-numbered rules take precedence? I
didn't find any. In fact, I did not found any rule about conflict resolution
at all. Am I just stupid or don't we have any?

In the original nomic ruleset there generally is a rule that says that
Immutable rules always take precedence over Mutable rules and higher
numbered rules do take precediece.  We don't seem to have any but thats what
Calls of Judgement are for.

404
only two days left

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: multiple things
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:23:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm responding to a whole bunch of different messages here; I hope this 
doesn't bother anyone. BTW, things have really picked up in the last few 
days---I haven't had this much fun in a while. Thanks, guys. :)

1. Zagarna makes a good point with regard to distinguishing between actions 
required of the Banker, and say, me due to R350. If we're going to take 
that route, we need a principled way to make distinctions between the two.

2. With regard to making the site a public forum, it occurred to me that 
there is a difference between public records and public fora. Fora are 
arenas for action, while records are documents---they're just not 
comparable.

3. In response to Joerg's point that R350 takes effect prior to the next 
voting period: I think we should repeal it regardless, since after that it 
will be a non-operative rule.

4. I like Joerg's amendment to the R211. I don't really want the Bank to 
win either. I'm pretty sure that I own more than 20 rules, and I think 
Poulenc might (I'll figure that out sometime soon, as I've let that go way 
too long), so if either of us quit, the Bank would win.

5. In response to Joerg's question about conflict resolution among Rules: 
we don't have any precedence Rules. None. I know most Nomics have them, and 
so it would seem natural to look for one here. That we lack any precedence 
Rules was an intentional choice on my part when forming the initial 
Ruleset. Mainly I thought it would present the Judiciary with fewer knots 
to untangle. As I've said before, I favor judges giving priority to newer 
Rules, but I'm not so sure that's something we should legislate. 
(404notfound and I agree on that last part, I believe.)

6. With respect to 404notfound's comments on needing secure private dice 
rolls: If whatever we're doing is like sufficiently like vote 
counting---i.e., one person can collect the votes with no problem so long 
as e 1) votes before looking at others' votes, and 2) keeps quiet about it 
until voting ends---then we could use current methods. If we should ever 
need something more than that, I'll probably just set up a dice server on 
nomic.net. Come to think of it, I have a DECstation 5000/200 currently in 
use as a paperweight that would make a wonderful dice server. 
dice.nomic.net. I like that...

Enough for now...

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:56:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Naming Prohibition Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> BEGIN
> 
> Create a new Rule entitled "No Bills of Attainder" with the following text:
> 
> "Proposals which name individual Players in their texts are prohibited."
> 
> END

In the past, we've been able to specify the first player to hold a
position (e.g. the first similarity officer, etc). Also, the rule naming
Joel the Administrator goes against this proposal.
I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Maybe change it to include consent of
the named player?

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

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:59:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: rule names
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A simple request to everyone - when you're talking about rules, can you
please either refer to them by name, or if you want to refer to them by
number, name the title somewhere (like at the top or bottom of your
message, just list which rules you reference and their numbers). It won't
take a lot of effort, and it will help those of us who haven't memorized
the numbers and text of all the rules yet ;)

- 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: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: various recognitions
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:52:45 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Give us a chance, we don't all live in the same timezone you know ;-)

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Elections
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:54:07 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Since the terms of all four Elected Officers expired quite 
> some time ago, 
> and they've just held on due to automatic term extension 
> since no one ever 
> remembers to make nominations, here goes, as loud as I can yell:
> 
> HEY EVERYONE! WE'RE HAVING ELECTIONS THIS NWEEK! SO NOMINATE SOMEBODY!
> 
> There. Now no one can accuse me of forgetting every time. :)

I stand down as OBC (ie I do not wish to be re-nominated). OSJ I'll stick
with though.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: multiple things
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:17:21 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 4. I like Joerg's amendment to the R211. I don't really want 
> the Bank to 
> win either. I'm pretty sure that I own more than 20 rules, 
> and I think 
> Poulenc might (I'll figure that out sometime soon, as I've 
> let that go way 
> too long), so if either of us quit, the Bank would win.

I'm not sure how you've got all the data stored, but if you can
cross-reference the rules to the proposals then you could have a script to
keep the rule owners up-to date. On the website each rule has a 'Created by'
or 'Modified by' line. All you need to do is lookup the proposal that
created or most recently modified that rule, and whoever owned that proposal
is the owner of the rule. It would be too difficult to go through them all
by hand.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:29:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Since the terms of all four Elected Officers expired quite some time ago, 
> and they've just held on due to automatic term extension since no one ever 
> remembers to make nominations, here goes, as loud as I can yell:
> 
> HEY EVERYONE! WE'RE HAVING ELECTIONS THIS NWEEK! SO NOMINATE SOMEBODY!
> 
> There. Now no one can accuse me of forgetting every time. :)

If anyone else is willing to be banker I will gladly pass it on.  Maybe we
should get the debt system flowing again first though.  Won't stand down
until someone else is nominated.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:33:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Simmilarity Challenge.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Here is the 2nd simmilaity challenge.  The words are:
> 
> Errour
> Shelob
> Morgause

I haven't had any replies!  I thought you people were all getting on my
case about this.  I'm not sure what the time limit is for this.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:40:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Simmilarity Challenge.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

that one's hard.
not that it's hard to find information about them, but for someone who has
no previous knowledge of them, it'll take some time to put together an
answer. and time is not what I have this week (with 2 tests, a project and
a paper due)

> > Here is the 2nd simmilaity challenge.  The words are:
> > Errour
> > Shelob
> > Morgause
> 
> I haven't had any replies!  I thought you people were all getting on my
> case about this.  I'm not sure what the time limit is for this.

- 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: Elections
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:41:05 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If anyone else is willing to be banker I will gladly pass it 
> on.  Maybe we
> should get the debt system flowing again first though.  Won't 
> stand down
> until someone else is nominated.

I must admit that I really don't like the whole debt system. Points should
be awarded and penalised as and when the rules specify it, not when each
individual player remembers to do so. The fact that the scores have hardly
changed since late last year is I think because of this.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:50:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

me too.
Is there sufficient disapproval of the system to justify removing it?

> I must admit that I really don't like the whole debt system. Points should
> be awarded and penalised as and when the rules specify it, not when each
> individual player remembers to do so. The fact that the scores have hardly
> changed since late last year is I think because of this.

- 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: Re: spoon-business: Simmilarity Challenge. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:12:41 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> > Here is the 2nd simmilaity challenge.  The words are:
> > 
> > Errour
> > Shelob
> > Morgause
> 
> I haven't had any replies!  I thought you people were all getting on my
> case about this.  I'm not sure what the time limit is for this.
> 
> Poulenc

I assumed the contest would end at the end of this nweek, so I still have a 
bunch of time left. I'll get my entry in today, I suppose.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:17:24 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would like to see it in operation once before thinking about removing it. 
The debt system is less than 2 nweeks old, and the Banker needs a chance to 
determine what the scores should be, etc.

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> me too.
> Is there sufficient disapproval of the system to justify removing it?
> 
> > I must admit that I really don't like the whole debt system. Points should
> > be awarded and penalised as and when the rules specify it, not when each
> > individual player remembers to do so. The fact that the scores have hardly
> > changed since late last year is I think because of this.
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:15:43 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I thought the debt system came in before Christmas?

--
The Kid

> I would like to see it in operation once before thinking 
> about removing it. 
> The debt system is less than 2 nweeks old, and the Banker 
> needs a chance to 
> determine what the scores should be, etc.
> 
> Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> > me too.
> > Is there sufficient disapproval of the system to justify 
> removing it?
> > 
> > > I must admit that I really don't like the whole debt 
> system. Points should
> > > be awarded and penalised as and when the rules specify 
> it, not when each
> > > individual player remembers to do so. The fact that the 
> scores have hardly
> > > changed since late last year is I think because of this.
> > 
> > - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat 
> your mustache.
> > - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> > - whee life what a rush
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:27:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> I thought the debt system came in before Christmas?

The debt system has come in bits and pieces.  The final piece (I think)
which allows debt trading went through less than two nweeks ago.

I am only responsible for calculating debts and (it seems) scoring
proposals.  That's quite a lot of work.  The OBC is supposed to calculate
scores and the Tax Collector is supposed to make sure people pay their
overdue debts.  I need the cooperation of these people to make this work.

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Banker's Report
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:24:37 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Accoring to the last reports I issued:
1 Dec 2000: Potter, 9
15 Jan 2001: 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, 0

I don't know if they had any debts at that time.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:30:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: request for Joel
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel, could you revise your scoring script to calculate the debts from
each week's voting based on the award and fine values supplied?  Then with
the voting report you could post the voting debts for each week.  It would
probably save a lot of time for me, since right now I have to do it all by
hand.  This would also mean that more of my nweekly reports are submitted
on
time.

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:25:59 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I am only responsible for calculating debts and (it seems) scoring
> proposals.  That's quite a lot of work.  The OBC is supposed 
> to calculate
> scores and the Tax Collector is supposed to make sure people pay their
> overdue debts.  I need the cooperation of these people to 
> make this work.

Yeah, the OBC should keep track of scores, but the scores will only change
when people pay their debts. This has not been happening, so the scores have
not changed.

--
The Kid

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:32:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Banker's Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > In order to update property I need the final scores of potter and 4T2.
> 
> Accoring to the last reports I issued:
> 1 Dec 2000: Potter, 9
> 15 Jan 2001: 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, 0
> 
> I don't know if they had any debts at that time.

They didn't have any debts.  But they had some points left over from
before the debt system started.  I need to know how many points they had,
because those points reverted to bank ownership under the new inheritance
rule.

Poulenc

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Banker's Report
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:55:56 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Adopted Proposal Award: 5
> Opposed Minority Award: 1
>=20
> Failed proposal fine: 8
> debts due at the end of nweek 16:
> Joel +8
> PurpleBob +5
> Joerg -8

Hmmmm... I think I should get the Opposed Minority Award for voting =
against PurpleBob's proposal, shouldn't I? So my debt would be only -7.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: multiple things 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:58:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > 4. I like Joerg's amendment to the R211. I don't really want 
> > the Bank to 
> > win either. I'm pretty sure that I own more than 20 rules, 
> > and I think 
> > Poulenc might (I'll figure that out sometime soon, as I've 
> > let that go way 
> > too long), so if either of us quit, the Bank would win.
> 
> I'm not sure how you've got all the data stored, but if you can
> cross-reference the rules to the proposals then you could have a script to
> keep the rule owners up-to date. On the website each rule has a 'Created by'
> or 'Modified by' line. All you need to do is lookup the proposal that
> created or most recently modified that rule, and whoever owned that proposal
> is the owner of the rule. It would be too difficult to go through them all
> by hand.
> 
> --
> The Kid

I haven't done a lot of cross-referencing tables because that would make 
changes in table structure (which seems to happen every few weeks) more 
difficult. I'd rather store some redundant data than break everything while 
making a change. That said, I could probably pull Proposal and Rule owners 
out of the Event Log, so I don't think I'll have to do it by hand.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: request for Joel 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:09:28 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> Joel, could you revise your scoring script to calculate the debts from
> each week's voting based on the award and fine values supplied?  Then with
> the voting report you could post the voting debts for each week.  It would
> probably save a lot of time for me, since right now I have to do it all by
> hand.  This would also mean that more of my nweekly reports are submitted
> on
> time.
> 
> Poulenc

Yes. I was planning to do that fairly soon. Maybe I'll bump that to the top 
of the list, since I seems to be causing problems.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Banker's Report 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:13:02 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> I have started automatically combining debts with the same due date as
> allowed by the new debt rule.  This will let me simplify this sytem a lot.
> 
> There are quite a lot of overdue debts.  The Tax collector is supposed to
> start claiming them from players so the bank can get some money.  The
> banks has previously been in a very low-funding system.  This crisis has
> been averted.  Since the point amnesty passed, I am in a position where to
> publish an accurate report I would have to go back and recalculae the
> scores from every nweek since nweek 8.  This will take more time than I
> have.  This report is accurately based on the second (corrected) version
> of my nweek 10 report.  May I please beg for a second amnesty proposal?

Sure, but what should it consist of? Maybe you should propose it, since you 
know what would help most.

-- 
J.

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdic
	tion of rules:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:12:33 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------
Example one:
the banker is required to do all the accounting for the bank.
He probably
1 reads all the mail
2 makes the accounting on a spare piece of paper with a pencil (of 
he uses some sort of computer program or whatever)
3 then he posts a message to the list with the results so that the 
players can read it.
--------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but the banker is required to post a message to the list.  We're not
requiring him to write the results on paper (he may use Access or some other
desktop database to handle it, or a perl program).  We also don't require
that he use any particular program.  We require the output, but not the
process.  We can specify a penalty for being wrong, so that it is in his
best interest to use some sort of mechanism.  But, if we find a banker that
is a human calculator and can figure it out with perfect memory, then we're
not requiring him to do anything at all outside of this rule.

--------------------------------------------------------
Example two
Joel is requred by rule 350/0 to perform a series of  actions:
1 He must Randall
2 He must make a photograph of himself Randalling
3 He must post the result of this action on a public place where all 
the players can see it

Both these examples feature actions directed by the rules and 
made outside of a public forum. the only difference is that rule 
350/0 specifies the instrument to be used to record the process  
wheras the banker can use whatever he feels like to do his task

Sorry if my english is so bad today. :)
--------------------------------------------------------
Rule 350/0 requires that Joel must Randall.  Now, if 350/0 would require
ONLY that he must post new pictures of himself Randalling, it would be legal
under this rule.  Of course, since Rule 350/0 predates my proposal, it will
override my proposed rule anyhow.

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal limiting jurisdic
	 tion of rules:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:29:22 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
ONLY that he must post new pictures of himself Randalling, it would be legal
under this rule.  Of course, since Rule 350/0 predates my proposal, it will
override my proposed rule anyhow.
-----Original Message-----

Oh, and I guess I was wrong:  We have no rules of precedence of rules.  I
think we probably should, since I think it adds a keen glimmer of fun to
everything.  I'm weird like that.

Oh, and to back up my statement, I'll quote the sentence of 350/0 (Joel must
Randall) which would be illegal under my new rule.

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

So, The first sentence would make the rule illegal.  Not sure how the rest
of the rule works if the first setence is illegal.

And honestly, I think that if we later decide to make a rule which requires
an action "out of game" for a player, we should ammend THIS proposal.  Or
perhaps we could modify the proposal to be that any rule requiring an out of
game action of a player must have unanimous (or 2/3 or something like that)
consent.  But, I still don't really like the idea that we could elect a
position "Unlucky Loser" which is required (by the rules) to send all of his
money to Joel, and the position is awarded to the player living closest to
Romulus, Michigan.  (And yes, go ahead and FIND a way to legislate around
that using our US Constitution).

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Simmilarity Challenge. 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:54:49 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Here is the 2nd simmilaity challenge.  The words are:
> > Errour
> > Shelob
> > Morgause
> 
> I haven't had any replies!  I thought you people were all getting on my
> case about this.  I'm not sure what the time limit is for this.

I know who all of them are in reasonable detail, but I don't have the 
time or ambition right now... :)  I've never read the first one, so that 
hurts me as well.  

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:58:13 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>The debt system has come in bits and pieces.  The final piece (I think)
>which allows debt trading went through less than two nweeks ago.
>
>I am only responsible for calculating debts and (it seems) scoring
>proposals.  That's quite a lot of work.  The OBC is supposed to calculate
>scores and the Tax Collector is supposed to make sure people pay their
>overdue debts.  I need the cooperation of these people to make this work.

I ordered the payment of debts last week sometime, what else can I do?  I 
don't understand why the system has to explicitely make the transfer 
rather than having all debts owed immediately paid.  It makes much 
unnecessary work.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: prop:automatic debt payment 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:07 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I like this, I never did understand why this wasn't the default.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How's that sound?

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

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Naming Prohibition Proposal
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:17:07 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> So, here's a Proposal to do that:
>=20
> BEGIN
>=20
> Create a new Rule entitled "No Bills of Attainder" with the=20
> following text:
>=20
> "Proposals which name individual Players in their texts are =
prohibited."
>=20
> END

I like the idea, but I think prohibiting proposals is too strict. There =
actually are some valid cases in which individual players should be =
named, e.g. the Administrator rule (208). Also your proposal would still =
allow things like "the Administrator must Randal every two days", =
because it does not contain any names.

I'd suggest:

Rules which name individual players may not be created or modified, =
except if all affected players agree. This also applies to rules which =
do not name players, but refer to such rules directly or implicitly.

The second sentence protects people from indirect rules, like one rule =
"NAME is known as You-Know-Who" and another rule "You-Know-Who must =
Randal".

Joerg

From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Motion to Add
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:06:01 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[Now that I've finally come to terms with the death of RFN, I want some
> more nomic...]]
> 
> Add the person with the real name "Gavin M. Doig" and the email address
> "[email-masked]" as a player named "Blest Lax Monk Pal".
> 

Gavin!  Good to see another old ackan around.  What happened with RFN?

404

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: increased search functionality
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:28:40 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Live record searches are now possible over Motions and Proposals, which is, 
admittedly, not especially useful. (This is a side-effect of my beginning 
to implement the Rule ownership stuff. Hooray, progress.)

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:00:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: parties?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Poulenc - I liked your Parties proposal and it only failed by a 1-3-1-6
vote. Since we have a lot more people playing now, I think it would be
especially interesting to have Parties. Would you consider re-proposing
it? If you don't want to, may I? (I know there's no rules prohibiting me
from repeating his proposal, but it's a matter of politeness.)

Also Joel- I dig the new improved webpage and search engine. Both seem to
be working smoothly.

- 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: Banker's Report
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:40:48 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > In order to update property I need the final scores of 
> potter and 4T2.
> > 
> > Accoring to the last reports I issued:
> > 1 Dec 2000: Potter, 9
> > 15 Jan 2001: 4T2-Supreme Ruler of Everything, 0
> > 
> > I don't know if they had any debts at that time.
> 
> They didn't have any debts.  But they had some points left over from
> before the debt system started.  I need to know how many 
> points they had,
> because those points reverted to bank ownership under the new 
> inheritance
> rule.

Like I said, 9 and 0.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elections 
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:45:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I don't understand why the system has to explicitely make the transfer 
> rather than having all debts owed immediately paid.  It makes much 
> unnecessary work.
> 
> jeff

My feelings exactly.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: prop:automatic debt payment
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:49:14 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This will have my vote, if I remember to vote for once. I was going to
submit a proposal getting rid of the debt system but it was too intertwined
with the rest of the rules and this is a lot easier.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> This silly point-transfer nonsense is making me upset. This 
> is the digital
> age afterall, I can pay my bills online, so why do I have to get the
> runaround in a silly game?
> 
> <proposal title="Automatic Debt Payment">
> create a new rule entitled "Automatic Debt Payment" with the following
> text:
> 
> "Automatic Debt Payer" is an attribute which Players can have.
> 
> A player may gain or lose the "Automatic Debt Payer" (ADP) 
> attribute by
> posting eir preference to a public forum.
> 
> The Banker must keep track of which players currently have the ADP
> attribute.
> 
> Whenever a debt is created naming a Player (X) as a debtor, if the
> named Player has the attribute "Automatic Debt Payer" and 
> also has sufficient 
> funds to pay the debt, then the debt is automatically paid, points
> transferred, and the debt is destroyed.
> </proposal>
> 
> 
> How's that sound?
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: .plan
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:42:19 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

To see the order I intend to do things, finger [email-masked], or visit 
http://www.nomic.net/~g1/dotplan.html.

-- 
J.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Motion to Add
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:02:44 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Gavin!  Good to see another old ackan around.  What happened with RFN?
>
> 404
>
I thought it was time we implemented that secret Ackan takeover.

RFN went much the same way as Fat Acka (but without the threadsplit). It
just kind of fell asleep; it's more comatose than dead, but doctors have
given up all hope.

BLMP (it's been awhile since I signed a message with that).

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rules stuff
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:08:27 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Would it be possible to make all the rules available in the one document? I
always used to use that in Acka (and RFN, although our rules never reached
that size) because it was a lot handier when I was searching for something
(especially offline). I'm assuming the rules pages are all script generated,
so I don't _imagine_ it should be that hard to do.

Oh, and the initial ruleset seems to be missing from the site (or at least,
the link is broken).

Not that I'm being picky...

BLMP.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Umm...
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:18:26 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

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

The magic 8-ball (http://8ball.federated.com/) says "Reply hazy - try
again".

BLMP.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Umm...
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:42:32 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
> A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.
> 
> Rule 114/0 : Orders:
> An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, 
> Judicial, or
> Private.

Hmm, you might want to make a proposal to fix that.

--
The Kid

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:21:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Umm...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Gavin M. Doig wrote:

> Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
> A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.
> 
> Rule 114/0 : Orders:
> An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
> Private.

For CFJs to be issued, this has to be sent to the business list.
Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Umm... 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:18:28 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Gavin M. Doig wrote:
> 
> > Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
> > A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.
> > 
> > Rule 114/0 : Orders:
> > An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial, or
> > Private.
> 
> For CFJs to be issued, this has to be sent to the business list.
> Poulenc

I think e's pointing out the discrepancy between the two Rules, not making 
an RFJ.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rules stuff 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:48:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Gavin M. Doig":
> Would it be possible to make all the rules available in the one document? I
> always used to use that in Acka (and RFN, although our rules never reached
> that size) because it was a lot handier when I was searching for something
> (especially offline). I'm assuming the rules pages are all script generated,
> so I don't _imagine_ it should be that hard to do.

No, it won't be. It shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to implement. I'd 
do it now, but I have to go to class. Maybe later today.
 
> Oh, and the initial ruleset seems to be missing from the site (or at least,
> the link is broken).
 
I hadn't written the code to churn out the Initial Ruleset yet, which is 
why it wasn't there. It should be available now.

> Not that I'm being picky...
> 
> BLMP.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back by popular demand 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:14:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> 
> I submit a new proposal eititled "Parties, back by popular demand"
> 
> The text of this new proposal is exactly the same as the text of proposal
> 382/1
> 
> 
> Poulenc

I have a few questions/suggestions:

Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.

Why do Parties need serial numbers?

I'd like there to be a requirement that Party records be kept in such a way 
that 1) tracks changes to Party rules, and 2) makes all Party records 
public if a Party ceases to exist.

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

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back by popular demand 
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:37:13 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Quoth Dan:
>> 
>> 
>> I submit a new proposal eititled "Parties, back by popular demand"
>> 
>> The text of this new proposal is exactly the same as the text of proposal
>> 382/1
>> 
>> 
>> Poulenc
>
>I have a few questions/suggestions:
>
>Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
>not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.

Rules requiring you to Randall are, of course, another matter.

I hope you all realize Joel intends to shirk his rule-bound obligations.
Boo and hiss at him.

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:36:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: re: Back by popular demand 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

maybe the way to get aroudn this is to make the rules of parties public to
begin with, and then later we can create a "secret parties" or "secret
societies" rule which is similar, but with private rules.
I really want to see some faction action.

> I'd like there to be a requirement that Party records be kept in such a way 
> that 1) tracks changes to Party rules, and 2) makes all Party records 
> public if a Party ceases to exist.
> 
> Also, I have reservations about the idea of only a judge being appraised of 
> Party rules when they are relevant to an RFJ, since such rules could 
> conceivably impact a plaintiff's ability to make eir case.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back by popular demand 
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:01:25 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>>Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
>>not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.
>
>Rules requiring you to Randall are, of course, another matter.
>
>I hope you all realize Joel intends to shirk his rule-bound obligations.
>Boo and hiss at him.

booo
hisss

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back by popular demand 
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:01:25 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>>Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
>>not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.
>
>Rules requiring you to Randall are, of course, another matter.
>
>I hope you all realize Joel intends to shirk his rule-bound obligations.
>Boo and hiss at him.

booo
hisss

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back by popular demand 
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:37:13 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Quoth Dan:
>> 
>> 
>> I submit a new proposal eititled "Parties, back by popular demand"
>> 
>> The text of this new proposal is exactly the same as the text of proposal
>> 382/1
>> 
>> 
>> Poulenc
>
>I have a few questions/suggestions:
>
>Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
>not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.

Rules requiring you to Randall are, of course, another matter.

I hope you all realize Joel intends to shirk his rule-bound obligations.
Boo and hiss at him.

Josh

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back by popular demand 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:14:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> 
> I submit a new proposal eititled "Parties, back by popular demand"
> 
> The text of this new proposal is exactly the same as the text of proposal
> 382/1
> 
> 
> Poulenc

I have a few questions/suggestions:

Section 4 creates a "rune". That would be the first rune in this game. I'm 
not sure that I'd be bound to follow a rune.

Why do Parties need serial numbers?

I'd like there to be a requirement that Party records be kept in such a way 
that 1) tracks changes to Party rules, and 2) makes all Party records 
public if a Party ceases to exist.

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

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:36:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: re: Back by popular demand 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

maybe the way to get aroudn this is to make the rules of parties public to
begin with, and then later we can create a "secret parties" or "secret
societies" rule which is similar, but with private rules.
I really want to see some faction action.

> I'd like there to be a requirement that Party records be kept in such a way 
> that 1) tracks changes to Party rules, and 2) makes all Party records 
> public if a Party ceases to exist.
> 
> Also, I have reservations about the idea of only a judge being appraised of 
> Party rules when they are relevant to an RFJ, since such rules could 
> conceivably impact a plaintiff's ability to make eir case.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:35:00 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: test
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

sorry, i've been getting duplicate messages... seeing if it will still happen.

jeff

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: duplicate messages
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:22:35 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I was looking at the headers of the duplicate messages---both the ones 
tonight, and the ones last time this happened---and I've come to the 
conclusion that something is screwed up at medstat.com, the reason being 
that the headers show the messages going from nomic.net there, and then 
back to the list. Also, this seems to correspond to my receiving a bounce 
for some message going to sabby. Hey, sabby, complain at your ISP, would 
you?

-- 
J.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new players
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:45:06 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> BTW, is there some sort of story behind your name, BLMP?
>
Indeed there is. It's not very good though.

A while ago in Acka, I changed my name to "smallpox blanket", for
REM-related reasons (the phrase "you smallpox blanket" appears in the sleeve
notes to Monster, and the lyric "smallpox blanket? no way" in Diminished,
off of Up). Then JT used an artefact know as The Really Big Blue Thing That
Doesn't Do
 Too Much, Really (which had the power to change a player's name to an
acronym of what it was) to change my name to Blest Lax Monk Pal.

I told you it wasn't very good.

BLMP.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Umm...
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:00:02 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
> > A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.
> >
> > Rule 114/0 : Orders:
> > An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial,
or
> > Private.
>
> For CFJs to be issued, this has to be sent to the business list.
> Poulenc
>
That wasn't an attempt to call for judgement. I wasn't even a player...

Anyway, it seems that rule 234/1 has already fixed the problem. I'm not
quite sure when... oh, 11 November. I'm not quite sure why I was looking at
/0, not /1.

Actually, further checking reveals all RFJs are from before November 11.

"It's worse than that, he's dead Jim!"

BLMP.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Umm... 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:38:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Gavin M. Doig":
> > > Rule 234/0 : Requests for Judgment:
> > > A Request for Judgment is a Personal Order.
> > >
> > > Rule 114/0 : Orders:
> > > An Order must be either Legislative, Motive, Administrative, Judicial,
> or
> > > Private.
> >
> > For CFJs to be issued, this has to be sent to the business list.
> > Poulenc
> >
> That wasn't an attempt to call for judgement. I wasn't even a player...
> 
> Anyway, it seems that rule 234/1 has already fixed the problem. I'm not
> quite sure when... oh, 11 November. I'm not quite sure why I was looking at
> /0, not /1.
> 
> Actually, further checking reveals all RFJs are from before November 11.

Except the newest two, which haven't quite made it to the page yet... I'll be getting to that sometime post-2pm tomorrow.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rules naming specific players
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:51:28 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I still have some strong objections agains both PurpleBob's and Joel's =
proposal on limiting the submission or adoption of proposals naming =
specific players.

I think a rule that creates such limititation must satisfy the following =
requirements:

1. It must refer to rules, not proposals

Imagine we have a rule X that says: "Name is known as You-Know-Who." =
Name did not object to the creation of this rule, because he doesn't =
mind being known as You-Know-Who.

However, now someone can make the following proposal: "Amend rule X by =
adding 'and must Randal once each nweek'". This proposal neither names a =
specific player, nor does it use any terms which indirectly refer to one =
player, so it can be passed without Name's consent.

2. It must also limit indirect references

Otherwise, with the above rule X, the use of You-Know-Who in another =
rule would be perfectly legal, even if Name does not agree.

3. No consent should be required from Officers

An Officer is not a "specific player". He has accepted the requirements =
of the office before, and he can resign at any time.

4. No consent should be required from the Administrator, however...

This is a *real* problem.

Imagine we make a small change to the debt system (e.g. my CFJ if ruled =
"TRUE" and and a proposal is made to make debts real objects). This =
affects the offices of the banker and of the tax collector. This affects =
the Administrator, since he is responsible for the duties of an Officer =
who resigned. The Administrator is defined in R208 which names a =
specific player (Joel). Due to the indirect reference, Joel must consent =
to the rule change.

However, if no consent is required, a rule like "The Administrator must =
Randal" would be legal.

5. Consent should be given explicitly

You can't assume someone agrees simply because he didn't vote "No". What =
if he did not submit a vote at all? I think consent should be assumed =
only if a player submits a vote, and it is either Abstain ("I don't =
care") or Yes ("Yea! I *want* to Randal!").

Joerg

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:34:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

sorry. this has been a really busy/shitty week.

how long do judges have to issue a judgement before recusal?

- 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: RFJ
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:43:41 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> > RFJ#29, Joerg: NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
> > Benjamin is recused as Judge.
> > Zagarna is appointed as Judge.
> 
> sorry. this has been a really busy/shitty week.
> 
> how long do judges have to issue a judgement before recusal?

As I understand the rules you are supposed to issue judgement within three
days, but I then only have to recuse you in a 'reasonable' amount of time.
I'm afaid I didn't exactly give you much slack on the matter, I recused you
after three days and half an hour! Don't worry about it, I did it simply cos
it's easier for me to keep everything fairly syncronised. Besides, if I
hadn't have done it while I was thinking about it I'd have forgotten over
the weekend.

And while I think about it, can someone tell me if the rules about players
being 'Away' are still around, if Away players can be selected as judges,
and which players are currently Away?

--
The Kid

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:49:25 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

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

Uhm, i seem to have lost th text of the RFJ in my transition between
mail clients, active RFJ's used to be displayed on the web page but i
noticed this is no longer the case.
Could someone please forward it to me please?

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:24:26 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On a personal note, I don't really understand your RFJ. Are you trying to
> say that it was ONLY possible before 11 Nov, and that it's not afterwards?
> And more to the point, why are you making an RFJ about old rules?
>
I'm saying it was possible before, because the fact that a Request for
Judgment was defined as a "Personal" Order, when no such thing was defined,
cast doubt upon it. Afterwards they were some kind of motion, so it seems
pretty clear that it's possible now. I'm making the RFJ because if it wasn't
possible, then all the RFJs before the 11th of November never actually
happened.

BLMP.

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: duplicate messages
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:24:29 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Heh.  I'm using my work account, kind of hard for me to complain to my ISP
in this case.  Well, if this keeps going on, go ahead and unscribe me here.
I'll see if I can subscribe to the list from my Pilot email address.  Lot
less easy (elm vs. Outlook)... but doable.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: duplicate messages

I was looking at the headers of the duplicate messages---both the ones 
tonight, and the ones last time this happened---and I've come to the 
conclusion that something is screwed up at medstat.com, the reason being 
that the headers show the messages going from nomic.net there, and then 
back to the list. Also, this seems to correspond to my receiving a bounce 
for some message going to sabby. Hey, sabby, complain at your ISP, would 
you?

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:17:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<< 1. It must refer to rules, not proposals

Imagine we have a rule X that says: "Name is known as
You-Know-Who." Name did not object to the creation of
this rule, because he doesn't mind being known as
You-Know-Who.

However, now someone can make the following proposal:
"Amend rule X by adding 'and must Randal once each
nweek'". This proposal neither names a specific
player, nor does it use any terms which indirectly
refer to one player, so it can be passed without
Name's consent.
>>

This shows that it must refer to rules AND proposals.
If it only applied to rules, a proposal could be made
to take away all of Name's points and divide them
among the other players.

<< 2. It must also limit indirect references

Otherwise, with the above rule X, the use of
You-Know-Who in another rule would be perfectly legal,
even if Name does not agree.
>>
This is covered by my clause about indirect
references.

<<
3. No consent should be required from Officers

An Officer is not a "specific player". He has accepted
the requirements of the office before, and he can
resign at any time.
>>

But should he be forced to resign if Randalling has
suddenly been added to his office's requirements
without his consent?

<< 4. No consent should be required from the
Administrator, however...

This is a *real* problem.

Imagine we make a small change to the debt system
(e.g. my CFJ if ruled "TRUE" and and a proposal is
made to make debts real objects). This affects the
offices of the banker and of the tax collector. This
affects the Administrator, since he is responsible for
the duties of an Officer who resigned. The
Administrator is defined in R208 which names a
specific player (Joel). Due to the indirect reference,
Joel must consent to the rule change.
>>

In a way, everyone is affected by every rule. Thus my
proposal only deals with people who are mentioned in a
rule, not affected by it.

<< However, if no consent is required, a rule like
"The Administrator must Randal" would be legal. >>

Exactly.

<< 5. Consent should be given explicitly

You can't assume someone agrees simply because he
didn't vote "No". What if he did not submit a vote at
all? I think consent should be assumed only if a
player submits a vote, and it is either Abstain ("I
don't care") or Yes ("Yea! I *want* to Randal!"). >>

Good idea. I`ll fix that.

On a somewhat related note, if Joel would tell us what
Randalling is, I might vote for "Repeal R350". 

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:34:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > 
> > > RFJ#29, Joerg: NomicHomes cannot be transferred.
> > > Benjamin is recused as Judge.
> > > Zagarna is appointed as Judge.
> > 
> > sorry. this has been a really busy/shitty week.
> > 
> > how long do judges have to issue a judgement before recusal?
> 
> As I understand the rules you are supposed to issue judgement within three
> days, but I then only have to recuse you in a 'reasonable' amount of time.
> I'm afaid I didn't exactly give you much slack on the matter, I recused you
> after three days and half an hour! Don't worry about it, I did it simply cos
> it's easier for me to keep everything fairly syncronised. Besides, if I
> hadn't have done it while I was thinking about it I'd have forgotten over
> the weekend.
> 
> And while I think about it, can someone tell me if the rules about players
> being 'Away' are still around, if Away players can be selected as judges,
> and which players are currently Away?
> 
> --
> The Kid

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

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:05:50 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> << 1. It must refer to rules, not proposals
> (...)
>=20
> This shows that it must refer to rules AND proposals.
> If it only applied to rules, a proposal could be made
> to take away all of Name's points and divide them
> among the other players.

Ah, yes, you're right. Or, even better, motions and rules -- so noone =
can make a should-be-proposal as a motion to circumvent the rule.

> << 2. It must also limit indirect references
> (...)
>
> This is covered by my clause about indirect
> references.

Yes, but it's not in Joel's proposal. I just wanted to make a complete =
list of what kind of rule I'd like to vote for.

> <<
> 3. No consent should be required from Officers
>=20
> An Officer is not a "specific player". He has accepted
> the requirements of the office before, and he can
> resign at any time.
> >>
>=20
> But should he be forced to resign if Randalling has
> suddenly been added to his office's requirements
> without his consent?

Yes.

If he says "If you pass that rule, I'll resign" then everyone would =
probably think twice about that proposal, so he still can do a lot to =
prevent such rules.

See my sample case below explaining why Officers should not have to =
agree.

> << 4. No consent should be required from the
> Administrator, however...
>=20
> (...) Administrator is defined in R208 which names a
> specific player (Joel). Due to the indirect reference,
> Joel must consent to the rule change.
> >>
>=20
> In a way, everyone is affected by every rule. Thus my
> proposal only deals with people who are mentioned in a
> rule, not affected by it.

Yes, everyone is affected, including "The Player whose real name is Joel =
Uckelman". That's the problem -- at least every officer-rule =
(indirectly) refers to the Administrator, who *is* a specific player.

It's hard, I'd even say impossible, to draw the line. Does the (very =
indirect) way in which the Administrator is affected in my example still =
require his consent?

That's why I made my "the Administor is an Officer"-proposal. It will =
still give him the power to threaten us with his possible resignation, =
and thus he can still prevent us from adopting proposals which he =
doesn't like. But at least it will make rule changes without his consent =
legal.

Suppose the following case: Some minor change to an officer-related rule =
is proposed, and while Joel doesn't like the change, he doesn't think =
it's so bad that he would have to resign. Everyone votes for the =
proposal except Joel and EvilGuy, who vote against. It gets adopted, and =
EvilGuy makes a CFJ stating that the rule change was illegal, because a =
specific player is affected who did not give his consent. Now what =
happens?

If officers are not *required* to agree (and the Administrator is an =
officer), there won't be any uncertainty about the legality of the rule =
change.

> On a somewhat related note, if Joel would tell us what
> Randalling is, I might vote for "Repeal R350".=20

Yes, me too :-)

I already made a definition, however:
Randalling (verb Randal): Some mysterious action a player is forced to =
take against his will. The only action that is never game related, even =
if mentioned in the rules.=20

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: comment on Parties Prop
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:15:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:40:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=: 
> > On a somewhat related note, if Joel would tell us what
> > Randalling is, I might vote for "Repeal R350".=20
> 
> Yes, me too :-)
> 
> I already made a definition, however:
> Randalling (verb Randal): Some mysterious action a player is forced to =
> take against his will. The only action that is never game related, even =
> if mentioned in the rules.=20
> 
> 
> Joerg

Hard to describe if you've never seen _Clerks_. It's basically that funny 
walk that Randal does at the end of the movie. It makes much more (less?) 
sense when you realize that getting me to do this has been the center of a 
contest of wills between me and a few others for three years now. I hope 
that helps. Or maybe not.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:50:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: scoring
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I see a couple of problems with the present scoring system.  I like the
way we reward people for passed proposals, but I think that penalizing
players for failed proposals discourages innovation.  Sometimes an idea
might have to be presented in several different forms before it catches
on, and the person who thinks of it first gets dinged for points.

Also, this makes the income of the bank highly unpredictable.  It is very
hard for me to try to keep some semblance of balance.

I would rather see a system where there is a light fee at the submission
stage of every proposal proposal, so everyone pays a fairly light toll
rather than the unlucky player getting slapped with a big fine.

I'm still trying to pay off my debt from the time I got slapped for 60
points in one go, because the fine was set high and several of my
proposals failed.

Does anyone agree with me?

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:50:33 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: comment on Parties Prop 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

since when do you like guinness?

jeff
At 09:00 PM 2/23/01, you wrote:
>Quoth Dan:
> >
> > [[
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> >
> > > I just reread P410, and noticed another minor error. There are no things
> > > known as CFJs. Presumably you mean "RFJ" instead.
> > >
> > > --
> > > J.
> >
> > I guess that's my dependancy on old Berserker getting through.  Ack!
> > ]]
> >
> > I revise my proposal 410 by replacing every instance of "CFJ" with "RFJ".
> >
> > [[
> > I'd copy out the whole thing properly but I play this game exclusively
> > in an 80x24 text window running Pine.  It's a fairly major cut-and-paste
> > job to get it all in.
> > ]]
> >
> > Poulenc.
>
>Recognized.
>
>Speaking of RFJs, I'll see if I can get those up on the page before going
>off to play billiards and have a Guinness. Mmmm, Guinness.
>
>--
>J.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players 
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:29:31 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=: 
>> > On a somewhat related note, if Joel would tell us what
>> > Randalling is, I might vote for "Repeal R350".=20
>> 
>> Yes, me too :-)
>> 
>> I already made a definition, however:
>> Randalling (verb Randal): Some mysterious action a player is forced to =
>> take against his will. The only action that is never game related, even =
>> if mentioned in the rules.=20
>> 
>> 
>> Joerg
>
>Hard to describe if you've never seen _Clerks_. It's basically that funny 
>walk that Randal does at the end of the movie. It makes much more (less?) 
>sense when you realize that getting me to do this has been the center of a 
>contest of wills between me and a few others for three years now. I hope 
>that helps. Or maybe not.

RANDAL, BITCH, RANDAL

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players 
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:53:10 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'd just like to register my opinion on this. I'm against it. There.

More specifically, I'm against legislation to prevent rules from naming
specific players. This will only add a needless layer of complexity to the
proosal process, and if anyone really wants to do it anyway, they will. If
there's one thing that playing nomic has taught me, it's that any
restriction can be got around with sufficient ingenuity.

I think this is something where we should just rely on people not to vote
for rules saying "BLMP must give all his stuff to Joel". At the most basic
level, we can't force people to take out-of-game actions anyway, and I just
can't see us voting for something to do really unpleasant in-game things to
someone; it's neither big, funny, nor clever - and those are the 3 rules by
which nomic players judge proosals.

BLMP.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players 
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:57:20 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Gavin M. Doig" sez:
>I'd just like to register my opinion on this. I'm against it. There.
>
>More specifically, I'm against legislation to prevent rules from naming
>specific players. This will only add a needless layer of complexity to the
>proosal process, and if anyone really wants to do it anyway, they will. If
>there's one thing that playing nomic has taught me, it's that any
>restriction can be got around with sufficient ingenuity.
>
>I think this is something where we should just rely on people not to vote
>for rules saying "BLMP must give all his stuff to Joel". At the most basic
>level, we can't force people to take out-of-game actions anyway, and I just
>can't see us voting for something to do really unpleasant in-game things to
>someone; it's neither big, funny, nor clever - and those are the 3 rules by
>which nomic players judge proosals.

What about scams where players get rules passed which benefit them
or a certain group of players personally? At least one win in this
nomic's successor was due to such a situation.

Of course all this is ancillary to the primary issue at hand, which
is Joel's Randalling.

Josh

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: comment on Parties Prop 
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:53:47 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> since when do you like guinness?
> 
Mmm... Guinness...

BLMP.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: scoring
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:56:52 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Does anyone agree with me?
>
No.

You communist!

Don't have much time to write stuff right now, but I'm very much in favour
of the traditional nomic scoring system. It provides an incentive to make
sure your proosals are good (well structured) and popular (likely to pass)
before you submit them.

BLMP.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: rules naming specific players 
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:03:43 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Josh, he say:
> What about scams where players get rules passed which benefit them
> or a certain group of players personally? At least one win in this
> nomic's successor was due to such a situation.
>
Good for them. If they can manage to sneak it past the rest of the players,
well done. I've never understood why people were against scams.

> Of course all this is ancillary to the primary issue at hand, which
> is Joel's Randalling.
>
That I am in favour of.

BLMP.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: P406 revision
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:10:12 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This is a complete revision of P406:
>=20
> BEGIN
>=20
> Create a new Rule entitled "Impossible Actions"
>=20
> "No Agent shall be required to take an action if there is no=20
> public fora in=20
> which that action would be possible. Any Rule or portion thereof=20
> that would=20
> require such actions of an Agent shall have no effect."
>=20
> END

So the Administrator is no longer required to update the Roster since he =
can't do it in a public forum? He could submit the updated version to a =
public fourm, but he can't update it in a forum.

> And the revision is recognized as P406/1. On a related note, please =
vote=20
> for P401, so we can eliminate this recognition business. :)

But it conflicts with P406, since the numbering no longer takes place in =
a public forum.

Come on, it's impossible to draw a clear line between game-related =
actions and Randalling.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Bank pays its debts!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:10:11 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

And it's still just -7 for me.

Joerg

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:42:40 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: comment on Parties Prop 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The black fuel...

At 04:53 AM 2/24/01, you wrote:
> > since when do you like guinness?
> >
>Mmm... Guinness...
>
>BLMP.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:47:24 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Concerning the RFJ 30: can someone clarify the importance of 11 Nov?  I'm 
trying to understand the RFJ before I rule on it.

jeff

At 03:20 AM 2/23/01, you wrote:
> >
> > Statement:
> > It was possible to make a Request for Judgment before the
> > 11th of November
> > 2000.
>
>Recognised as RFJ#30 and assigned to Jeff.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:05:35 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: scoring
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:50 PM 2/23/01, you wrote:

>I see a couple of problems with the present scoring system.  I like the
>way we reward people for passed proposals, but I think that penalizing
>players for failed proposals discourages innovation.  Sometimes an idea
>might have to be presented in several different forms before it catches
>on, and the person who thinks of it first gets dinged for points.

I have been setting the failed proposal fine to a low amount for just those 
reasons.  In an upcoming nweek, I will set it to zero again.  However I 
don't agree that the discouragement of innovation is a large enough 
justification for removing the failed proposal fine altogether.  I checked 
the rules and do not see a proposal limit per player, therefore the purpose 
is to prevent a Player or Players from inundating the system with frivolous 
proposals.

>Also, this makes the income of the bank highly unpredictable.  It is very
>hard for me to try to keep some semblance of balance.

It is unpredictable.  :) Such is the world in which we are playing!

>I would rather see a system where there is a light fee at the submission
>stage of every proposal proposal, so everyone pays a fairly light toll
>rather than the unlucky player getting slapped with a big fine.
>
>I'm still trying to pay off my debt from the time I got slapped for 60
>points in one go, because the fine was set high and several of my
>proposals failed.
>
>Does anyone agree with me?

I like the current system, I think that your idea would limit innovation 
more than the current system does, so what is the point?  How many points 
do you have right now?  More than 60?

jeff

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: scoring 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:25:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> At 09:50 PM 2/23/01, you wrote:
> 
> >I see a couple of problems with the present scoring system.  I like the
> >way we reward people for passed proposals, but I think that penalizing
> >players for failed proposals discourages innovation.  Sometimes an idea
> >might have to be presented in several different forms before it catches
> >on, and the person who thinks of it first gets dinged for points.
> 
> I have been setting the failed proposal fine to a low amount for just those 
> reasons.  In an upcoming nweek, I will set it to zero again.  However I 
> don't agree that the discouragement of innovation is a large enough 
> justification for removing the failed proposal fine altogether.  I checked 
> the rules and do not see a proposal limit per player, therefore the purpose 
> is to prevent a Player or Players from inundating the system with frivolous 
> proposals.

Actually, an Agent is limited to 10 live Motions of any one type (R120), 
and since Proposals are Motion, no one can have more than 10 live Proposals 
at any one time. Nor may anyone make more than 10 new Proposals in one day, 
either (also from the second sentence of R120).

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:34:25 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Reclaim debts owed the bank
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmm, I was going to take your payment off before I sent the mail.  i must 
not have, oh well!

At 01:23 PM 2/24/01, you wrote:

> > I hereby make a Bank Motion requiring the bank to collect the
> > following points:
> >
> > 60 points from Poulenc
> > 11 points from Benjamin
> > 8 points from Joerg
>
>I make the following RFJ:
>
>--
>
>Statement:
>
>The Bank Motion made by Jeff Schroeder on Feb. 24, 2001 was invalid.
>
>Analysis:
>
>According to Rules 317 and 319, Motions for Repayment can be made only if 
>a debt is overdue. Joerg's debt is payable nweek 16 and is not overdue. 
>Bejamin's debt is payable nweek 15 and is not overdue [[but will soon be]].
>
>Furthermore, as stated in the correction to the Banker's Report, Joerg's 
>debt is only 7 points, but the Motion requires a payment of 8 points.
>
>--
>
>Oh, and I canot repay the debt anyway, I don't have any points.
>
>
>Joerg

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:19:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Reclaim debts owed the bank
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

The process for collecting overdue debts is specified in rule 319:

     If an agent owes points, e is considered a debtor. The agent to
     which those points are owed is eir creditor. If e does not pay
     those points which e owes within whatever time is agreed upon in
     advance by those parties, or two nweeks otherwise, the debt becomes
     overdue and eir creditor may submit a Motion for Repayment for that
     particular debt.

     A Motion for Repayment that is submitted becomes a ballot issue at
     the start of the next nweekly voting. If it passes then a Motive
     Order is issued for the repayment of the debt, to be performed as
     soon as possible.

The process by which the Bank in particular collects overdue debts is
provided by the second paragraph of rule 317:

     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. If a debt
     owed the bank is overdue the Tax Collector shall, within a
     reasonable length of time, submit a motion for repayment of that
     debt on behalf of the bank.

"Repayment" should probably be changed to "Payment".

Actions requires ASAP must be performed in the order in which they became
required, and before any other actions.  A player who is bankrupt is
effectively removed from the game until someone gives them some points.  I
never quite finished that part.  However, nobody can be forced to pay a
debt unless the majority sides against them.  Perhaps we should create
some sort of a late payment fine too.

Since I'm broke I won't pay my 60 points until I am ordered to.

Poulenc.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 07:45:47 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Concerning the RFJ 30: can someone clarify the importance of 11 Nov?  I'm
> trying to understand the RFJ before I rule on it.
>
That's when the proosal that amended rule 234/0, saying "Public Order", to
234/1, saying Motion, passed.

BLMP.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: scoring 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:03:45 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> I see a couple of problems with the present scoring system.  I like the
> way we reward people for passed proposals, but I think that penalizing
> players for failed proposals discourages innovation.  Sometimes an idea
> might have to be presented in several different forms before it catches
> on, and the person who thinks of it first gets dinged for points.
> 
> Also, this makes the income of the bank highly unpredictable.  It is very
> hard for me to try to keep some semblance of balance.
> 
> I would rather see a system where there is a light fee at the submission
> stage of every proposal proposal, so everyone pays a fairly light toll
> rather than the unlucky player getting slapped with a big fine.
> 
> I'm still trying to pay off my debt from the time I got slapped for 60
> points in one go, because the fine was set high and several of my
> proposals failed.
> 
> Does anyone agree with me?
> 
> Poulenc

Hmm. I have two thoughts:

First, if we were going to do something like this, it would be a good idea 
to allow everyone a free proposal per nweek, or to provide some sort of 
"unemployment" payment, just so no one could get into a position in which e 
was unable to make Proposals.

Second, I thought sure that the first Amnesty Resolution cut your debt to 
something fairly small.

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:15:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: opposed minority award
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Why do we have an Opposed Minority Award?

I'm thinking of making a huge proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring
system. Who would object if I did away with the OMA and why?

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

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:48:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: opposed minority award
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Benjamin Bradley wrote:

> Why do we have an Opposed Minority Award?
> 
> I'm thinking of making a huge proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring
> system. Who would object if I did away with the OMA and why?

I am personally opposed to the OMA, however...

I have done an experiment in the last few weeks.  It may just be
coincicence, but it appears that more people vote when there is an OMA
than when there is not.

If we can find a better incentive to vote, then yes, I am all for doing
away with the OMA.

Poulenc.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Prop recognition
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:53:17 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The following Proposal is recognized:
>=20
> P413/0; A Resolution for Point Amnesty, part 2; by Poulenc
>=20
> That should cover all of the outstanding Proposals. Voting starts in=20
> approximately two hours.

No, you still have to recognize my Roster improvement proposal.

Joerg

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:56:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: scoring 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Hmm. I have two thoughts:
> 
> First, if we were going to do something like this, it would be a good idea 
> to allow everyone a free proposal per nweek, or to provide some sort of 
> "unemployment" payment, just so no one could get into a position in which e 
> was unable to make Proposals.
> 
> Second, I thought sure that the first Amnesty Resolution cut your debt to 
> something fairly small.

If the amnesty resolution is altered my debt will remain large.  But I'm
not worrying about it because I think I still have more than sixty points.

Some kind of unemployment benefit would probably be a good idea.  Or, if
we make the payment by the debt system they wouldn't actually have to pay
the fee until after their proposal has passed and they have been paid.

Another idea for bank revenue is to create some kind of proportional tax
on point holdings.

Since Extra Votes are priced at way more than anyone can afford to pay,
could we reduce the price a little so there is some bank income there too?
Both this and the tax would allow us to lower the price to create
proposals and make it easier on the new players.

Poulenc.

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:17:45 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: the thug
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Who is the owner of the Thug? 

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: opposed minority award 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:06:51 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> Why do we have an Opposed Minority Award?
> 
> I'm thinking of making a huge proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring
> system. Who would object if I did away with the OMA and why?

I've always liked it because it creates tension and uncertainty.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the thug 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:09:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> Who is the owner of the Thug? 
> 
> 
> Shop online without a credit card
> http://www.rocketcash.com
> RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

That is a wonderful question. I believe the answer is "no one", since I 
forgot to include a mechanism for determining the initial owner when I made 
the Thug Proposal. I should fix that next nweek.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:31:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: opposed minority award 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

the opposed minority award gives points to people who voted against a
proposal when it passes.
how does that create tension and uncertainty?
I see it more as a kind of indirect consiliation prize.

> Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> > Why do we have an Opposed Minority Award?
> 
> I've always liked it because it creates tension and uncertainty.
> -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: Re: spoon-discuss: opposed minority award 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:41:18 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Uncertainty for the owner of the Proposal: "I wonder how many people will 
vote against my Proposal just to get points? Will that make it fail?"

Tension for the voter: "Should I vote for this because I like it, or 
against it to get points?"

Tension between those who voted for the Proposal and those who voted 
against it just to get points.

It's a prisoners' dilemma, really, since it provides an incentive to 
"defect".

As a consolation prize it's pretty crappy, since it's usually so small.

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> the opposed minority award gives points to people who voted against a
> proposal when it passes.
> how does that create tension and uncertainty?
> I see it more as a kind of indirect consiliation prize.
> 
> > Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> > > Why do we have an Opposed Minority Award?
> > 
> > I've always liked it because it creates tension and uncertainty.
> > -J 
> 
> - You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:46:29 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: final recognition before Ballot
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In rule 317/1 the necessary motion is specifically referred to as a Bank 
Motion.  3rd paragraph.

jeff

At 12:25 AM 2/26/01, you wrote:
>The following Proposals are recognized:
>
>P414/0, Roster improvement, by Joerg
>P415/0, Randal Judgements, by PurpleBob
>P416/0, Debt Fix, by Poulenc
>
>I'm unsure how to handle Jeff's Bank Motion. I think he meant a Motion for
>Repayment, which would be M22/0.
>
>--
>J.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:07:56 +1100 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: how does one vote?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've looked through all the rules, and although plenty of rules say what
gets voted on, and when, etc I can't actually see anything
defining how one makes a vote.

Regards,

Jonno

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: scoring 
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:59:44 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Some kind of unemployment benefit would probably be a good idea.  Or, =
if
> we make the payment by the debt system they wouldn't actually have to =
pay
> the fee until after their proposal has passed and they have been paid.

Unemployment benefit? Did he say *benefit*?

You communist!

Didn't someone say that already? Arghh! He's EVIL!

> Another idea for bank revenue is to create some kind of proportional =
tax
> on point holdings.

Property tax? You communist!

Hmmm. I like the idea, actually :-)

I thought about the creation of some sort of "social security" system =
already. I'm planning to make a proposal to create something like that. =
Hoever I think that should be seperated from the bank and work more like =
an insurance.

Creating bank revenue is another problem, but getting it from players is =
not really a good economic system, is it? First the bank gives points to =
everyone, then it claims them back because it's broke. With the current =
rules, the bank is somehwat expected to simply create new points.

> Since Extra Votes are priced at way more than anyone can afford to =
pay,
> could we reduce the price a little so there is some bank income there =
too?
> Both this and the tax would allow us to lower the price to create
> proposals and make it easier on the new players.

Hmmmm, no. I don't like the idea of pay-per-proposal anyway, and I also =
don't like extra votes. So keep them unaffordable at least.

Joerg

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: how does one vote?
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:59:50 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jonathan Downes
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 11:08 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: how does one vote?
>=20
>=20
> I've looked through all the rules, and although plenty of rules say =
what
> gets voted on, and when, etc I can't actually see anything
> defining how one makes a vote.

Hmmm, yes. You're supposed to make sure the Administrator (Joel) =
receives your votes and understands them.

The easiest way is to reply to the ballot mail and send the reply to =
Joel (not to the discussion list). Simply replace the proposals' titles =
with your vote.

Like this:

> P400/0, YES
> P401/0, NO
> P402/0, ABSTAIN
etc.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:04:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Chess":
> I hearby make a Request For Judgement.
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Voting without notifying the Administrator of your votes is possible [[if
> not entirely practical]]
> 
> Analysis:
> 
> There is nothing in the rules that I can find which states how one should
> vote. Therefore, it is entirely possible to vote by any means one wishes,
> and one is fully justified in complaining about the actions that ought due
> to other rules to result from their votes not being carried out even if one
> has not actually posted one's votes in a way seen by the Administrator. This
> system may be open to abuse, as such private votes may be said by the player
> to be anything they like. [[I intend to write up a proposal to fix this when
> I get time, but a RFJ seemed more fun right now.]]
> 
> [[Right, given I've been a bit rushed in writing this, I suspect (hope?)
> it's going to be refuted pretty easily...]]

R112 prohibits actions in private fora, unless allowed by the Rules. R226 
allows a specific kind of action to take place in private fora, namely 
voting by notifying the Admin. I suppose you could take "A Player may vote 
privately if e so desires by notifying the Administrator" to mean that a 
Player could email me saying "Hey! I'm voting privately!" and then not send 
me eir votes, but I see two possible responses to that:

1) "Fora are the means by which Players communicate." according to R112. 
Voting privately by sending your votes to yourself may not constitute 
communication between Players. If that's the case, however, that may mean 
that none of my votes have ever counted, unless of course there is some 
caveat that allows me to communicate with myself so long as it is in two 
different capacaties, namely as the Admin and as a Player. Weird.

2) The second, and I believe more plausible, response comes from the last 
sentence of R226: "Votes cast privately shall not be revealed until voting 
ends." So, even if someone were to cast votes in the "private" manner 
described above, an argument could be made that they are required to reveal 
their votes when voting ends.

On the other hand, these two rely on what I believe is a spurious 
interpretation of "notify". I think there is an implied "of eir votes" at 
the end of "A Player may vote privately if e so desires by notifying the 
Administrator."

My $0.02.

-- 
J.

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: opposed minority award
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:50:25 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Why do we have an Opposed Minority Award?
>
> I'm thinking of making a huge proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring
> system. Who would object if I did away with the OMA and why?

I would object, strongly. It's good for a couple of things:
1) Keeps ppl who are too tired/busy to think of proposals in the game and
having fun - the 'should I vote because I like/dislike it or because I think
it'll definately pass/fail and I want more points' factor.
2) Makes it possible to play the game in two modes, the 'I want to shape the
game' mode and the 'I'm going to acquire points' mode. This makes for
interesting decisions on what to vote for, as in 1).

Basically, I like it; it makes me think more about voting. (Now everyone's
going to hate me and kill all my proposals, aren't they?)

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 15
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:03:05 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:36:38 -0600, you wrote:

>The following Proposals are up for voting:
>
>P400/0, Voting Clean-up, by Joel
yes

>P401/0, Recognition Elimination, by Joel
yes

>P402/0, R103 Fix, by Joel
YES

>P403/0, Only Players May Change the Rules, by Joel
YES

>P404/0, Jurisdiction of Rules, by sabby
NO

>P405/0, Only Players may win, by Joerg
YES

>P407/0, Automatic Debt Payment, by Benjamin
YES

>P408/0, Proposal Dependency: I Need My Fix, by Joel
YES

>P409/0, Repeal R350, by Joel
NO

>P410/1, Parties: back by popular demand, by Poulenc
NO

>P412/0, The Administrator is an Elected Office that does not expire, by=20
>Joerg
NO

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

>P414/0, Roster improvement, by Joerg
YES

>P415/0, Randal Judgments, by PurpleBob
YES

>P416/0, Debt Fix, by Poulenc
YES

--

zagarna

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

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: P406 revision
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:38:00 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> So the Administrator is no longer required to update the Roster since he
can't do it in a > public forum? He could submit the updated version to a
public fourm, but he can't update 
> it in a forum.

He's required to submit a copy of the roster to a public forum.  The public
forum could be the roster page of the web.  <shrug>

Or it could be the list, and he (as a service, which he is not required to
do) put it up on the web as well.

*OR* we could ammend my proposal to say that non-game-related rules require
a 2/3 majority, or something silly.  To prevent spurious non-game-related
actions.  <shrug>

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce Proposal Fee.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:40:34 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:50 -0500, you wrote:

This way the banker could almost completley control the game by
setting a new proposal fee of, say, 500 points.

--

zagarna

_________________________________________________________
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 to introduce 
 Proposal Fee.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:59:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Antonio:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:50 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> This way the banker could almost completley control the game by
> setting a new proposal fee of, say, 500 points.
> 
> --
> 
> zagarna

Um, yeah, that's a good point. There should be some semi-reasonable upper limit on any proposed New Proposal Fee. It would also be interesting to allow it to go negative, in order to encourage Proposals or if the Bank somehow became extraordinarily wealthy.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:13:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: name
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think it's time to adopt a more meaningful name for our nomic, and I
think we have enough players now that the yays can finally outweigh the
nays.

Of the previously suggested names, my favorite was Aphasia.

Eh?

- 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: name 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:23:24 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> I think it's time to adopt a more meaningful name for our nomic, and I
> think we have enough players now that the yays can finally outweigh the
> nays.
> 
> Of the previously suggested names, my favorite was Aphasia.
> 
> Eh?

Heh heh, This is one of those issues that just won't stay dead. :)

Our current name has grown on me. I'm not so sure I'd be in support of a 
change, though I might be in the minority. The group of eligible voters has 
changed so much since last time this came up that I have no idea how it 
would turn out now.

-- 
J.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: name
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:23:50 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I think it's time to adopt a more meaningful name for our nomic, and I
> think we have enough players now that the yays can finally outweigh the
> nays.
> 
I suggest K Nomic.

BLMP.
Alphabetising the eschaton.

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:42:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce Proposal
 Fee.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:50 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> This way the banker could almost completley control the game by
> setting a new proposal fee of, say, 500 points.

The current Failed Proposal Fee has a maximum of 20 points, to prevent
this.  This limit should be kept.

	Also, the officer responsible for setting the current Failed
Proposal Fee is not the Banker but the Tax Collector.  This is to avoid
giving any one player too much control over the game economy.  The Banker
is currently in charge of Bank expenditures and the Tax Collector in
charge of Bank income.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:16:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Analysis:
> 
> Rule 340/0 states:
> 
> "Contents can only be modified by adding an Object elsewhere acquired, adding a Player with eir consent or removing an Object or Player already present."
> 
> Benjamin has added content which he did acquire elsewhere.

I think that's supposed to be "content which he did NOT acquire elsewhere"

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

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

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

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

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce Prop
	osal Fee.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:17:59 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Then we'd just nominate a new banker who didn't abuse the system.  And we'd
have to be careful not to nominate a banker like that.

Currently, what's to stop the banker from creating a negative Adopted
Proposal Fee of 1000 points?

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 7:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce
Proposal Fee.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:55:50 -0500, you wrote:

This way the banker could almost completley control the game by
setting a new proposal fee of, say, 500 points.

--

zagarna

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Zagarna's NomicHome
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:19:47 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:10:49 +0100, you wrote:

>
>> I want to redecorate my home too :)
>>=20
>> Location: On the top of the hill just outside NomicTown
>> Name:The Tangerine Palace
>> Description: A wonderful palace with a fountain that spurts wine and
>> an altar to Offler.
>> Contents: initially just the Player who is the owner of the NomicHome
>> Value: 10000 points=20
>
>I hereby object to this modification.
>
>According to Rule 340/0, "these [modifications] will be treated as a =
two-day unanimous consent motion".
>
>Reason: The value doesn't seem to be reasonable.
>
>
>Joerg

Not reasonable? Who are YOU to decide the price of MY home?

You communist!

--

zagarna

_________________________________________________________
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 to introduce Prop 
 osal Fee.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:12:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Daniel Chapman:
> Then we'd just nominate a new banker who didn't abuse the system.  And we'd
> have to be careful not to nominate a banker like that.
> 
> Currently, what's to stop the banker from creating a negative Adopted
> Proposal Fee of 1000 points?

R323, I believe, if you mean the Adopted Proposal Award. It gives the 
permitted range for it as [0, 20].

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Zagarna's NomicHome
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:11:28 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >> Value: 10000 points=20
> >
> >I hereby object to this modification.
> >
> >According to Rule 340/0, "these [modifications] will be treated=20
> as a two-day unanimous consent motion".
> >
> >Reason: The value doesn't seem to be reasonable.
> >
> >
> >Joerg
>=20
> Not reasonable? Who are YOU to decide the price of MY home?
>=20
> You communist!

Who are YOU to decide the price of YOUR home? Don't you think the =
decision should be made by the market?

You communist!

That's why I made my no-fixed-price proposal :-) But anyway I don't =
think NomicHomes will be traded a lot -- everyone has one, and I don't =
think someone wants to give away his description.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce Proposal Fee.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:11:30 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I propose to remove the text "Whenever a Proposal fails, the bank is =
owed:
> 1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner"
>=20
> Then add the following text: "Whenever a proposal is submitted,=20
> the owner of
> the proposal must pay the bank the New Proposal Fee."

Does this also apply to the submission of proposal revisions?

What happens if a proposal is withdrawn -- does its author get a refund?

Joerg

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce Prop
	osal Fee.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:07:06 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Well, with no changes to the proposal, you get charged for a revision =
to an
existing proposal... And getting rid of a proposal doesn't get refund =
the
proposal fee.

Mostly, the new proposal fee is for any proposal we vote on  ...  If we =
vote
on it, you get charged.  I think that might be a good revision to the
proposal.  The fee should be collected when the proposal makes it to a =
vote.
That way, you have time to withdraw your proposal, if you want to.

-----Original Message-----
From: J=F6rg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 6:12 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to introduce
Proposal Fee.

> I propose to remove the text "Whenever a Proposal fails, the bank is =
owed:
> 1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner"
>=20
> Then add the following text: "Whenever a proposal is submitted,=20
> the owner of
> the proposal must pay the bank the New Proposal Fee."

Does this also apply to the submission of proposal revisions?

What happens if a proposal is withdrawn -- does its author get a =
refund?

Joerg

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:25:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: proposals/scoring
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<proposal title="proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring system">
enact a new rule entitled "Activity Points" with the following text:

Definition:
"Activity Points" (APs) are Objects. They are awarded to players for activity 
within this game of nomic. APs can be created, destroyed and transferred only 
as defined within the rules. APs are different from regular Points.

GETTING APs
1. For each ballot item a Player votes on (either with a yes or no vote) e is 
awarded a single (1) AP.
2. For each Judgement a Player makes, e is awarded 5 APs

SPENDING APs
Activity Points can be spent on proposals.

--END OF NEW RULE--

enact a new rule entitled "FPCs and Making Proposals" with the following
text:

MAKING PROPOSALS

Each Player gets one Free Proposal Coupon (FPC) each week. If, at the end of 
an nweek, a Player's FPC has not been used, then it is destroyed. FPCs are 
Objects.

To make a proposal, a Player do one of the following:
1. spend a FPC (destroying it in the process)
2. pay to the Bank 4 Points
3. spend (thus destroying) 3 Activity Points

---END OF NEW RULE---

Amendments:

Amend R231/1 to read:
"Whenever a Proposal is adopted, the Bank owes:

1. the Adopted Proposal Award to the Proposal's owner
2. the Opposed Minority Award to each Agent who voted against the Proposal
"

and amend R323/0 to read:
"Once per nweek, the Banker may set the Point values of the Adopted
Proposal and Opposed Minority Awards such that the value of each is
neither less than zero no r greater than twenty. "

[[thus getting rid of the Failed Proposal Fine]]

</proposal>

This proposal:
encourages people to vote (by giving them APs)
encourages people to make proposals by rewarding them for passage
rewards people for passed proposals
restricts the number of props a player has at one time, so no flooding
does not punish players for failed proposals

Should I include abstain votes to get APs?
Are 4 Points and 3 APs fair numbers?
Is 5 APs too much for a judgement?

- 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: proposals/scoring 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:49:30 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> <proposal title="proposal to revamp the proposal/scoring system">
> enact a new rule entitled "Activity Points" with the following text:
> 
> Definition:
> "Activity Points" (APs) are Objects. They are awarded to players for activity > within this game of nomic. APs can be created, destroyed and transferred only
> as defined within the rules. APs are different from regular Points.
> 
> GETTING APs
> 1. For each ballot item a Player votes on (either with a yes or no vote) e is
>  
> awarded a single (1) AP.
> 2. For each Judgement a Player makes, e is awarded 5 APs
> 
> SPENDING APs
> Activity Points can be spent on proposals.
> 
> --END OF NEW RULE--

What about abstentions? They are also votes.

<snip>

> 
> and amend R323/0 to read:
> "Once per nweek, the Banker may set the Point values of the Adopted
> Proposal and Opposed Minority Awards such that the value of each is
> neither less than zero no r greater than twenty. "
> 
> [[thus getting rid of the Failed Proposal Fine]]
> 
> </proposal>

You should probably also remove the space in "no r" so as to form the word 
"nor".

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:16:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: proposals/scoring 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> What about abstentions? They are also votes.

The reasoning behind leaving out abstentions is that they are not really a
vote for or against a given ballot item. But if there is sufficient
interest in counting them, I will of course add them.
Also, is there a way to distinguish between an explicit abstention vote
and an implicit abstention vote (when someone doesn't vote at all on the
ballot) ?

- 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: proposals/scoring 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:41:39 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Benjamin Bradley:
> > What about abstentions? They are also votes.
> 
> The reasoning behind leaving out abstentions is that they are not really a
> vote for or against a given ballot item. But if there is sufficient
> interest in counting them, I will of course add them.
> Also, is there a way to distinguish between an explicit abstention vote
> and an implicit abstention vote (when someone doesn't vote at all on the
> ballot) ?

Definitely there is. I would call the former an abstention, and the latter a failure to vote. This is signified on on the Proposal Voting page as 'a' and '-', respectively.

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Zagarna's NomicHome
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:44:21 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:11:28 +0100, you wrote:

>> >> Value: 10000 points=20
>> >
>> >I hereby object to this modification.
>> >
>> >According to Rule 340/0, "these [modifications] will be treated=20
>> as a two-day unanimous consent motion".
>> >
>> >Reason: The value doesn't seem to be reasonable.
>> >
>> >
>> >Joerg
>>=20
>> Not reasonable? Who are YOU to decide the price of MY home?
>>=20
>> You communist!
>
>Who are YOU to decide the price of YOUR home? Don't you think the =
decision should be made by the market?

You seem to assume that there is a phisical entity called the merket
when in fact the so called market is made by people naming their price
and other people willing to pay that price.
Indeed, your proposal is truly capitalistic ;), but so is the original
rule, when it states that anybody can change the value of their
NomicHome
--

zagarna

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

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: why?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:57:19 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-business: why?

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

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

-- 
J.

From: Daniel Chapman <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Motion to remove a player.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:04:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Don't feel like making this motion myself, could you go ahead and remove me
from the roster for now.  Thanks.

Oh, and just in case you were curious, the reason for the odd wording of
that real estate rule is that it was a quote from Job 3:15 ... <grin>  I
figured I'd get the point bonus.  But, I don't really have much time to
defend my proposals.  Thanks.

Job 3:15:
or with princes who had gold,
who filled their houses with silver.

Quote from proposal:
In order to prevent having to deal with Nomic homes with contents with kings
or with princes who had gold who filled their houses with silver and other
such valuable metals,

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: why? 
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:51:16 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

You did not Randal. Is that not sufficient reason?

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: why? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:55:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Josh:
> 
> Joel Uckelman sez:
> >Why did people vote against P400, P402, P403, or P408? I'm confused by 
> >this, since all made changes that I presumed from the lack of comment were 
> >non-controversial. Was it to gain points, prevent me from owning more 
> >Rules, because they were flawed, or for some other reason?
> 
> You did not Randal. Is that not sufficient reason?

You see, it's interesting that you bring that up, as there may or may not be a violation of that Rule going on right now, depending on its interpretation.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: why? 
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:08:28 CST
From: Josh <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel Uckelman sez:
>Quoth Josh:
>> 
>> Joel Uckelman sez:
>> >Why did people vote against P400, P402, P403, or P408? I'm confused by 
>> >this, since all made changes that I presumed from the lack of comment were 
>> >non-controversial. Was it to gain points, prevent me from owning more 
>> >Rules, because they were flawed, or for some other reason?
>> 
>> You did not Randal. Is that not sufficient reason?
>
>You see, it's interesting that you bring that up, as there may or may not be a
> violation of that Rule going on right now, depending on its interpretation.

Tom was wrong, you don't need the headband to look like a chump.

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