Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: scoring
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:08:27 -0500 (EST)

> 
> Totals are first, followed by what composes them in the parens. 
> 
> Explanation for all of the zeros: given the present number of Players, 
> setting the Opposed Minority Award to 1 makes what is actually paid out 
> round to zero.

There shouldn't be any zeros.  The Awards are no longer rounded, and
haven't been since I started doing the scoring way back in nweek 10.

According to Rule 231/1:

     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
     Whenever a Proposal fails, the Bank is owed:

     1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner

Poulenc.

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:34:04 +1100 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: why?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The way the point score is at the moment, there is are incentives to vote
against any proposal. These are stopping the proponent getting rules and
points, making the proponent lose points, any possibly picking up some
points for the opposed minority.

So unless I can see some benefit to me from a proposal getting up, and
that benefit outweighs the incentives to vote no, I should vote no.
'benefit' is not necessarily == points, it could as easily be
entertainment value or whatever. Or it could be I'm a nice guy and I want
to make life easier for the hardworking Administrator. But on
'non-controversial' issues, my assumption was that the proposal would
certainly get up, so my vote wouldn't stop, so I might as well go No and
try and pick up some opposed minority points.

I suspect lots of other people had similar thoughts, and I can't really
see this changing too much when you resubmit the proposals. As things
stand, it seems to me that being 'non-controversial' isn't ever going to
guarantee a win.

Regards,

Jonno.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> 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: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: proposals/scoring
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:50:40 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Are 4 Points and 3 APs fair numbers?

No. The whole system is unfair, as it punishes you for others' =
inactivity.

If you make one proposal and others make two, you spend 3 AP and receive =
3 (for voting on three proposals). If you make less proposals compared =
to others, your income improves, if you make more, it gets negative.

Some sample numbers (proposal ratio -> income):

4:1 -> -12 + 5 =3D -7
3:1 ->  -9 + 4 =3D -5
2:1 ->  -6 + 3 =3D -3
1:1 ->  -3 + 2 =3D -1
1:2 ->  -3 + 3 =3D  0 (see text)
1:3 ->  -3 + 4 =3D  1
1:4 ->  -3 + 5 =3D  2 (e.g. last week I had 3:12 proposals)

So if last nweek I had made my three proposals but there had been only =
one other proposal (3:1), I would have lost 5 APs. That's rather bad =
compared to +6 APs with all the other proposals that were actually made.

Of course, you still receive normal Points for succesful proposals. But =
you'll have to spend these points the next nweek to be able to make new =
proposals (because you have lost your APs).

I think the problem with your proposal is the distiction between Points =
and APs. You spend more APs on making a proposal than you receive for =
voting on that proposal, and you don't get any additional APs if the =
proposal gets adopted.

If you use normal points for everything, there's no problem, see the =
following numbers (proposal fee =3D 3P, voting award =3D 1P, adopted =
proposal =3D 5P).

                  proposals
                 fail succeed
4:1 -> -12 + 5 =3D  -7    +13
3:1 ->  -9 + 4 =3D  -5    +10
2:1 ->  -6 + 3 =3D  -3    + 7
1:1 ->  -3 + 2 =3D  -1    + 4
1:2 ->  -3 + 3 =3D   0    + 5
1:3 ->  -3 + 4 =3D  +1    + 6
1:4 ->  -3 + 5 =3D  +2    + 7

You still can make a profit with failed or no proposals by simply =
voting, but that's the idea of giving people points (one is probably too =
much) for voting :-)

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Zagarna's NomicHome
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:50:46 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 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.

Yes...

> Indeed, your proposal is truly capitalistic ;), but so is the original
> rule, when it states that anybody can change the value of their
> NomicHome

Yes, the price you name has *currently* no effect when noone is willing =
to pay it. But my concern was that if you have more than 500 points, =
even if only as a NomicHome, and at any time we have a rule that allows =
you to exchange fixed-price objects (for example the bank must give you =
the points or something), you would have won the game. That's why I =
stopped all modifications which named a price higher than 500 points.

If there is no fixed price, there won't be any problems like that. And =
you can still request 10000 points if you're asked for a price :-)

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: scoring
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:50:48 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

I thought the adopted proposal award was three points?

> Explanation for all of the zeros: given the present number of Players, =

> setting the Opposed Minority Award to 1 makes what is actually paid =
out=20
> round to zero.

Uhhh... what?

Joerg

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:07:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> I make the following proposal, entitled "Joint Proposals"
> 
<snip>

a good idea, but you should make it more formal so that we can distinguish
between ideas which are contributed with intent to become Joint Proposals,
and ideas which are just thrown out to improve the proposal (without
regard to credit) -- like this one.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:28:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: quick poll: web access
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm thinking about PBEM nomic and automation and web-integration...
I'm thinking of a system whereby players could log into the web site and
vote, or set value attributes (like the tax collector, banker,
etc. setting opposed minority, adopted proposal award, etc), or do other
crazy things.

How many of the people currently on the list DO NOT have access to the
web? Please reply by private e-mail (so as not to clutter up the
list). After a few days I'll publish the total back to the list.
If you DO NOT have access to the web, it is in your interest to respond
because you're the one who will be inconvenienced if something like this
ever goes through...

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:39:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: why?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The way the point score is at the moment, there is are incentives to vote
> against any proposal. These are stopping the proponent getting rules and
> points, making the proponent lose points, any possibly picking up some
> points for the opposed minority.

I told you the opposed minority award was a bad idea, but you wanted to
keep it coughjoelcough. :-)

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:43:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: proposals/scoring
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

now that I think about it, I think Joerg was right - the most active 
players - people who make proposals - are usually the ones who always vote
anyway.

- 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: scoring 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:13:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> > 
> > Totals are first, followed by what composes them in the parens. 
> > 
> > Explanation for all of the zeros: given the present number of Players, 
> > setting the Opposed Minority Award to 1 makes what is actually paid out 
> > round to zero.
> 
> There shouldn't be any zeros.  The Awards are no longer rounded, and
> haven't been since I started doing the scoring way back in nweek 10.
> 
> According to Rule 231/1:
> 
>      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
>      Whenever a Proposal fails, the Bank is owed:
> 
>      1. the Failed Proposal Fine by the Proposal's owner
> 
> Poulenc.

Hmm. Yes. I'm not sure how that escaped me. That will be the first thing I 
do when I return later in the day.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:41:36 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >=20
> > I make the following proposal, entitled "Joint Proposals"
> >=20
> <snip>
>=20
> a good idea, but you should make it more formal so that we can =
distinguish
> between ideas which are contributed with intent to become Joint =
Proposals,
> and ideas which are just thrown out to improve the proposal (without
> regard to credit) -- like this one.

To be a valid suggestion, a suggestion must be sent to a public forum:

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

Anything else will just be a normal comment.

Should I make this more specific and add something like "Comments sent =
to non-public fora are normal comments and their authors do not become =
contributors."?

BTW, one problem that this might cause is that players stop posting =
normal comments because they're not rewarded for those, and a lot of =
traffic moves to the business list. If this happens, we'd have to find a =
different method.

The other possibilities that I thought of are these:

- The owner decides whether or not to make someone a contributor. This =
might actually work, because if people see someone never credits the =
contributors they'll stop suggesting improvements to his proposals and =
simply vote no. The problem is that they can't make any proposals on =
their own since that would be "piracy".

- Everyone who posts a comment that convinces the owner to amend his =
proposal becomes a contributor. The difficulty is to decide which =
comments to count (for example you wouldn't want to count "me too" =
comments).

Another question: Should I include a time limit after which the author =
needs to decide whether or not to accept the suggestion? There should =
still be enough time for the contributor to make his own proposal if his =
suggestions are rejected.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:39:46 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?=:
> > >=20
> > > I make the following proposal, entitled "Joint Proposals"
> > >=20
> > <snip>
> >=20
> > a good idea, but you should make it more formal so that we can =
> distinguish
> > between ideas which are contributed with intent to become Joint =
> Proposals,
> > and ideas which are just thrown out to improve the proposal (without
> > regard to credit) -- like this one.
> 
> To be a valid suggestion, a suggestion must be sent to a public forum:
> 
> "A Player may suggest an amendment ... by sending eir suggestion to a =
> public forum."
> 
> Anything else will just be a normal comment.
> 
> Should I make this more specific and add something like "Comments sent =
> to non-public fora are normal comments and their authors do not become =
> contributors."?
> 
> BTW, one problem that this might cause is that players stop posting =
> normal comments because they're not rewarded for those, and a lot of =
> traffic moves to the business list. If this happens, we'd have to find a =
> different method.
> 
> The other possibilities that I thought of are these:
> 
> - The owner decides whether or not to make someone a contributor. This =
> might actually work, because if people see someone never credits the =
> contributors they'll stop suggesting improvements to his proposals and =
> simply vote no. The problem is that they can't make any proposals on =
> their own since that would be "piracy".
> 
> - Everyone who posts a comment that convinces the owner to amend his =
> proposal becomes a contributor. The difficulty is to decide which =
> comments to count (for example you wouldn't want to count "me too" =
> comments).
> 
> 
> Another question: Should I include a time limit after which the author =
> needs to decide whether or not to accept the suggestion? There should =
> still be enough time for the contributor to make his own proposal if his =
> suggestions are rejected.
> 
> 
> Joerg

Has this sort of thing actually been a problem? Why not just vote against 
the Proposals of idea-stealers? You could organize a Party just for 
coordinating such things, even. I'm not convinced the Rules should address 
this.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:18:59 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:41:36PM +0100, J?rg Rathlev wrote:
> - The owner decides whether or not to make someone a contributor. This might actually work, because if people see someone never credits the contributors they'll stop suggesting improvements to his proposals and simply vote no. The problem is that they can't make any proposals on their own since that would be "piracy".

So this amounts to extortion. Other people can essentially say "either you give
me a share of your Adopted Proposal Award, or I'll vote against you", and this
would be an expected part of the game.

And I really don't like the part about piracy. In a week with a low Failed
Proposal Fine, a player could monopolize proposals just by coming up with a
crappy proposal for each area of interest at the beginning of the nweek. It
would also serve as a further discouragement from making proposals, because you
might get fined for it being too similar to someone else's.

Anyway, I've found the situations where two conflicting proposals have been up
for voting to be interesting. I wouldn't want to make that situation illegal.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:24:57 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: motion recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 04:24:13PM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> The following Motion is recognized:
> 
> M23/0, Motion to Add relet, by relet
> 
> relet will become a Player in three days assuming no objections.

Isn't it two days?

--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: motion recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:06:53 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 04:24:13PM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > The following Motion is recognized:
> > 
> > M23/0, Motion to Add relet, by relet
> > 
> > relet will become a Player in three days assuming no objections.
> 
> Isn't it two days?
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

Yes, and I already recognized this one yesterday anyhow.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Political Go
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:43:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'd like to get Political Go running sometime soon; before doing so, 
however, I need some idea of 1) how many people are interested, 2) the rate 
at which stones should be allocated, and 3) thoughts anyone has on how it 
should connect with the rest of the game.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: prop interpretation
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:43:05 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It appears that a clause was missing in P416. Clearly, the first clause 
amends R317, but the remaining three paragraphs seem to be the text of a 
new Rule. Since I believe this is the only reasonable interpretation, I'm 
interpreting it that way for the purposes of updating the Rules. I just 
wanted to let everyone know that's what I'm doing so we can take care of it 
now in case anyone objects.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 03:47:44 +0100
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Political Go
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'd like to get Political Go running sometime soon; before doing so, 
> however, I need some idea of 
> 1) how many people are interested, 

people++;

> 2) the rate at which stones should be allocated,

Considering the current activity level, a (non-binding) maximum of 
12h per move seems realizable for me. 
However, if the game starts before beginning of april, just don't 
consider me, I won't be able to play anyway. I fear that "soon" 
actually specifies an earlier date. :)

> and 3) thoughts anyone has on how it should connect with the rest of 
> the game.

None, I'm sorry. 
It seems quite difficult to integrate an optional game into the regular 
game play. But I'd really like to have some stronger correlation than 
just by awarding points to the winner(s).

-relet

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:01:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: prop interpretation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

No objection.
Poulenc

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> It appears that a clause was missing in P416. Clearly, the first clause 
> amends R317, but the remaining three paragraphs seem to be the text of a 
> new Rule. Since I believe this is the only reasonable interpretation, I'm 
> interpreting it that way for the purposes of updating the Rules. I just 
> wanted to let everyone know that's what I'm doing so we can take care of it 
> now in case anyone objects.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:12:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Political Go
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Count me in :-)

Here are also a couple of ideas which you may or may not wish to include:

I think a 12h turnover is too short.  Sometimes I can't check my email for
30 hours, and sometimes I don't have time to right even a short email for
48 hours.  That would be my suggested minimum maximum. ;-)

The other alternative is a mechanism which lets all players submit their
moves simultaneously.  Perhaps the same way votes are done.  Rules could
be made to resolve collisions and so forth.  That might be the easiest way
to adapt the game for many players over email.

I would also like to find something useful to do with points.  Trying to
run a non-inflationary economy at present is futile because nobody will
willingly do anything that will risk running a loss.  We should make
useful things for people to do with their accumulated points that might
generate some revenue for the bank and also give them a slight advantage
in the game.  For example, players could use points to buy go stones at
the following rates:

In one nweek, a player may purchase
stones	points
1	1
2	5
3	25
4	125

and so on.  Or something like that.

Then a suitable reward could be made for winning a game of political go

Poulenc.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal 
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:56:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Has this sort of thing actually been a problem? Why not just vote against
> the Proposals of idea-stealers? You could organize a Party just for
> coordinating such things, even. I'm not convinced the Rules should address
> this.
>
What he said.

BLMP.

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 00:24:42 +1100 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joint proposals proposal 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Gavin M. Doig wrote:

> > Has this sort of thing actually been a problem? Why not just vote against
> > the Proposals of idea-stealers? You could organize a Party just for
> > coordinating such things, even. I'm not convinced the Rules should address
> > this.
> >
> What he said.
> 
> BLMP.
> 
Well said that boy.

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: R213/203 Fix
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:35:15 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

=20
> It looks like Joerg meant for P414 to amend R203, not R213. So, I=20
> offer the=20
> following Proposal, entitled "R213/203 Fix", to correct that:

Ooops... yes.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: R213/203 Fix 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:43:15 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> =20
> > It looks like Joerg meant for P414 to amend R203, not R213. So, I=20
> > offer the=20
> > following Proposal, entitled "R213/203 Fix", to correct that:
> 
> Ooops... yes.
> 
> 
> Joerg

Luckily that didn't obliterate an important Rule. I shudder to think what 
might have happened if it had killed R111, for instance.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:59:19 +0100
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: ANSI - an expensive sect?
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Is there any place where I could read or browse the ISO/IEC 14882 standard 
without having to pay for? 

-relet

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:04:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: ANSI - an expensive sect?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

yes there is.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Thomas Hirsch wrote:

> Is there any place where I could read or browse the ISO/IEC 14882 standard 
> without having to pay for? 
> 
> -relet
> 

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:31:25 +0100
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: ANSI - an expensive sect?
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> yes there is.

I ought to have known. 

-relet

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 22:03:15 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Agents and Organizations
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 06:35:12PM +0100, J?rg Rathlev wrote:
> Amend rule 105 (Agents) to read:
> 
> "Any of the following are Agents:
> 
> 1. Players,
> 2. Organizations,
> 3. Parties, if they have one or more representatives who may take actions on behalf of the Party."

Congratulations, that prevents anyone from joining the game, because they'd
have to be a player, a party, or an organization already.

"Agents" needs to be vague unless we change a bunch of rules. My concept of an
Agent is anyone who knows of the existence of A Nomic, as well as any
imaginary entity associated with A Nomic in the minds of those people.

--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Agents and 
 Organizations
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:25:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 06:35:12PM +0100, J?rg Rathlev wrote:
> > Amend rule 105 (Agents) to read:
> > 
> > "Any of the following are Agents:
> > 
> > 1. Players,
> > 2. Organizations,
> > 3. Parties, if they have one or more representatives who may take actions o
> n behalf of the Party."
> 
> Congratulations, that prevents anyone from joining the game, because they'd
> have to be a player, a party, or an organization already.
> 
> "Agents" needs to be vague unless we change a bunch of rules. My concept of a
> n
> Agent is anyone who knows of the existence of A Nomic, as well as any
> imaginary entity associated with A Nomic in the minds of those people.
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

Woah. That didn't occur to me when I read it.

I had always thought of Agents as "anyone who has spoken up on the list, 
plus whatever autonomous thingies we define within the game". Why not just 
codify that? I'd suggest changing 1 to:

"1. Any being who has at some time publicly indicated eir presence,"

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: What points?
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 23:27:53 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Does the Banker know what the scores should be at present? If so, I would 
be grateful to know, so I can correct the Standings.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 00:44:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: What points?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Does the Banker know what the scores should be at present? If so, I would 
> be grateful to know, so I can correct the Standings.

The Banker doesn't know.  I don't think it has ever been the banker's
responsibility to track player scores.  does the OBC know?

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: What points? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 23:49:46 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> > Does the Banker know what the scores should be at present? If so, I would 
> > be grateful to know, so I can correct the Standings.
> 
> The Banker doesn't know.  I don't think it has ever been the banker's
> responsibility to track player scores.  does the OBC know?
> 
> Poulenc

Aha. Since The Kid stepped down as the OBC, that means I'm the OBC, and if 
I knew, I wouldn't have asked. :)

I'll have to see about that...

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:07:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: The ruleset of Randallers Anonymous
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Ruleset of Randallers Anonymous allows me to announce the ruleset of
Randallers Anonymous.  So here it is.

1.  Any Player may join Randallers Anonymous, and any Member may leave at
any time.

2.  Each member of Randallers Anonymous is hereby required to Randal at
least once per nweek.  Under no circumstances, however will any member be
required to present proof of eir randalling.  Failure to Randal will
result in expulsion from the Party

3.  One Member is the Administrator.  If there are ever no Members, the
first member to join becomes the Admin.  The Admin is responsible for
maintaining the Party Rules and Membership List, and shall distribute any
changes in these to the Members.

4.  Party Members may propose changes to the Party Rule by sending their
proposals to the Administrator.  The Admin shall, upon recipt of a
proposed change to the Party rules, distribute the change to the Members.
If, within the period of one nweek of the distribution of the proposal,
more than half of the members have indicated their support of the proposal
to the Admin, e shall make the change to the Party Rules described in the
proposal.

5.  The Admin may publish the current Party Rules at any time.

Poulenc

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Agents and Organizations
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:22:33 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Amend rule 105 (Agents) to read:
> >=20
> > "Any of the following are Agents:
> >=20
> > 1. Players,
> > 2. Organizations,
> > 3. Parties, if they have one or more representatives who may=20
> take actions on behalf of the Party."
>=20
> Congratulations, that prevents anyone from joining the game,=20
> because they'd
> have to be a player, a party, or an organization already.

No.

> "Agents" needs to be vague unless we change a bunch of rules. My=20
> concept of an
> Agent is anyone who knows of the existence of A Nomic, as well as any
> imaginary entity associated with A Nomic in the minds of those people.

Yes. I've actually proposed changing a bunch of rules:

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

This means: "A Player is a Person who is capable of ...", so people just =
need to be a person before becoming a Player.

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

This means: "A person can make a Motion to Add emself by ..."

However, I just realize that I have to amend R210 (Motion to Add =
Players) as well. I'll submit a fix to do that.=20

So with my proposed changes, any person can become a player, and by =
becoming a player, one automatically becomes an agent as well.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Agents and Organizations
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:22:35 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I had always thought of Agents as "anyone who has spoken up on the =
list,=20
> plus whatever autonomous thingies we define within the game". Why=20

Hmmm...

"The purpose of Agents (as I had envisioned them) was as a superset of=20
Players, so we could make Rules that cover both Players and Player-like=20
entities together."
-- Joel Uckelman, by email, 2001-02-16

> not just=20
> codify that? I'd suggest changing 1 to:
>=20
> "1. Any being who has at some time publicly indicated eir presence,"

I see several problems with this definition, for example it does not =
define when one ceases to be an agent. For example, players which have =
left the game would still be agents since they have "at some time =
publicly indicated eir presence".

The current rules specify that an entity can lose its Agency, but does =
not specify how. I guess you somehow have to become incapable of action =
:-)

Orders can be sent to agents (Rules 114, 115), so would anyone who has =
"publicly indidcated eir presence" be required to follow game orders?

Joerg

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:35:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Agents and
 Organizations
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Orders can be sent to agents (Rules 114, 115), so would anyone who has
> "publicly indidcated eir presence" be required to follow game orders?

Yup.  It's always been like that.  But only if the recognize the authority
of the ruleset.  There is very little the rules can do to them if they
refuse to oblige.  Expulsion from the game is the maximum penalty which
can be applied.

Poulenc

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:22:08 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bankers Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Due to Motion M/22, Poulenc should owe 30 points, not 60 and the bank 
should be adjusted accordingly.

jeff

At 01:46 AM 3/2/01, you wrote:
>Bankers Nweekly Report as of the start of Nweek 16
>
>Adopted Proposal Award: 3
>Failed Proposal Fine: 5
>Opposed Minority Award: 1
>Official Salary: 1
>Judicial Salary: 1
>
>Bank Property:
>344 points
>5 extra votes
>
>debts past due:
>owed by         amount          due
>----------------------------------------
>Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12
>
>old debts:
>----------------------------------------
>Joerg           -7              nweek 16
>
>new debts:
>-----------------------------------------
>Joel            -24             17
>sabby           -5              17
>
>debts owed:
>owner                   amount          due  nweek
>--------------------------------------------------
>Joerg                   9               17
>Blest Lax Monk Pal      5               17
>Josh Kortbein           8               17
>Poulenc                 13              17
>Benjamin                3               17
>jonno                   3               17
>Zagarna                 2               17
>PurpleBob               4               17
>Joel Uckelman           1               17
>The Kid                 1               17
>Jeff Schroeder          2               17
>
>To pay its debts, the bank makes the following point transfers:
>
>agent                   amount
>---------------------------------------
>Joerg                   9
>Blest Lax Monk Pal      5
>Josh Kortbein           8
>Poulenc                 13
>Benjamin                3
>jonno                   3
>Zagarna                 2
>Joel Uckelman           1
>PurpleBob               4
>The Kid                 1
>Jeff Schroeder          2
>
>The bank owes no debts.
>
>These debts are owed to the bank:
>owner           amount          due
>----------------------------------------
>Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12
>Joerg           -7              nweek 16
>Joel Uckelman   -24             nweek 17
>sabby           -5              nweek 17
>
>Bank property:
>294 points
>5 extra votes
>--------
>Poulenc.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:13:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bankers Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The only means by which the bank has to force repayment are to submit a
motion for payment, which will force me to pay.  It is the responsibility
of the tax collector to submit this motion.  The Bank cannot force me to
transfer points, nor can it transfer my points itself.

Poulenc.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:

> Due to Motion M/22, Poulenc should owe 30 points, not 60 and the bank 
> should be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> jeff
> 
> At 01:46 AM 3/2/01, you wrote:
> >Bankers Nweekly Report as of the start of Nweek 16
> >
> >Adopted Proposal Award: 3
> >Failed Proposal Fine: 5
> >Opposed Minority Award: 1
> >Official Salary: 1
> >Judicial Salary: 1
> >
> >Bank Property:
> >344 points
> >5 extra votes
> >
> >debts past due:
> >owed by         amount          due
> >----------------------------------------
> >Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12
> >
> >old debts:
> >----------------------------------------
> >Joerg           -7              nweek 16
> >
> >new debts:
> >-----------------------------------------
> >Joel            -24             17
> >sabby           -5              17
> >
> >debts owed:
> >owner                   amount          due  nweek
> >--------------------------------------------------
> >Joerg                   9               17
> >Blest Lax Monk Pal      5               17
> >Josh Kortbein           8               17
> >Poulenc                 13              17
> >Benjamin                3               17
> >jonno                   3               17
> >Zagarna                 2               17
> >PurpleBob               4               17
> >Joel Uckelman           1               17
> >The Kid                 1               17
> >Jeff Schroeder          2               17
> >
> >To pay its debts, the bank makes the following point transfers:
> >
> >agent                   amount
> >---------------------------------------
> >Joerg                   9
> >Blest Lax Monk Pal      5
> >Josh Kortbein           8
> >Poulenc                 13
> >Benjamin                3
> >jonno                   3
> >Zagarna                 2
> >Joel Uckelman           1
> >PurpleBob               4
> >The Kid                 1
> >Jeff Schroeder          2
> >
> >The bank owes no debts.
> >
> >These debts are owed to the bank:
> >owner           amount          due
> >----------------------------------------
> >Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12
> >Joerg           -7              nweek 16
> >Joel Uckelman   -24             nweek 17
> >sabby           -5              nweek 17
> >
> >Bank property:
> >294 points
> >5 extra votes
> >--------
> >Poulenc.
> 
> 
> Shop online without a credit card
> http://www.rocketcash.com
> RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
> 

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:16:30 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bankers Nweekly Report
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

But I did submit a motion for payment via my duties as Tax Collector.

jeff

At 06:13 PM 3/4/01, you wrote:
>The only means by which the bank has to force repayment are to submit a
>motion for payment, which will force me to pay.  It is the responsibility
>of the tax collector to submit this motion.  The Bank cannot force me to
>transfer points, nor can it transfer my points itself.
>
>Poulenc.
>
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
> > Due to Motion M/22, Poulenc should owe 30 points, not 60 and the bank
> > should be adjusted accordingly.
> >
> > jeff
> >
> > At 01:46 AM 3/2/01, you wrote:
> > >Bankers Nweekly Report as of the start of Nweek 16
> > >
> > >Adopted Proposal Award: 3
> > >Failed Proposal Fine: 5
> > >Opposed Minority Award: 1
> > >Official Salary: 1
> > >Judicial Salary: 1
> > >
> > >Bank Property:
> > >344 points
> > >5 extra votes
> > >
> > >debts past due:
> > >owed by         amount          due
> > >----------------------------------------
> > >Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12
> > >
> > >old debts:
> > >----------------------------------------
> > >Joerg           -7              nweek 16
> > >
> > >new debts:
> > >-----------------------------------------
> > >Joel            -24             17
> > >sabby           -5              17
> > >
> > >debts owed:
> > >owner                   amount          due  nweek
> > >--------------------------------------------------
> > >Joerg                   9               17
> > >Blest Lax Monk Pal      5               17
> > >Josh Kortbein           8               17
> > >Poulenc                 13              17
> > >Benjamin                3               17
> > >jonno                   3               17
> > >Zagarna                 2               17
> > >PurpleBob               4               17
> > >Joel Uckelman           1               17
> > >The Kid                 1               17
> > >Jeff Schroeder          2               17
> > >
> > >To pay its debts, the bank makes the following point transfers:
> > >
> > >agent                   amount
> > >---------------------------------------
> > >Joerg                   9
> > >Blest Lax Monk Pal      5
> > >Josh Kortbein           8
> > >Poulenc                 13
> > >Benjamin                3
> > >jonno                   3
> > >Zagarna                 2
> > >Joel Uckelman           1
> > >PurpleBob               4
> > >The Kid                 1
> > >Jeff Schroeder          2
> > >
> > >The bank owes no debts.
> > >
> > >These debts are owed to the bank:
> > >owner           amount          due
> > >----------------------------------------
> > >Poulenc,        -60             nweek 12
> > >Joerg           -7              nweek 16
> > >Joel Uckelman   -24             nweek 17
> > >sabby           -5              nweek 17
> > >
> > >Bank property:
> > >294 points
> > >5 extra votes
> > >--------
> > >Poulenc.
> >
> >
> > Shop online without a credit card
> > http://www.rocketcash.com
> > RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
> >

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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:31:46 +0100
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

MHO follows.

Rule 101/0 states 
"All game entities must always abide by all the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules."

The Game is a set of elements where in fact all game entities do abide 
by all the Rules. By not abiding a Rule, an entity ceases to be part of The
Game.

However, this is harsh. One fault and you're out? With the current ruleset, 
I don't see no alternative, as the ruleset does not distinguish between 
important and non-important rules ("Joe must randal" is clearly ont of the 
latter). 
If that what I said is not refuted, I would prefer a ruleset which allows 
tolerances. Maybe the creation of one or more Judges which decide whether 
and how a transition of the ruleset in a particular case has to be penalized. 

-relet

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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:44 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: How Joel can Randal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since my proposal passed, the verb "to Randal" has been defined within the
game. Thus, all Joel has to do to fulfill the requirement of the rule is to
take a picture. Of anything. Since I assume he has no particular desire to take
a picture, and it is rather unrelated to the game, it would be a picture of him
Randalling. And, of course, he has to upload it to the web site.

--
Rob Speer

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:00:56 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The Game is a set of elements where in fact all game entities do abide =

> by all the Rules. By not abiding a Rule, an entity ceases to be=20
> part of The
> Game.

It ceases to be part of the game? Which rule defines that?

> If that what I said is not refuted, I would prefer a ruleset which =
allows=20
> tolerances. Maybe the creation of one or more Judges which decide =
whether=20
> and how a transition of the ruleset in a particular case has to=20
> be penalized.

But the rules already have a "fallback" for many rules. For example, if =
you are a judge and don't deliver a judgement, you're breaking a rule, =
but that is automatically governed by a different rule which tells the =
OSJ to simple select a different judge.

Oh, by the way, does the OSJ have any intention to recognize all the =
outstanding RFJs? I think there are at least four.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Proposal: Agents andOrganizations
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:01:00 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Orders can be sent to agents (Rules 114, 115), so would anyone who =
has
> > "publicly indidcated eir presence" be required to follow game =
orders?
>=20
> Yup.  It's always been like that.  But only if the recognize the =
authority
> of the ruleset.  There is very little the rules can do to them if they
> refuse to oblige.  Expulsion from the game is the maximum penalty =
which
> can be applied.

Yes, but how do you exclude someone who has never actually joined the =
game?

BTW, if you still don't agree with me you could make a subsidiary =
proposal, depending on my proposal, to modify item 1 of my proposed rule =
105. Then this issue can be decided by voting on it.

Something like this:

--
In rule 105, change "1. Player," to "1. Any person who has publicly =
indicated eir presence".

This proposal is a subsidiary proposal to P428.
--

but I'm not going to make this proposal myself.

Joerg

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:02:21 +0100
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > The Game is a set of elements where in fact all game entities do abide 
> > by all the Rules. By not abiding a Rule, an entity ceases to be 
> > part of The
> > Game.
> 
> It ceases to be part of the game? Which rule defines that?

How would you define the limits of the game? IMO it is basically defined by 
rule 101/0 and a bunch of players who have agreed to follow the rules. 
If I would decide to ignore them, I would be ignored by the other players, 
as playing becomes impossible with me going wild. I may continue playing 
with my rules, but theres no point in doing that, unless at least some 
other players agree with me. 
(see the historical splitpoint of Fat-Acka and Thin-Acka)
Unfortunately there is no distinct transition between trespassing minor 
rules, e.g. by unawareness and negating major parts of the ruleset. The 
former may be handled my fallback rules, as you said, the latter leads to 
chaos.

> But the rules already have a "fallback" for many rules. For example, if you are a judge and don't deliver a judgement, you're breaking a rule, but that is automatically governed by a different rule which tells the OSJ to simple select a different judge.

You're right.

-relet

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:09:56 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > It ceases to be part of the game? Which rule defines that?
>=20
> How would you define the limits of the game? IMO it is basically=20
> defined by=20
> rule 101/0 and a bunch of players who have agreed to follow the rules. =

> If I would decide to ignore them, I would be ignored by the other=20
> players,=20
> as playing becomes impossible with me going wild. I may continue =
playing=20
> with my rules, but theres no point in doing that, unless at least some =

> other players agree with me.=20

Ah, yes. Your mail sounded as if the exclusion from the game was defined =
in the rules. Of course, if the others simply ignore you, that's about =
the same effect. I guess using a rule to exclude players who ignore the =
rules isn't very effective anyway :-)

> (see the historical splitpoint of Fat-Acka and Thin-Acka)

Hmmm... where would I find information about that? This is the first =
Nomic I'm playing.

> Unfortunately there is no distinct transition between trespassing =
minor=20
> rules, [...]

If the other players start ignoring you, you've gone too far :-)

Joerg

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:12:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: crimes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

didn't we start implementing a system of crimes to punish people who
didn't follow the rules? what happened to that?

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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:16:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: crimes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Benjamin Bradley wrote:

> didn't we start implementing a system of crimes to punish people who
> didn't follow the rules? what happened to that?

People didn`t want it and voted against it.

Poulenc.

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:46:53 +0100
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > (see the historical splitpoint of Fat-Acka and Thin-Acka)
> Hmmm... where would I find information about that? This is the first Nomic I'm playing.

This indeed is a good question. ackanomic.org seems to be down, and nomic.net 
does not have information about it yet.
Basically, there was a dispute about a rule which would initiate a complete 
reset of the game. Some players accepted it, some didn't.
(Former ackans, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

> If the other players start ignoring you, you've gone too far :-)

There is no such thing as an unnoticed crime. ;) 

-relet

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:01:37 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sounds ok to me, but this will be up to the Judges.  When they get 
picked!  I don't really care about the 'to Randal' part, but just the fact 
that the rule could be ignored so easily and with very weak justification 
via a possible (to be determined) technicality.  This technicality should 
have been brought up by Joel as soon as the Rule was passed in order to 
avoid this kind of problem!  :)  And it is important that the Judge make a 
good ruling here as to determine with more certainty what really defines 
how to identify a Player!  I would say that we all know the Player Joel to 
be Joel Uckelman and I would think difficulties would arise in the future 
if this was ruled to be false. Rule 208/1 might have implications to this.

jeff

At 11:05 AM 3/6/01, you wrote:
>Since my proposal passed, the verb "to Randal" has been defined within the
>game. Thus, all Joel has to do to fulfill the requirement of the rule is to
>take a picture. Of anything. Since I assume he has no particular desire to 
>take
>a picture, and it is rather unrelated to the game, it would be a picture 
>of him
>Randalling. And, of course, he has to upload it to the web site.
>
>--
>Rob Speer

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:09:36 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:00 PM 3/6/01, you wrote:
> > If that what I said is not refuted, I would prefer a ruleset which allows
> > tolerances. Maybe the creation of one or more Judges which decide whether
> > and how a transition of the ruleset in a particular case has to
> > be penalized.
>
>But the rules already have a "fallback" for many rules. For example, if 
>you are a judge and don't deliver a judgement, you're breaking a rule, but 
>that is automatically governed by a different rule which tells the OSJ to 
>simple select a different judge.

I always thought that there should be an inherent flexibility in the 
rules.  I have seen so many problems arise through technicalities and 
strict logic to the letter of the law.  Some people would not call these 
problems, but I think it is too difficult to comprehend and anticipate the 
complete ramifications of each action performed!  To be fair, there have 
also been solutions to most problems through logic.  There are different 
kinds of viewing a logical problem and that is where the difficulties and 
fun lies!

And I also thought that there was a pause going on in the game and it had 
to be spiced up!

jeff

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:41:14 +1100 (EST)
From: Jonathan Downes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 16
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the nweekly struggle of self-interest versus common decency, bad
jonno wins again. I vote no to all of the proposals listed below.

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

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

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 16
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:59:12 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> In the nweekly struggle of self-interest versus common decency, bad
> jonno wins again. I vote no to all of the proposals listed below.

Ummm, it's too late now, but you did realize that there isn't any =
opposed minority award this nweek?

Joerg

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:54:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Political Go suggested revision and comments
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the intrests of getting this going I have taken the liberty of drafting
a revision of the original Political Go proposal.

Would there be objections if we make winning a game of Political Go a
requirement for winning the game of nomic?

Here it is.  I have changed some things and kept some things the same.
The unit of play is now the Stone, for which I have proposed a definition.
Turns are not fixed length, other than no more than one a day, but will
be determined by the difficulty of acquiring Stones.  For this to work we
will need to find a better way of determining the end of the game.

I know this outside-influence on the game is not true to the rules of Go,
but I would like to give wealthy players something to waste their
points on.  The way I have determined the price of points means that most
people will be able to move once per nweek, and some of the more
successful players will be able to move twice or even three times.  A
player willing to waste a lot of points could surprise their opponents
with a sudden rush, and maybe even win.
---------
Create a Rule entitled "Political Go" with the following text: 

There exists a Contest called Political Go. The Go Consul is the
Contestmaster.  Political Go is played on a square grid of 19 rank lines
and 19 file lines, lettered horizontally from "a" to "s" and vertically
from "1" to "19".

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

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

A dragon is defined as any set of mutually friendly stones occupying
mutually adjacent vertices in which no stone in the set is adjacent to a
mutually friendly stone not in the set. A dragon is adjacent to all of the
vertices adjacent to the vertices occupied by its stones. A dragon has a
number of liberties equal to the number of unoccupied vertices to which it
is adjacent, with no vertex being counted more than once. A dragon is
considered dead if has only one liberty; otherwise, the dragon is live. A
dragon is friendly to a Go player if it contains only friendly stones.  
Each vertex from which no path may be traced to a dragon unfriendly to a
Go player is counted as one territory for that Go player. A dragon has an
eye if its liberties are territory for a Go player to whom it is friendly,
and, barring a change of alliances, it would be impossible for that
territory to be lost. Any dragon with two distinct eyes, barring a change
of alliances, may never become dead.

Each Go Player may take one of the following actions, known as Go Moves,
once per day:

     1. Place a stone. 
     2. Offer an alliance. 
     3. Declare war on an ally. 

To place a stone, the Go Player must own at least one Reserve Stone.  E
must specify the location for that Stone on the Go Board, and that Stone
becomes In Play at that location, subject to the following restrictions:

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

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

If a Go player offers an alliance, e must name a Go player whose stones
are not friendly to whom e is making the offer. If that Go player accepts
the offer, the two Go players become allied.

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

Following the Go Move the stones of enemy dragons with no liberties become
Captured and lose their location attribute.

If a captured dragon is adjacent only to stones owned by a single Go
player, that player gains ownership the stones in the captured dragon. If
a captured dragon is adjacent to stones owned by more than one Go player,
the captured stones are divided thusly by the Go players whose stones are
adjacent to the captured dragon:

The Go player with the most stones adjacent to the captured dragon
receives the first stone, the next most the next stone, and so on, with
ties broken randomly, until all captured stones are exhausted or every Go
player capturing from that dragon has received a stone. The process is
repeated until all stones from the captured dragon are exhausted.

[[Need a better method for determining the end of the game]]

If an nweek passes in which no player makes a move, the game is over.

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

-----
Poulenc

Original proposal by Joel Uckelman.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: FPF 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:32:25 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Um, I don't think you can do that once voting has started.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:54:25 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Go Stones
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Dan wrote:

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

Question: At the start of an nweek, I've purchased 0 stones. This means my
first stone costs 5**0, or 1 point. Is that really what you want?

...dave

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:50:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: FPF 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I thought I did it before voting had started.  But I may be wrong.  My
message was held up in the ether by technical problems for quite a while.
Poulenc.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Quoth Dan:
> > 
> > The failed proposal fine is too high for me:  I declare Proposal 429
> > inactive.  I'll bring it back next week or when I know how many points I
> > have.  I don't want to take a loss this nweek.
> > 
> > Poulenc
> 
> Um, I don't think you can do that once voting has started.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: FPF 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:06:34 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The received header for its delivery to majordomo says 8 Mar 2001 14:18:31, 
which is a good 14 hours after voting started. There must have been big 
problems somewhere for it to have taken that long.

Quoth Dan:
> I thought I did it before voting had started.  But I may be wrong.  My
> message was held up in the ether by technical problems for quite a while.
> Poulenc.
> 
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> > Quoth Dan:
> > > 
> > > The failed proposal fine is too high for me:  I declare Proposal 429
> > > inactive.  I'll bring it back next week or when I know how many points I
> > > have.  I don't want to take a loss this nweek.
> > > 
> > > Poulenc
> > 
> > Um, I don't think you can do that once voting has started.
> > 
> > -- 
> > J.
> > 
> > 
> > 

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:18:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: FPF 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> The received header for its delivery to majordomo says 8 Mar 2001 14:18:31, 
> which is a good 14 hours after voting started. There must have been big 
> problems somewhere for it to have taken that long.

My log shows that I sent it at Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:04:58 -0500 (EST)

I don't think that's before voting started anyway.  I recieved an error
message from my host informing me that mach1 had been unable to deliver
the message for 4 hours.

Of course, I would have helped my whole situation by checking the time
voting started before I sent it.

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:24:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Go Stones
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > The purchase price is equal to 5 raise to the power of the number of
> > stones already purchased by that player in that nweek.
> 
> Question: At the start of an nweek, I've purchased 0 stones. This means my
> first stone costs 5**0, or 1 point. Is that really what you want?

Yes, that's what I mean.  I want everyone to be able to participate, even
if they haven't been sucessful in the proposal lottery or don't have a lot
of points stored up.  Then, a lucky or skillful nomic player can increase
their power by spending points gained from their proposals.

Poulenc

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

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Jonathan Downes wrote:

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

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

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

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

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Create new points
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:57:18 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What is the opinion of making new points for the bank.  I think it will 
be a good idea and if I remember right the tax collector and banker have 
to agree.  My justification for this is that the bank is running at a 
deficit and will always be running at a deficit.  The number of points in 
the game must keep increasing to accommodate this.  When the banking 
system was created it was never assumed to have a constant amount of points 
to distribute between all of the players, indeed I don't believe that 
there are enough points in the system to handle even a few players 
getting close to 500 points each.  I dont' know how many points are in 
the system, so this is mostly educated guesses from my memory.

opinion?

jeff

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:13:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Create new points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

how about just creating a large denomination, like a 100-point chit?
This would be the macropayment equivalent to the micropayment someone just
came up with, except that whenever someone has 100 points, instead of
destroying them and creating a 100p chit, the bank would create the chit,
and sell it to the player.
Likewise, when a player needs more points, they could "convert" it
with the bank - at maybe a 10% fee? so they could sell a 100p chit to the
bank for 90 points.
the idea is to allow the bank to create chits, but simultaneously
discourage players from hoarding them.

or would that run into the same problem?

- 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: new points
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:17:27 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I know there used to be a rule to create new points for the bank, but I 
can't find it?  Am I thinking of an old game or was that rule removed?  
If it does not exist, I think I will propose it, the bank wil eventually 
run out of money...

And who appoints the judges for the outstanding RFJ's?

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Create new points
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:22:12 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 Benjamin Bradley wrote:
>how about just creating a large denomination, like a 100-point chit?
>This would be the macropayment equivalent to the micropayment someone just
>came up with, except that whenever someone has 100 points, instead of
>destroying them and creating a 100p chit, the bank would create the chit,
>and sell it to the player.
>Likewise, when a player needs more points, they could "convert" it
>with the bank - at maybe a 10% fee? so they could sell a 100p chit to the
>bank for 90 points.
>the idea is to allow the bank to create chits, but simultaneously
>discourage players from hoarding them.
>
>or would that run into the same problem?

The problem is not specifically people hording points.  Unless I missed 
something, Points are still required to win.  There is nothing that 
Players really want to buy ('Want to' being the operative phrase).  
Therefore, in the long run the bank will lose points.  A higher 
denomination would be a good idea, though.  but inevidably the points 
would have to be created from the ether.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Create new points 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:57:28 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff N Schroeder:
> What is the opinion of making new points for the bank.  I think it will 
> be a good idea and if I remember right the tax collector and banker have 
> to agree.  My justification for this is that the bank is running at a 
> deficit and will always be running at a deficit.  The number of points in 
> the game must keep increasing to accommodate this.  When the banking 
> system was created it was never assumed to have a constant amount of points 
> to distribute between all of the players, indeed I don't believe that 
> there are enough points in the system to handle even a few players 
> getting close to 500 points each.  I dont' know how many points are in 
> the system, so this is mostly educated guesses from my memory.
> 
> opinion?
> 
> jeff

I might soon be able to answer the question of how many points there are, 
since one of my devious plans that I hope to carry out over break is 
determining accurate scores.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: new points 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:16:50 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff N Schroeder:
>
> And who appoints the judges for the outstanding RFJ's?
> 
> jeff

That would be The Kid. He's rather tardy on assigning Judges this time...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proposal Automation
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 18:12:40 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have just completed an script that automatically writes and submits 
Proposals, so we are now all superfluous. (maniacal laughter)

Just kidding. Really, I have a semi-functional list filter ready to test. 
>From now on, any Proposal sent to the business list having the appropriate 
formatting will be caught by the filter, which will then churn out a file 
which can be fed to the database interface script to poke the Proposal into 
the database. For now, I'll still have to do the feeding manually, but 
that's by choice, as I'd like to be certain the filter works correctly 
before turning it loose on the database.

So, the filter will recognize the following tags, the form of which will be 
familiar to anyone who knows LaTeX (it turns out to be easier to parse this 
sort of tag than html-esque tags):

\begin{proposal}

This signals the start of a Proposal.

\end{proposal}

I'm sure you can guess what this one does.

\title{Foo}

Replace "Foo" with whatever you want the title to be. 

\number{nnn}

Replace nnn with the Proposal number that your new Proposal is revising.

Some usage notes:

--The \title and \number tags for a Proposal may appear anywhere between 
its \begin and \end tags, even in the middle of other words, like this:

\begin{proposal}

This is a test Pro\title{Test Proposal}posal.

\end{proposal}

--You can include multiple Proposals in a single message.

--Backslashes need only be guarded if they would cause an ambiguity. For 
example:

1. This is a sentence with \s in it.
2. This is a sentence with \begin{proposal} in it.

1 is just fine as is. 2, however, will tell the filter that a Proposal 
starts in the middle of the sentence, which is probably not what you want. 
So, 2 should be written as:

2'. This is a sentence with \\begin{proposal} in it.

That clears up the ambiguity. If this makes no sense, just ignore it, as 
you'll probably never need to type something like this anyway.

--Note that I'm still required to recognize Proposals not submitted this 
way, and I will continue to do so as long as the Rules require me to. 
However, I'd really appreciate it if everyone would follow this convention, 
as it will save me a lot of work.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:37:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Create new points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I can think of a couple solutions to the points problem that do not
require perpetually creating points once we reach a certain stable level.

1.  Impose a property tax on players.  Perhaps, for the privilige of
playing, players with more than 100 points could be taxed at 3% per nweek,
or something like that.  This will make it harder for wealthier players to
increase their scores further, and make it easier for new players to catch
up.

2.  Give players something to do with their points.  If we have something
which players can purchase with points which gives a game advantage (like
extra votes or really well-integrated go stones or rubber stams which
wreak havok with the game) the wealthier players will spend some of their
points on these.

The points-created-when-a-new-player-joins idea is a good one too.

If these things work we might be able to reach a non-inflationary economy.
We might even be able to do away with the FPF, or perhaps counterbalance
it with an award for voting positively.

Poulenc

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:37:22 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Create new points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:37 PM 3/9/01, you wrote:

>I can think of a couple solutions to the points problem that do not
>require perpetually creating points once we reach a certain stable level.
>
>1.  Impose a property tax on players.  Perhaps, for the privilige of
>playing, players with more than 100 points could be taxed at 3% per nweek,
>or something like that.  This will make it harder for wealthier players to
>increase their scores further, and make it easier for new players to catch
>up.

This is an interesting idea, but it still has the same problems as 
before.  Given enough time, enough Players will accumulate enough points to 
bankrupt the bank.  And if the percentage is raised, then the points would 
not accumulate and then nobody would win. I am still assuming that points 
are a prerequisite to winning.  Correct me if I am wrong.  My worry is not 
that there can be ways to transfer points from the Players to the Bank, but 
that there still needs to be extra points per player in order to have a 
winning condition.

>2.  Give players something to do with their points.  If we have something
>which players can purchase with points which gives a game advantage (like
>extra votes or really well-integrated go stones or rubber stams which
>wreak havok with the game) the wealthier players will spend some of their
>points on these.

See above.

>The points-created-when-a-new-player-joins idea is a good one too.

I think that this is a good idea.  Assuming that average of the Players' 
Points does not exceed 500 points , this will theoretically handle the problem

>If these things work we might be able to reach a non-inflationary economy.
>We might even be able to do away with the FPF, or perhaps counterbalance
>it with an award for voting positively.
>
>Poulenc

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

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:51:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Create new points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

...
> 
> This is an interesting idea, but it still has the same problems as 
> before.  Given enough time, enough Players will accumulate enough points to 
> bankrupt the bank.  And if the percentage is raised, then the points would 
> not accumulate and then nobody would win. I am still assuming that points 
> are a prerequisite to winning.  Correct me if I am wrong.  My worry is not 
> that there can be ways to transfer points from the Players to the Bank, but 
> that there still needs to be extra points per player in order to have a 
> winning condition.

Yes, I agree that we will probably have to add some more points sometime
soon to make things work.  But I don't want to have to keep on adding more
points indefinetley.  OTOH, I don't want to make it impossible for a
player to win, just difficult.  A 3% tax would take 15 of 500 points per
nweek - not insurmountable but close to the limit of what a player can
gain from proposals alone.  That means you can't win just by being one of
the first people to join, but you can win by creative and skillful play.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Go Stones 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:20:36 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> [[This is a neat idea I've been working out in my head all day.  If we're
> lucky it should work well with the in-progress political go.]]
> 
> The following is a new proposal entitled "Go Stones":
> 
> 1. Enact a new rule entitled "Stones" with text as follows:
> 
> Stones are objects.  They can be created, destroyed, transferred, and
> otherwise manipulated only as allowed by the rules.
> 
> Stones have three states:  "Reserve", "In Play", and "Captured".  Newly
> created Stones are always Reserve Stones.
> 
> 2. Enact a new rule entitled "Stone Purchase"
> 
> If a game of Political Go is in progress a player may, at any time,
> purchase a Stone from the bank.  This purchase transfers the purchase cost
> of that stone in points to the bank, and creates a new Stone [[Reserve]]
> owned by that player.
> 
> The purchase price is equal to 5 raise to the power of the number of
> stones already purchased by that player in that nweek.
> 
> 3. Enact a new rule entitled "Reserve Stones"
> 
> Ownership of Reserve Stones is transferable at will by the owner of the
> stone.
> 
> 4. Enact a new rule entitled "Stones In Play"
> 
> Stones In Play acquire the property "location".  The location of an In
> Play stone is specified when it becomes In Play and may not change.
> 
> 5. Enact a new rule entitled "Captured Stones"
> 
> Captured Stones may be sold to the Bank for 1 point each.  This sale
> destroys the stone and transfers 1 point from the Bank to the stone's
> owner.
> 
> -------

A comment: If captured stones can be sold to the Bank at any time, that 
messes up Go scoring, since one's Go score would be captures plus 
territories. I suppose if you mean this to be a way to capitalize on 
captures at the expense of one's Go score, that's ok.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Two Proposals! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:32:18 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Tax the Rich!}
> 
> 1. Enact a new rule entitled "Taxation" with text as follows:
> 
> The Property Tax Rate is a variable associated with the Game.  It can be
> changed only as described in the rules.
> 
> At the end of each nweek each agent, but not the Bank, whose score is
> greater than 100 points, owes the Tax Rate times their score at the
> beginning of that nweek, rounded down, in points to the bank.
> 
> If, at the end of an nweek, the score of that one or more agents as of the
> beginning of that nweek is not known, the Official Bean Counter is fined
> 20 points, and calculation of the taxation for that agent or agents is put
> off until such time as eir score is calculated.
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> [[Why don't I add a bit of an incentive now to make people pay their
> debts too]]
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Debt Overdue Charges}
> 
> 1. Enact a new rule entitled "Overdue Debts" with text as follows:
> 
> Upon the creation of a debt, the parties involved may specify a Debt
> Overdue Fee, to be paid to the owner of the debt by the debtor at the end
> of every nweek in which the debt is past due.  Unless specified, this
> value is 0.
> 
> 2. Enact a new rule titled "Bank Overdue Debts" with text as follows:
> 
> For debts owed to the Bank the debt overdue fee is always 0.05 of the
> value of the debt.
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> [[Did I do that right?  Please tell me I did that right]]

Yes. That worked perfectly. Well, not quite. The filter didn't assign the 
right numbers to the Proposals, but that's not your fault. :)

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Two Proposals!
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:43:50 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

I'd suggest tax rate times their score minus 100.

Otherwise, assuming a tay rate of 20%, this might happen:

initial  taxable         new
score    score    tax    score

 100      0       0      100
 101      101     20.2   80.8

which is somewhat unfair for the agent who has 101 points. This makes =
more sense:

 100      0       0      100
 101      1       0.2    100.8

I've not rounded the scores, so if you keep the "rounded down" and/or my =
micropayment proposal fails, there wouldn't be any tax in the second =
case, but if you have only 101 points, there shouldn't be a large tax =
anyway.

I'd also suggest using the average score as the treshold, not 100 =
points. Oh, and please include a limit for the tax.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: effect of P417
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:35:41 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

P417 was supposed to replace the phrase 'can be bought and sold as any 
Object' in R340 with another phrase. However, that phrase appears nowhere 
in R340. So P417 does nothing. Try again Chess. :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Taxation Revised 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:32:09 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

I presume you meant this to be a revision of P436, rather than P431?

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:14:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Create new points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Correct me if I am wrong.  My worry is not
> that there can be ways to transfer points from the Players to the Bank, but
> that there still needs to be extra points per player in order to have a
> winning condition.

This is precisely what my proposal (new player == 500 points in the bank)
is supposed to address. I probably should change it so that, instead of
the fixed value of 500, it creates the number of points currently required
to be credited with a win. (This could get weird if, later on, someone
redefines winning so that points aren't part of the criteria, but that
bridge can be burned when we get there.)

Good/bad idea? (I'm not actually sure...)

...dave

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 02:10:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Create new points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This is precisely what my proposal (new player == 500 points in the bank)
> is supposed to address. I probably should change it so that, instead of
> the fixed value of 500, it creates the number of points currently required
> to be credited with a win. (This could get weird if, later on, someone
> redefines winning so that points aren't part of the criteria, but that
> bridge can be burned when we get there.)
> 
> Good/bad idea? (I'm not actually sure...)

I think it's a good idea.  But we probably don't need to have as many as
500 points per player--not everyone will have 500 at once, and creating
that many excess points takes all pressure off the Banker and the Tax
Collector to keep the Bank expenses and revenues somewhat balanced.  It is
possible for a player to have 500 points and not win, but after about 500
the number of points becomes irrelevant because of a lack of things to do
with them.

Perhaps we could get away with only 200 points per player: 150 owned by
the bank and 50 owned by the player.  That way they won't have to worry
about being unable to pay their debts if they have a bad first nweek.  And
also they have to find some way to earn the starting-points of other
players, rather than just the ones created for them by the bank.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: event log
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:08:53 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Does anyone find the Event Log useful? I've noticed that it's becoming 
increasingly difficult to record everything in it. Would anyone mind if I 
scaled it back to an Administrator's Log, so it just includes things that 
I'm responsible for recording?

Also, I'm thinking about making a page for each Officer where reports and 
other relevant information would appear.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bean Counter's Report, nweek 17
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:40:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is the Bean Counter's Report for nweek 17. It is very long, because I 
have attempted to determine current scores.

As of 1 December 2000:

166	Joel
153	Poulenc
116	The Kid
102	Josh Kortbein
 65	Zagarna
 42	M'Cachessilnath
 29	Remo
 24	Benjamin
  9	Potter
  8	Jeff Schroeder
  8	XnJester
  7	Ed
 -5	God

----

As of 12 January 2001:

166	Joel
116	The Kid
102	Josh Kortbein
100	The Bank
 65	Zagarna
 53	Poulenc
 42	M'Cachessilnath
 29	Remo
 24	Benjamin
  9	Potter
  8	Jeff Schroeder
  8	XnJester
  7	Ed
 -5	God

----

As of 30 January 2001:

176	Joel
126	The Kid
102	Josh Kortbein
100	The Bank
108	Poulenc
 65	Zagarna
 42	M'Cachessilnath
 29	Remo
 24	Benjamin
  9	Potter
 18	Jeff Schroeder
  8	XnJester
  7	Ed
 -5	God

----

As of 20 February 2001 (by the provisions of P375/1 and P413/0):

515	The Bank
176	Joel
126	The Kid
102	Josh Kortbein
108	Poulenc
 65	Zagarna
 42	M'Cachessilnath
 29	Remo
 24	Benjamin
  9	Potter
 18	Jeff Schroeder
  8	XnJester
  7	Ed
 -5	God

----

As of 24 February 2001:

Has	Owed	Owes
333	  88	  0	The Bank
251	   0	  0	Joel
148	   0	  0	The Kid
122	   0      0	Josh Kortbein
119	   0	 60	Poulenc
 67	   0	  0	Zagarna
 53	   0	  0	M'Cachessilnath
 29	   0	  0	Remo
 51	   0	  0	Jeff Schroeder
 34	   0	 11	Benjamin
  8	   0	  0	XnJester
  7	   0	  0	Ed
  5	   0	  0	Corque
  1	   0	  0	PurpleBob
  1	   0	  0	sabby
  0	   0	  5	God
  0	   0	  7	Joerg

----

As of 2 March 2001:

Has	Owed	Owes
294	  96	   0	The Bank
252	   0	  24	Joel
159	   0	   0	The Kid
130	   0       0	Josh Kortbein
132	   0	  60	Poulenc
 69	   0	   0	Zagarna
 53	   0	   0	M'Cachessilnath
 29	   0	   0	Remo
 53	   0	   0	Jeff Schroeder
 26	   0	   0	Benjamin
  8	   0	   0	XnJester
  7	   0	   0	Ed
  5	   0	   0	Corque
  5	   0	   0	PurpleBob
  1	   0	   5	sabby
  0	   0	   5	God
  9	   0	   7	Joerg
  5	   0       0	Blest Lax Monk Pal
  3	   0	   0	jonno

Circulation:

On 1 December, the last time Points were created as a result of voting, there were 724 Points in circulation. On 9 February, 500 Points were created in the possession of the Bank, bringing the total in circulation to 1224. So far as I can tell, the Banker's Reports seem to indicate that there are presently 1230 Points in circulation. What happened to the missing 6 Points I have no idea.

Other objects in play:

The Bank: 5 Extra Votes

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:00:43 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bean Counter's Report,
  nweek 17
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Did you check all the Officers' salaries for the missing points?  And 
Poulenc should owe the bank only 30 because as tax collector I forced a 
transfer of 30 points to the bank.  And man, I didn't think I had so little 
points on December 1!  :)

jeff

At 04:40 PM 3/11/01, you wrote:
>This is the Bean Counter's Report for nweek 17. It is very long, because I
>have attempted to determine current scores.
>
>As of 1 December 2000:
>
>166     Joel
>153     Poulenc
>116     The Kid
>102     Josh Kortbein
>  65     Zagarna
>  42     M'Cachessilnath
>  29     Remo
>  24     Benjamin
>   9     Potter
>   8     Jeff Schroeder
>   8     XnJester
>   7     Ed
>  -5     God
>
>----
>
>As of 12 January 2001:
>
>166     Joel
>116     The Kid
>102     Josh Kortbein
>100     The Bank
>  65     Zagarna
>  53     Poulenc
>  42     M'Cachessilnath
>  29     Remo
>  24     Benjamin
>   9     Potter
>   8     Jeff Schroeder
>   8     XnJester
>   7     Ed
>  -5     God
>
>----
>
>As of 30 January 2001:
>
>176     Joel
>126     The Kid
>102     Josh Kortbein
>100     The Bank
>108     Poulenc
>  65     Zagarna
>  42     M'Cachessilnath
>  29     Remo
>  24     Benjamin
>   9     Potter
>  18     Jeff Schroeder
>   8     XnJester
>   7     Ed
>  -5     God
>
>----
>
>As of 20 February 2001 (by the provisions of P375/1 and P413/0):
>
>515     The Bank
>176     Joel
>126     The Kid
>102     Josh Kortbein
>108     Poulenc
>  65     Zagarna
>  42     M'Cachessilnath
>  29     Remo
>  24     Benjamin
>   9     Potter
>  18     Jeff Schroeder
>   8     XnJester
>   7     Ed
>  -5     God
>
>----
>
>As of 24 February 2001:
>
>Has     Owed    Owes
>333       88      0     The Bank
>251        0      0     Joel
>148        0      0     The Kid
>122        0      0     Josh Kortbein
>119        0    60      Poulenc
>  67        0      0     Zagarna
>  53        0      0     M'Cachessilnath
>  29        0      0     Remo
>  51        0      0     Jeff Schroeder
>  34        0    11      Benjamin
>   8        0      0     XnJester
>   7        0      0     Ed
>   5        0      0     Corque
>   1        0      0     PurpleBob
>   1        0      0     sabby
>   0        0      5     God
>   0        0      7     Joerg
>
>----
>
>As of 2 March 2001:
>
>Has     Owed    Owes
>294       96       0    The Bank
>252        0      24    Joel
>159        0       0    The Kid
>130        0       0    Josh Kortbein
>132        0      60    Poulenc
>  69        0       0    Zagarna
>  53        0       0    M'Cachessilnath
>  29        0       0    Remo
>  53        0       0    Jeff Schroeder
>  26        0       0    Benjamin
>   8        0       0    XnJester
>   7        0       0    Ed
>   5        0       0    Corque
>   5        0       0    PurpleBob
>   1        0       5    sabby
>   0        0       5    God
>   9        0       7    Joerg
>   5        0       0    Blest Lax Monk Pal
>   3        0       0    jonno
>
>
>Circulation:
>
>On 1 December, the last time Points were created as a result of voting, 
>there were 724 Points in circulation. On 9 February, 500 Points were 
>created in the possession of the Bank, bringing the total in circulation 
>to 1224. So far as I can tell, the Banker's Reports seem to indicate that 
>there are presently 1230 Points in circulation. What happened to the 
>missing 6 Points I have no idea.
>
>Other objects in play:
>
>The Bank: 5 Extra Votes
>
>--
>J.

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Discuss' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Catching up...
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:48:43 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've been offline for a couple of weeks, so I'm a bit behind with the Nomic.
There's 182 messages sitting waiting for me to read so if there are any RFJs
in there then I'll get to them eventually...

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:03:25 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Oh, by the way, does the OSJ have any intention to recognize 
> all the outstanding RFJs? I think there are at least four.

Yeah, sorry about that, been offline for a while in more ways than one.

--
The Kid

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: VSBL Proposal
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:09:21 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> "There exists an entity known as the Very Small Black Hole.=20
> Whenever other=20
> game entities venture too near the Very Small Black Hole, they are =
sucked=20
> in and are added to its contents.
>=20
> The initial contents of the Very Small Black Hole are six otherwise=20
> unaccounted-for Points."

Uhh, this doesn't make sense. If I understood your report correctly, it =
actually indicates that there are six *additional* points, not six =
missing points.

So maybe you should create a Very Small Big Bang ;-)

Joerg

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: new points
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:10:55 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> And who appoints the judges for the outstanding RFJ's?
> 

Ok, ok, I do. I'm getting there, only 45 more msgs to go...

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: VSBL Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:59:52 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> > "There exists an entity known as the Very Small Black Hole.=20
> > Whenever other=20
> > game entities venture too near the Very Small Black Hole, they are =
> sucked=20
> > in and are added to its contents.
> >=20
> > The initial contents of the Very Small Black Hole are six otherwise=20
> > unaccounted-for Points."
> 
> Uhh, this doesn't make sense. If I understood your report correctly, it =
> actually indicates that there are six *additional* points, not six =
> missing points.

Ya know, I realized that very late last night. I'll probably change it so 
there are six anti-Points in the Black Hole. That should event things out.
 
> So maybe you should create a Very Small Big Bang ;-)
> 
> 
> Joerg

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Entry Fee for Similarity Challange
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:37:47 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J=F6rg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
>=20
> I haven't seen anyone writing such a message yet, so is there=20
> a way of transferring points to the Contestmaster other than=20
> announcing the transfer in a public forum, as rule 121 would=20
> normally require?

This is true. Surely that means that none of the required fees were =
paid for
previous Similarity Challenges?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: dice server
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:32:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In case anyone needs one, there's a rudimentary dice roller now available 
at http://www.nomic.net/~test/cgi-bin/rand.pl, in case you need some random 
numbers. The input format should be familiar to anyone who's played a lot 
of wargames or RPGs. Dice are specified as qdn, where q is the quantity and 
n is the number of faces; e.g., 7d6 would be seven six-siders. I haven't 
analysed the data yet to test its randomness, but it uses /dev/urandom, and 
that seems to be a good source based on samples from it I've tested.

In the distant future, I'll probably spruce up the interface, add some 
error-checking (it doesn't complain about non-integer or negative numbers 
of faces or rolls), allow it to respond to mailed requests for numbers, and 
move it to dice.nomic.net on one of my DECstations (to give it something to 
do).

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: dice server 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:33:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> In case anyone needs one, there's a rudimentary dice roller now available 
> at http://www.nomic.net/~test/cgi-bin/rand.pl, in case you need some random 
> numbers. The input format should be familiar to anyone who's played a lot 
> of wargames or RPGs. Dice are specified as qdn, where q is the quantity and 
> n is the number of faces; e.g., 7d6 would be seven six-siders. I haven't 
> analysed the data yet to test its randomness, but it uses /dev/urandom, and 
> that seems to be a good source based on samples from it I've tested.
> 
> In the distant future, I'll probably spruce up the interface, add some 
> error-checking (it doesn't complain about non-integer or negative numbers 
> of faces or rolls), allow it to respond to mailed requests for numbers, and 
> move it to dice.nomic.net on one of my DECstations (to give it something to 
> do).
> 
> -- 
> J.

Opps. Scratch that. The URL is http://www.nomic.net/~test/cgi-bin/dice.pl.

-- 
J.

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bean Counter's Report, nweek 17
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:26:06 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>  42 M'Cachessilnath

There's no such entity as M'Cachessilnath... I'm M'cachessilnath...

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal: let's vote ourselves rich.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:51:23 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

No. No no no. What a horrible idea.

BLMP.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal: let's vote 
 ourselves rich.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:11:40 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Gavin M. Doig":
> > 2) Anyone voting for this proposal shall receive a special one off peace
> > dividend of 15 points, to be paid from the bank by the banker at the
> > conclusion of the voting period where this proposal is voted on.  
> 
> No. No no no. What a horrible idea.
> 
> BLMP.

Well, this same sort of thing happened in Berserker twice, both times in 
the same voting period. Three Proposals contained the provision that anyone 
voting against them would be fined 10 points, and another would award 1000 
points to, IIRC, Josh, Jeff, and Tom. Few people were voting right then, 
and though I assumed that the 1000-point Proposal would pass, I wasn't 
worried, since in needed only twentysome more points to get a win anyway. 
As it turned out, I stupidly voted against all three of the 10-point 
proposals and they passed. So I missed getting a win by fewer than 5 
points, and then my score was reset! Anyway, this experience made me an 
opponent of such Proposals, though, oddly, more likely to vote for them.

That said, what should we do about it?

-- 
J.

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal: let's vote  ourselves rich.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:19:17 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> That said, what should we do about it?
>
It's a kind of prisoner's dilemma thing. Most rational thing would be to
vote for. Fortunately, it's an iterated prisoner's dilemma (there will be
more proosals after this one) so we should vote NO now, to discourage this
from becoming commonplace.

Short term gain versus long term sanity.

BLMP.
Not a games theorist.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:23:33 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:08:12 -0000, you wrote:

>> Judgment: false.
>>=20
>Um.
>
>True. I meant true.
>
>D'oh!

Too late to say that now
--

zagarna

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:27:10 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Too late to say that now

It's never too late to say "d'oh".

BLMP.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:54:41 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Antonio:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:08:12 -0000, you wrote:
> 
> >> Judgment: false.
> >>=20
> >Um.
> >
> >True. I meant true.
> >
> >D'oh!
> 
> 
> Too late to say that now
> --
> 
> zagarna

Hey, it occurs to me that a useful addition to our judiciary would be a mechanism allowing the emendation of accidentally incorrect decisions. I'd vote for one, at least.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:14:23 -0600
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Man, you really don't like the OMA, do you?  That is my primary source of 
points! :)  And I am curious about the 60 points that you transferred to 
the bank, as tax collector I already transferred 30, but everyone seems to 
have ignored it.  Why?

jeff

At 12:41 AM 3/12/01, you wrote:

>The bank did quite well last nweek, so we can be more generous this nweek.
>
>I set the adopted proposal award to 7.
>I set the judicial salary to 2.
>I set the official salary to 3.
>
>[[The OMA can stay at 0 for now, and the FPF remains at 10.]]
>Poulenc

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Voting Misinformation 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:18:43 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Voting Misinformation}
> 
> When voting on the Ballot, a player may specify with any of eir votes an
> alternate choice for which it should appear that e voted.
> 
> [[ For example, you could vote 'NO to P942/0, shown as YES'. ]]
> 
> The actual vote is counted in the vote totals. However, in all records of
> voting and in all future gameplay, the player is considered to have made the
> alternate vote. Only the Administrator should know how the player actually
> voted.
> 
> [[ This may make some voting reports appear to not add up. Tough. It has the
> very useful effect that proposals that have effects based on who voted for th
> em
> fall flat on their face. ]]
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

Ugh. Then what's to keep someone from reversing all of their votes most (or 
all) of the time? Besides, I'd like to minimize the amount of privileged 
knowledge I have as Admin.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:46:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: event log
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Does anyone find the Event Log useful? I've noticed that it's becoming 
> increasingly difficult to record everything in it. Would anyone mind if I 
> scaled it back to an Administrator's Log, so it just includes things that 
> I'm responsible for recording?
> 
> Also, I'm thinking about making a page for each Officer where reports and 
> other relevant information would appear.

I am trying to convert the Bankers report into a Bankers Log, where I
record events that the Banker records.  I have found the even log useful
in the past, but now we have easier-to-use summaries of, I think,
everything that is important.  So go ahead.  We need to have a coherent
treatment of the OBC though, your updates are perfect.  The Event Log
serves as a second backup system should that fail.

Poulenc

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:39:36 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Voting Misinformation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:18:43PM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Quoth Rob Speer:
> > 
> > \begin{proposal}
> > \title{Voting Misinformation}
> > 
> > When voting on the Ballot, a player may specify with any of eir votes an
> > alternate choice for which it should appear that e voted.
> > 
> > [[ For example, you could vote 'NO to P942/0, shown as YES'. ]]
> > 
> > The actual vote is counted in the vote totals. However, in all records of
> > voting and in all future gameplay, the player is considered to have made the
> > alternate vote. Only the Administrator should know how the player actually
> > voted.
> > 
> > [[ This may make some voting reports appear to not add up. Tough. It has the
> > very useful effect that proposals that have effects based on who voted for th
> > em
> > fall flat on their face. ]]
> > 
> > \end{proposal}
> > 
> > --
> > Rob Speer
> 
> Ugh. Then what's to keep someone from reversing all of their votes most (or 
> all) of the time? Besides, I'd like to minimize the amount of privileged 
> knowledge I have as Admin.
> 
> -- 
> J.

You know, I just realized a worse problem than that. In weeks with the OMA,
someone could make it look like they voted "no" to everything, thus collecting
all the OMA's, unless proposals all started to put in penalties for voting no
so that players would be encouraged to mark their vote as "yes".

I'll have to come at this a different way.

--
Rob Speer

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:23:44 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Man, you really don't like the OMA, do you?  That is my primary source =
of=20
> points! :)  And I am curious about the 60 points that you transferred =
to=20
> the bank, as tax collector I already transferred 30, but everyone=20
> seems to=20
> have ignored it.  Why?

Because it doesn't automatically transfer the points. "If it passes then =
a Motive Order is issued for the repayment of the debt, to be performed =
as soon as possible." (R319)

This means Poulenc should have transfered the 30 points "as soon as =
possible", and he wasn't allowed to perform any other actions before he =
did.

Joerg

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:31:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This means Poulenc should have transfered the 30 points "as soon as
> possible", and he wasn't allowed to perform any other actions before
> he did.

That includes voting, making proposals, etc.  Does anyone want to make an
RFJ about this?  There are quite a lot of things to reverse.  All my
proposal submissions can be queued to immediately after I paid the debt.

Poulenc

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:53:00 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Judgement: true

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

[[I could have argued for false as well, citing vagueness of 'as soon as
possible' and admissibility of all that isn't strictly prohibited, but I'm
going to have too much fun watching everyone try and track all the stuff we
have to sort out]]

To amend this, I issue a Judicial Order that everything posted to a public
forum by the Player Poulenc prior to the payment of his debt after the
Motive Order should be considered null and void, with all the point changes
and rule amendments this entails.

[[Ooh, I'm evil.]]

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:36:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> To amend this, I issue a Judicial Order that everything posted to a public
> forum by the Player Poulenc prior to the payment of his debt after the
> Motive Order should be considered null and void, with all the point changes
> and rule amendments this entails.

Since you seem so set on being evil, you could go through the event log
and track down all the actions that need to be reversed?  I certainly
don't have time, nor should I have to, and I wouldn't wish that much work
on Joel, who does enough for this game as it is.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ #36
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:35:11 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[snip]
>The wording here is unfortunate.  A Bank Motion is defined in rule 317/2
>and is a means by which the Player community have to force the Bank to
>take certain actions, with or without the agreement of the Banker.  If the
>Players feel they don't have enough points, for example, they could order
>the Bank to transfer to every player 10 points.  The Bank, however, is an
>agent just as other agents are and cannot force a player, outside of
>rules-defined mechanisms, to transfer points.
>
>A Motion for Repayment applies to any debt-situation, whether it involves
>the bank or not.  Normally this must be done by the agent to whom the debt
>is owed.  The exception is the Bank, whose Motions For Repayment are
>submitted by the Tax Collector.
>
>The closest a Bank Motion can come to forcing a player to pay eir debt is
>to order the Bank to issue a Motion for Repayment.

The interesting thing about this is that I *am* the Tax Collector and I 
perhaps should have entitled it a Motion for Repayment instead of a Bank 
Motion.  The rules confused me in that respect, so I decided to call it a 
generic bank motion with the understanding that people would know that I 
had the authority to repay all debts and that this authority was what 
mattered as opposed to what the motion was called.  

I understood that under the reading of Rule 317/2, that the Motion 
for Payment was a subset of the group of motions that constitute Bank 
Motions.  The definition of Bank Motions simply define how to process 
this said group of motions.

The statement "If a debt owed the bank is overdue the Tax Collector 
shall, within a reasonable length of time, submit a Motion for 
Payment of that debt on behalf of the bank" states that this is a motion 
on behalf of the bank to force the *bank* to reclaim the unpaid debts.  
This does not involve the Player at all and will simply take the money 
away from the Player and give it to the bank.

I agree that the wording is unfortunate and I guess it is up to the next 
Judge to clarify which reading is the one to be followed.  Does anyone 
think it is odd that each RFJ is given to the person who it directly 
concerns? :) Perhaps the rules should be changed to allow the person making 
the RFJ to prevent a Player of eis choosing from ruling on that matter.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:42:55 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> To amend this, I issue a Judicial Order that everything posted to a 
public
> forum by the Player Poulenc prior to the payment of his debt after the
> Motive Order should be considered null and void, with all the point 
changes
> and rule amendments this entails.

This was posted to the discuss list and not the business list.  FYI.  

Notice that I did not attempt to have a RFJ undue Poulenc's actions, I 
wanted to clarify what as soon as possible meant... this is kind of 
unfortunate.

jeff

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:56:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> the Sackee to the Sacker with a total purchased value of no more than
> 30% the Sackee's Points or 3 Objects/Items, whichever has a greater
> value

Uh... if NomicHomes don't have a set value, then we have dreadful problems
with finding the value of one if it is demanded as payment...

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposals
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:20:28 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> actually submit now.  There should be a list of them available when chess
> posts his summary of my attempted actions.

*his*?!?!? Ahem, I do actually happen to be female... (honestly, first it's
bad capitalisation, now it's gender confusion...)

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:25:59 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This was posted to the discuss list and not the business list.  FYI.

Hmm. Does this mean I can re-do it and save some work and getting shouted at
about Bank Motions and so forth, given it wasn't actually posted to an
official 'public forum'?

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:02:25 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> This was posted to the discuss list and not the business list.  FYI.
>
>Hmm. Does this mean I can re-do it and save some work and getting shouted at
>about Bank Motions and so forth, given it wasn't actually posted to an
>official 'public forum'?

Well, I guess technically you can re-do it.  It is up to you whether you 
want to post the original or a modified version.  I'd probably say the 
easiest would be to leave it the way it was w/o the Judicial Order, but 
if you want to be evil... :)

jeff

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:24:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Chess wrote:

> > actually submit now.  There should be a list of them available when chess
> > posts his summary of my attempted actions.
> 
> *his*?!?!? Ahem, I do actually happen to be female... (honestly, first it's
> bad capitalisation, now it's gender confusion...)

Sorry.  Fortunately it's not an actual action post by my commentary.
Drat.

Poulenc.

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:58:07 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 04:31:29PM -0000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gavin M. Doig [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  
> > Statement:
> > The modification Benjamin made to his NomicHome was invalid.
> 
> Recognised as RFJ#35 and assigned to Rob Speer

[[ I could have sworn that I saw someone else answer this one, but I can't
find the e-mail. Was it reassigned because they accidentally ruled false? ]]

Ruling: TRUE

The following items which Benjamin added as contents are not objects in the
game:

a half-consumed 40 (of liquor)
3 dirty magazines
a thermal sleeping bag
several newspapers

The structure of his message made it clear that these were meant to be contents
and not simply part of the description.

--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RFJ 28 needs a new judge
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:29:33 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

RFJ 28 slipped through the cracks somehow, and doesn't have a judge at 
present.

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NomicHome 
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:29:17 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:54:41 -0600, you wrote:

>Quoth Antonio:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:08:12 -0000, you wrote:
>>=20
>> >> Judgment: false.
>> >>=3D20
>> >Um.
>> >
>> >True. I meant true.
>> >
>> >D'oh!
>>=20
>>=20
>> Too late to say that now
>
>Hey, it occurs to me that a useful addition to our judiciary would be a =
mechanism allowing the emendation of accidentally incorrect decisions. =
I'd vote for one, at least.

Do you think something like "RFJ rulings are officially recognized one
day after their posting on an official forum" would be enough?
--=20

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:04:29 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff N Schroeder:
> Several rules state times to complete a task as "a reasonable amount of 
> time" or "as soon as possible" but these are abstract terms and could be 
> abused.  Hence, this proposal.
> 
> \begin{proposal} 
> \title{Sack the lazy}
> 
> Create a rule entitled, "Sack the lazy" with the following text:
> 
> If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task within a 
> "reasonable amount of time" or similarly constructed time frame, and 
> while the Agent does not have the [Away] attribute as specified in Rule 
> 307/2, the agent has the duration of one nweek to perform the task.  After 
> this time has elapsed and the action has not been performed, any Player may 
> request a Motion to Sack or Lynch the offending Player.
> 
> If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task "as soon 
> as possible" or similarly known time frame, and while the Agent does not 
> have the [Away] attribute set, the agent has the duration of one-half an 
> nweek to perform the task.  During this time, e may not create 
> Proposals.  After this time has elapsed and the action has not been 
> performed, any Player may request a Motion to Sack or Lynch the offending 
> Player.
> 
> Once the [Away] attribute has been cleared, if it was previously set, the 
> time to complete the above actions shall begin.
> \end{proposal}
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{for Sacking}
> 
> Create a rule entitled "for Sacking" with the text:
> 
> A Motion to Sack is a Unilateral Motion submitted by any one Player, 
> known as the Sacker, that names the offending Player, known as the 
> Sackee, the broken Rule or crime committed and the Penalty.  Only one 
> Motion to Sack may be submitted to a Player per broken Rule or crime. The 
> Penalty may include the forced transfer of Objects, Points or Items from 
> the Sackee to the Sacker with a total purchased value of no more than 
> 30% the Sackee's Points or 3 Objects/Items, whichever has a greater 
> value. The Sacker can choose the Penalty based on these guides.
> 
> If the Sackee has the [Away] attribute set, this Rule will have no effect 
> until the [Away] attribute is cleared.
> 
> The Sackee has three days to comply with the broken rule or to otherwise  
> make reparations for the crime without penalty.  These reparations can 
> include offerings of appeasement to the Sacker [[Points, votes, Objects, 
> etc]] or to the game in general.
> 
> After three days have passed, if the cause for the sack was a broken Rule 
> and the Sackee complied with the Rule, then there is no penalty.  If the 
> cause for the sack was a crime and the Sacker is appeased by reparations, 
> there is no penalty.  If the Sacker does not feel appeased, e can submit 
> an Approveable Primary Motion called 'Give Me Justice' to the game in 
> order to receive his Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack.  Upon 
> passage of 'Give Me Justice' e must receive as soon as possible the Penalty 
> from the Sackee minus a 20% fee to be transferred to the Bank.
> 
> The Sackee can petition his case in a public forum before voting occurs 
> on the Motion Give Me Justice.
> 
> \end{proposal}

The Motion you introduce here should really probably be Secondary, not 
Primary. Unless there are going to be a huge number of these, it would make 
more sense to number them along with all of other Motions.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal recognition, etc. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:10:47 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Joel Uckelman:
> The following Proposals are recognized:
> 
> P439/0, The Very Small Black Hole, by Joel
> P440/0, Hail Eris!, by Blest Lax Monk Pal
> P441/0, Voting Misinformation, by PurpleBob
> P442/0, Names of Agents, by Joerg
> P443/0, A Little Heresy, by Dave
> P444/0, Sack the lazy, by Jeff Schroeder
> P445/0, for Sacking, by Jeff Schroeder
> P446/0, by Jeff Schroeder
> P448/0, How to vote, by Joerg
> P449/0, The Tribune, by Zagarna
> 
> The following Motions received unanimous consent:
> 
> M27/0, Motion to Trivially Amend R227/6
> M28/0, Motion to Trivially Amend R322/0
> 
> -- 
> J.

Mistake: P448 should be P447, P449 should be P448.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:13:38 EST
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
From: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 08:04 PM 3/13/01, you wrote:
>[snip]
>
>The Motion you introduce here should really probably be Secondary, not 
>Primary. Unless there are going to be a huge number of these, it would
make 
>more sense to number them along with all of other Motions.

I am not sure what the difference is between Primary and Secondary.  What
is it secondary to?

jeff
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:23:52 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth :
> At 08:04 PM 3/13/01, you wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >The Motion you introduce here should really probably be Secondary, not 
> >Primary. Unless there are going to be a huge number of these, it would
> make 
> >more sense to number them along with all of other Motions.
> 
> 
> I am not sure what the difference is between Primary and Secondary.  What
> is it secondary to?
> 
> jeff

Each type of Primary Motion has its own numbering system, while all 
Secondary Motions are numbered together. Unless it's something Really 
Important(tm) like Proposals, it should probably be a Secondary Motion.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Cards 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:04:52 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> [[ Here goes. I'm making a big huge proposal which would add a whole new
> category of rules to the game. ]]
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{cards}
> 
> 1. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Properties" with the following text:
> 
> There exist objects in the game known as Cards. Cards are only transferrable
> under conditions stated by the rules.
> 
> Each Card has 3 properties that distinguish it from all other Cards in the
> game: Suit, Rank, and Back.
> 
> The possible Suits are Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs, and Spades.
> The possible Ranks are Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, and King
> .
> The possible Backs are described elsewhere.
> 
> 2. Create a rule entitled "Cards: The Packs" with the following text:
> 
> A Pack of Cards is a set of 52 Cards which all have the same Back. The 52 Car
> ds
> represent every possible combination of Suit and Rank.
> 
> The following Packs of Cards are in play:
> 
> * The Red Pack
>   (The Backs of these cards are primarily Red. They are decorated with the
>   traditional card design featuring the twisty lines surrounding circles whic
> h
>   appear to contain cherubs on pogo sticks.)
> * The Blue Pack
>   (The Backs of these cards are primarily Blue. Other than the color, they ar
> e
>   decorated the same way as the Red Pack.)
> * The Fish Pack
>   (The Backs of these cards contain colorful drawings of tropical fish.)
> * The Corporate Pack
>   (The Backs of these cards contain a message urging you to fly the friendly
>   skies with United.)
> 
> 4. Create a rule entitled "Cards: The Dealer" with the following text:
> 
> The Dealer is the player who owns all the cards in the Deck and is responsibl
> e
> for taking the necessary actions to Deal a card to a Player.
> The Dealer is an Elected Officer. The original Dealer is PurpleBob.
> 
> 5. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Dealing" with the following text:
> 
> On certain occasions the Dealer will be required to Deal a Card to a Player.
> The Dealer does this by assigning a unique number from 1 to 52*(the number of
> Packs) to each Card, and asking the Nomic's dice server to roll one die with
> that many sides. If the number returned is the number of a Card that is not
> currently in the Deck, the Dealer keeps rolling until e gets the number of a
> Card that is in the Deck. The Dealer then transfers this Card from the Deck t
> o
> the Hand of the player who should recieve the card, and notifies that Player 
> of
> what the Card is. The Player is then considered to own that Card.
> 
> However, if the Deck contains no Cards, the Dealer cannot Deal a Card. This
> takes precedence over rules that state when a Card should be Dealt.
> 
> The method used to assign numbers to cards is this:
> 
> The packs are numbered from 0 to (N-1), where N is the number of packs, in th
> e
> order which they are originally described.
> 
> The suits are numbered as such: Diamonds = 0, Spades = 1, Hearts = 2. Clubs =
> 3.
> 
> The ranks are numbered as such: Ace = 1, Jack = 11, Queen = 12, King = 13, an
> d
> all other ranks are numbered as themselves.
> 
> The number of a card is: (pack number)*52 + (suit number)*13 + (rank number)
> 
> 6. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Hands" with the following text:
> 
> A Hand is the collection of all cards which a player besides the Dealer owns.
> 
> 7. Create a rule entitled "Cards: The Deck" with the following text:
> 
> The Deck is the collection of all cards which are owned by the Dealer.
> Originally, all the Cards in all the Packs that are in play are in the Deck.
> 
> 8. Create a rule entitled "Cards: Dealer's Report" with the following text:
> 
> Each nweek, the Dealer make a report of who recieved Cards in that nweek, and
> what the Back of each Card was. No other information about the Cards should b
> e
> given by the Dealer.
> 
> 9. Create a rule entitled "Cards for Votes" with the following text:
> 
> At the beginning of each nweek, the Dealer deals a Card to each Player who
> voted in the previous nweek.
> 
> \end{proposal}
> --
> Rob Speer

This sounds really neat. What about Jokers? Shouldn't each deck have 2 
Jokers?

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:24:23 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Cards
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:04:52PM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> This sounds really neat. What about Jokers? Shouldn't each deck have 2 
> Jokers?

I considered putting in Jokers, but I have a few ideas for games that could be
played with Nomic Cards, and generally Jokers either wouldn't fit into the game
or would imbalance the game. There could always be an amendment to "Cards:
Dealing" to put in Jokers if we decide otherwise.

--
Rob Speer

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: YARFJ
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:03:06 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan [mailto:[email-masked]]
 
> I submit a new RFJ:
> 
> M22, by Jeff Schroeder, text quoted below, did not result in a Motive
> order requiring Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the bank, because its
> wording and type (Bank Motion) were directed at the Bank, not 
> at Poulenc.

Recognised as RFJ#38 and assigned to Benjamin

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nomination!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:05:07 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> I nominate Myself as Officer of Supreme Justice.
> 

I didn't realise that post was up for election. The OBC is the post I stood
down from, not the OSJ.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Discuss' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Outstanding Judgements
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:25:15 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The following are what I think are the current RFJs pending judgements. Some
of them I've only just assigned so they are there just for completeness:

RFJ  Judge
#28: Zagarna
#30: Jeff
#33: Joel
#34: Jeff
#38: Benjamin
#39: Relet

--
The Kid

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 31 ruling and a proposal 
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:05 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 4. For non-revelation to be possible, someone must lack the unrevealed =

> knowledge. For instance, it would be impossible for me to avoid =
revealing=20

But if the votes were not submitted to the forum, they wouldn't be =
known, so there would be something to hide. So, because they're made =
public, the voter failed to keep them secret, but they never were =
secret, so he didn't reveal them. Hmmm....

Of course, if the last sentence applies only to the administrator, there =
isn't any problem.

> As it stands, I probably won't vote for Joerg's changes, which seem to =
me=20
> overly complex.

Hmmm, yes. I'll revise the proposal.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:07 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task "as =
soon=20
> as possible" or similarly known time frame, and while the Agent does =
not=20

Note that we already have a rule defining how to perform an action which =
is to be performed asap. I don't really like that rule and I'd prefer =
your version, but you should probably revise the existing rule rather =
than create another definition.

> the Sackee to the Sacker with a total purchased value of no more than=20
> 30% the Sackee's Points or 3 Objects/Items, whichever has a greater=20
> value. The Sacker can choose the Penalty based on these guides.

The purchase value of 3 Objects might actually be quite high, if the =
player happens to own some expansive objects. Also three objects is =
quite a lot, since the Sacker will probably select the 3 most valuable =
objects. If someone for example has all three stamps, that would be 180 =
points, far more than 30% of one's points would ever be (180 =3D 0.3 * =
600, so you'd need 600 points to get an equal punishment in points).

> there is no penalty.  If the Sacker does not feel appeased, e can =
submit=20
> an Approveable Primary Motion called 'Give Me Justice' to the game in=20
> order to receive his Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack.  Upon=20
> passage of 'Give Me Justice' e must receive as soon as possible=20
> the Penalty=20
> from the Sackee minus a 20% fee to be transferred to the Bank.=20

I don't like this. It means the first one to make a Motion to Sack will =
receive the penalty, and others receive nothing.

This might cause a flood of Motions to Sack, simply because people want =
to get the points that they'll get if it succeeds. And there isn't any =
penalty for unsuccessfully trying to sack someone.

Joerg

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:34:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task "as =
>soon=20
>> as possible" or similarly known time frame, and while the Agent does =
>not=20
>
>Note that we already have a rule defining how to perform an action which =
>is to be performed asap. I don't really like that rule and I'd prefer =
>your version, but you should probably revise the existing rule rather =
>than create another definition.

I didn't realize there was a different rule - I will take that into account.  Does anyone
have any preference toward the current rule? R305/0.

>> the Sackee to the Sacker with a total purchased value of no more than=20
>> 30% the Sackee's Points or 3 Objects/Items, whichever has a greater=20
>> value. The Sacker can choose the Penalty based on these guides.
>
>The purchase value of 3 Objects might actually be quite high, if the =
>player happens to own some expansive objects. Also three objects is =
>quite a lot, since the Sacker will probably select the 3 most valuable =
>objects. If someone for example has all three stamps, that would be 180 =
>points, far more than 30% of one's points would ever be (180 =3D 0.3 * =
>600, so you'd need 600 points to get an equal punishment in points).

This is true, of course there are other objects that are not worth much at all in
comparison.  Such as Go pieces.  I might change it to the lesser of the two.
I am most concerned about objects with no defined value such as NomicHomes
- any suggestions?

>> there is no penalty.  If the Sacker does not feel appeased, e can =
>submit=20
>> an Approveable Primary Motion called 'Give Me Justice' to the game in=20
>> order to receive his Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack.  Upon=20
>> passage of 'Give Me Justice' e must receive as soon as possible=20
>> the Penalty=20
>> from the Sackee minus a 20% fee to be transferred to the Bank.=20
>
>I don't like this. It means the first one to make a Motion to Sack will =
>receive the penalty, and others receive nothing.

In some ways this was the point. I was attempting to think of something that could
be used for Player to Player crimes, etc. versus crimes against the game or everyone.
I thought that this could be used in conjunction with the Lynching rule depending
on what occurred.

>This might cause a flood of Motions to Sack, simply because people want =
>to get the points that they'll get if it succeeds. And there isn't any =
>penalty for unsuccessfully trying to sack someone.

This is also true.  I have the safeguard against just taking people's stuff with the approveable
motion, but nothing concerning a flood of Motions.  I will make a new version soon.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Outstanding Judgements
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:54:57 CST
From: Jeff N Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What is #30?  I thought I ruled on everything except for #34 so far.  It 
is not on the Judgements page.

jeff

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Outstanding Judgements 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:31:26 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff N Schroeder:
> What is #30?  I thought I ruled on everything except for #34 so far.  It 
> is not on the Judgements page.
> 
> jeff

Um, that has to be a mistake. You ruled on RFJ 30 on 25 Feb.

-- 
J.

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:02:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> What is #30?  I thought I ruled on everything except for #34 so far.  It

>> is not on the Judgements page.
>>
>> jeff
>
>Um, that has to be a mistake. You ruled on RFJ 30 on 25 Feb.
>

I should have said it is not on the Pending Judgements page.  I later looked
and it is on the completed judgements page!  So everything is ok with the world.

jeff

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:06:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: YARFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 04:03 AM 3/14/01, you wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> > I submit a new RFJ:
> >
> > M22, by Jeff Schroeder, text quoted below, did not result in a Motive
> > order requiring Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the bank, because its
> > wording and type (Bank Motion) were directed at the Bank, not
> > at Poulenc.
>
>Recognised as RFJ#38 and assigned to Benjamin

Here is my opinion of the reading of that particular rule.  Benjamin will 
decide which is the correct view:

I am the Tax Collector and I perhaps should have entitled it a Motion for 
Repayment instead of a Bank Motion.  The rules confused me in that respect, 
so I decided to call it a
generic bank motion with the understanding that people would know that I 
had the authority to repay all debts and that this authority was what 
mattered as opposed to what the motion was called.

I understood that under the reading of Rule 317/2, that the Motion for 
Payment was a subset of the group of motions that constitute Bank 
Motions.  The definition of Bank Motions simply define how to process this 
said group of motions.

The statement "If a debt owed the bank is overdue the Tax Collector shall, 
within a reasonable length of time, submit a Motion for Payment of that 
debt on behalf of the bank" states that this is a motion on behalf of the 
bank to force the *bank* to reclaim the unpaid debts.  This does not 
involve the Player at all and will simply take the money away from the 
Player and give it to the bank.

jeff

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff and two RFJ's 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:58:31 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Chess":
> > This was posted to the discuss list and not the business list.  FYI.
> 
> Hmm. Does this mean I can re-do it and save some work and getting shouted at
> about Bank Motions and so forth, given it wasn't actually posted to an
> official 'public forum'?

Yes, I think so.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Outstanding Judgements 
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:02:03 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Quoth Jeff N Schroeder:
> > What is #30?  I thought I ruled on everything except for 
> #34 so far.  It 
> > is not on the Judgements page.
> > 
> > jeff
> 
> Um, that has to be a mistake. You ruled on RFJ 30 on 25 Feb.

Oh yeah, so you did. Sorry, must have missed that.

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Go comments
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:45:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, I just revised the Political Go Proposal mostly in accord with 
Poulenc's suggestions from a while back. Here are a few observations:

1. The Go Board needs to be cleared after each game. The way I'd like that 
to work is for each Go player to "capture" eir Stones in play and 
territories when the game ends. The reason for that is it would be very 
unbalancing if Go players could keep all of their Stones remaining from 
previous games in reserve. E.g., I doubt anyone would want to play if 
someone had 100 Stones in reserve at the start of a game. If players are 
allowed to capture their Stones, then they can be redeemed for 1 point each 
by the Bank. However, I'd like the Bank to redeem end-game territories as 
well, for 1 point each. This is something I will likely add to my proposal, 
and requires no changes to yours.

2. It would be nice if everyone were given a free Stone each nweek. Since 
your Proposal deals mostly with the supply of Stones, that would fit in 
well.

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:37:08 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:23:42 +0100, you wrote:

>
>> >> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
>>=20
>> I Rule: FALSE
>
>:-)
>
>
>I take the following actions:
>
>1. I currently own two debts, one with a value of 7 and one with a value=
 of 10 Points. I divise these debts so that I have 17 debts with a value =
of one Point each.
>
>2. I repay one of my debts by transferring one Point to myself. I repeat=
 this action until I have repayed all debts in my posession.
>
>3. To prove that I was allowed to do 1. and 2., I make the following =
RFJ:
>

Why did you have to divide your debts into 1 point debts? Couldn't you
simply transfer 7 and 10 points to yourself to repay the debts?

More to the point: what does this prove? Even if you pay a 10 point
debt to yourself you still owe tha bank 10 points. But maybe it's just
me not remembering the rules correctly.
--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:14:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

No you don't.  Those debts are property of the Bank.  ask really nice-like
I could have the Bank divide them for you.  But even then the Bank would
still own the resulting component debts.

Poulenc

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:17:42 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Why did you have to divide your debts into 1 point debts? Couldn't you
> simply transfer 7 and 10 points to yourself to repay the debts?

I don't have enough Points. I think I have 5 (I had 9 and paid 4 for the =
similarity game), but I have at least one so I can pay the debts like =
this in any case.

> More to the point: what does this prove? Even if you pay a 10 point
> debt to yourself you still owe tha bank 10 points. But maybe it's just
> me not remembering the rules correctly.

The debts get destroyed when "payment has been made" (R358).

Of course, since I have not paid anything to the bank, one might claim =
that new debts are created whenever I pay them to myself. But rule 358 =
states that "payment has been made [...], satisfying the debt." This =
means by making payment the debt is satisfied (ok, it might also simply =
be a definition of payment).

But even if I do continue to owe points to the bank, I'm not required to =
pay them back because there isn't any debt that would actually require =
such payment. And if new debts are created, I can repeat the same =
process again and again. Until someone fixes the rules, at least.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:17:44 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > >1. I currently own two debts, one with a value of 7 and one=20
> with a value of 10 Points. I divise these debts so that I have 17=20
> debts with a value of one Point each.
>=20
> No you don't.  Those debts are property of the Bank.  ask really =
nice-like
> I could have the Bank divide them for you.  But even then the Bank =
would
> still own the resulting component debts.

No, the debts are not property of the bank. I have created them =
(otherwise I wouldn't have to pay them, because debts are always owed by =
the creator), and I never gave them to the bank.

Joerg

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:05:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> No, the debts are not property of the bank. I have created them
> (otherwise I wouldn't have to pay them, because debts are always owed
> by the creator), and I never gave them to the bank.

When did you create the debts?  I never saw you recognize the creation of
any debt in your ownership--by R347 debts are created when their creation
is recognized by their owner.

Also, in your analysis you leave out a key part of the sentence.  The
sentence you claim gives you ownership of the debts is actually:

	Unless specified otherwise by the rules or a legislative, 
	administrative, or judicial order the debt is always owed by
	its creator.

For these debts, R231/1 specified otherwise.

Poulenc

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Some notes about debts
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:50:12 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As there seems to be a lot of confusion about debts, so here's a summary =
of the current debt rules (as I interpret them):

There are two methods of creating a debt. First, an Agent can create a =
debt in their own ownership. Of course, e doesn't owe this debt to =
anyone but emself, unless e transfers it to an Agent, which e might want =
to do instead of an otherwise required point transfer.

The other method is that an Agent owes Points -- this pending point =
transfer is a debt. But who creates such debts? As there isn't any rule =
that states otherwise, I suppose they must be created by the Agent who =
owes them, in eir own ownership, as stated by R347. If this is the case, =
the debt is of course also payable to the debtor.

I think the fundamental problem with the currrent rules is that there =
are two ways of creating a debt, but all debts are governed by the same =
rules. I suppose R347 was meant to create a possibility for players to =
transfer a (newly created) debt instead of transferring points. However, =
as soons as a player needs to transfer these points, another debt is =
already created automatically by R358.

I think the objects described by R347 should really be called IOUs, not =
debts, and it should be possible to transfer these IOUs instead of =
points to satisfy a debt, if the creditor agrees.

A debt and an IOU are not the same: An IOU is the documentation of a =
debt, not the debt itself. An IOU has an owner, a debt exists between a =
creditor and a debtor but isn't owned by either of them. An IOU can be =
used as a replacement for points (in fact, it is a special type of =
currency), while a debt is not a currency but requires the transfer of a =
certain amount of units of a currency.

However, with the current rules, there is no difference between IOUs and =
debts. This creates some really weird problems, and I bet this can be =
exploited even if my RFJ is ruled false.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I pay my debts (sort of...)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:50:14 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> When did you create the debts?  I never saw you recognize the creation =
of
> any debt in your ownership--by R347 debts are created when their =
creation
> is recognized by their owner.

They must have been created automatically as soon as I started to owe =
Points to the bank. Or the debts don't exist.

Anyway, I must be the one who created them, because they're owed by me =
and debts are always owed by the creator.

>=20
> Also, in your analysis you leave out a key part of the sentence.  The
> sentence you claim gives you ownership of the debts is actually:
>=20
> 	Unless specified otherwise by the rules or a legislative,=20
> 	administrative, or judicial order the debt is always owed by
> 	its creator.
>=20
> For these debts, R231/1 specified otherwise.

No R231/1 specifies that I owe Points to the bank. By R358, this pending =
Point transfer is a debt.

R231 doesn't specify to whom I owe a debt, it just specifies to whom I =
owe Points. I do owe points to the bank, and I might continue to do so, =
depending on how R358's "satisfiying the debt" is interpreted (either =
the transfer satisfies the debt, then my debts would be satisfied (but I =
might still owe points), or satisfying the debt is the definition of the =
transfer, but then we don't have a definition of how to satisfy a debt =
and no debt has ever been destroyed (even though the points might no =
longer be owed)).

Joerg

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Some notes about debts
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:00:06 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would just like to state for the record that I really do not like the
whole debt system. I think that if a player is awarded or penalised points
then it should just happen. The debt system just makes things cumbersome.

--
The Kid

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

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

Poulenc

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Amend Trivialy
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:30:08 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I move to Amend Trivialy each non-case-specific instance of 
> "Repayment" in
> the rules to "Payment"
> 
> [[My previous effort to fix this resulted in changing about half of
> them.]]

I'm not too sure that a global replacement like that can really be called a
'trivial' change. Isn't there any sort of limit on what can be in a trivial
change?

--
The Kid

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:30:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 28: Ruling
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

This is judicial precedent that the rules are non-case specific.
Capitalization of the rules is there only to look nice.  I like it this
way (because I usually screw up the capitalization of my proposals) so I'm
pointing this out to everyone so we don't have to go throught his all
again.

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Amend Trivialy 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:44:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > I move to Amend Trivialy each non-case-specific instance of 
> > "Repayment" in
> > the rules to "Payment"
> > 
> > [[My previous effort to fix this resulted in changing about half of
> > them.]]
> 
> I'm not too sure that a global replacement like that can really be called a
> 'trivial' change. Isn't there any sort of limit on what can be in a trivial
> change?
> 
> --
> The Kid

Triviality is in the eye of the objector. It's easy to recognize, but 
enormously difficult to define precisely. This shouldn't be a problem, 
though, since you can object if you don't think it's a trivial change.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 28: Ruling 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:47:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> > >> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
> > 
> > I Rule: FALSE
> 
> This is judicial precedent that the rules are non-case specific.
> Capitalization of the rules is there only to look nice.  I like it this
> way (because I usually screw up the capitalization of my proposals) so I'm
> pointing this out to everyone so we don't have to go throught his all
> again.
> 
> Poulenc

Hmm. If I looked hard enough, I bet I could find a Rule where the 
capitalization *does* matter, which would be grounds for overturning this 
precedent.

-- 
J.

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

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

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

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:55:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Go comments
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> 2. It would be nice if everyone were given a free Stone each nweek. Since 
> your Proposal deals mostly with the supply of Stones, that would fit in 
> well.

By my proposal a player's first go stone in an nweek costs only 1 point.
That's almost free.  Would you like the price to be reduced even further?
An alternate solution would be to give a reward for voting.  Hmm.

Poulenc

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:09:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 28: Ruling 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Hmm. If I looked hard enough, I bet I could find a Rule where the 
> capitalization *does* matter, which would be grounds for overturning this 
> precedent.

The only rule I could find like this is rule 1/1, which discusses the
matter directly. I'll bet 10 points that you can't find another.

Poulenc

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

I rescind my attempt to amend trivialy.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Go comments 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:36:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> > 
> > 2. It would be nice if everyone were given a free Stone each nweek. Since 
> > your Proposal deals mostly with the supply of Stones, that would fit in 
> > well.
> 
> By my proposal a player's first go stone in an nweek costs only 1 point.
> That's almost free.  Would you like the price to be reduced even further?
> An alternate solution would be to give a reward for voting.  Hmm.
> 
> Poulenc

Well, I think even 1 point for a Stone might be too much for someone who 
has few points. Why not make the cost 5^n-1, so when n = 0, the Stones are 
free?

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:45:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Typo Alert
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

a number of captured Sontes equal to eir territories plus what?

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

poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:56:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> The folloing actions led to the creation of new debts:
> 
> player	action				debt
> Poulenc returned judgement on RFJ 36 	+2
> Joerg returned judgement on RFJ 31 	+2
> relet returned judgement on RFJ39 	+2
> zagarna returned judgement on RFJ 28 	+2
> Benjamin returned judgement on RFJ 38 	+2
> 
> To pay these debts, the Bank transfers:
> 2 points to Poulenc
> 2 points to Joerg
> 2 points to relet
> 2 points to zagarna
> 2 points to Benjamin
> 
> [[If you have returned a judgement this nweek and not been mentioned,
> say something now so I don't forget you!]]
> 
> The Bank has 456 points
> ------
> Poulenc

Hey! I did! I did! RFJ 33!

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:00:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Whoops

Joel returned judgement on RFJ 33  +2

The Bank transfers 2 point to Joel

Poulenc

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:12:43 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[If you have returned a judgement this nweek and not been mentioned,
> say something now so I don't forget you!]]
> 
Didn't I do 32?

BLMP.

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:17:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

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

And the way the things are set now the Bank's gonna be out a lot of
points.  Ack.

poulenc

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:16:33 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 06:37:38PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> [[If you have returned a judgement this nweek and not been mentioned,
> say something now so I don't forget you!]]

I did, on RFJ 35.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:16:00 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bank stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I did 30 and 34

At 06:37 PM 3/17/01, you wrote:

>The folloing actions led to the creation of new debts:
>
>player  action                          debt
>Poulenc returned judgement on RFJ 36    +2
>Joerg returned judgement on RFJ 31      +2
>relet returned judgement on RFJ39       +2
>zagarna returned judgement on RFJ 28    +2
>Benjamin returned judgement on RFJ 38   +2
>
>To pay these debts, the Bank transfers:
>2 points to Poulenc
>2 points to Joerg
>2 points to relet
>2 points to zagarna
>2 points to Benjamin
>
>[[If you have returned a judgement this nweek and not been mentioned,
>say something now so I don't forget you!]]
>
>The Bank has 456 points
>------
>Poulenc

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:22:28 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:52:09 -0600, you wrote:

My votes for this week
>
>Proposals for nweek 17:
>
>P362/2, Political Go, by Joel
YES
>P430/0, Against a monopoly of power, by Poulenc
YES
>P431/1, Go Stones, by Poulenc
Yes
>P432/0, let's vote ourselves rich, by jonno
NO
>P433/0, Money for Nothing, by PurpleBob
YES
>P434/0, Thug Fix, by Joel
YES
>P435/0, Just Because It's A Bank, Doesn't Mean It Should Be Bankrupt, by=
=20
>Dave
YES
>P436/1, Tax the Rich!, by Poulenc
NO
>P437/0, Debt Overdue Charges, by Poulenc
YES
>P438/1, Lynching, by Joerg
NO
>P439/0, The Very Small Black Hole, by Joel
YES
>P440/0, Hail Eris!, by Blest Lax Monk Pal
NO
>P441/0, Prevention of Voting Manipulation, by PurpleBob
NO
>P442/0, Names of Agents, by Joerg
YES
>P443/0, A Little Heresy, by Dave
NO
>P444/1, Sack the lazy, by Jeff Schroeder
NO
>P445/1, for Sacking, by Jeff Schroeder
YES
>P446/0, Judge Selection, by Jeff Schroeder
YES
>P447/1, How to vote, by Joerg
YES
>P448/0, The Tribune, by Zagarna
YES
>P449/0, cards, by PurpleBob
YES
>P450/0, Omnibus Proposal, by Joel
YES
>P451/0, Another [Away] patch, by relet
YES
>P452/0, A reward for voting, by Poulenc
NO
>P453/0, Debts Fix I, by Poulenc
YES
>P454/0, Mediocrity fix, by Poulenc
YES
>
>Motions for nweek 17:
>
>M31/0, Motion for Repayment, by Poulenc
YES
>
>Elections for nweek 17:
>
>* Officer of Supreme Justice
>
>The Kid
>Zagarna

--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >
> >Motions for nweek 17:
> >
> >M31/0, Motion for Repayment, by Poulenc
> YES

I have already paid this debt

Poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:47:03 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> > >
> > >Motions for nweek 17:
> > >
> > >M31/0, Motion for Repayment, by Poulenc
> > YES
> 
> I have already paid this debt
> 
> Poulenc

But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting 
began.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:12:47 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > >
> > >Motions for nweek 17:
> > >
> > >M31/0, Motion for Repayment, by Poulenc
> > YES
>=20
> I have already paid this debt

Yea, that's what the motion says:
"[...] points which poulenc does not owe the Bank anymore."

Joerg

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:36:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 17 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting 
> began.

Actually, I didn't.  The Bank did, because The Bank was ordered to.  I
think there's a provision that will let me out of paying twice.

Poulenc

From: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: three voting days
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:23:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Is 72 hours of voting too long?  I think that 2 days is more than enough
time and am thinking of shortening it to 48 hours.  Would there be any
objections?

jeff

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: three voting days
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:27:06 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> 
> Is 72 hours of voting too long?  I think that 2 days is more 
> than enough
> time and am thinking of shortening it to 48 hours.  Would there be any
> objections?

Yeah I wouldn't be happy with two days. I generally read the Nomic mail on
my work account. While I can read it from home, I very rarely do so. If the
voting was only two days it would fall on a weekend from time to time and
I'd completely miss the voting period.

--
The Kid

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:03:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: three voting days
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I agree with the three-day voting period. Sometimes I just don't feel like
reading through a bunch of proposals. Three days gives a decent chance for
everyone.

> Yeah I wouldn't be happy with two days. I generally read the Nomic mail on
> my work account. While I can read it from home, I very rarely do so. If the
> voting was only two days it would fall on a weekend from time to time and
> I'd completely miss the voting period.

- 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: three voting days 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:26:01 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > 
> > Is 72 hours of voting too long?  I think that 2 days is more 
> > than enough
> > time and am thinking of shortening it to 48 hours.  Would there be any
> > objections?
> 
> Yeah I wouldn't be happy with two days. I generally read the Nomic mail on
> my work account. While I can read it from home, I very rarely do so. If the
> voting was only two days it would fall on a weekend from time to time and
> I'd completely miss the voting period.
> 
> --
> The Kid

I like the 3 days as well. It gives me time to catch up, since the game 
usually slows a bit during voting.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:42:43 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: three voting days 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So the people have spoken!

At 12:26 PM 3/19/01, you wrote:
>Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked]
> > >
> > > Is 72 hours of voting too long?  I think that 2 days is more
> > > than enough
> > > time and am thinking of shortening it to 48 hours.  Would there be any
> > > objections?
> >
> > Yeah I wouldn't be happy with two days. I generally read the Nomic mail on
> > my work account. While I can read it from home, I very rarely do so. If the
> > voting was only two days it would fall on a weekend from time to time and
> > I'd completely miss the voting period.
> >
> > --
> > The Kid
>
>I like the 3 days as well. It gives me time to catch up, since the game
>usually slows a bit during voting.
>
>--
>J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: three voting days 
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:38:53 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

And who said democracy didn't work...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Schroeder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> So the people have spoken!
> 
> At 12:26 PM 3/19/01, you wrote:
> >Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked]
> > > >
> > > > Is 72 hours of voting too long?  I think that 2 days is more
> > > > than enough
> > > > time and am thinking of shortening it to 48 hours.  
> Would there be any
> > > > objections?
> > >
> > > Yeah I wouldn't be happy with two days. I generally read 
> the Nomic mail on
> > > my work account. While I can read it from home, I very 
> rarely do so. If the
> > > voting was only two days it would fall on a weekend from 
> time to time and
> > > I'd completely miss the voting period.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Kid
> >
> >I like the 3 days as well. It gives me time to catch up, 
> since the game
> >usually slows a bit during voting.
> >
> >--
> >J.
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Nomic Discuss' <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: "It's all gone quiet" said Rhubarb
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:24:22 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Am I having a problem with my mail, or has the list really gone quiet? And
did the cartoon "Rhubarb & Custard" ever get shown in USA or any of the
other countries represented here?

--
The Kid - "Too quiet" said Custard

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:30:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: "'Nomic Discuss'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: "It's all gone quiet" said Rhubarb
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

yep - it's pretty quiet. I'd say before january, we didn't get more than
5-10 messages a week on the list - then we had a huge flood of new people
join, so that's why it's been really active lately.

I've lived in the US (primarily southern) for ~17 years and I've never
heard of Rhubarb & Custard - which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
here, since I'm not a cartoon guru or anything - but they didn't show it
on saturday mornings when I was growing up.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> Am I having a problem with my mail, or has the list really gone quiet? And
> did the cartoon "Rhubarb & Custard" ever get shown in USA or any of the
> other countries represented here?
>
> --
> The Kid - "Too quiet" said Custard
>

- 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: "It's all gone quiet" said Rhubarb 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:02:54 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Am I having a problem with my mail, or has the list really gone quiet? And
> did the cartoon "Rhubarb & Custard" ever get shown in USA or any of the
> other countries represented here?
> 
> --
> The Kid - "Too quiet" said Custard

Quiet. I'll get the voting results out sometime today, that might prompt 
some action.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:09:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: "It's all gone quiet" said Rhubarb 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Quiet. I'll get the voting results out sometime today, that might prompt 
> some action.

Yeah, there's nothing really to do until the voting results get back.
Most of the conversation on the list is about making proposals to submit
next voting, and we can't really make new proposals until we know what the
rules are going to be like.

It'll pick up again once the results are in.  At the very least I should
have my usual 5 or six posts of reports and corrections.

I don't recognize that cartoon -- but I never watched a lot of cartoons so
I could have missed it entirely.

Poulenc

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:44:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Political Go suggested revision and comments
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

ok - this message has been sitting in my outbox for a couple weeks and
just never got sent for some reason - I don't know if it's still relevant,
but I'm pretty sure I never heard discussion about this, so here goes:

> Would there be objections if we make winning a game of Political Go a
> requirement for winning the game of nomic?

objection! go is a very complicated game and for newbies to have to learn
it quickly is preposterous. Not to mention the fact that winning a game of
Go (especially in the time-delayed world of nomic) would take months. I
got the idea that winning nomic was something that was supposed to happen
not infrequently.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:33:03 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Political Go suggested revision and comments
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 07:54:12PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Would there be objections if we make winning a game of Political Go a
> requirement for winning the game of nomic?

I object. I tried to learn to play Go once and I was really bad at it. :P

--
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:41:05 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Mediocrity isn't exactly fixed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I see two problems with the proposal that passed to fix Mediocrity:

>The ContestMaster of each Mediocrity sub-game is the winner of the previous
>sub-game of the same game. 
>If there was no previous subgame the winner is the ContestMaster of that game.
The winner of what? The nonexistent previous subgame?

>If there is no Mediocrity game active any Player start one and declare emself
>concertmaster of the new game by posting such to the Public Forum.
Okay, so we get a Concertmaster, but not a ContestMaster.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:02:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Mediocrity isn't exactly fixed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yikes I really messed that one up.  At least I got my points for it.
Considering that the proposal it modified was nothing but a hack to become
Enlightened in the first place I'm doing fairly well off of Contests just
now :-)

OTOH, don't you people ever read proposals before voting for them?  I
should have tried to declare myself emperor or something.

Poulenc

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> I see two problems with the proposal that passed to fix Mediocrity:
> 
> >The ContestMaster of each Mediocrity sub-game is the winner of the previous
> >sub-game of the same game. 
> >If there was no previous subgame the winner is the ContestMaster of that game.
> The winner of what? The nonexistent previous subgame?
> 
> >If there is no Mediocrity game active any Player start one and declare emself
> >concertmaster of the new game by posting such to the Public Forum.
> Okay, so we get a Concertmaster, but not a ContestMaster.
> 
> --
> Rob Speer
> 
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:06:09 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Suggestion for a slight change - The way this stands means that players can
only play poker. If another card game gets added later then can you play two
games at once with the same cards? 

Here's my suggestion: When a showdown occurs each player must nominate (tell
the dealer) which 5 of their cards they wish to play in their poker hand. If
a player has less than 5 cards then they cannot play in this round and they
keep their cards. If a player has more than five cards then the cards they
do not play are kept in their hand for the next round. If a player has 10
cards they may nominate all ten in two hands, or just play 5 and keep 5. If
a player does not nominate their 5 cards then the dealer will pick the 5
cards that would give them the best result. (Note we have to give the player
the option of picking their own cards cos they might want to just throw away
some bad cards if they don't think they'd win anyway.)

Should a player be forced to play if they can?

Also, I don't think the dealer should be paid for the transfer. As an
elected official he will get a salary each nweek anyway. And what happens
when the dealer changes? The dealer knows the contents of everybodys hand,
so the new dealer would then need to be notified. Can the dealer play in the
card games?

And where's my card for this nweek anyway? The card is dealt at the
beginning of the nweek, and the rule was active at that time.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 22 March 2001 23:38
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
> 
> 
> [[ Now that we've got these decks of Cards, we might as well 
> play a game with
> them. I now present the rules for a variant of Poker that I 
> call Pooker. ]]
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Pooker}
> 1. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: Definitions" with the 
> following text:
> 
> Pooker is a game played with Nomic Cards. The object of the 
> game is to exchange
> Cards with other Players so that you have the best Poker Hand 
> or combination of
> Poker Hands.
> 
> A Trade is the process by which two Players exchange a 
> specified number of
> Cards. In a Trade, the dealer takes the Cards which one 
> Player wishes to trade
> to the other Player and changes their ownership to the other 
> Player, thus
> adding them to the other Player's hand. E then takes an equal 
> number of Cards
> which the other Player wishes to trade and changes their 
> ownership to the first
> Player in the same way. Both Players involved in a trade must 
> trade an equal
> number of Cards.
> 
> A game of Pooker ends in a Showdown, in which all Cards in 
> play are revealed
> and a prize of a certain number of Points goes to the Player
> or Players with the highest total Score of Poker Hands. After 
> a Showdown, all
> Cards are returned to the Deck to start a new game of Pooker.
> 
> 2. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: Trading" with the following text:
> 
> Any Player who has one or more Cards may arrange a Trade with 
> any other Player
> who has one or more Cards. They do this by making offers and 
> counter-offers
> with each other privately, and then notifying the Dealer of 
> the Trade they wish
> to make - both which Card or Cards e will give, and which 
> Card or Cards e plans
> to recieve.
> 
> The Dealer must be notified of the same trade by both Players involved
> in the trade. The Players also must each pay the Dealer a 
> transaction fee of
> one Point [[you'll notice that there's no other way for the 
> Dealer to get
> Points from this game]].
> 
> 3. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: the Showdown" with the following
> text:
> 
> A Player may make a Motion to Show Cards at any time as long 
> as no such Motion
> is already pending. A Motion to Show Cards is a Secondary 
> Approvable Motion
> which passes by being voted for by a majority of Players. 
> When a Motion to Show
> Cards passes, a Showdown occurs. The Dealer then posts a 
> message to a public
> Forum including the Cards held by each Player and the highest-scoring
> arrangement of each Player's Cards into Poker Hands.
> 
> Additionally, if a transfer of Cards (such as by Dealing) 
> causes one Player to
> own ten or more Cards, a Showdown automatically occurs.
> 
> The Player who has the highest total Score of eir Poker 
> Hand(s) is awarded a
> number of Points from the Bank equivalent to the total Score 
> of eir Poker
> Hand(s). If there is a tie for the highest Score, that number 
> of Points is
> given from the Bank and divided among the Player(s) involved 
> in the tie.
> 
> 4. Create a rule entitled "Pooker: Scoring" with the following text:
> 
> A Poker Hand is a set of one to five Cards owned by the same 
> Player. A Player
> may arrange eir Cards into more than one Poker Hand if it 
> would result in a
> higher Score or if e owns more than five Cards.
> 
> Poker Hands are scored as follows (statements at the top take 
> precedence):
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains five Cards of the same Rank, it is a 
> Five of a Kind,
> and has a Score of 80.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains five Cards with the Ranks Ace, King, 
> Queen, Jack, and
> 10, and those Cards are all of the same Suit, it is a Royal 
> Flush, and has a
> Score of 80.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains five Cards with consecutive Ranks 
> which are all of the
> same Suit, it is a Straight Flush, and has a Score of 70.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains four Cards of the same Rank, it is a 
> Four of a Kind,
> and has a Score of 60.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains three Cards of one Rank and two 
> cards of another, it
> is a Full House, and has a Score of 50.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains five Cards of the same Suit, it is a 
> Flush, and has a
> Score of 40.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains five Cards with consecutive Ranks [[such as
> 7-8-9-10-Jack]], it is a Straight, and has a Score of 35.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains three Cards of the same Rank, it is 
> a Three of a Kind,
> and has a Score of 25.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains two Cards of one Rank and two cards 
> of another Rank,
> it is Two Pair, and has a Score of 15.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains two Cards of the same Rank, it is a 
> Pair, and has a
> Score of 5.
> 
> If a Poker Hand contains none of the above, its Score is 0.
> \end{proposal}
> 
> --
> Rob Speer
> 

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 06:10:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Suggestion for a slight change - The way this stands means that
> players can
> only play poker. If another card game gets added later then can you
> play two
> games at once with the same cards? 
>

No, Every different game should specify the deck used, (blue, red,
fish..) and have separate dealing rules. this way we can play different
games or even different sets of the same game at the same time. I'm
thinking about a proposal for this and I'll submit it later today (or
tomorrow :).
Basically I will propose to tag all the decks we have as "free". When
someone wants to start a game of cards he must first get a minimum
number of players to join the game then he can take a free deck (or
more than one if the rules of the game require it) and tag it as "In
use". 
When the game ends the deck becomes free again.

-- 
Zagarna

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards
	!
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 14:12:28 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The current proposal for the poker uses *all* of the decks.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 23 March 2001 14:10
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got
> Cards!
> 
> 
> 
> --- "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Suggestion for a slight change - The way this stands means that
> > players can
> > only play poker. If another card game gets added later then can you
> > play two
> > games at once with the same cards? 
> >
> 
> No, Every different game should specify the deck used, (blue, red,
> fish..) and have separate dealing rules. this way we can play 
> different
> games or even different sets of the same game at the same time. I'm
> thinking about a proposal for this and I'll submit it later today (or
> tomorrow :).
> Basically I will propose to tag all the decks we have as "free". When
> someone wants to start a game of cards he must first get a minimum
> number of players to join the game then he can take a free deck (or
> more than one if the rules of the game require it) and tag it as "In
> use". 
> When the game ends the deck becomes free again.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zagarna
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:06:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards !
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The current proposal for the poker uses *all* of the decks.
> 
That's what I'd like to change

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:35:33 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> No, Every different game should specify the deck used, (blue, red,
> fish..) and have separate dealing rules. this way we can play =
different
> games or even different sets of the same game at the same time. I'm
> thinking about a proposal for this and I'll submit it later today (or
> tomorrow :).
> Basically I will propose to tag all the decks we have as "free". When
> someone wants to start a game of cards he must first get a minimum
> number of players to join the game then he can take a free deck (or
> more than one if the rules of the game require it) and tag it as "In
> use".=20
> When the game ends the deck becomes free again.

Yea, that sounds like a good idea. I've had the idea of organizing card =
games as parties, but I've not thought about the distribution of cards. =
Here's my proposal, I think it might work with your suggestion of =
dealing cards. Hmmm, I ought to add a provision that prevents games from =
being started without a deck, I guess :-)

\begin{proposal}
\title{Card Games}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\end{proposal}

One issue that needs to be solved is how to play with points, because =
there needs to be an agent who collects the points and distributes them =
to the winner(s) when the game is over, but parties aren't agents. Hmmm, =
maybe I should simply make a proposal to change that.

Joerg

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:41:22 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 09:06:09AM -0000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> Suggestion for a slight change - The way this stands means that players can
> only play poker. If another card game gets added later then can you play two
> games at once with the same cards? 

Hmm.

The definitions I made in the original "cards" rule only allowed for one card
game at once, really. Perhaps the cards could be distributed between two games
based on which back they have...

> Here's my suggestion: When a showdown occurs each player must nominate (tell
> the dealer) which 5 of their cards they wish to play in their poker hand. If
> a player has less than 5 cards then they cannot play in this round and they
> keep their cards. If a player has more than five cards then the cards they
> do not play are kept in their hand for the next round. If a player has 10
> cards they may nominate all ten in two hands, or just play 5 and keep 5. If
> a player does not nominate their 5 cards then the dealer will pick the 5
> cards that would give them the best result. (Note we have to give the player
> the option of picking their own cards cos they might want to just throw away
> some bad cards if they don't think they'd win anyway.)

Sounds like a good idea.

> Should a player be forced to play if they can?

I think so. Otherwise people with lots of cards might want to ignore the
showdown and just hoard cards until they have 10 of them and the possibility of
winning 2 things at once.

> Also, I don't think the dealer should be paid for the transfer. As an
> elected official he will get a salary each nweek anyway.

I thought the salary was something like 2 points a week. I foresee that within
5 weeks someone could get 40 or so points from this game, which wouldn't be me,
since the Dealer cannot play. However, if many people are opposed to paying the
dealer for the transfer, I'll take that part out for the sake of the game.

> And what happens
> when the dealer changes? The dealer knows the contents of everybodys hand,
> so the new dealer would then need to be notified. Can the dealer play in the
> card games?

Hmm. A change of dealers would involve a transfer of ownership of all the cards
in the Deck. I should make a rule for this. At that point the former dealer would
have no cards, and the new Dealer's Hand would by definition cease to exist.

As defined in the original Cards proposal, the Dealer has no Hand.

> And where's my card for this nweek anyway? The card is dealt at the
> beginning of the nweek, and the rule was active at that time.

I'll deal the cards as soon as I know who voted. The page on voting hasn't
been updated since the 18th.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:42:38 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: All right! We've got Cards!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 06:10:10AM -0800, Antonio wrote:
> 
> --- "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Suggestion for a slight change - The way this stands means that
> > players can
> > only play poker. If another card game gets added later then can you
> > play two
> > games at once with the same cards? 
> >
> 
> No, Every different game should specify the deck used, (blue, red,
> fish..) and have separate dealing rules. this way we can play different
> games or even different sets of the same game at the same time.

Sounds good. However, perhaps we need more decks and multiple decks per game,
because 52 cards may not last very long with the number of players we have.

--
Rob Speer

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thug employer
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 06:17:26 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Fear my wrath!!!!!

BLMP.
iamone.

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 04:18:45 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Voting/election results?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Joel, didn't you say that this time "later today" wouldn't mean "tomorrow"? I
need to see the voting tally to deal out Cards. It would also be helpful to see
the rule changes.

Or did I miss an e-mail somehow that had all of this?

--
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Voting/election results? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:43:55 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> Joel, didn't you say that this time "later today" wouldn't mean "tomorrow"? I
> need to see the voting tally to deal out Cards. It would also be helpful to s
> ee
> the rule changes.
> 
> Or did I miss an e-mail somehow that had all of this?
> 
> --
> Rob Speer

The voting and Rule changes _are_ there now.

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Voting/election results? 
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:25:21 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:43:55 -0600, Joel Uckelman
<[email-masked]> wrote :

>Quoth Rob Speer:
>> Joel, didn't you say that this time "later today" wouldn't mean =
"tomorrow"? I
>> need to see the voting tally to deal out Cards. It would also be =
helpful to s
>> ee
>> the rule changes.
>>=20
>> Or did I miss an e-mail somehow that had all of this?
>>=20
>> --
>> Rob Speer
>
>The voting and Rule changes _are_ there now.

What about the OSJ election?
--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 16:52:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Results of Similarity Challenge #4
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for when I created the
game. Something difficuly, but obtainable.
An idea for a challenge which I've been thinking about for a while
involves similarities between abstract ideas.

> > > Here's Similarity Challenge #4. Find the connection between these
> > > three things:
> > >
> > > 1. Skydiving in Michigan
> > > 2. 20 francs
> > > 3. They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa
>
> > Skydiving in Michigan is made possible by the Napoleon Skydiving Center.
> > Napoleon is the person shown on the front of a historic (19th century) 20 franc coin.
> > They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa is a song originally recorded by Napoleon XIV.
>

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 16:55:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Similarity Challenge #5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The similarity is the surname Morgan.
J.P. Morgan is an investment company.
Captain Morgan is Rum.
Nwabudike Morgan is a character in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> Okay. Here's Similarity Challenge #5. I hope more people try this one.
>
> What is the connection between these things?
>
> 1. J.P.
> 2. Captain
> 3. Nwabudike
>
> --
> Rob Speer
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 16:56:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Similarity Challenge #5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

SHIT! I didn' mean to send that to the public list.
Somebody give me the dunce cap. goddammit.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:46:40 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Similarity Challenge #5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 04:56:39PM -0600, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> SHIT! I didn' mean to send that to the public list.

Well, that makes things interesting. But it doesn't kill the contest. Remember
that the prize goes to whoever makes the most specific connection. Now that the
readily apparent answer is out of the way, I'd like to see some stranger
connections. Possibly something I didn't know.

Example:
"They can all have the surname Morgan"
wouldn't be as good 
"They can all have the surname Morgan and they are all the names of dogs
owned by former United States presidents" (if that latter fact were true).

("Here, Nwabudike! Here boy!")
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:49:41 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Undeliverable addresses
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm having trouble e-mailing Jeff Schroeder and jonno with the cards they
recieved. 'bigfang.com' doesn't seem to exist, and the mail won't get through
to 'mailandnews.com' for some reason.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:54:49 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Undeliverable addresses
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I know, they are having server problems.  Send it to 
[email-masked] instead for now.

jeff

At 06:49 PM 3/24/01, you wrote:
>I'm having trouble e-mailing Jeff Schroeder and jonno with the cards they
>recieved. 'bigfang.com' doesn't seem to exist, and the mail won't get through
>to 'mailandnews.com' for some reason.
>--
>Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: getting caught up
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:53:37 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry about my unresponsiveness in the past week or so, I've been otherwise 
occupied. I'll try to get everything in order sometime tomorrow, in case 
anyone was wondering.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results, etc.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:04:22 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Congrats Zagarna.

I think the Judgements-Pending page is up to date, apart from RFJ#42 which
hasn't been added yet and is still active. I don't think I need to pass on
any other info, but let me know if there's anything I've forgotten.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 28 March 2001 06:30
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results, etc.
> 
> 
> Here's the result of last nweek's OSJ election:
> 
> Zagarna: 8
> The Kid: 3
> abstain: 1
> 
> Looks like the electorate was in the mood for change last nweek.
> 
> Also, M31 passed (5-2-3-8), with one vote being cast for 
> "banana" counted 
> as an abstention (as per R225/1).
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:13:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results,
 etc.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> I think the Judgements-Pending page is up to date, apart from RFJ#42 which
> hasn't been added yet and is still active. I don't think I need to pass on
> any other info, but let me know if there's anything I've forgotten.

My ruling on such *was* received, was it not?

(Stupid newbie questions to which I should probably know the answer but
don't: do judges receive any kind of salary, in points or otherwise? Is
there an appeals process if appellants don't like the ruling?)

...dave

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results,
	 etc.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:16:37 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry, my mistake again. Yes, judgement has been passed on RFJ#42, but it
still needs to be added to the judgements archive.

That leaves Chess on RFJ#37, Poulenc on RFJ#40 and Joel on RFJ#41. Have I
missed any of those judgements too? Note that Chess ruled on RFJ#37 but sent
it to the 'discuss' list so officially it didn't count.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 28 March 2001 09:13
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election
> results, etc.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > I think the Judgements-Pending page is up to date, apart 
> from RFJ#42 which
> > hasn't been added yet and is still active. I don't think I 
> need to pass on
> > any other info, but let me know if there's anything I've forgotten.
> 
> My ruling on such *was* received, was it not?
> 
> (Stupid newbie questions to which I should probably know the 
> answer but
> don't: do judges receive any kind of salary, in points or 
> otherwise? Is
> there an appeals process if appellants don't like the ruling?)
> 
> ...dave
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results,
	 etc.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:17:39 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oh, and in reply to your other question, yes I think there is a 'Judges
Salary' and no there is currently no appeals process. Feel free to propose
one.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 28 March 2001 09:13
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election
> results, etc.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > I think the Judgements-Pending page is up to date, apart 
> from RFJ#42 which
> > hasn't been added yet and is still active. I don't think I 
> need to pass on
> > any other info, but let me know if there's anything I've forgotten.
> 
> My ruling on such *was* received, was it not?
> 
> (Stupid newbie questions to which I should probably know the 
> answer but
> don't: do judges receive any kind of salary, in points or 
> otherwise? Is
> there an appeals process if appellants don't like the ruling?)
> 
> ...dave
> 

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results, etc.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:19:23 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:16:37 +0100, "Harrison, Andrew"
<[email-masked]> wrote :

>Sorry, my mistake again. Yes, judgement has been passed on RFJ#42, but =
it
>still needs to be added to the judgements archive.
>
Umm, do I have to do that? I mean write the html and everything and
send it to Joel?

>That leaves Chess on RFJ#37, Poulenc on RFJ#40 and Joel on RFJ#41. Have =
I
>missed any of those judgements too? Note that Chess ruled on RFJ#37 but =
sent
>it to the 'discuss' list so officially it didn't count.

They all seem to have fallen out of date, I'll reselect the judges.

Thanks
--=20

zagarna

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results,
	 etc.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:20:02 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

No, Joel keeps the web pages upto date. All the OSJ does is recognise the
RFJs, select the judges, and sometimes recuse the judges.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 28 March 2001 17:19
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election
> results, etc.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:16:37 +0100, "Harrison, Andrew"
> <[email-masked]> wrote :
> 
> >Sorry, my mistake again. Yes, judgement has been passed on 
> RFJ#42, but it
> >still needs to be added to the judgements archive.
> >
> Umm, do I have to do that? I mean write the html and everything and
> send it to Joel?
> 
> >That leaves Chess on RFJ#37, Poulenc on RFJ#40 and Joel on 
> RFJ#41. Have I
> >missed any of those judgements too? Note that Chess ruled on 
> RFJ#37 but sent
> >it to the 'discuss' list so officially it didn't count.
> 
> They all seem to have fallen out of date, I'll reselect the judges.
> 
> Thanks
> -- 
> 
> 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: nweek 17 election results, 
 etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:48:51 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > I think the Judgements-Pending page is up to date, apart from RFJ#42 which
> > hasn't been added yet and is still active. I don't think I need to pass on
> > any other info, but let me know if there's anything I've forgotten.
> 
> My ruling on such *was* received, was it not?

Yes. It'll show up on the page Real Soon(tm).

> (Stupid newbie questions to which I should probably know the answer but
> don't: do judges receive any kind of salary, in points or otherwise? Is
> there an appeals process if appellants don't like the ruling?)
> 
> ...dave

Judges receive a nominal salary. There is presently no appeals process.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 17 election results, 
 etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:50:56 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Antonio:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:16:37 +0100, "Harrison, Andrew"
> <[email-masked]> wrote :
> 
> >Sorry, my mistake again. Yes, judgement has been passed on RFJ#42, but =
> it
> >still needs to be added to the judgements archive.
> >
> Umm, do I have to do that? I mean write the html and everything and
> send it to Joel?

No. That's one of the things I've written a script for. All that remains is 
for me to actually *run* the script.

> >That leaves Chess on RFJ#37, Poulenc on RFJ#40 and Joel on RFJ#41. Have =
> I
> >missed any of those judgements too? Note that Chess ruled on RFJ#37 but =
> sent
> >it to the 'discuss' list so officially it didn't count.

Doh. I forgot about that.

 > They all seem to have fallen out of date, I'll reselect the judges.
> 
> Thanks
> --=20
> 
> zagarna

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:07:24 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 18
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Crap. It's the end of the nweek already?

Pooker has some flaws in it. I would encourage you to vote against it so I can
put in the modifications I had meant to make.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ #37
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:58:27 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Unfortunately you're too late, you were just recused from that!

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chess [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 28 March 2001 18:31
> To: 'Nomic Business'
> Subject: spoon-business: RFJ #37
> 
> 
> [[I may as well rule on this properly, given I've done it 
> once already...]]
> 
> RFJ:
> > > "The Player Poulenc performed several actions after the 
> Motive Order
> > > for repayment was issued, and therefore did not perform the
> > > required action
> > > 'as soon as possible' as stated in Rule 319/0."
> 
> Judgement: true
> 
> Analysis:
> The action required to repay the debt (which the Player 
> Poulenc was able to
> do as e had enough points) was to post a message to a public 
> forum stating
> that the points are transferred. As Poulenc posted other 
> messages to public
> fora before posting this message or the equivalent (i.e. 
> before the points
> were transferred) I feel justified in assuming that he was capable of
> posting the required message, and as he did not do so before 
> carrying out
> other similar actions he obviously did not perform the 
> required action 'as
> soon as possible'.
> 
> [[I could have argued for false as well, citing vagueness of 
> 'as soon as
> possible' and admissibility of all that isn't strictly 
> prohibited, but as
> this is too late to affect anything anyway...]]
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judge selection for RFJs 37 40 41
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:10 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Poulenc is recused from judgment on RFJ 40/0

He just passed judgement a few messages ago.

> RFJ 41/0 is assigned to The Kid

Which reminds me, one thing I meant to ask when I was OSJ. Can the OSJ
select himself as Judge. There's nothing to say either way in the rules but
it didn't seem right if you see what I mean.

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 18
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:02:44 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> Pooker has some flaws in it. I would encourage you to vote 
> against it so I can
> put in the modifications I had meant to make.

How much do you want to change it? Cos if I were you I'd be keen to get it
in this nweek and then submit alterations next nweek. That way you get the
points for two passed proposals ;-)

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judge selection for RFJs 37 
 40 41
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:48:51 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 
> > Poulenc is recused from judgment on RFJ 40/0
> 
> He just passed judgement a few messages ago.
> 
> > RFJ 41/0 is assigned to The Kid
> 
> Which reminds me, one thing I meant to ask when I was OSJ. Can the OSJ
> select himself as Judge. There's nothing to say either way in the rules but
> it didn't seem right if you see what I mean.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Well, last I checked there are no guidelines for selecting a Judge from 
amongst those who are eligible. If you happen to be in that group, I see no 
reason why you couldn't select yourself. Of course, if it appeared that you 
were selecting yourself overly-much, you might get booted out of office. :)

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judge selection for RFJs 37 40 41
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:24:02 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:10 +0100, "Harrison, Andrew"
<[email-masked]> wrote :

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>=20
>> Poulenc is recused from judgment on RFJ 40/0
>
>He just passed judgement a few messages ago.
>
Oops! Well, sorry people, it seem's I'm already making a mess of this.
Please tolerate me a bit longer.

--=20

zagarna

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

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ #37
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:29:28 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Unfortunately you're too late, you were just recused from that!

Damn. I wasn't when I wrote and 'sent' that... stupid OE not sending things
until I hit send-and-recieve button... grr.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ #37 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:11:06 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Chess":
> > Unfortunately you're too late, you were just recused from that!
> 
> Damn. I wasn't when I wrote and 'sent' that... stupid OE not sending things
> until I hit send-and-recieve button... grr.

Well, that's what ya get for using Outlook. That, and a bunch of Word macro 
viruses.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:39:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Antonio wrote:

> Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno

You may wish to reconsider that, since there already has been a RFJ 42,
and I judged it a week ago. :-)

...dave

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:34:56 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 18
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:02:44AM +0100, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > 
> > Pooker has some flaws in it. I would encourage you to vote 
> > against it so I can
> > put in the modifications I had meant to make.
> 
> How much do you want to change it? Cos if I were you I'd be keen to get it
> in this nweek and then submit alterations next nweek. That way you get the
> points for two passed proposals ;-)

For one thing, I want to make it only use the Red and Blue decks. Taking half
of the cards out of the game might be difficult, so I'd rather they weren't put
into the game in the first place. I'm willing to take the Failed Proposal Fine
for this.
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:46:00 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Antonio wrote:
> 
> > Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno
> 
> You may wish to reconsider that, since there already has been a RFJ 42,
> and I judged it a week ago. :-)
> 
> ...dave

BTW, all of the Judicial stuff is now up-to-date, excepting the 
(misnumbered) RFJ 42a. :)

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RFJ assignement
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:02:06 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:46:00 -0600, Joel Uckelman
<[email-masked]> wrote :

>Quoth "David E. Smith":
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Antonio wrote:
>>=20
>> > Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno
>>=20
>> You may wish to reconsider that, since there already has been a RFJ =
42,
>> and I judged it a week ago. :-)
>>=20
>> ...dave
>
>BTW, all of the Judicial stuff is now up-to-date, excepting the=20
>(misnumbered) RFJ 42a. :)

Oooh! this is harder than I thought :)

Very well then:
Recognized as RFJ 43/0 and assigned to player Jonno

I'll paste the original text of the RFJ below

:The recusal of player Poulenc from the judgement on RFJ#40/0 and the
:assignement of RFJ#40/0 to player Blest Lax Monk Pal were invalid.

--=20

zagarna

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:17:07 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Ok, I never really understood the whole Go proposal, so let me just check
> this. I get one free stone per nweek and get place it anywhere in the grid,
> yes? And can someone explain in simple language what the point of the game
> is?

I'll try. You want to enclose territory, or capture stones. Mainly enclose 
territory, though.

E.g.:

. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . A . .
. . A B . .
. . . A . .
. . . . . .

If it's A's move, then A can capture B's stone, and score a point for that.

. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . A . .
. . A . A .
. . . A . .
. . . . . .

If A is lucky, e might be able to hold on to the territory that B vacated, 
and thus score another point when the game ends. I hope that provides an 
illustration of how this works. If you want some good examples, there are a 
few here:

http://www.yutopian.com/go/goLes/goLes1.html

and here:

http://www.sfgoclub.com/beginners/W2Go8x11.pdf

The political aspect should make things a lot less like traditional Go, 
though.

Does that help?

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:24:15 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> I claim my stone and place it at p17 (with a S for Schroeder).
> 
> Banker, don't forget to apply Rule 378/0, I can see how it could be forgotten
> .
> 
> Question about Rule 368/0 number 1. "Stones may not be placed so as to 
> repeat a previous Board configuration"  to what extent is this valid?  Is 
> this between different games?  Who defines the previous Board configuration?

I meant this to be taken to apply only within games, not across them. As 
for its meaning, it means just that: if your proposed play would return the 
Board to precisely some Stone arrangement that has already occurred, then 
it's illegal. Don't worry, this sort of thing is only likely to happen on 
the very small scale. Once the game gets going, it should be almost 
impossible to return the board to a far earlier state.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:56:31 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I take my free stone and place it at c 17.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies. Might be =
useful to also copy this with each mail (like the board):

    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:56:29 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>=20
> http://www.yutopian.com/go/goLes/goLes1.html
>=20

Ok, I have one question regarding Lesson 5, in the upper right corner, =
where the board looks like this:

 . o # a # b
 . o # # # #
 . . o o o o
 . . . . . .

(o is white, # is black)

The text says that white can't play simultaneously at a and b, therefore =
black is alive. Could white play at one of these positions, or is it =
impossible because then the white stone would be captured?

Joerg

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:33:37 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I take my own free stone and place it at s 19.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . . . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

Here's The list of current players with their symbols and allies.=20
    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none
 Z  Zagarna                   none
--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:20:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> > Question about Rule 368/0 number 1. "Stones may not be placed so as to
> > repeat a previous Board configuration"  to what extent is this valid?  Is
> > this between different games?  Who defines the previous Board configuration?
>
> I meant this to be taken to apply only within games, not across them. As
> for its meaning, it means just that: if your proposed play would return the
> Board to precisely some Stone arrangement that has already occurred, then
> it's illegal. Don't worry, this sort of thing is only likely to happen on
> the very small scale. Once the game gets going, it should be almost
> impossible to return the board to a far earlier state.
>

more importantly, this is called "ko formation" and most often happens as
follows:
. . c b . .
. c _ c b .
. . c b . .
It is B's turn. B can play at _ because e will capture C and gain a
liberty, as follows:
. . c b . .
. c b _ b .
. . c b . .
Now C might want to play at _ to repeat the move, with sides reversed, but
since it would repeat a previous board configuration, it is an illegal
move. If there are intervening moves:
. c c b . .
. c b _ b b
. . c b . .
then it is now legal for C to play at _.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:52:13 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> >=20
> > http://www.yutopian.com/go/goLes/goLes1.html
> >=20
> 
> Ok, I have one question regarding Lesson 5, in the upper right corner, =
> where the board looks like this:
> 
>  . o # a # b
>  . o # # # #
>  . . o o o o
>  . . . . . .
> 
> (o is white, # is black)
> 
> The text says that white can't play simultaneously at a and b, therefore =
> black is alive. Could white play at one of these positions, or is it =
> impossible because then the white stone would be captured?
> 
> 
> Joerg

Nope. White can play at neither a nor b, because there is a prohibition on 
placing a stone where it would have no liberties, unless doing so would 
deprive enemy stones of all their liberties. In the case above, white can't 
play at a because the black dragon would still have one liberty, but white 
can't play at b for the same reason. So, the black stones are perfectly 
safe so long as the black player refrains from doing something dumb, e.g., 
filling in a or b.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:46:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I claim my free stone and play at B10.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies.

    Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
 J  Joel                      none
 Q  PurpleBob                 none
 C  Poulenc                   none
 S  Jeff Schroeder            none
 K  The Kid                   none
 G  Joerg                     none
 Z  Zagarna                   none
 B  Benjamin                  none
 D  Dave                      none