Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:14:44 +0100

Can somebody explain alliances to me please?

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 01 April 2001 06:07
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-business: Go move
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:44:44AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> > 
> > I propose an alliance with PurpleBob
> 
> I'm not sure if this is necessary, but: I accept the alliance.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:17:39 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

That's a bit much really. I would have thought it was perfectly clear that
it was invalid. So much so infact that I would not have said it needed an
RFJ in the first place. Actions are deemed to be taken when they arrive in
the public forum. Therefore Poulenc ruled before he was recused. Therefore
the recusal didn't apply. Anyone disagree?

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Downes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 01 April 2001 03:49
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-business: RFJ
> 
> 
> I refuste to hear this judgement on the grounds that it lacks a clear
> stateent. There is no indicaton as to why the plaintiff believes the
> action was invalid.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jonno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Antonio wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:28:43 +0200, Antonio 
> <[email-masked]> wrote
> > :
> > 
> > >I submit a new RFJ:
> > >
> > >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.
> > 
> > Recognized as RFJ number 42/0 and assigned to player Jonno
> > -- 
> > 
> > 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: Go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:20:29 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> Can somebody explain alliances to me please?
> 
> --
> The Kid

Well, the idea is that your stones can draw liberties from your allies' 
stones. For example:

. . . . .
. o o o .
. o 1 o .
. o 2 . .
. . . . .

Normally, playing at 1 if you're not o would be a bad idea, as your stone 
would have only a single liberty. However, if you're an ally of o and you 
played at 1, your stone would have 11 liberties (as many as the larger 
dragon). That said, if o then proceeded to play at 2 and broke off the 
alliance, e would still capture the stone of eir erstwhile ally at 1. So 
you should probably also be careful.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:21:28 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> That's a bit much really. I would have thought it was perfectly clear that
> it was invalid. So much so infact that I would not have said it needed an
> RFJ in the first place. Actions are deemed to be taken when they arrive in
> the public forum. Therefore Poulenc ruled before he was recused. Therefore
> the recusal didn't apply. Anyone disagree?
> 
> --
> The Kid

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Otherwise we would have needed RFJs for 
all of those numbering mistakes I've made since October.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:16:34 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J=F6rg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
>=20
> I take my free stone and place it at f 18.

Haven't you already had a free stone?

--
The Kid

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ 
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:25:12 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:21:28 -0500, Joel Uckelman
<[email-masked]> wrote :

>Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
>> That's a bit much really. I would have thought it was perfectly clear =
that
>> it was invalid. So much so infact that I would not have said it needed=
 an
>> RFJ in the first place. Actions are deemed to be taken when they =
arrive in
>> the public forum. Therefore Poulenc ruled before he was recused. =
Therefore
>> the recusal didn't apply. Anyone disagree?
>>=20
>> --
>> The Kid
>
>Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Otherwise we would have needed RFJs =
for=20
>all of those numbering mistakes I've made since October.

Well, the point is: what happenes if BLMP submits a ruling for that
RFJ? we dont have rules that expressley prohibit the answering of dead
RFJs, after all he has been officially appointed by me to answer it.
At the time I also could not recuse him, as the rules only let me
recuse people after three days.
I'll do it now.
--=20

zagarna

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

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:48:07 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I take my free stone and place it at f 18.
>=20
> Haven't you already had a free stone?

Yes, but that was last nweek. You get a new one each nweek.

Joerg

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:04:17 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The stone on the map is in location q6...

At 08:59 PM 4/2/01, you wrote:

>I take my free stone for this nweek and put it into play at p6
>      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 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . C . .
>   7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
>  11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  15 . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
>  16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
>  18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
>
> > Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies.
> >
> >      Name                      Allies
> > ----------------------------------------
> >   J  Joel                      none
> >   P  PurpleBob                 C
> >   C  Poulenc                   P
> >   S  Jeff Schroeder            none
> >   K  The Kid                   none
> >   G  Joerg                     none
> >   Z  Zagarna                   none
> >   B  Benjamin                  none
> >   D  Dave                      none
> >   M  M'cachessilnath           none

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The stone on the map is in location q6...

whoops, here is the map corrected:

> >      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 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
> >   7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >   9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
> >  11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  15 . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> >  16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> >  18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
> >
> > > Here's a list of current players with their symbols and allies.
> > >
> > >      Name                      Allies
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > >   J  Joel                      none
> > >   P  PurpleBob                 C
> > >   C  Poulenc                   P
> > >   S  Jeff Schroeder            none
> > >   K  The Kid                   none
> > >   G  Joerg                     none
> > >   Z  Zagarna                   none
> > >   B  Benjamin                  none
> > >   D  Dave                      none
> > >   M  M'cachessilnath           none
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:42:24 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
> I propose an alliance with anyone who can honestly say that they don't
> really know how to play Political Go.
> 
> --
> The Kid

Hopefully it will become clear as we go. It's hard to see what to do when 
you only have three stones on the board.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Dealer's report, nweek 18
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:43:47 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]

> A Card from the Corporate Deck was dealt to PurpleBob, and 
> thus was placed back
> into the Deck.
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Why was that card placed back into the deck? Was it cos you were the dealer?
And why use the name PurpleBob in the game, but sign your emails with your
real name? I keep forgetting that you are PurpleBob!

--
The Kid

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:46:03 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chess [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> > I propose an alliance with anyone who can honestly say that 
> they don't
> > really know how to play Political Go.
> 
> I accept the alliance... alliances are your friends!

Great! Anyone else want to ally with me? 
Hmm, If I'm allied with Chess, and someone else allies with me, are my two
allies allied too?

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:36:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chess [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > > I propose an alliance with anyone who can honestly say that
> > they don't
> > > really know how to play Political Go.
> >
> > I accept the alliance... alliances are your friends!
>
> Great! Anyone else want to ally with me?
> Hmm, If I'm allied with Chess, and someone else allies with me, are my two
> allies allied too?
>

only if they explicitly accept alliance with each other.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:08:55 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Dealer's report, nweek 18
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:43:47AM +0100, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> > A Card from the Corporate Deck was dealt to PurpleBob, and 
> > thus was placed back
> > into the Deck.
> > -- 
> > Rob Speer
> 
> Why was that card placed back into the deck? Was it cos you were the dealer?
> And why use the name PurpleBob in the game, but sign your emails with your
> real name? I keep forgetting that you are PurpleBob!

I use this .sig for all my e-mail. There are some kinds of e-mail it wouldn't
be appropriate to send signed 'PurpleBob'. Should I really change it each time
I post a nomic-related message?

Also, the card was placed back in the deck because of this. By dealing a card
to myself, the ownership of the card was transferred from me to me. All cards
owned by the dealer are part of the Deck. So that was just how I pointed out
that, though the card was "dealt", it remained in the deck.

-- 
Rob Speer / PurpleBob

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: banker
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since I am no longer the Banker it is up to Joel to submit the Banker's
reports or point transfers.  I'll be able to turn my attention to making
proposals and playing go instead (anyone who is interested in an alliance
contact me). And we'll need an election on the next ballot.

poulenc

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: banker 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:51:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> 
> Since I am no longer the Banker it is up to Joel to submit the Banker's
> reports or point transfers.  I'll be able to turn my attention to making
> proposals and playing go instead (anyone who is interested in an alliance
> contact me). And we'll need an election on the next ballot.
> 
> poulenc

Yes, yes. Soon.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: hi
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:24:06 -0500
From: Tom Plagge <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

i am remo. 

i just took the major step of removing [email-masked] from about a dozen
free unix-related mailing lists, which means that now, when i check this 
address, i'll have only nomic-related email rather than hundreds of "my
zunkstation 4297 doesn't work!" messages.  this is good, because it means 
i won't be tempted to simply delete all my email without reading it, and i 
thus might actually rejoin the game.  gonna lurk for a while, though, 
until i can figure out a way to twist yer stupid rules to my own devious ends.

the end.  by me.

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:43:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Point Protection
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think this is a BAD IDEA.
A proposal like this will only solidify the difficulty of transferring
points. This means that players will have to keep track of eir own points
owed - which is not hard to keep track of, but enforcing payment is all
but impossible. I think we should at least have some sort of mechanism
whereby the banker or administrator can forcibly take points from a
player.
It's just - when you let times stretch out, as they inevitably do when
working with beauracracy, they eventually get lost.

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dan wrote:
> [[This is an idea that I have been working towards for some time now.  I
> think we are finally there.  Is there anything in the rules that still
> conflicts with this?]]
>
> \start{proposal}
> \title{point protection}
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Ownership of points is protected", with text as
> follows:
>
> In no case may ownership of a point be transfered without the consent of
> its owner.
>
> [[Note that this does not take away our ability to impose sanctions for
> the failure to transfer points]]
>
> \end{proposal}
>
> Poulenc
>
>
>

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

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Point Protection
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:18:44 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I agree. I think the rules should specify what point transfers should
happen, and the player should be powerless to stop it. For example, "When a
proposal fails, the proposer is penalised 5 points which are then
transferred to the Bank". That should then just happen. I'm happy for
players to have the ability to transfer their own points for other reasons,
like buying stuff, and for that their consent should be required.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 05 April 2001 06:43
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Point Protection
> 
> 
> I think this is a BAD IDEA.
> A proposal like this will only solidify the difficulty of transferring
> points. This means that players will have to keep track of 
> eir own points
> owed - which is not hard to keep track of, but enforcing 
> payment is all
> but impossible. I think we should at least have some sort of mechanism
> whereby the banker or administrator can forcibly take points from a
> player.
> It's just - when you let times stretch out, as they inevitably do when
> working with beauracracy, they eventually get lost.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dan wrote:
> > [[This is an idea that I have been working towards for some 
> time now.  I
> > think we are finally there.  Is there anything in the rules 
> that still
> > conflicts with this?]]
> >
> > \start{proposal}
> > \title{point protection}
> >
> > Enact a new rule entitled "Ownership of points is 
> protected", with text as
> > follows:
> >
> > In no case may ownership of a point be transfered without 
> the consent of
> > its owner.
> >
> > [[Note that this does not take away our ability to impose 
> sanctions for
> > the failure to transfer points]]
> >
> > \end{proposal}
> >
> > Poulenc
> >
> >
> >
> 
> - Benjamin Bradley - "peaks and valleys"
> - http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
> - whee life what a rush
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Dealer's report, nweek 18
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:22:28 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I use this .sig for all my e-mail. There are some kinds of 
> e-mail it wouldn't
> be appropriate to send signed 'PurpleBob'. Should I really 
> change it each time
> I post a nomic-related message?
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer / PurpleBob

You don't really have to, it's your choice I suppose. It's just something
that I got mixed up with when I was OSJ. I think you made an RFJ and I was
going to assign it to PurpleBob. It wasn't till the last minute that I
realised you were the same person!

--
Andy Harrison - Software Engineer, Anite Telecoms Ltd
[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anite Telecoms Limited - Registered in England No. 1721900
Registered Office: 100 Longwater Avenue, Greenpark, Reading, Berks

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:28:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> Sorry, you're not allowed to make more than one move per day.
>
> So if you want to propose three alliances, that takes three days. Or, you have to ask the others to make an offer an than you can accept the offer (accepting an alliance does not seem to be a move, according to the rules).
>

couldn't the plays just get queued up, and "happen" on subsequent days?

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

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:18:17 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Sorry, you're not allowed to make more than one move per day.
> >
> > So if you want to propose three alliances, that takes three=20
> days. Or, you have to ask the others to make an offer an than you=20
> can accept the offer (accepting an alliance does not seem to be a=20
> move, according to the rules).
> >
>=20
> couldn't the plays just get queued up, and "happen" on subsequent =
days?

Hmmm, I don't think so. And I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. =
Moves might easily be messed up if that was possible.

Joerg

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:46:08 +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]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dan wrote:

> I don't think anyone here actually knows how to play political go.  But
> that's not going to keep me from it.  I propose an alliance with the Kid,
> and I also propose an alliance with Dave, and another with
> M'cachessilnath.

Modulo whether or not such is legal, I accept, and propose an alliance
with The Kid. (If it turns out that the initial batch of proposals is not
legal, I'll propose an alliance with Poulenc ASAP.)

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:48:55 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:23:39 +0200, Jorg Rathlev <[email-masked]>
wrote :

>
>Sorry, you're not allowed to make more than one move per day.
>
>So if you want to propose three alliances, that takes three days. Or, =
you have to ask the others to make an offer an than you can accept the =
offer (accepting an alliance does not seem to be a move, according to the=
 rules).
>
>I make the following RFJ:
>
>--
>Statement: Poulenc has not offered any Go alliances to The Kid, Dave, or=
 M'cachessilnath.
>
>Analysis: A Go player can make no more than one move per day (R365/0), =
and placing a stone is a move. Thus, Poulenc had already made a move when=
 he attemped to make three other moves by offering an alliance to said =
players.

Recognized as RFJ 44 and assigned to player Benjamin.

--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:18:45 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Dealer's report, nweek 18
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:22:28AM +0100, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> You don't really have to, it's your choice I suppose. It's just something
> that I got mixed up with when I was OSJ. I think you made an RFJ and I was
> going to assign it to PurpleBob. It wasn't till the last minute that I
> realised you were the same person!

Well, I've never made an RFJ, but I see what you're getting at.

-- 
Rob Speer / PurpleBob

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:34:52 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: hi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:24:06PM -0500, Tom Plagge wrote:
> until i can figure out a way to twist yer stupid rules to my own devious ends.

Dude, that's my job. Look at what I've accomplished so far! I've managed to
become, uh... the Concertmaster!

-- 
All your concert are belong to PurpleBob

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move timimg problems 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:44:00 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If you want to change it so you don't have to worry about time zones, why 
not have the waiting period be 24 hours? Then it's still one move per day, 
but then its your days instead of game days. That would also make it easier 
to determine whether moves are legal, since I won't have to do any hard 
arithmetic to determine whether something is within 24 hours. "Er, is this 
more than 19 hours later, let's see..."

Quoth Joerg:
> I just discovered a problem with the one-move-per-day limitation for Go =
> Moves. The Kid's RFJ states that Poulenc could not place a stone at K5 =
> because that was his second move on 30 March. That's correct, but still, =
> look at the messages' date headers:
> 
> Move 1 (o4) has a date field of 29 Mar, 20:11 -0500
> Move 2 (k5) has a date field of 30 Mar, 00:37 -0500
> 
> So Poulenc made the second move the second day, in his local time zone. =
> But since game time is UTC, the messages were sent 01:11 and 05:37, the =
> same day.
> 
> This doesn't make sense. I don't want to worry about time zones whenever =
> I make a go move.
> 
> 
> I revise my proposal P461 as follows:
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Go moves improvement}
> [[Don't know, can I change the title here? The current title is Go =
> alliances improvement, but it doesn't really describe the proposal any =
> longer.]]
> \number{461}
> 
> In P461/0, replace "Each Go player may make no more than one Go move per =
> Game day" with "Each Go player may make no more than one Go move within =
> 19 hours"
> 
> and add the following pararaph at the end of the proposed rule text:
> 
> "[[One move per 19 hours instead of 24 hours because then you can start =
> playing up to 5 hours before the time at which you played the day =
> before, e.g. if you played at 00:00 yesterday, you don't have to wait =
> till 00:00 before you may play again, you may start at 19:00 already.]]"
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> 
> Joerg

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:45:29 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oops. I'm in the process of making a page for Political Go, and I 
reconstructed that map from the list of moves. That move was on the list, 
but didn't make it back to the board.

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> Your map does not include my second move at p15.  I put it back.  I also 
> purchase one stone and place it at m16.
> 
>     a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>   1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   3 . . . . . . . J . . C . . . . . . . .
>   4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
>   5 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
>   7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
>   9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
> 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
> 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 15 . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . .
> 17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
> At 04:20 PM 4/6/01, you wrote:
> >I buy a stone and place it at h3.
> >
> >    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
> >  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  3 . . . . . . . J . . C . . . . . . . .
> >  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
> >  5 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
> >  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >  8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
> >  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
> >11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
> >13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >15 . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> >18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
> >
> >I'm not including the allies list this time because I'm not sure what is
> >looks like right now.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 19:48:42 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move timimg problems
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 06:44:00PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> If you want to change it so you don't have to worry about time zones, why 
> not have the waiting period be 24 hours? Then it's still one move per day, 
> but then its your days instead of game days. That would also make it easier 
> to determine whether moves are legal, since I won't have to do any hard 
> arithmetic to determine whether something is within 24 hours. "Er, is this 
> more than 19 hours later, let's see..."

But you'd have to worry more if it was 24 hours. Say you normally get to do
nomic stuff around 10:00 but something changes so that 9:00 would work better.
If the waiting period is 24 hours, you'd have to miss a whole day.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move timimg problems 
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:03:15 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> "Er, is this=20
> more than 19 hours later, let's see..."

You can just look up your previous day's message and take its time minus =
5 hours. Minus 5 isn't that hard to do, really :-)

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: uh, ignore that.
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:03:16 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

=20
> I hereby retract the unrecognized proposal I just sent, because =
Proposal
> 461/1 covers the same ground (more or less).
>=20
> oops.

No, it doesn't. My proposal keeps move limits as they are right now, it =
just improves the way the time limit is calculated. You might want to =
re-propose your proposal after the voting results become public, to =
match the possibly modfied rule.

BTW, I'm much in favor of the time limit (my second proposal even =
suggests extending it to accepting alliances, not only to offering =
them). It gives every player who checks email at least daily (which =
isn't even everyone) the chance to react to the moves of others. If the =
only limit was not to make two moves consecutively, a lot of moves could =
be made by only a few players while others don't even read mails at that =
time.

Joerg

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:00:14 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I purchase one stone and place it at b15.

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . J . . C . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . P . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 03:59:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: uh, ignore that.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Jorg Rathlev wrote:

> BTW, I'm much in favor of the time limit (my second proposal even
> suggests extending it to accepting alliances, not only to offering
> them). It gives every player who checks email at least daily (which
> isn't even everyone) the chance to react to the moves of others. If
> the only limit was not to make two moves consecutively, a lot of moves
> could be made by only a few players while others don't even read mails
> at that time.

Funny, I wanted to get rid of the time limit for exactly that reason. :-)

...dave

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RFJ 45 judgement and updated Go board
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:57:36 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Statement:
> Poulenc's placing of a stone on K5 on 30th March is invalid as he had
> already made a move on that day. The stone should be removed and =
Poulenc
> refunded his 4 points.
> The alliance that Benjamin offered to Jeff on 3rd April is=20
> invalid as he had
> already made a move on that day. The alliance should be canceled. (The
> re-offer of the alliance earlier today still stands.)
> The alliance that The Kid offered to various people on 3rd April=20
> is invalid
> as he had already made a move on that day. The alliance with=20
> Chess should be
> canceled
>=20
> Analysis:
> This is to bring the game into alignment with RFJ#44.

Judgement:

TRUE

Analysis:

Poulenc made a move by placing a stone on o4 at 30 Mar 2001 01:11:59 UTC =
and a second move by placing a stone on k3 (the message says k5, but the =
board shows the stone placed at k3, and since Poulenc never found =
something wrong about the actual placement, I think it should take =
precendence) on 30 Mar 05:37:39 UTC. Thus, he made two moves the same =
day, which is not allowed.

Benjamin has made two moves in the same message. It was not possible for =
him to make a second move, so he could not offer an alliance to Jeff =
Schroeder.

Concerning The Kid, he actually never made a valid offer for an =
alliance, since if he wants to offer an alliance, "e must name an enemy =
Go player to whom e is making the offer" (R368/0), which he did not do. =
But anyway, he already moved that day, so even if his offer were valid, =
he couldn't have made it.

Judicial Orders:

I order that Poulenc's stone is removed from k3 and that the Bank =
tranfers 4 points back to Poulenc.

I order that the alliance between The Kid and M'cachessilnath is =
cancelled.

Note: I do NOT make any orders concerning the alliance between Benjamin =
and Jeff Schroeder, since they became allied in a valid way in the =
meantime and the fact that they were not allied from April 3 to April 6 =
does not affect the game state in any way.

---

Note (not part of my Judgement): The game state now *should* be the =
following, with Poulenc's stone removed and including an updated =
alliance list:

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

     Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
  J  Joel                      none
  P  PurpleBob                 C
  C  Poulenc                   P,K
  S  Jeff Schroeder            B
  K  The Kid                   C
  G  Joerg                     none
  Z  Zagarna                   none
  B  Benjamin                  S
  D  Dave                      none
  M  M'cachessilnath           none

Joerg

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:53:19 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move (sorta)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:35:17PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> I had previously proposed an alliance with The Kid, which was accepted.
> That has been added to the allies chart below (it hadn't been listed
> previously).
> 
> I propose an alliance with Poulenc as my move for the day.
> 
> Below is my best guess at the current game state.
> 
> 
>    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  3 . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . .
>  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
>  5 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
>  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
>  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 10 . D . . . . . . . . K . . . B . . . .
> 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
> 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 15 . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . .
> 17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 18 . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

I had a piece at B15.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:58:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move (sorta)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey you people that are allying with me, don't forget purplebob.  E's my
ally too and I don't want this to get real messy so we should try to keep
the alliances consistant.  Besides, e'll be a good player to have around
in a sticky situation.

Poulenc

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:03:37 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:04:15PM -0400, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> I take my free stone for this nweek and place it at m18.

This board is once again missing my stone at B15. Allow me to correct it.
 
    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  3 . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . .
  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
  5 . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 10 . D . . . . . . K . K . . . B . . . .
 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
 15 . P . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . .
 17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
 18 . . . . . G . . . . . . S . . . . . .
 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z

-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: back...
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:28:31 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry about the voting results delay, I was in Madison for the weekend. The 
results will be posted in the morning.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 19
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:09:16 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Again, not much to report, as we missed quorum by one vote.

BTW, where is the quorum defined? Rule 227 just explains that quorum is =
the minimum number of agents required to vote, but I cannot find a rule =
that defines the actual number.

Or is it the number of agents who voted during the last quorum vote, =
i.e. "quorum is then set at the number of Agents" refers not only to the =
quorum vote, but also sets quorum for all future votes?

Joerg

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:28:15 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I offer an alliance to BLMP
> 
> --
> The Kid

I accept.

BLMP.

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:44:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Go: game state
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Anyone who knows of any errors in the game state, as I just posted it,
would be wise to let me know. Regardless of whether my Go Bookkeeper
proposal passes, I plan to maintain a "canonical" version of the game
state. (It's just a matter of whether I get an Official Salary for it. :)

Anyway. For now at least, my interpretation thereof is Web-ified at
http://www.technopagan.org/go/ . I'll make it pretty later on, I promise.

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 19 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:06:59 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?=:
> > Again, not much to report, as we missed quorum by one vote.
> 
> BTW, where is the quorum defined? Rule 227 just explains that quorum is =
> the minimum number of agents required to vote, but I cannot find a rule =
> that defines the actual number.
> 
> Or is it the number of agents who voted during the last quorum vote, =
> i.e. "quorum is then set at the number of Agents" refers not only to the =
> quorum vote, but also sets quorum for all future votes?
> 
> 
> Joerg

The quorum remains fixed until it is again changed by the declaration of a 
quorum vote. The last time there was a quorum vote, six people voted, so 
it's been that way since.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:06:21 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 19
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:39:59AM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Again, not much to report, as we missed quorum by one vote.

Does that mean we still have no Banker, or does it mean you take over?
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 19 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:18:00 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:39:59AM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > Again, not much to report, as we missed quorum by one vote.
> 
> Does that mean we still have no Banker, or does it mean you take over?
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Uh, why would I be Banker? Is Poulenc not Banker anymore?

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:22:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 19 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Uh, why would I be Banker? Is Poulenc not Banker anymore?

Nope.  I was expelled from office and fined 50 points for failing to
perform a required action within a reasonable length of time, by RFJ 37.

poulenc

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:23:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I claim my free stone this nweek and play it an m3

poulenc
> 
>    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  3 . . . . . . . J . J . . C . . . . . .
>  4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
>  5 . J . . . . . . . . W . . . . . . . .
>  6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
>  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>  8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
>  9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 10 . D . . D . . . K . K . . . B . . . .
> 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
> 13 . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . . .
> 14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 15 . P . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 16 . . . . . . G . . . . . S . . . . . .
> 17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
> 18 . . . . . G . . . . . . S . . . . . .
> 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
> 
> 
>      Name                      Allies
> ----------------------------------------
>   J  Joel                      none
>   P  PurpleBob                 C,K
>   C  Poulenc                   P,K,D
>   S  Jeff Schroeder            B
>   K  The Kid                   C,P,D
>   G  Joerg                     none
>   Z  Zagarna                   none
>   B  Benjamin                  S
>   D  Dave                      K,C
>   M  M'cachessilnath           none
>   W  Blast Lex Monk Pal        none
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 19 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:05:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan:
> > Uh, why would I be Banker? Is Poulenc not Banker anymore?
> 
> Nope.  I was expelled from office and fined 50 points for failing to
> perform a required action within a reasonable length of time, by RFJ 37.
> 
> poulenc

Ugh. I think that Rule discourages people from seeking Office far more than 
it encourages people to do things promptly. A revision is definitely in 
order. I'll propose one soon.

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: go move
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:12:49 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I offer an alliance to Joerg.

I accept the alliance and offer an alliance to Jeff Schroeder.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: go move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:47:40 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> =20
> > > I offer an alliance to Joerg.
> >=20
> > I accept the alliance and offer an alliance to Jeff Schroeder.
> 
> ... and I should have done so on the business list.
> 
> Hmmm. Maybe we should create another forum for Go moves, as the reply =
> usually is supposed to go to the same list?
> 
> 
> Joerg

Hmm. I could do that. A games list might be a good idea.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: catching up
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:49:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I believe all of the judicial stuff is now current...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Go Bookkeeping 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:52:10 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Go Bookkeeping}
> 
> Create a rule entitled "Go: Bookkeeper" with the following text:
> 
> The Go Bookkeeper is the Player who is responsible for maintaining the
> current state of the Go game board, and the list of allied players. The Go
> Bookkeeper is an Elected Officer. The initial Go Bookkeeper is Dave.
> 
> The Go Bookkeeper is permitted to participate in Go contests.
> 
> [[ Just in case there was any doubt... ]]
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> Hopefully this will end the bulk of the confusion.
> 
> ...dave

Do you mean this to replace the Go Consul? If so, why not just amend R365 
to make the Go Consul elected?

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Alliance 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:08:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> I don't understand how I can be allied with Poulenc and Poulenc is allied wit
> h
> The Kid, yet I am not allied with The Kid. What would happen if the three of 
> us
> were to put our stones into a Dragon?

Well, I thought it would be interesting if the alliance relation were intransitive. If all three of you were not allied, then, strictly speaking, there would be no dragon that contained all three of your stones. What you would have would be two overlapping dragons, both of which would be friendly towards the player with stones in both, and only one of which would be friendly towards the other two players.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: go alliance
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I accept the alliance
poulenc.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> I offer an alliance to Poulenc.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
> 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting, slowdown
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:14:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A reminder: voting starts soon.

Also, it's getting to be that time of year again when I am very very busy, 
and I suspect that several of you are in the same situation, hence the game 
slowdown. (I'm graduating. too, so that doesn't help.) I should have lots 
of time again in two weeks or so. In the meantime, I'll try to make sure 
Proposals are recognized in a timely fashion, but I can't promise much more 
than that. Thanks for your patience, everyone.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:54:41 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> > I feel that it is time to adjust the Failed Proposal Fine.  I=20
> > make it 5 for
> > this nweek and will lower it next week to try to spur the game on.  =
> Banker
> > - have you adjusted any of your adjustable fines?
> 
> You can actually change that value during the voting period? IMHO, =
> that's bad, as people might want to deactivate some proposals if the FPF =
> seems too high to them.
> 
> 
> I propose:
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Awards and Fines should be known before voting starts}
> 
> Amend rule 323 by replacing both occurences of "Once per nweek," with =
> "Once per nweek, but not during the voting period,"
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> 
> Joerg

Er, I didn't think that was legal during the voting period, either. I'll 
have to check on that.

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:16:06 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Can I make a suggestion for that: Rather than making it illegal to change
the value during the voting period, why not make it that whenever the value
is changed the new value becomes active at the start of the next voting
period. This could be applied to other values too (ie the passed proposal
reward).

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 17 April 2001 22:22
> To: A Nomic Business
> Subject: RE: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
> 
> 
> 
> > I feel that it is time to adjust the Failed Proposal Fine.  I 
> > make it 5 for
> > this nweek and will lower it next week to try to spur the 
> game on.  Banker
> > - have you adjusted any of your adjustable fines?
> 
> You can actually change that value during the voting period? 
> IMHO, that's bad, as people might want to deactivate some 
> proposals if the FPF seems too high to them.
> 
> 
> I propose:
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Awards and Fines should be known before voting starts}
> 
> Amend rule 323 by replacing both occurences of "Once per 
> nweek," with "Once per nweek, but not during the voting period,"
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> 
> Joerg
> 

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Failed Proposal Fine
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:18:46 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Can I make a suggestion for that: Rather than making it illegal to =
change
> the value during the voting period, why not make it that whenever=20
> the value
> is changed the new value becomes active at the start of the next =
voting
> period. This could be applied to other values too (ie the passed =
proposal
> reward).

That wouldn't really change anything. The values may be changed *once* =
per nweek, so if they were changed during the voting period but not =
applied before the next, it would be ok to change them again the next =
nweek. Then however, you can just as well wait until the next nweek.

BTW, my proposal applies to all awards and fines, i.e. the Adopted =
Proposal Award, the Opposed Minority Award, and the Failed Proposal =
Fine. The only other award that we currently have is the Voting Bonus =
(rule 392), which is already forbidden to be changed during the voting =
period.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting results will be delayed
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:28:46 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sorry, I'm going to Madison to look for an apartment tomorrow, so I need to 
go to sleep soon. Voting results will be posted tomorrow evening (late), or 
sometime on Saturday if not tomorrow.

-- 
J.

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:55:50 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: voting results, nweek 20
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[snip]

>Joerg 9 (7, 7, -5)
>M'cachessilnath 0 (0, 0, 0, 0)
>PurpleBob 28 (7, 7, 7, 7)
>Benjamin 7 (7)
>Blest Lax Monk Pal 0 (0)
>Poulenc -5 (-5)
>Joel 0 (0)
>The Kid 0 (0, 0)
>Zagarna 0 (0)
>Dave 0 (0)

What was my score?  Probably 0, but wanted to make sure.

jeff

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Removing the debt system
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:34:00 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think one of the main reasons why we don't find a new banker is the =
debt system. (Another reason is, of course, the 50-points-fine provision =
in the banker rule, which my proposal would also remove.)

The debt system makes it much harder for the banker to keep up with the =
game, and makes it harder for players to know their current score. I =
don't know my exact score, at least. Managing the debts simply is way =
too much work, and being able to pay a little bit later isn't that much =
extra fun.

This is especially bad as managing points is an important part of the =
game. Not knowing one's exact score makes playing less fun, and =
sometimes even impossible (e.g., you might not even know if you have =
enough points to purchase a go stone or something, so you can't).

I propose to replace the debt system with something much simpler: =
Antipoints.

If you don't have enough points to pay something, the points will simply =
be created and transfered, but antipoints will be created in your =
posession as well, resulting in a negative score. When you receive =
points, the process is reversed.

This makes calculating one's score as simple as subtracting the number =
of points transfered to someone else, and adding the number of points =
received.

My proposal also proposes to make the banker (instead of the bean =
counter) responsible for counting the number of points owned by each =
player. He has to keep track of most of the point transfers anyway =
because most points are transfered from or to the bank, and since =
calculating scores is really simple with the antipoint-system, this =
doensn't seem too much work.

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A new banker? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:35:28 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?=:
> I nominate myself for the Office of the Banker.
> 
> 
> Note however that I'll resign if my debt-system-removal proposal fails, =
> as I don't want to have that much work managing the debts.
> 
> Oh, and the last banker's and bean counter's report were created nweek =
> 17. Is anyone motivated to create reports for nweeks 18, 19, 20 and 21? =
> If not, I make the following proposal (well, I make the proposal anyway, =
> but if someone's going to create the reports, I'll withdraw it):
> 
> \begin{proposal}
> \title{Resolution to reset scores}
> 
> Whereas, the last Banker's report was issued nweek 17, and
> 
> Whereas, the last Bean Counter's report was issued nweek 17 and reported =
> the scores as of 2 March, 20001, and
> 
> Whereas, it doesn't seem likely that anyone has enough time and =
> motivation to calculate the exact current scores and to create a =
> comprehensive list of all existing debt objects,
> 
> Therefore, let it be resolved that, upon the adoption of this proposal,
> 
> 1. the scores of all Nomic Players are set to ten points, and
> 
> 2. the score of the Bank is set to 500 points, and
> 
> 3. all existing debt objects are destroyed.
> 
> \end{proposal}
> 
> 
> Joerg

Woah! Hold on there. I *was* planning to determine current scores once the 
semester ends. It won't be that hard, actually, since there wasn't that 
much activity over that period.

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Add
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:50:17 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I make a Motion to Add myself as Aranor.

Ummm, am I the only one who noticed we've got a new player?

Welcome, anyway!

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A new banker? 
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:50:18 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Woah! Hold on there. I *was* planning to determine current scores=20
> once the=20
> semester ends. It won't be that hard, actually, since there wasn't =
that=20
> much activity over that period.

Ok. I withdraw the yet unrecognized Proposal "Resolution to reset =
scores".

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Add 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:06:19 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> > I make a Motion to Add myself as Aranor.
> 
> Ummm, am I the only one who noticed we've got a new player?
> 
> Welcome, anyway!
> 
> 
> Joerg

Oh, yeah. Hi, Aranor. Sorry about ignoring you like that. It's not so much 
that we're ignoring you specifically, but that we're ignoring the game at 
present. That will change Real Soon(tm), though.

Joel's Semester Countdown:
Papers remaining: 2 of 3
Finals remaining: 2 of 2

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:05:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Motion to Add 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Oh, yeah. Hi, Aranor. Sorry about ignoring you like that. It's not so much 
> that we're ignoring you specifically, but that we're ignoring the game at 
> present. That will change Real Soon(tm), though.
> 
> Joel's Semester Countdown:
> Papers remaining: 2 of 3
> Finals remaining: 2 of 2

I'm all done my finals now up here in Canada, but somehow I still don't
seem to have much time to play this game.  It'll pick up a bit when
everyone gets settled in for the summer.

poulenc

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:18:02 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A new banker?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:34:02PM +0200, J?rg Rathlev wrote:
> Whereas, the last Bean Counter's report was issued nweek 17 and reported the scores as of 2 March, 20001, and

Wow, the Bean Counter can travel through time! What score will I have in 20001?
:)
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:27:10 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I claim my Go stone and place it at a16.
I also accept Dave's alliance, if I didn't already.

(Someone tell me if I'm using an old version of the game info...)

   a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 3 . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . .
 4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
 5 . J . . . . . . . . W . . . . . . . .
 6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 . D . . D . . . K . K . . . B . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
13 . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . . .
14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . P . . P . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
16 P . . . . . G . . . . . S . . . . . .
17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
18 . . . . . G . . . . . . S . . . . . .
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
 
     Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
  J  Joel                      none
  P  PurpleBob                 C,K,D
  C  Poulenc                   P,K,D
  S  Jeff Schroeder            B
  K  The Kid                   C,P,D
  G  Joerg                     none
  Z  Zagarna                   none
  B  Benjamin                  S
  D  Dave                      K,C,P
  M  M'cachessilnath           none
  W  Blest Lax Monk Pal        none

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:39:24 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm updating the board and actually putting Joel's stone there. I can foresee
this getting rather confusing otherwise.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:29:26AM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> I claim my free stone and play it at K3.
> 
>      a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>    1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>    2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>    3 . . . . . . . J . . J . . . . . . . .
>    4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
>    5 . J . . . . . . . . W . . . . . . . .
>    6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
>    7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>    8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
>    9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . .
>   10 . D . . D . . . K . K . . . B . . . .
>   11 . . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
>   13 . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . . .
>   14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   15 . P . . P . . . . . S . . . . S . . .
>   16 P . . . . . G . . . . . S . . . . . .
>   17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
>   18 . . . . . G . . . . . . S . . . . . .
>   19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
> 
> > >       Name                      Allies
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > >    J  Joel                      none
> > >    P  PurpleBob                 C,K,D
> > >    C  Poulenc                   P,K,D
> > >    S  Jeff Schroeder            B
> > >    K  The Kid                   C,P,D
> > >    G  Joerg                     none
> > >    Z  Zagarna                   none
> > >    B  Benjamin                  S
> > >    D  Dave                      K,C,P
> > >    M  M'cachessilnath           none
> > >    W  Blest Lax Monk Pal        none

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:01:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[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 it at l3

> I claim my free stone and play it at K3.
> 
>      a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s
>    1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>    2 . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>    3 . . . . . . . J . . J C . . . . . . .
>    4 . . . J . . . . . . . . . . C . . . .
>    5 . J . . . . . . . . W . . . . . . . .
>    6 . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . C . . .
>    7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>    8 . . . . . . . . K . . . . . . C . . .
>    9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . .
>   10 . D . . D . . . K . K . . . B . . . .
>   11 . . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . .
>   13 . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . . .
>   14 . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   15 . P . . P . . . . . S . . . . S . . .
>   16 P . . . . . G . . . . . S . . . . . .
>   17 . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
>   18 . . . . . G . . . . . . S . . . . . .
>   19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z
> 

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Go Move
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:07:55 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> From: Benjamin Bradley [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 26 April 2001 05:01

> I claim my free stone and play it at Q9.
> I also purchase an additional stone for 4p.

Hang on, can you do that?

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Go alliance
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:26:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think Poulenc should be listed as my ally, as I seem to remember em 
accepting my offer.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:31:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Go alliance
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> I think Poulenc should be listed as my ally, as I seem to remember em 
> accepting my offer.

yes, I did, and it should be listed.
poul.

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:54:01 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: A reminder
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would like to point out that at the beginning of this week, I made a proposal
called "Fix the Showdown" which I believe has not yet been recognized. I just
want to make sure it's recognized before the Ballot comes out.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move 
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:54:07 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I offer an alliance to M'cachessilnath.

I accept.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go alliance
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:03:09 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:03:41 -0400, Jeff Schroeder
<[email-masked]> wrote :

>I propose an alliance with Zagarna.  Do you accept?

Of course, I accept, but as you may have noticed  I'm not too
intrested in playing political go (i've placed only one piece on the
board), so I probably won't be too much of use.

bye
--=20

zagarna

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:23:42 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Joel, help us!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The state of the Nomic is getting farther and farther behind. So far, the names
of people who voted last nweek have not yet been posted, so I can't deal the
cards even though I should have dealt them already. Two proposals have not
been recognized, and while the voting period is halfway over, the Ballot has
not been released.

So, Joel, I'll help with most of this. I'll tell you what to say, and you can
just copy and paste this into a spoon-business message when you have a minute
to spare. Then all we'll need is last week's voting results (or even just a
list of who voted).

\begin{putting words in Joel's mouth}

I recognize the following Proposals:
P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
P466/0, Remove the debt system, by Joerg

The ballot for nweek 21 is as follows:

The following Proposals are up for voting:
P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
P466/0, Remove the debt system, by Joerg

Elections for nweek 21:
* Banker
Joerg

[[ Is this right? Can there be an election with only one nominee? ]]

\end{putting words in Joel's mouth}
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:26:53 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Quorum
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It seems the quorum is now 11. There's no way we're going to get that many
votes with the game delayed like this. Joel, perhaps you should declare this
week a quorum vote again.
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel, help us! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:08:31 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> The state of the Nomic is getting farther and farther behind. So far, the nam
> es
> of people who voted last nweek have not yet been posted, so I can't deal the
> cards even though I should have dealt them already. Two proposals have not
> been recognized, and while the voting period is halfway over, the Ballot has
> not been released.

The reason I haven't posted the names of the voters from last nweek is 
because I don't have a good way of noting that the Thug was used to affect 
the votes. I know what I need to do, but actually implementing it just 
isn't going to happen  until I'm done with classes. However, I should still 
have posted the voting anyway, so here it is:

404notfound
- - - - - - - - -
Benjamin
y y y y n y n y y
Blest Lax Monk Pal
y y y n n y y y y
Dave
y y y y n y y y n
Ed
- - - - - - - - -
Feyd
- - - - - - - - -
Jeff Schroeder
y y y y n y y y y
Joel
y y y y n n n y y
Joerg
y y y y n y y y y
jonno
- - - - - - - - -
M'cachessilnath
n n y n n n n y y
Poulenc
a a y y y a a y a
PurpleBob
y y y y n y n y y
relet
- - - - - - - - -
Remo
- - - - - - - - -
The Kid
y y y y n n n n y
Zagarna
y a y y n n y y y

-'s indicate no votes were received.

> So, Joel, I'll help with most of this. I'll tell you what to say, and you can
> just copy and paste this into a spoon-business message when you have a minute
> to spare. Then all we'll need is last week's voting results (or even just a
> list of who voted).

Thanks. This helps a lot. It's a problem that quorum works the way it does, 
though. I can't call a quorum vote during voting, so we may not make quorum 
this time.

> \begin{putting words in Joel's mouth}
> 
> I recognize the following Proposals:
> P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
> P466/0, Remove the debt system, by Joerg
> 
> The ballot for nweek 21 is as follows:
> 
> The following Proposals are up for voting:
> P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
> P466/0, Remove the debt system, by Joerg
> 
> Elections for nweek 21:
> * Banker
> Joerg
> 
> [[ Is this right? Can there be an election with only one nominee? ]]
> 
> \end{putting words in Joel's mouth}
> -- 
> Rob Speer

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:01:56 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The ballot for nweek 21 is as follows:
>=20
> The following Proposals are up for voting:
> P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
> P466/1, Remove the debt system, by Joerg

Ummm, you missed my "Go moves fix" and my "Awards and Fines should be =
known before voting starts" proposals, but they're not really time =
critical, so we can delay them a week. I don't think we'll achieve =
quorum anyway...

My votes aren't very secret or surprising, so I'll vote publicly this =
time:

P465/0 YES
P466/1 YES

Banker -- oh, wait, you missed that one, too.
If the other voters all submit votes on this item (it was on PurpleBob's =
ballot draft, so maybe...), and you decide to count them, count my vote =
as an abstanation.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Joel, help us!
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:11:59 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Elections for nweek 21:
> * Banker
> Joerg
>=20
> [[ Is this right? Can there be an election with only one nominee? ]]

Yes, I think so. I'd suggest voting yes or no in this case. However, the =
rules don't seem to allow such votes -- rule 359 states "Voters may cast =
exactly one vote for a candidate for each Elective Office on the =
Ballot."

So you're not required to vote, but if you do, you must vote *for* the =
only candidate. That's not really a good rule. On the other hand, with =
votes being yes or no, what's going to happen if the majority votes =
*against* the only candidate?

Does anyone have a good idea about how to fix this?

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel, help us! 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:35:49 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> > Elections for nweek 21:
> > * Banker
> > Joerg
> >=20
> > [[ Is this right? Can there be an election with only one nominee? ]]
> 
> Yes, I think so. I'd suggest voting yes or no in this case. However, the =
> rules don't seem to allow such votes -- rule 359 states "Voters may cast =
> exactly one vote for a candidate for each Elective Office on the =
> Ballot."
> 
> So you're not required to vote, but if you do, you must vote *for* the =
> only candidate. That's not really a good rule. On the other hand, with =
> votes being yes or no, what's going to happen if the majority votes =
> *against* the only candidate?
> 
> Does anyone have a good idea about how to fix this?
> 
> 
> Joerg

Hmm. My interpretation of this rule is a little different. I had always 
assumed that so long as one person casts a vote for the only candidate, 
then e is elected. Votes for elections should always name candidates, 
rather than be "yes" or "no", so it's not a possibility that a majority 
would vote against the only candidate.

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:53:43 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel, help us! 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:35 AM 4/29/2001, you wrote:
>Quoth =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?=:
> > > Elections for nweek 21:
> > > * Banker
> > > Joerg
> > >=20
> > > [[ Is this right? Can there be an election with only one nominee? ]]
> >
> > Yes, I think so. I'd suggest voting yes or no in this case. However, the =
> > rules don't seem to allow such votes -- rule 359 states "Voters may cast =
> > exactly one vote for a candidate for each Elective Office on the =
> > Ballot."
> >
> > So you're not required to vote, but if you do, you must vote *for* the =
> > only candidate. That's not really a good rule. On the other hand, with =
> > votes being yes or no, what's going to happen if the majority votes =
> > *against* the only candidate?
> >
> > Does anyone have a good idea about how to fix this?
> >
> >
> > Joerg
>
>Hmm. My interpretation of this rule is a little different. I had always
>assumed that so long as one person casts a vote for the only candidate,
>then e is elected. Votes for elections should always name candidates,
>rather than be "yes" or "no", so it's not a possibility that a majority
>would vote against the only candidate.

I agree with Joerg's interpretation.  You can vote for a candidate by name 
or a yes vote for eim.  This is simply a matter of how your vote is recorded.

After reading the interpretations again, they seem very similar... Joerg 
says that you must vote for the only candidate (by a yes vote) and Joel 
says that you must vote for the only candidate (by name) or not vote.  I 
think you both agree on the current interpretation of the rule if not the 
purpose.

It should be possible for a candidate to not be elected if e is the only 
one on the ballot if the majority votes against eim.  It seems wrong to 
have somebody nominate eimself and vote for eimself and win the election if 
everyone else votes against eim (by not voting since there is no method to 
vote no).  There needs to be a majority vote to get into office the same 
way a majority is required for a rule to pass.  If you are the only one on 
the ballot it should be cake to get elected.

jeff

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Joel, help us! 
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:10:15 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> It should be possible for a candidate to not be elected if e 
> is the only 
> one on the ballot if the majority votes against eim.  It 
> seems wrong to 
> have somebody nominate eimself and vote for eimself and win 
> the election if 
> everyone else votes against eim (by not voting since there is 
> no method to 
> vote no).  There needs to be a majority vote to get into 
> office the same 
> way a majority is required for a rule to pass.  If you are 
> the only one on 
> the ballot it should be cake to get elected.

I disagree. If only one player wants to hold an office then let them. If any
of the other players do not like it then they should have nominated somebody
else to stand in the election. And besides, they can always throw them out
of office afterwards.

--
The Kid