Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21
From: Jörg Rathlev <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:49:43 +0200

> One thing I don't like are proposals that create a rule that automatically
> repeals itself or other rules. There is no need for it. Why 
> propose "Create
> a rule that does X and once X has been done repeal the rule." when you can
> just propose "Do X"?

I'd generally agree with you, but in this case, there was actually a very good reason why we needed a new (but temporary, thus the auto-repeal provision) rule: We need to have a way to destroy the old debts,but the banker is not permitted to simply order the payment of a debt without first having a motion for payment made by the tax collector and adopted by voting. My proposed rule allows the banker to do this.

I don't think a "Do X" proposal is legal if it proposes to do something that's not permitted by the rules.

Joerg

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:49:29 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> I'd generally agree with you, but in this case, there was 
> actually a very good reason why we needed a new (but 
> temporary, thus the auto-repeal provision) rule: We need to 
> have a way to destroy the old debts,but the banker is not 
> permitted to simply order the payment of a debt without first 
> having a motion for payment made by the tax collector and 
> adopted by voting. My proposed rule allows the banker to do this.

Oh, I see. Doesn't your proposal get rid of the Motion for Payment?
 
> I don't think a "Do X" proposal is legal if it proposes to do 
> something that's not permitted by the rules.

Yeah, I suppose so. But you could always change the rules in the proposal
;-)

--
The Kid

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:39:09 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?=:
> 
> > One thing I don't like are proposals that create a rule that > automatically
> > repeals itself or other rules. There is no need for it. Why 
> > propose "Create
> > a rule that does X and once X has been done repeal the rule." when you > can
> > just propose "Do X"?
> 
> I'd generally agree with you, but in this case, there was actually a > very good reason why we needed a new (but temporary, thus the > auto-repeal provision) rule: We need to have a way to destroy the old > debts,but the banker is not permitted to simply order the payment of a > debt without first having a motion for payment made by the tax collector > and adopted by voting. My proposed rule allows the banker to do this.
> 
> I don't think a "Do X" proposal is legal if it proposes to do something > that's not permitted by the rules.
> 
> 
> Joerg

Hmm. I seem to remember "Do X" Proposals passing before, and there being no 
problems with their legality.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 19:09:46 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > adopted by voting. My proposed rule allows the banker to do this.
> 
> Oh, I see. Doesn't your proposal get rid of the Motion for Payment?

Yes, my proposal allows the banker to transfer the points *without* a motion.

> > I don't think a "Do X" proposal is legal if it proposes to do 
> > something that's not permitted by the rules.
> 
> Yeah, I suppose so. But you could always change the rules in the proposal
> ;-)

Then I'd have to improve a rule I actually want to repeal...

Joerg

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:00:24 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:17:26AM +0100, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
>  
> > The ballot for nweek 21 is as follows:
> > 
> > P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
> No. 
> I think the players should privately tell the dealer which cards they want
> to play. With posting it to the public forum it means you can decide if
> you're going to play or not by seeing what's in other players hands.

Do you believe that, as it stands now, a Showdown would be workable?

It sets no time limit on when you should show your cards. It seems to me that I
would have to wait for a message from everyone who has cards, and until then
the game would be stuck.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Another week, another free Go stone.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:09:52 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just noticed that the current alliances list seems a little out of sync.

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

The following alliances are only noted on one side:
J-C, C-M, S-Z, K-W, K-M, B-K

Adding these in the list would look like:

     Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
  J  Joel                      C
  P  PurpleBob                 C,K,D
  C  Poulenc                   P,K,D,M,J
  S  Jeff Schroeder            B,G,Z
  K  The Kid                   C,P,D,W,M,B
  G  Joerg                     B,S
  Z  Zagarna                   Z
  B  Benjamin                  S,G,K
  D  Dave                      K,C,P
  M  M'cachessilnath           C,K
  W  Blast Lex Monk Pal        K

Does anyone object to the list being updated like this?

--
The Kid

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Another week, another free Go stone.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:07:42 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Does anyone object to the list being updated like this?

Umm, yes. Zagarna seems to be self-allied :-)

I suggest:

     Name                      Allies
----------------------------------------
  J  Joel                      C
  P  PurpleBob                 C,K,D
  C  Poulenc                   P,K,D,M,J
  S  Jeff Schroeder            B,G,Z
  K  The Kid                   C,P,D,W,M,B
  G  Joerg                     B,S
  Z  Zagarna                   S
  B  Benjamin                  S,G,K
  D  Dave                      K,C,P
  M  M'cachessilnath           C,K
  W  Blast Lex Monk Pal        K

Joerg

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Another week, another free
	 Go stone.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:04:48 +0100 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Rathlev [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> > Does anyone object to the list being updated like this?
> 
> Umm, yes. Zagarna seems to be self-allied :-)

Oh no, I think I'm gonna need more caffeine... 

;-)

--
The Kid

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:47:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Another week, another free
 Go stone.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> I just noticed that the current alliances list seems a little out of sync.
>
> The following alliances are only noted on one side:
> J-C, C-M, S-Z, K-W, K-M, B-K

Because, as far as I'm aware, they've only been proposed (and accepted) on
one side.  Under the current rules of Political Go, alliances are NOT
reciprocal.

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Another week, another free 
 Go stone.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 11:02:26 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> On Wed, 2 May 2001, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > I just noticed that the current alliances list seems a little out of sync.
> >
> > The following alliances are only noted on one side:
> > J-C, C-M, S-Z, K-W, K-M, B-K
> 
> Because, as far as I'm aware, they've only been proposed (and accepted) on
> one side.  Under the current rules of Political Go, alliances are NOT
> reciprocal.
> 
> ...dave

Alliances are symmetric, just not transitive. If I'm allied with Poulenc, 
then Poulenc is allied with me. But that does not imply anything about 
standing with Poulenc's other allies, or eir with mine.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: status
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:39:12 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, I'm all done with classes now, but I'm going home for a day to sort 
through some stuff. The move is impending; however, I should have time in 
the next few days to bring game records up to date. Just to let everyone 
know...

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "A Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Copy & Paste ballot, nweek 22
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:07:33 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've just prepared another copy & paste ballot, for the current nweek. Joel, you can simply copy and paste this, we still have more than two voting days left this week.

And everyone, please vote -- we don't have a quorum vote, but we do have a high quorum. Remember that you'll get points for voting :-)

First, some proposals need to be recognized:

-----

The following proposals are recognized:

P467/0, Awards and Fines should be known before voting starts, by Joerg
P468/0, Go moves fix, by Joerg

-----

And now the ballot... I don't know if we achieved quorum last nweek, since we don't have the voting results yet, but I expect that we didn't so I included the items from the last ballot:

-----

The following items are up for voting:

P465/0, Fix the Showdown, by PurpleBob
P466/1, Remove the debt system, by Joerg
P467/0, Awards and Fines should be known before voting starts, by Joerg
P468/0, Go moves fix, by Joerg

The following Officers need to be elected:

The Banker, candidates: Joerg

The texts of P465/0 and P466/1 can be found in last nweek's ballot.

---

P467/0:

Amend rule 323 by replacing both occurences of "Once per nweek," with "Once per nweek, but not during the voting period,"

---

P468/0:

In rule 368 (Go moves), replace the text

"The offer becomes void if the Go player to whom it was offered makes any other move before accepting the offer, or if the Go player who made the offer withdraws it."

with

"The offer becomes void if the Go player who made the offer withdraws it."

-----

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Make things interesting...
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:34:30 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> A one-candidate election wouldn't be any fun. I nominate myself 
> for Banker.

Ummm, not that I want a monopoly, but... I don't think you can do that during the voting period.

Joerg

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:57:46 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Make things interesting...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:34:30PM +0200, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> 
> > A one-candidate election wouldn't be any fun. I nominate myself 
> > for Banker.
> 
> Ummm, not that I want a monopoly, but... I don't think you can do that during the voting period.

I didn't realize it was the voting period. I thought the voting period only
started when Joel posts the ballot, anyway.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 01:48:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Make things interesting...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 7 May 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> I didn't realize it was the voting period. I thought the voting period only
> started when Joel posts the ballot, anyway.

The voting period is days 8-10 of a given nweek. Joel is (supposed) to
post a ballot at least 48 hours prior to the end of voting.

Ref: Rules 111/0, 201/2.

As long as we're looking through the rules, someone may wish to invoke
306/2. (Rough tangent: This rule specifies that the Deputy Administrator
may recognize proposals; can such an entity distribute an official ballot,
or receive votes, or anything similar? The rule seems a smidge vague to
me.)

...dave

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 21:59:40 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Will the mailing lists and web page go down when Joel moves?

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 03:40:31 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 7 May 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:

> Will the mailing lists and web page go down when Joel moves?

If this turns out to be the case, I can probably provide (partial)
alternative hosting for 'em.

The mailing lists aren't a problem; I've been running large mailing lists
for years. The Web page is potentially an issue - mostly depending on just
how Joel implemented stuff. (Perl, PHP, MySQL = good; mod_perl and
postgresql = bad)

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    [email-masked]
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://metadave.net/

I used to drive a Heisenbergmobile, but every
time I looked at the speedometer, I got lost.

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:51:24 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am not worried about the lists themselves, that would be pretty easy to 
handle by one of us.  my server probably wouldn't have a problem if I had 
it set up for e-mail.  But we won't have any official public forums.  (what 
is necessary to determine a public forum?  The Administrator declaring it so?)

I believe that it will be next to impossible to port the web page to 
another machine within only a couple of days.  I think it is incredibly 
integrated with Joel's machine.  Of course, I am just guessing - he'd have 
to let us know.

At 11:40 PM 5/7/2001, you wrote:
>On Mon, 7 May 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
> > Will the mailing lists and web page go down when Joel moves?
>
>If this turns out to be the case, I can probably provide (partial)
>alternative hosting for 'em.
>
>The mailing lists aren't a problem; I've been running large mailing lists
>for years. The Web page is potentially an issue - mostly depending on just
>how Joel implemented stuff. (Perl, PHP, MySQL = good; mod_perl and
>postgresql = bad)
>
>...dave
>
>
>---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
>http://www.technopagan.org/    [email-masked]
>http://www.bureau42.com/       http://metadave.net/
>
>I used to drive a Heisenbergmobile, but every
>time I looked at the speedometer, I got lost.

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 05:14:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 7 May 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:

> I am not worried about the lists themselves, that would be pretty easy to
> handle by one of us.  my server probably wouldn't have a problem if I had
> it set up for e-mail.  But we won't have any official public forums.  (what
> is necessary to determine a public forum?  The Administrator declaring it so?)

Basically, yeah, per rule 218/0.

Worst case: the "Joel is hit by a bus" scenario. Someone assumes the role
of Deputy Administrator for the purpose of announcing a new Forum (per
rules 218/0 and 219/0). Wheee.

The whole issue of a potentially absent Administrator is one that, from my
quick survey of the rules, doesn't seem to be addressed. This practically
begs for a rule of some sort, but I'm not sure what would be fair. Yeah,
if e resigns, that's covered; but what if e is in fact hit by a bus? We
should also possibly cover the possibility of a vote of no-confidence.

Random aside: No, I don't wish any ill will towards Joel, nor do I believe
any of this is actually necessary or appropriate. Except for maybe
creating a couple of rules, but that's just because I someday hope to
actually score points in the game. :)

> I believe that it will be next to impossible to port the web page to
> another machine within only a couple of days.  I think it is incredibly
> integrated with Joel's machine.  Of course, I am just guessing - he'd have
> to let us know.

I've skimmed the source code available for the nomic. For the most part,
it's fairly portable. The tricky bit would be getting hold of the database
- otherwise, someone would have to retype every bloody thing, including
all rules, proposals, modifications, motions, you get the idea.

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    [email-masked]
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://metadave.net/

I used to drive a Heisenbergmobile, but every
time I looked at the speedometer, I got lost.

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 05:36:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 8 May 2001, David E. Smith wrote:

[ Yes, I'm replying to myself. Weird, ain't it? ]

> The whole issue of a potentially absent Administrator is one that, from my
> quick survey of the rules, doesn't seem to be addressed. This practically
> begs for a rule of some sort, but I'm not sure what would be fair. Yeah,
> if e resigns, that's covered; but what if e is in fact hit by a bus? We
> should also possibly cover the possibility of a vote of no-confidence.

Which, upon further review of the rules, seems to be pretty much taken
care of.

Rule 208/1 specifies that the Administrator is an elected officer, and
Rule 315/2 covers motions of no-confidence. Wheee!

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:43:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> On Mon, 7 May 2001, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> 
> > Will the mailing lists and web page go down when Joel moves?
> 
> If this turns out to be the case, I can probably provide (partial)
> alternative hosting for 'em.
> 
> The mailing lists aren't a problem; I've been running large mailing lists
> for years. The Web page is potentially an issue - mostly depending on just
> how Joel implemented stuff. (Perl, PHP, MySQL = good; mod_perl and
> postgresql = bad)
> 
> ...dave

Nothing is going to be down long enough when I move to make substitute 
lists worthwhile. I'm moving on Thursday, and the phone company says my DSL 
will be turned on Monday morning. Also, a status report: I'm in the process 
of packing now; what I really need is a day with nothing else to do so I 
can catch up. I'm guessing that won't happen until after I move, maybe 
Saturday. Again, I'm really sorry about holding up the game like this. I 
want to get things in order again, but packing is a little more immediate 
need right now.

-- 
J.

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: No voting this nweek...?
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:51:54 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> As long as we're looking through the rules, someone may wish to invoke
> 306/2. (Rough tangent: This rule specifies that the Deputy Administrator
> may recognize proposals; can such an entity distribute an official ballot,
> or receive votes, or anything similar? The rule seems a smidge vague to
> me.)

The only problem with the rule is that the deputy would need to wait 24 hours, as the 6 hours rule applies only if "voting starts in less than 24 hours", which isn't the case, as voting already started.

Waiting 24 hours obviously doesn't make sense, as we'd end up with an actual voting period of just about 3 hours.

The most likely thing to happen (and probably the best solution) is simply not to vote this nweek. Even if a ballot was distributed now, I don't think we'd achieve quorum, there are no urgent proposals, no one will be punished (except we might vote Joel out of Office, but he actually has a pretty good excuse), so what?

Joerg

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: a question 
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 00:20:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have a question about the rules set of A Nomic (this nomic game).  
Contained in the initial set of a traditional namic game is a rule that when 
rules conflict, the rule with the lower number shall be followed.  While I 
have little experience with Nomic, I get the impression that this is one 
rule that often lasts (and is quite useful).  But I do not see it in the 
rule set of A Nomic.  I'm curious as to the reason for that.  Was it 
contained in the initial set?  Is there no rule at all addressing priority 
of rules?
Also, the initial set of nomic usually includes a distinction between 
"mutable" and "immutable" rules. I understand if one doesnt want that exact 
distinction, but does it make sense for all rules to be equally easy to 
change (as appears to be the case)?
Also, the answer to question 3 at "http://www.nomic.net/~g1/index.html" is 
apparently out of date.  The answer references rule 210/2 and says that a 
motion to become a player requires 3-day unanimous consent.  The current 
version of that rule is 210/3 and only requires 2-day unanimous consent.

Sincerely,
David Chudzicki

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 19:29:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a question 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Welcome to the game David!

before we began the game, we had a long discussion about how to resolve
conflicting rules, and decided simply not to legislate it. When two rules
conflict, and someone makes an RFJ, it is up to the discression of the
judge to decide.

I don't think we have any immutable rules. All rules are mutable.
I don't think they're necessary either. Mutability was included in Suber's
initial ruleset becuase the game he outlined was to be played
face-to-face, with players individually taking turns proposing rule
changes and voting on them. I think the voting system we have set up in A
Nomic is more secure and therefore does not need a mutability clause.

On Wed, 9 May 2001, David Chudzicki wrote:
> I have a question about the rules set of A Nomic (this nomic game).
> Contained in the initial set of a traditional namic game is a rule that when
> rules conflict, the rule with the lower number shall be followed.  While I
> have little experience with Nomic, I get the impression that this is one
> rule that often lasts (and is quite useful).  But I do not see it in the
> rule set of A Nomic.  I'm curious as to the reason for that.  Was it
> contained in the initial set?  Is there no rule at all addressing priority
> of rules?
> Also, the initial set of nomic usually includes a distinction between
> "mutable" and "immutable" rules. I understand if one doesnt want that exact
> distinction, but does it make sense for all rules to be equally easy to
> change (as appears to be the case)?
> Also, the answer to question 3 at "http://www.nomic.net/~g1/index.html" is
> apparently out of date.  The answer references rule 210/2 and says that a
> motion to become a player requires 3-day unanimous consent.  The current
> version of that rule is 210/3 and only requires 2-day unanimous consent.
>
> Sincerely,
> David Chudzicki

- Benjamin Bradley - "these strange things happen all the time"
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:09:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: How to resolve the record-keeping problem
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> Perhaps I could be of assistance.

[ snip the win scenario ]

There's another real big problem that comes up indirectly from this...

Assuming this is legit (and that seems entirely plausible), the game goes
into an infinite loop of sorts. You will continue to own 20 Rules and to
have a big stack of cards, and you can thus continue to win infinitely.

This is just plain Bad, though I'm not sure how to get out of it...

...dave

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:19:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Nothing is going to be down long enough when I move to make substitute
> lists worthwhile. I'm moving on Thursday, and the phone company says my DSL
> will be turned on Monday morning.

And you believe them? :-)

Best of luck with the move, and all good things that shall come after.

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Joel's Move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:33:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> On Tue, 8 May 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> > Nothing is going to be down long enough when I move to make substitute
> > lists worthwhile. I'm moving on Thursday, and the phone company says my DSL
> > will be turned on Monday morning.
> 
> And you believe them? :-)

Well, I wouldn't, if not for them telling me someone would be coming to my 
apartment to test the line and give me the DSL modem, and scheduling a 
specific time for it. Already I dislike my phone company, though.

> Best of luck with the move, and all good things that shall come after.
> 
> ...dave

Thanks.

-- 
J.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: motion to add a player
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 09:35:58 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> (I assume that my 
> capability of passing the Turing Test need not be demonstrated.)  

No, but now that you mention it, it would be interesting to see you trying it :-))

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: How to resolve the record-keeping problem
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 22:15:09 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Here's how I plan to do this. All along, the Pooker proposal has 
> been my tool
> for winning the game.

... and a very cleverly designed tool. At least I couldn't find any possibilities to prevent your win. Congratulations!

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: How to resolve the record-keeping problem
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 22:15:14 +0200
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> There's another real big problem that comes up indirectly from this...
> 
> Assuming this is legit (and that seems entirely plausible), the game goes
> into an infinite loop of sorts. You will continue to own 20 Rules and to
> have a big stack of cards, and you can thus continue to win infinitely.

Well, *can*, but it doesn't happen unless he *does*. PurpleBob could probably declare another showdown right away, but what for? It doesn't make sense to continue winning the game over and over again.

BTW, do the current rules *have* an initial value that the scores could be reset to? The "All Scores are initially 0 Points" part of rule 121 is removed since revision 2, according to the historical ruleset.

Joerg

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:38:18 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: How to resolve the record-keeping problem
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:15:14PM +0200, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> > There's another real big problem that comes up indirectly from this...
> > 
> > Assuming this is legit (and that seems entirely plausible), the game goes
> > into an infinite loop of sorts. You will continue to own 20 Rules and to
> > have a big stack of cards, and you can thus continue to win infinitely.
> 
> Well, *can*, but it doesn't happen unless he *does*. PurpleBob could probably declare another showdown right away, but what for? It doesn't make sense to continue winning the game over and over again.

I can't continue winning repeatedly, because of a new complication. I actually
didn't notice this until now.

The Bank is now flat broke. Like every other score, its score is now 0.

However, we should probably overlook that, seeing as David should be a player
tomorrow and the Bank would get 500 more points because of him. Otherwise, the
resulting Bankruptcy-related issues screw up the game.

This leaves an issue to be resolved: Are debts part of a player's Score, or do
debt objects still exist after the win?

The distinction is whether Debt Objects are also Point Objects, or whether they
are separate Objects which are not reset in the event of a win.

If debts still exist, Joel only has to keep track of a few of them.
Not many rules invoke the debt system by saying that one Agent "owes" points to
another - most simply state that the points shall be transferred. The payments
that are paid through the debt system are:

* the Adopted Proposal Award
* the Opposed Minority Award
* the Failed Proposal Fine
* Official Salaries
* Penalties for falsely reporting debts (which has never happened)
* Taxes
* The Voting Bonus

So, finding people's new scores simply involves looking at the voting results
for each nweek since the Banker's Report was last given, adding Official
Salaries, and adding the Voting Bonus and subtracting Taxes in the nweeks in
which those existed. Games that involved the transfer of money will have no
effect on people's new scores.

The Bank would probably have less than 500 points left after this, so I
couldn't claim a second win.

And now for the other scenario:

If Debt Objects _are_ Point Objects and _are_ part of the Score, we get a nice,
fresh start. Almost. As soon as David is in the game, there are 500 points in
the Bank which I could claim to win again. THEN there are no points in
existence anywhere, and we do get a fresh start, which would be a perfect time
to get rid of the debt system entirely and have points appear from nowhere like
they used to.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:52:22 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: How to resolve the record-keeping problem
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:15:09PM +0200, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> > Here's how I plan to do this. All along, the Pooker proposal has 
> > been my tool
> > for winning the game.
> 
> ... and a very cleverly designed tool. At least I couldn't find any possibilities to prevent your win. Congratulations!

Thank you.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Objection
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:27:29 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would assume that there is a precident for not requiring further evidence 
of ability to pass the Turing Test (the rules require ability to pass it, of 
course, not actually having passed it), making the grounds for Dan's 
objection worthless.  However, he need not supply any grounds whatsoever for 
an objection to be valid by the rules (nevermind an objection that makes any 
sense).  Therefore I suppose I must wait for my motion to be put on the next 
nweeks ballot (at which point I would assume it passes).  Of course, if I 
wanted to join a little sooner perhaps I could make the motion again once 
all the garbage that you guys allowed with poorly thought out rules 
[wink-wink] about what happens after a win is solved.  But in any case, I 
don't expect to become a player within the next couple days.  Another 
possibility is for Dan to rescind his objection (as per rule 301/0) when he 
is convinced that it is no longer needed (if it has not been "recognized" at 
that point).
Sincerely,
David Chudzicki (a human being, verified or not)

>From: Dan <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: "'nomic-business'" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: spoon-business: Objection
>Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>I object to the addition of David's motion to add a player, on the grounds
>that e has not demonstrated eir ability to pass the Turing Test.
>
>ack.  I go away for a couple of weeks and all hell breaks loose.  Now I'm
>crabby.  Also I want to keep the bank from having all those points until
>we cut PurpleBob's win cycle.
>
>Oh, and congrats to winner Purplebob.
>
>Poulenc
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:29:02 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Objection
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 05:58:30PM -0400, Dan wrote:
> 
> I object to the addition of David's motion to add a player, on the grounds
> that e has not demonstrated eir ability to pass the Turing Test.

Heh! This should be interesting.

I suggest that, if we do need to have a Turing test, that David's responses
should be compared against that of the UNIX AI program "MegaHAL". Then again, I
see that this objection is nothing but a strategic move, so it wouldn't make
much sense to follow through with it.

( Possible Question: "Please state the name of the currently absent
administrator of this Nomic."
HAL: "Because i like to do things on the wrong side of the absent administrator
of this nomic." )

> ack.  I go away for a couple of weeks and all hell breaks loose.  Now I'm
> crabby.  Also I want to keep the bank from having all those points until
> we cut PurpleBob's win cycle.

I suppose that would make sense. So this changes my analysis, because there
will be a substantial period in which the Bank has no money.

If debt objects are kept, the Bank immediately goes bankrupt, but eventually
has to pay/recieve the debts I listed in the other message - most likely once
David becomes a player.

If debt objects are erased, we get an instant fresh start without an additional
win by me.

I'll make an RFJ about this.

Either way, poor David is in Agent limbo until we get a quorum vote, however
far off that is.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Objection
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:46:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The rules seem kinda screwed up on this point, but I would suspect that I am 
an agent (but not a player).  According to 105/0, an agent is any entity 
capable of action.  According to the prevailing interpretation of the rules, 
a new person may make a motion to add emself. This clearly ought to be 
considered an "action," which really makes any person an agent.  However, 
105/0 also says that an entity may not solely on eir own authority become an 
agent.  The only way I see that all these things could be consistent is if 
we consider the last sentence of this rule to be entirely superfluous. (It 
says no entity may cause itself to become an agent, but never says that all 
entities capable of action have not always been agents.)
Ah, my convoluted wordings must be fun to read (isnt such a writing style 
consistent with the ideas of nomic, though?), but I know they make sense.

Dave C.
>
>Either way, poor David is in Agent limbo until we get a quorum vote, 
>however
>far off that is.
>
>--
>Rob Speer
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:48:17 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: On win conditions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would like to say that, having achieved it, I don't like the 20-rule
requirement to win, for various reasons.

1. Firstly, this rule seems to have no purpose except to separate out an elite
class of Nomic players who have been around long enough to own 20 Rules. I
think that if a newbie can manipulate the game as well as a seasoned player,
more power to him. Additionally...

2. Counting Rules in the winning requirements is rather like double-dipping.
Rules already allow you to change the game to a form that you like better. A
strategic Nomic player would also make sure that Rules subtly increase eir
chance of winning, so there is no need to define Rule ownership as a
_requirement_ of winning, especially since...

3. Rules are a very arbitrary count. As I demonstrated with "cards", you can
make seven Rules with one Proposal with no difficulty at all. A restriction
like having 10 proposals passed (since the last win or since player creation)
would be more reasonable, but...

4. Having two separate winning conditions screws with the strategy of winning.
I almost blew my chance to win by making the Pooker proposal too soon, when I
didn't yet have 20 rules, and having it _require_ an automatic Showdown. The
result would have been that I would have more than 500 points (unless I chose
to take less, but then I wouldn't get away with that plan a second time), but
less than 20 rules. If that had happened, my hope of winning would essentially
lie in starting with a new Player. It only makes sense that no player who has
more than 500 points will ever get to create a rule.

In fact, I could only meet the 20-rule requirement either because it's
extremely difficult to keep track of who owns which rule, and thus nobody could
tell which rule would be my 20th, or because nobody believed there was any way
for me to get 500 points.

I think that the resolution to all of these flaws in the winning requirement
would be to eliminate the 20-rule stipulation, and make the minimum Adopted
Proposal Award something high like 20. This would reward contributing to the
game, even if you make entirely altruistic Proposals with no ulterior motives.
This would also make objects such as the Stamp of Failure and Extra Votes less
obscenely expensive. The winning score should then be set to 1000 because of
the inflationary effect of the above.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:58:55 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Objection
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:57:42AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2001, David Chudzicki wrote:
> 
> > Therefore I suppose I must wait for my motion to be put on the next
> > nweeks ballot (at which point I would assume it passes).
> 
> Not at all. It's just two-day unanimous consent. As soon as it's been 48
> hours since your initial request, assuming nobody objects, you're in.

You missed the part where Poulenc objected so that I wouldn't get 500 more
points.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ's
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:56:36 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It seems that something was down at my end and is working again, but I see
that the Rules pages do not yet show the current state of the Rules. So the
first RFJ I made still applies as it will probably be a while till Joel
manages to update the Rules.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harrison, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 May 2001 09:39
> To: 'Nomic Business'
> Subject: spoon-business: RFJ's
> 
> 
> I've lost track of when Joel is moving, is his computer down yet? I'm
> getting a Host Not Found when I access his site. Can someone 
> mail me the
> current state of the Rules regarding Cards and Pooker?
> 
> In the mean time I make the following RFJs:
> 
> As the Rules cannot be scrutinised to determine the legality 
> of PurpleBob's
> win by Pooker the win should be postponed until such a time 
> that the Rules
> can be scrutinised, and the deadline on making RFJ's should 
> be similarly
> extended.
> 
> Also:
> 
> For the Dealer to use cards from the Deck to participate in a 
> gard of Pooker
> or any other Card game is clearly against the spirit of the rules and
> against the spirit of the game and thus is illeagal.
> 
> --
> The Kid
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ's
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:56:41 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Not that it will make a difference, but I'm not sure the deadline can be 
suspended. The deadline is put forth in the rules, and you're asking a judge 
to violate that...
As for the "spirit" of the rules, I think what is more important in Nomic is 
the "letter" of the law.  If such technicalities were not considered, only 
what was intended by the rules, then the game would lose a lot of its fun. 
PurpleBob was able to manipulate the rules (fool you all) in such a way as 
to win, and that is really where a lot of the interest in the game comes 
from.  Besides not making sense in this case, for a judge to rule in your 
favor there would set a really bad precident...
Dave C.

>
>As the Rules cannot be scrutinised to determine the legality of PurpleBob's
>win by Pooker the win should be postponed until such a time that the Rules
>can be scrutinised, and the deadline on making RFJ's should be similarly
>extended.
>
>Also:
>
>For the Dealer to use cards from the Deck to participate in a gard of 
>Pooker
>or any other Card game is clearly against the spirit of the rules and
>against the spirit of the game and thus is illeagal.
>
>--
>The Kid
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ's
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:06:00 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oh yes, I appreciate that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sulking and saying
"that's not fair". Part of the fun of Nomic is to expoit loopholes in the
rules, but once someone does that it's also part of the fun of Nomic to try
and stop them getting away with it. The trouble is that the Rules as per the
web page do not even include to Pooker rules, so I have no idea if what
PurpleBob did is legal or not. All I'm trying to do is allow time to find
out.

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Chudzicki [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 May 2001 11:57
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ's
> 
> 
> Not that it will make a difference, but I'm not sure the 
> deadline can be 
> suspended. The deadline is put forth in the rules, and you're 
> asking a judge 
> to violate that...
> As for the "spirit" of the rules, I think what is more 
> important in Nomic is 
> the "letter" of the law.  If such technicalities were not 
> considered, only 
> what was intended by the rules, then the game would lose a 
> lot of its fun. 
> PurpleBob was able to manipulate the rules (fool you all) in 
> such a way as 
> to win, and that is really where a lot of the interest in the 
> game comes 
> from.  Besides not making sense in this case, for a judge to 
> rule in your 
> favor there would set a really bad precident...
> Dave C.
> 
> >
> >As the Rules cannot be scrutinised to determine the legality 
> of PurpleBob's
> >win by Pooker the win should be postponed until such a time 
> that the Rules
> >can be scrutinised, and the deadline on making RFJ's should 
> be similarly
> >extended.
> >
> >Also:
> >
> >For the Dealer to use cards from the Deck to participate in 
> a gard of 
> >Pooker
> >or any other Card game is clearly against the spirit of the rules and
> >against the spirit of the game and thus is illeagal.
> >
> >--
> >The Kid
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 

Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:08:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Objection
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 10 May 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> > Not at all. It's just two-day unanimous consent. As soon as it's been 48
> > hours since your initial request, assuming nobody objects, you're in.
>
> You missed the part where Poulenc objected so that I wouldn't get 500 more
> points.

Since the motion hasn't yet been recognized, there's nothing to object
to. (At least, not yet.)

Assuming these objections will be raised once again after the motion is in
fact recognized, does anyone have any clever ideas on how our new player
can demonstrate eir ability to pass the Turing test?

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: catching up
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 02:34:47 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey, everybody! At long last, the server's running again, despite my phone 
company screwing up my DSL order in every possible way---the reason for the 
downtime being 16 days longer than expected. I'll begin doing the catch-up 
work in the morning. It's good to be back. :)

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:02:05 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Yay!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's good to be back!

I think the first thing that needs to happen is that Joel recognizes my
win, and assigns my RFJ about where all the points go now.

THEN we can get on with the tangled mess of objections you're creating in
order to prevent my second win.

Incidentally, I don't know if the nomination is still in effect, but I
un-nominate myself as Banker.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Objection
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:43:12 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Well, uhh, no, I'm afraid it wont be easy to demonstrate the ability. But it 
makes no difference...the Turing Test thing has no significance - he could 
object on no basis at all, if we wants. His real reason for objecting, of 
course, is to prevent the bank from getting 500 pts at this crucial point in 
the game.  When that's resolved, I'm sure he'll no longer have his "turing 
test" objection. Of course, there's no need to answer an objection. My 
motion can be voted on at the next voting period (consent is not necessary 
to pass it - that's just one way).
Dave C.

>Assuming these objections will be raised once again after the motion is in
>fact recognized, does anyone have any clever ideas on how our new player
>can demonstrate eir ability to pass the Turing test?
>
>...dave
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Objection
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yes.  If I _really_ wanted to delay your becoming a player I would have to
submit an RFJ claiming that you are not capable of passing the turing test
and therefore can't qualify.  I doubt that that is the case, but it might
make for some interesting wrangles.  I think it would be easier just to
nix the rule that gives extra points to the bank to prevent the extra win.

poulenc

On Sat, 26 May 2001, David Chudzicki wrote:

> Well, uhh, no, I'm afraid it wont be easy to demonstrate the ability. But it 
> makes no difference...the Turing Test thing has no significance - he could 
> object on no basis at all, if we wants. His real reason for objecting, of 
> course, is to prevent the bank from getting 500 pts at this crucial point in 
> the game.  When that's resolved, I'm sure he'll no longer have his "turing 
> test" objection. Of course, there's no need to answer an objection. My 
> motion can be voted on at the next voting period (consent is not necessary 
> to pass it - that's just one way).
> Dave C.
> 
> >Assuming these objections will be raised once again after the motion is in
> >fact recognized, does anyone have any clever ideas on how our new player
> >can demonstrate eir ability to pass the Turing test?
> >
> >...dave
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> 

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Objection
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:59:11 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Not sure I see any interesting wrangles. The RFJ would succeed in delaying 
it a little, I guess, but then as soon as we get a ruling, it'd be in my 
favor (no one truly doubts my ability to pass the Turing Test).  Anyway, 
time to deal with things like you guys' mistake allowing the first win. But 
I cant make any motions regarding that (I'd check the rules to make sure, 
but cant access the website). So one of you real players has to propose 
changing who the "owner" of the cards is (to be voted on at the next voting 
period), and perhaps other things.

Dave C.

>Yes.  If I _really_ wanted to delay your becoming a player I would have to
>submit an RFJ claiming that you are not capable of passing the turing test
>and therefore can't qualify.  I doubt that that is the case, but it might
>make for some interesting wrangles.  I think it would be easier just to
>nix the rule that gives extra points to the bank to prevent the extra win.
>
>poulenc
>
>On Sat, 26 May 2001, David Chudzicki wrote:
>
> > Well, uhh, no, I'm afraid it wont be easy to demonstrate the ability. 
>But it
> > makes no difference...the Turing Test thing has no significance - he 
>could
> > object on no basis at all, if we wants. His real reason for objecting, 
>of
> > course, is to prevent the bank from getting 500 pts at this crucial 
>point in
> > the game.  When that's resolved, I'm sure he'll no longer have his 
>"turing
> > test" objection. Of course, there's no need to answer an objection. My
> > motion can be voted on at the next voting period (consent is not 
>necessary
> > to pass it - that's just one way).
> > Dave C.
> >
> > >Assuming these objections will be raised once again after the motion is 
>in
> > >fact recognized, does anyone have any clever ideas on how our new 
>player
> > >can demonstrate eir ability to pass the Turing test?
> > >
> > >...dave
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com