Subject: spoon-discuss: online again
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 01:59:16 -0500

Hey, everyone. I just restored my internet connection this morning, no 
thanks to Ameritech. Trying to make the DSL router happy set me back a 
little in getting to the nomic stuff, but since I had just started on it 
when the router conked out, it's still on top of my stack. So, baring any 
new disasters, I'll begin the catch-up in the morning. I appreciate your 
patience, everyone; were I in your position, I might not have so much. :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: sorting things out
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:45:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm having a lot of trouble sorting things out, since there are 200+ 
messages in the TODO queue. I'm trying to chip away at it right now...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Go Move 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:39:14 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jeff Schroeder:
> I take my free stone for the week and play it at L16.  Zagarna had accepted 
> my alliance so the board below should be correct.

I checked, and he didn't accept on the business list.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: motions, proposals, rule updates
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:59:00 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I know there are a lot of Motions to Add Players, make Trivial Amendments, 
and such out there right now, as well as a few Proposals and outstanding 
Judgments. And then there's that business with PurpleBob getting a win... 
(I took care of Go first because it got the most messages out of the game 
box in the least time, in case anyone was wondering.) All of the above will 
be next...

More to come, possibly this evening. (Depends on how a small bit of coding 
goes.)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So, did I win? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:15:45 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> Joel, as soon as you're caught up with the business for the past few weeks,
> could you start assigning some of the RFJs we have? IIRC, there's one that
> tries to claim I didn't win because I broke the spirit of a rule I wrote, and
> there's one I made which attempts to determine whether Debts still exist afte
> r scores reset (I think they shouldn't).
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Sure. Once I've determined the present state of the Ruleset, pretty much 
everything else---Motions, RFJs, and all---can be handled concurrently.

Hmm. So, it occurs to me that we need to look into what exactly resets 
after a win, and if that would mean the Go board is wiped clean. If so, 
we'd need to decide whether to reinstate it as it stands now, or start from 
scratch. If we do the latter, I think it might be wise to reduce the size 
of the board, since the pace of play hasn't yet caused the board congestion 
that makes Go interesting.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:21:15 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So, did I win?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:15:45AM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Sure. Once I've determined the present state of the Ruleset, pretty much 
> everything else---Motions, RFJs, and all---can be handled concurrently.
> 
> Hmm. So, it occurs to me that we need to look into what exactly resets 
> after a win, and if that would mean the Go board is wiped clean. If so, 
> we'd need to decide whether to reinstate it as it stands now, or start from 
> scratch. If we do the latter, I think it might be wise to reduce the size 
> of the board, since the pace of play hasn't yet caused the board congestion 
> that makes Go interesting.

The rules under "Winning" say nothing about Objects being reset, only Scores.
My argument is that Scores are defined to be collections of Points, Debts are
also collections of Points, and thus Debts are Scores and should be reset.

Plus, it makes life so much easier if we don't start with miscellaneous debts
to deal with.
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: judgments, etc.
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:53:57 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I should be able to get everything current by tomorrow evening, just to 
give everyone fair warning. Hopefully things will pick up from there... :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: On win conditions 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:04:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> 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 elit
> e
> 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 essentiall
> y
> 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 cou
> ld
> tell which rule would be my 20th, or because nobody believed there was any wa
> y
> 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 les
> s
> obscenely expensive. The winning score should then be set to 1000 because of
> the inflationary effect of the above.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer

I'd be in favor of all of what you mentioned above...

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Looks like I win again 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:41:58 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> It has been over 2 days (9, in fact) since Miggsy Fox made a Motion to be add
> ed
> to the game as 'Ectomorph', and nobody objected. Hence, it seems that Ectomor
> ph
> is now a player, and thus the bank gets $500.
> 
> I attain 500 points in Pooker by playing 5 Five-of-a-Kinds and 2 Full Houses,
> as follows:
> 
> A 5-of-a-kind of all the 3s in the Red deck plus the Blue 3 of Hearts, and
> similarly for 4s, 5s, 8s, and 9s;
> in the Red deck: the King of Hearts, King of Spades, King of Diamonds, Queen 
> of
> Hearts, and Queen of Clubs;
> and in the Blue deck: the King of Hearts, King of Spades, King of Diamonds,
> Queen of Hearts, and Queen of Clubs.
> 
> I make the (demonstrably true) assumption that nobody can exceed my Pooker
> score, and so I claim 500 points, which are transferred from the bank.
> 
> Thus having 500 points and 20 rules, I win again.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Oh, damn. I forgot about that, or otherwise I'd have objected. I hope 
Zagarna assigns Judges to those RFJs soon...

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:14:09 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Looks like I win again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 06:41:58PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Oh, damn. I forgot about that, or otherwise I'd have objected. I hope 
> Zagarna assigns Judges to those RFJs soon...

I know you've got enough jobs already, but couldn't you declare yourself Deputy
OSJ and get on with things?

As much as I enjoy winning, we need to get the game out of a state where new
players are discouraged from joining.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:18:40 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Looks like I win again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:33:25PM +0200, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> Note that a "Hand" is not necessarily the same as a "Poker Hand", as a Player may, during showdown, chose how to arrange eir cards into Poker Hands (rule 396/0). It will be up to the Judge to decide whether "Poker Hands" and "Hands" are the same.

I defined "Poker Hand" to mean one thing and "Hand" to mean another, and their
definitions did not refer to each other in any way. How could they be the same?

Are they the same as a clock hand too, because they involve the same word?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:20:45 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Some new proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:33:23PM +0200, J?rg Rathlev wrote:
> - remove all Go stones from the board and transfer all Go stones to the bank,
> 
> - cancel all alliances between Go players,

Why do this? I liked how the Go game was going. Furthermore, I don't see why
the Go game would be reset if I won - Go stones are not scores.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:36:52 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Looks like I win again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:33:25PM +0200, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> Note that a "Hand" is not necessarily the same as a "Poker Hand", as a Player may, during showdown, chose how to arrange eir cards into Poker Hands (rule 396/0). It will be up to the Judge to decide whether "Poker Hands" and "Hands" are the same.

Additionally, if Hands and Poker Hands are the same, watch what happens.

Rule 397 says:
"A Player may arrange eir PCards into more than one Poker Hand if it would
result in a higher Score or if e owns more than five PCards."

So a player who owns more than 5 Pcards is explicitly permitted to arrange them
into more than one Poker Hand. Let's say e makes 2 Poker Hands out of eir Hand.

Since Poker Hands are parts of an arrangement of PCards, a PCard could not be
in more than one Poker Hand simultaneously.

Since Poker Hands are equivalent to Hands, each Poker Hand contains all the
cards this player owns.

So all eir PCards are in both Poker Hands while simultaneously not being in
both. Therefore, true implies false, following the rules implies not following
the rules, logic ceases to exist, and every event that could never possibly
happen in the Nomic happens simultaneously.

That's not good. So whoever gets that RFJ, be sure to rule it false.
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Some new proposals 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:49:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:33:23PM +0200, J?rg Rathlev wrote:
> > - remove all Go stones from the board and transfer all Go stones to the ban
> k,
> > 
> > - cancel all alliances between Go players,
> 
> Why do this? I liked how the Go game was going. Furthermore, I don't see why
> the Go game would be reset if I won - Go stones are not scores.
> -- 
> Rob Speer

They are objects, though. And objects might revert to their original owners 
when someone wins. I'm not certain, I need to check on this. I would prefer 
to keep the Go Board as it is as well.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: voting
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:52:48 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Voting just started a bit ago. I'll be getting a ballot out later this 
evening when I return from running errands.

Also, if those RFJs aren't assigned when I get back, I'll see what I can do 
about assigning them myself.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:40:09 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 03:21:58PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> P465/0, Fix the Showdown, PurpleBob

This is amusing. I'd forgotten that was still there. I made this one assuming
that Pooker would eventually be fixed so there might actually be a contested
Showdown and I'd stop winning. Instead, it appears that Pooker is being utterly
destroyed, making this proposal rather irrelevant.

-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 26 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:54:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 03:21:58PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> > P465/0, Fix the Showdown, PurpleBob
> 
> This is amusing. I'd forgotten that was still there. I made this one assuming
> that Pooker would eventually be fixed so there might actually be a contested
> Showdown and I'd stop winning. Instead, it appears that Pooker is being utter
> ly
> destroyed, making this proposal rather irrelevant.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer

I still like the idea of Pooker, so long as it is fixed properly. Who knows 
how many of us will vote, let alone vote to eliminate Pooker?

-- 
J.

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop recognition
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:58:33 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What about my earlier motion to be added as a player? Doesnt that need to be 
voted on? Someone objected, so no unanimous consent...but it can pass by a 
vote.

Dave C.

>From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-business: Prop recognition
>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:10:33 -0500
>
>The following Proposals are recognized:
>
>P470/0, No Pooker, Joerg
>P471/0, Reset the game, Joerg
>P467/2, Remove the debt system, Joerg
>P471/1, Reset the game, Joerg
>
>--
>J.
>
>

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

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop recognition
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:59:33 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I apologize...missed the following email that does seem to recognize my 
proposal. Ignore my last post.

Sorry,
Dave C.

>From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-business: Prop recognition
>Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:10:33 -0500
>
>The following Proposals are recognized:
>
>P470/0, No Pooker, Joerg
>P471/0, Reset the game, Joerg
>P467/2, Remove the debt system, Joerg
>P471/1, Reset the game, Joerg
>
>--
>J.
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:14:26 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Jeff Schroeder <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 04:21 PM 6/16/2001, you wrote:
>(My internet connection stopped working last night, or I would have had the
>ballot out then. Grr.)

That sucks, is the DSL up there really as bad as it seems?

>P465/0, Fix the Showdown, PurpleBob

no

>P466/0, Awards and Fines should be known before voting starts, Joerg

yes

>P467/2, Remove the debt system, Joerg

yes

>P468/0, Go moves fix, Joerg

yes

>P469/0, [no title], Dave

yes

>P470/0, No Pooker, Joerg

yes

>P471/1, Reset the game, Joerg

yes

Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:31:08 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:58:33AM -0000, David Chudzicki wrote:
> What about my earlier motion to be added as a player? Doesnt that need to be 
> voted on? Someone objected, so no unanimous consent...but it can pass by a 
> vote.

It really doesn't matter. Looking at the discussion for this week, it appears
that we only have 4 active players now. There might be more who just aren't
saying anything and who would still vote, but quorum happens to be set at 11
players, and I doubt we'll make that.

Joel, could you make next nweek's vote a quorum vote?

Furthermore, could you assign the RFJs in place of the apparently absent
Zagarna?
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop recognition 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:31:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:58:33AM -0000, David Chudzicki wrote:
> > What about my earlier motion to be added as a player? Doesnt that need to b
> e 
> > voted on? Someone objected, so no unanimous consent...but it can pass by a 
> > vote.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Looking at the discussion for this week, it appears
> that we only have 4 active players now. There might be more who just aren't
> saying anything and who would still vote, but quorum happens to be set at 11
> players, and I doubt we'll make that.
> 
> Joel, could you make next nweek's vote a quorum vote?

This nweek's vote is a quorum vote. I announced that a few days ago.
 
> Furthermore, could you assign the RFJs in place of the apparently absent
> Zagarna?
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Getting there...

-- 
J.

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:37:25 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:31:53AM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Quoth Rob Speer:
> > 
> > Joel, could you make next nweek's vote a quorum vote?
> 
> This nweek's vote is a quorum vote. I announced that a few days ago.

Ah, okay, I missed that. Cool.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 26
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:59:19 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:21:58 -0500, you wrote:

my votes
>
>P465/0, Fix the Showdown, PurpleBob
yes
>P466/0, Awards and Fines should be known before voting starts, Joerg
yes
>P467/2, Remove the debt system, Joerg
yes
>P468/0, Go moves fix, Joerg
abstain
>P469/0, [no title], Dave
yes
>P470/0, No Pooker, Joerg
no
>P471/1, Reset the game, Joerg
yes
--=20
A.D.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ on the most recent ballot 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:56:13 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth "David E. Smith":
> I request an RFJ on this statement:
> 
> "The player known as Dave, as of one second past the end of nweek 26, owns
> three Rules."
> 
> Plaintiff's analysis:
> 
> Proposal 471/1 transferred ownership of all Rules to the Bank. So, this
> would seem to be a nice simple "FALSE" ruling, right?
> 
> But. (You knew that one was coming, didn't you.)
> 
> I cannot find any reference in the current Rules that defines the order or
> timing of how Rules come into existence.
> 
> I posit that all passed proposals take effect simultaneously; therefore,
> the three Rules which I would own as a result of Proposal 469/0 passing
> are in fact mine, and not included in the effects of 471.
> 
> This also means that PurpleBob owns 1 rule and Joerg owns 12 or so rules
> (I lost count somewhere in the middle of wading through P467/2), all per
> Rule 326/0.
> 
> Since it affects that player so heavily, under Rule 236/1 I request that
> Joerg NOT be assigned this RFJ.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> ...dave

See R313/0.

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:14:46 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Another Pooker showdown? Nah.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It would seem that things just played nicely into my hands. Pooker was not
changed in a way that would prevent the Dealer from making a showdown, the Bank
has mucho points, and the game-resetting thing reset the ownership of _all_
cards to me. I could claim any number of points I wanted to with a Showdown.

But I won't. I'm not going to show any Cards. Not even a lousy pair.

Part of the reason is that it seems people were decieved by my proposal
entitled "Fix the Showdown". This proposal does not "fix" the Showdown in the
most important way, by preventing the Dealer from participating. But enough
people voted for that one and against "No Pooker" because they probably felt it
was safe to do so.

Another part of the reason is that we've just gotten a nice, fresh start, and
by claiming more Points I'd just screw that up. While I maintain that my
previous two wins were entirely legit, another Showdown would violate the
"spirit" of the game however you care to define it.

Another part of the reason is simply self-interest - if I had any sort of
advantage over the rest of the players, I'd never get to pass my forthcoming
Proposal adjusting the win conditions of the game.

So now we truly are on even ground. There is no reason for me to leverage the
Pooker rule anymore, so I'll be coming up with a real fix to that soon as well.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:02:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Change the win conditions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> 1. Change Rule 211/2 to the following:
> "Whenever a Player's score reaches or exceeds 1000 points, the Administrator
> shall credit em with a Win."

Hmm... seems a bit inflationary, don't you think?

> [[ You may notice the lack of any requirement based on owning Rules. ]]

Why yes, I did in fact notice that. :-)

There's plenty of arguments in favor of dropping the rules-ownership
requirement, and I can't yet think of any against. But why increase the
score criterion to a grand?

> 2. Change the first paragraph of Rule 323/1 to:
> "Once per nweek, the Banker may set the Point value of the Adopted Proposal
> Award such that its value is no less than 15 and no greater than 30, and may
> set the Point value of the Opposed Minority Award such that its value is no
> less than zero and no greater than 10."

Same thing, more-or-less. Seems like you're just making lots of numbers
bigger. What do you, or us, or the game as a whole, gain from this?

...dave

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Change the win conditions
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:06:20 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

One effect that seems to have is to make presently held debts less 
significant (which may or may not be relevant, depending on whether debts 
will still exist).

Dave C.

>Same thing, more-or-less. Seems like you're just making lots of numbers
>bigger. What do you, or us, or the game as a whole, gain from this?
>
>...dave
>

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

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:10:08 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Change the win conditions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:02:00AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> > 1. Change Rule 211/2 to the following:
> > "Whenever a Player's score reaches or exceeds 1000 points, the Administrator
> > shall credit em with a Win."
> 
> Hmm... seems a bit inflationary, don't you think?
> 
> > [[ You may notice the lack of any requirement based on owning Rules. ]]
> 
> Why yes, I did in fact notice that. :-)
> 
> There's plenty of arguments in favor of dropping the rules-ownership
> requirement, and I can't yet think of any against. But why increase the
> score criterion to a grand?
> 
> > 2. Change the first paragraph of Rule 323/1 to:
> > "Once per nweek, the Banker may set the Point value of the Adopted Proposal
> > Award such that its value is no less than 15 and no greater than 30, and may
> > set the Point value of the Opposed Minority Award such that its value is no
> > less than zero and no greater than 10."
> 
> Same thing, more-or-less. Seems like you're just making lots of numbers
> bigger. What do you, or us, or the game as a whole, gain from this?

Well, it seemed that if getting proposals passed (which counting rules was a
really lousy way of measuring) was such an important part of winning, it should
still be under the new win conditions. The effect of inflating the numbers is
to make other score increases/deductions less significant. My reasoning was
that, eventually, people would stop opposing someone's proposals because e was
getting too many points, and at that point e'd either need to make really good
proposals or make up the remaining points with other methods.

Now that I think about it, though, this just reinforces drastic manipulations
of the scoring system (like what I did) as the only realistic way to win. So
the increased numbers don't accomplish all that much. I'll modify my proposal.

As for what I gain from this, hopefully nothing. As I've said, I don't
especially want a head start while everything else is being reset.

(Incidentally, I see nothing in the rules which says anything happens to
Objects when the game resets. So why is there any doubt that the Go board is
intact?)
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:12:59 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Change the win conditions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 03:06:20AM -0000, David Chudzicki wrote:
> One effect that seems to have is to make presently held debts less 
> significant (which may or may not be relevant, depending on whether debts 
> will still exist).

Well, that's not an issue. Because of Joerg's "reset the game" proposal, they
quite definitely don't.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:44:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: winning
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

it seems to me that most of the fun of Nomic comes from the playing and
the winning (as we have it set up) is just a trivial measure of who's been
the most active.

I would like to see winning take on the role of an award for 'most
manipulative' - getting back to the roots of suber's game in which one
could win if the game was brought to a standstill because of paradox or
other such zaniness.

any more votes for manipulation vs simple activity?

- Benjamin Bradley - "these strange things happen all the time"
- 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: Change the win conditions
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:33:02 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

> Well, it seemed that if getting proposals passed (which 
> counting rules was a
> really lousy way of measuring) was such an important part of 
> winning, it should

	<snip!>

When I added the ownership of rules, the addition of the 'number of rules'
condition to the win rule was really only a side issue as far as I was
concerned. Once we'd established rule ownership I was planning to add things
on the end of rules that only affected the owner of the rule. For example
you could add a bit to the pooker showdown rule that said "Whenever a player
plays three of a kind or higher, the owner of this rule gets dealt an extra
card". It could add an extra twist to the game. I just never actually got
round to proposing such things. You can't really propose them on their own,
cos nobody will vote for them, so you have to include them in larger
proposals.

I'm going to drop out of the game soon anyway, I've got some more important
stuff to worry about. Turns out I'm gonna be a Dad!

--
The Kid

From: "David Chudzicki" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: winning
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:54:27 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I agree completely! Having little experience with both nomic in general, and 
with this nomic, it does seem the the point might be missed in a way. Of 
course, it could be harder to "get the point" on the internet, but I would 
like to see a change to the sort of thing Ben is suggesting. (Oh and Ben, it 
isnt *impossible* to be manipulative with this nomic, as seen by the 
previous two wins...but that sort of thing is rare, isnt it?)

Dave C.

>From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: spoon-discuss: winning
>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:44:04 -0500 (CDT)
>
>it seems to me that most of the fun of Nomic comes from the playing and
>the winning (as we have it set up) is just a trivial measure of who's been
>the most active.
>
>I would like to see winning take on the role of an award for 'most
>manipulative' - getting back to the roots of suber's game in which one
>could win if the game was brought to a standstill because of paradox or
>other such zaniness.
>
>any more votes for manipulation vs simple activity?
>
>- Benjamin Bradley - "these strange things happen all the time"
>- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
>- whee life what a rush
>

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:40:14 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: winning
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:44:04AM -0500, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> it seems to me that most of the fun of Nomic comes from the playing and
> the winning (as we have it set up) is just a trivial measure of who's been
> the most active.
> 
> I would like to see winning take on the role of an award for 'most
> manipulative' - getting back to the roots of suber's game in which one
> could win if the game was brought to a standstill because of paradox or
> other such zaniness.
> 
> any more votes for manipulation vs simple activity?

Well, the "making the game unplayable" way of winning still exists. (And it's a
damn good thing it does. I heard of one Nomic where it became impossible to
make a Proposal, and there was no rule about winning by maknig the game
unplayable - so they're hypothetically all still playing the Nomic and nobody
can ever win.)

In fact, I wonder - if Joerg's RFC (that Poker Hands and Hands were the same)
hadn't been withdrawn and was ruled TRUE, who would have won? The Judge who
ruled it true, Joerg for making it, or me for pointing out the paradox?

Anyway, keep in mind that it seems no Nomic has ever been won by simply
accumulating points anyway; but the more points you have, the more subtle your
manipulations can be to make up the rest of the points.

I get the feeling that from here on, people are going to look very carefully at
any rule (like Pooker) that has the potential in any way to make a large number
of points change hands.
-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: winning 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:51:18 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:44:04AM -0500, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> > it seems to me that most of the fun of Nomic comes from the playing and
> > the winning (as we have it set up) is just a trivial measure of who's been
> > the most active.
> > 
> > I would like to see winning take on the role of an award for 'most
> > manipulative' - getting back to the roots of suber's game in which one
> > could win if the game was brought to a standstill because of paradox or
> > other such zaniness.
> > 
> > any more votes for manipulation vs simple activity?
> 
> Well, the "making the game unplayable" way of winning still exists. (And it's
>  a
> damn good thing it does. I heard of one Nomic where it became impossible to
> make a Proposal, and there was no rule about winning by maknig the game
> unplayable - so they're hypothetically all still playing the Nomic and nobody
> can ever win.)
> 
> In fact, I wonder - if Joerg's RFC (that Poker Hands and Hands were the same)
> hadn't been withdrawn and was ruled TRUE, who would have won? The Judge who
> ruled it true, Joerg for making it, or me for pointing out the paradox?
> 
> Anyway, keep in mind that it seems no Nomic has ever been won by simply
> accumulating points anyway; but the more points you have, the more subtle you
> r
> manipulations can be to make up the rest of the points.
> 
> I get the feeling that from here on, people are going to look very carefully 
> at
> any rule (like Pooker) that has the potential in any way to make a large numb
> er
> of points change hands.
> -- 
> Rob Speer

Maybe for a while, but then people seem to forget again. I recall one of my 
wins in Berserker netting me in excess of a million points because I was 
treasurer. Heh.

-- 
J.

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: winning
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:09:17 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:44:04 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:

>I would like to see winning take on the role of an award for 'most
>manipulative' - getting back to the roots of suber's game in which one
>could win if the game was brought to a standstill because of paradox or
>other such zaniness.
>
>any more votes for manipulation vs simple activity?

count me in :)
--=20
A.D.

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: some rfjs recognized 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:26:32 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Antonio:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:57:35 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >the following RFJs are recognized:
> >
> >46/0: No point objects and no debt objects currently exist.
> >	assigned to M'cachessilnath
> >
> >47/0: 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.
> >	assigned to Aranor
> >
> >48/0: 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
> >	assigned to Joel
> >
> >sorry for the wait...
> 
> Aranor is recused from judgement on RFJ n=B047
> Joel is recused from Judjement on RFJ n=B048
> 
> RFJ n=B0 47 is assigned to The Kid
> 
> RFJ n=B0 48 is assigned to Jeff Schroeder
> --=20
> A.D.

Woah, sorry. I didn't notice that one had been assigned to me.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Banker 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:47:58 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Rathlev?=:
> I just wanted to remind you that I'm still nominated as the banker. I =
> just never became a ballot item yet...
> 
> 
> J=F6rg

Good, I was hoping someone would remind me of that. I've been a little 
side-tracked this week due to some other projects...

-- 
J.

From: "Harrison, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: some rfjs recognized
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:16:13 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I was wondering how long it would take people to notice that ;-) When I =
went
to reply I was originally going to say that I shouldn't be judge, but I
thought it'd be more fun to pass the judgement and see what happened. I
don't think there is any way for me to recind the judgement, so you're =
going
to have to sort it out with RFJs and judicial orders ;-)

--
The Kid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Schroeder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 26 June 2001 02:51
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: spoon-business: some rfjs recognized
>=20
>=20
> Wait a minute, didn't The Kid make RFJ 47?
> I want a RFJ on the following statement, "The judgement on RFJ 47 is=20
> invalid because the selection of The Kid as Judge violated=20
> Rule 236/1."
>=20
> Rule 236/1 states:
> "The following are excluded from serving as Judges on a=20
> Request for Judgment:
>=20
>       1. the Plaintiff
>       2. Judges previously recused from the Request
>       3. any one Player that the Plantiff requests be recused=20
> from the Request
>=20
>       If these exclusions leave no Players eligible to serve=20
> as Judge,=20
> exclusions may be waived from highest-numbered to lowest=20
> until at least one=20
> Player becomes eligible."
>=20
> The Kid made the Request for Judgement on May 10, 2001, and=20
> since there is=20
> more than one Player in the game, he can never be selected as=20
> Judge.  Not=20
> every eligible Player was selected, in addition, the=20
> previously recused=20
> Judges must be selected again to judge before he can be considered.
>=20
> jeff
> At 04:31 AM 6/25/2001, you wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >
> > > >47/0: As the Rules cannot be scrutinised to determine=20
> 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.
> > > >     assigned to Aranor
> >
> > > Aranor is recused from judgement on RFJ n=B047
> > > RFJ n=B0 47 is assigned to The Kid
> >
> >I rule TRUE.
> >I make the following Judicial Orders: PurbleBob's win may=20
> not be officially
> >recognised until all RFJs pertaining to his actions are=20
> completed. The
> >deadline for making RFJs on his win is set at one nweek from=20
> this judgement.
> >
> >--
> >The Kid
>=20
>=20

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: some rfjs recognized
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:07:46 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:51:26 -0400, you wrote:

>Wait a minute, didn't The Kid make RFJ 47?
>I want a RFJ on the following statement, "The judgement on RFJ 47 is=20
>invalid because the selection of The Kid as Judge violated Rule 236/1."
>
[[OOps!
that was a serious blunder, completely my fault. Sorry.]]

Recognized as RFJ N=B0 49 and assigned to Dave.

--=20
zagarna

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RFJ recognized
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:21:52 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:51:26 -0400, you wrote:

>Wait a minute, didn't The Kid make RFJ 47?
>I want a RFJ on the following statement, "The judgement on RFJ 47 is=20
>invalid because the selection of The Kid as Judge violated Rule 236/1."
>
>Rule 236/1 states:
>"The following are excluded from serving as Judges on a Request for =
Judgment:
>
>      1. the Plaintiff
>      2. Judges previously recused from the Request
>      3. any one Player that the Plantiff requests be recused from the =
Request
>
>      If these exclusions leave no Players eligible to serve as Judge,=20
>exclusions may be waived from highest-numbered to lowest until at least =
one=20
>Player becomes eligible."
>
>The Kid made the Request for Judgement on May 10, 2001, and since there =
is=20
>more than one Player in the game, he can never be selected as Judge.  =
Not=20
>every eligible Player was selected, in addition, the previously recused=20
>Judges must be selected again to judge before he can be considered.
>
>jeff

Recognized as RFJ N=B0 49 and assigned to Dave.

...Sending it to the business list too :|
--=20
zagarna
--=20
A.D.

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