Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Is it really restarting?
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:29:00 -0800

On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:35:03PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 04:45:42PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > I just found A Nomic today, and I notice that you guys are considering
> > restarting.  Any ETA on that?
> > 
> > -Robin
> > 
> > -- 
> > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
> > le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
> > je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/
> 
> Egad. It's a small 'Net after all.
> 
> (I know Robin from the mailing list for the Lojban language, which
> incidentally I read right before this one.)
> -- 
> la rab.spir goi la prplbab
> noi ci'erkei la nomik

Heh heh.  Yeah, that is cool.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic: propose reset?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:37:13 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm still here and would be interested in playing again...

M'cachessilnath, The Insane One

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 14:48:32 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic: propose reset?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dave, it looks like we have the interest, but Joel doesn't have the
time. Are you working on a new Nomic site?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:51:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic: propose reset?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> Dave, it looks like we have the interest, but Joel doesn't have the
> time. Are you working on a new Nomic site?

I'm trying to do so, yeah.

I'm actually tempted to say "f--- it" to doing everything in a database
for now, just so we can get going again. (Oooh, headaches!)

More soon.

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic: propose reset? 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:08:26 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "David E. Smith":
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> > Dave, it looks like we have the interest, but Joel doesn't have the
> > time. Are you working on a new Nomic site?
> 
> I'm trying to do so, yeah.
> 
> I'm actually tempted to say "f--- it" to doing everything in a database
> for now, just so we can get going again. (Oooh, headaches!)
> 
> More soon.
> 
> ...dave

If you guys want an account for the new game, say so and I'll make one so 
you can get started. I didn't realize everyone was waiting for me---I 
thought I was waiting for everyone else to make a decision.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:12:24 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic: propose reset?
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 03:08:26PM -0600, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Thus spake "David E. Smith":
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote:
> > 
> > > Dave, it looks like we have the interest, but Joel doesn't have the
> > > time. Are you working on a new Nomic site?
> > 
> > I'm trying to do so, yeah.
> > 
> > I'm actually tempted to say "f--- it" to doing everything in a database
> > for now, just so we can get going again. (Oooh, headaches!)
> > 
> > More soon.
> > 
> > ...dave
> 
> If you guys want an account for the new game, say so and I'll make one
> so you can get started. I didn't realize everyone was waiting for
> me---I thought I was waiting for everyone else to make a decision.

I'm in.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:37:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic: propose reset?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > If you guys want an account for the new game, say so and I'll make one
> > so you can get started. I didn't realize everyone was waiting for
> > me---I thought I was waiting for everyone else to make a decision.

so!

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:18:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: slowly hacking away...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Anyone who's got a few minutes to kill, please take a look at:

http://www.technopagan.org/nomic/test.php

It's a more-or-less direct cut'n'paste of Rules 1-299 inclusive, in their
current state. Please point out any major gaping holes of logic that may
exist therein - i.e. references to things that don't exist within those
rules, and so on. (I know about the big batch of missing rule numbers, and
I may or may not bother to renumber 'em all.)

There will likely be a couple of changes to them before a new game goes
live - specifically, to make it easy to code everything in the database,
since I'm lazy, I'll probably just have one big set of serial numbers for
everything, starting at 300. (301 could be a motion, 302 could be a new
rule, 303 could be an RFJ, and so on.)

There will be much joy to be had.

(I'm also tempted to remove the whole notion of Nweeks, just using
standard calendar weeks instead, but I'm not sure if I want to do so. Any
opinions for/against?)

...dave

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

"Use anger to throw them into disarray." -- Sun Tzu

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:25:49 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: slowly hacking away...
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:18:22AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Anyone who's got a few minutes to kill, please take a look at:
> 
> http://www.technopagan.org/nomic/test.php
> 
> It's a more-or-less direct cut'n'paste of Rules 1-299 inclusive, in
> their current state. Please point out any major gaping holes of logic
> that may exist therein - i.e. references to things that don't exist
> within those rules, and so on. (I know about the big batch of missing
> rule numbers, and I may or may not bother to renumber 'em all.)

Why are you keeping so many of them?

As someone who hasn't played any other nomic, including A Nomic, I'd
kind of like to start simple.

> (I'm also tempted to remove the whole notion of Nweeks, just using
> standard calendar weeks instead, but I'm not sure if I want to do so.
> Any opinions for/against?)

They seemed a bit unnecessary to me.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:11:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: slowly hacking away...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> As someone who hasn't played any other nomic, including A Nomic, I'd
> kind of like to start simple.

Ironically, this IS starting fairly simple. Most of these rules will be
created in some form in the first couple weeks of play anyway - at least
they have been in just about every Nomic with which I'm familiar.

I printed them out, and I'm planning to pare a few things down. That, and
setting up a non-lousy interface so I can keep things running smoothly,
and I'll hopefully be set soonish.

Aside to Joel: Do you mind if I co-opt the existing spoon-* lists as the
official lists for B Nomic? Or would you prefer new lists to keep things
separate for the new game?

...dave

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:57:04 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: slowly hacking away...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:18:22AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> (I'm also tempted to remove the whole notion of Nweeks, just using
> standard calendar weeks instead, but I'm not sure if I want to do so. Any
> opinions for/against?)

I like the idea of Nweeks - it means that the time when most of the
stuff happens in the game happens on various days of the real week. But
perhaps the nweeks were too long. I say leave the rule as it is, and we
could amend the nweek rule to mean 8 days, or even be boring and just
use 7.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:11:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: initial ruleset
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think that we should try and start with as simple an initial ruleset as
possible, even if a lot of rules will be proposed and adopted within the
first two weeks.

It is a lot easier (especially for beginning players) to play a nomic game
from the ground up, because it gives you a chance to synthesize the rules
and what they mean over a period of time, instead of having to essentially
memorize them all at once.

I propose that the only rules we start with are those defining how rules
are proposed, voted on, and adopted. Nothing else. We can later
add rules about precedence (or not), judiciary/conflict resolution,
definitions about players, agents, scoring, objects, igm's, etc.

- Benjamin Bradley - "I don't want to be an ant anymore"
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:14:20 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: initial ruleset
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:11:46PM -0600, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> I propose that the only rules we start with are those defining how
> rules are proposed, voted on, and adopted. Nothing else. We can later
> add rules about precedence (or not), judiciary/conflict resolution,
> definitions about players, agents, scoring, objects, igm's, etc.

I agree, although I would add in a 'how to win' rule, I think.  Not sure
about that, though, since I'm a total newbie.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:47:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: initial ruleset
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Benjamin Bradley wrote:

> I think that we should try and start with as simple an initial ruleset as
> possible, even if a lot of rules will be proposed and adopted within the
> first two weeks.

I hear the Voice of the People! I'll roast a bunch of rules soonish, then
go through what's left to (hopefully) ensure we're reasonably free of
logical inconsistencies.

...dave

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: initial ruleset
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:51:24 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I think that we should try and start with as simple an initial
> > ruleset as possible, even if a lot of rules will be proposed and
> > adopted within the first two weeks.
>=20
> I hear the Voice of the People! I'll roast a bunch of rules soonish,
> then go through what's left to (hopefully) ensure we're reasonably
> free of logical inconsistencies.

I actually wrote a ruleset for a play-by-mail nomic game some time
ago. Unfortunately, I never had the time to actually start a game
myself. The ruleset is very similar to Peter Suber's original nomic
ruleset, modified mostly to allow non-sequential player actions.

It is divided up (like Peter Suber's original set) into a set of rules
I called "fundamental rules" and a set of "normal rules." The
fundamental ones are not immutable, but you need a larger majority to
change them. Also voting happens whenever a proponent decides that
voting should start. I actually prefer the idea of a ballot, but I
wanted to stay close to Peter Suber's rules when I wrote the ruleset.

Scoring is rather boring, every player gets a random number of points
every week. This is deliberate -- players should decide how they want
scoring to happen.

I am not aware of any logical inconsistencies, but as I said I never
actually played with those rules so I guess there are some minor
issues.

Joerg

Here's the ruleset:

Rule 1/0 (fundamental): Abide by the rules

All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the
form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set
are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of
rules 1-11 (fundamental rules) and rules 12-29 (non-fundamental
rules).

Rule 2/0 (fundamental): Players

Any person that has become a player in the manner prescribed by the
rules is a player until e decides to forfeit the game.

Rule 3/0 (fundamental): Rule changes

A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal or
amendment of an existing rule; (2) making a non-fundamental rule a
fundamental rule, or vice versa.

Rule 4/0 (fundamental): Voting

All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They
will be adopted in the exact form in which they were voted on if and
only if the required number of votes are in favor of the proposal.

Rule 5/0 (fundamental): Voters

Every player is an eligible voter. In each vote, each player may cast
exactly one vote.

Rule 6/0 (fundamental): No retroactive application

No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the
completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly
states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

Rule 7/0 (fundamental): Numbering

Numbered objects shall be given numbers for reference. The numbers
shall begin with 1, and each new numbered object shall receive the
next successive integer for numbered objects of the respective type.

Additionally, numbered objects that can be changed after creation
shall have a revision number, which shall initially be zero, and shall
be increased by one whenever the object is changed.

Rules are numbered objects.

Rule 8/0 (fundamental): Changing fundamental rules

Rule changes that change a fundamental rule may be adopted if and only
if at least two thirds of all players vote for the rule change.

Rule 9/0 (fundamental): Precedence of fundamental rules

Fundamental rules shall take precedence over other rules. Rules that
are in conflict with a fundamental rule have no effect.

Rule 10/0 (fundamental): Fair play

A player shall always have the option to forfeit the game rather than
continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than
losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

Rule 11/0 (fundamental): Freedom of play

Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and
unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is
permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly
permits it.

Rule 12/0: Time

The official game time is Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

Rule 13/0: Becoming a player

Any person may become a player by indicating in an official mailing
list eir desire to do so, and choosing a name e wishes to be known as.

Rule 14/0: Score

The score is the number of points a player has received, minus the
number of points a player has lost. The initial score of each player
is zero.

Rule 15/0: Winning

The winner is the first player to receive a positive score of 100.

Rule 16/0: Administrator

The administrator is the player whose real name is --NAME--.

The administrator is responsible for managing the mailing lists of the
game, receiving and counting votes, and publishing the voting
results. E may have additional responsibilities defined by other
rules.

Rule 17/0: Mailing lists

Mailing lists are the means by which players communicate. A mailing
list may be either official or inofficial. A mailing list is official
if the administrator defines it to be official. All players must
subscribe to all official mailing lists. Messages that must be sent to
all players shall be sent to an official mailing list.

There must at all times be at least one official mailing list.

Rule 18/0: Proposals

Any player may at any time propose a rule change by sending eir
proposal to an official mailing list.

Proposals that propose the creation or a fundamental rule must clearly
indicate this. If a proposal that does not clearly indicate that it
proposes the creation of a fundamental rule is adopted, it will create
a non-fundamental rule.

Proposals are numbered objects.

Rule 19/0: Debating proposals

After a player has made a proposal, e shall allow a reasonable time
for debating the proposal. The proponent decides the final form in
which the proposal is to be voted on and also decides the time to end
debate and vote.

Rule 20/0: Withdrawing proposals

The proponent may withdraw eir proposal at any time during the
debate. Proposals that are withdrawn are not voted on.

Rule 21/0: Voting

The voting period for a proposal starts when the proponent decides to
end the debate and vote. The voting period ends at the end of third
day after it started. During the voting period, each player may send
exactly one vote to the administrator or an official mailing list.

Rule 22/0: Couting votes

At the end of the voting periods, the administrator shall make public
the votes sent to em and calculate and publish the voting result.

Rule 23/0: Adopting proposals

A proposed rule change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of
players voted in favor of the proposal.

Rule 24/0: Effect of rule changes

An adopted rule change takes effect at the exact time at which the
adminstrator published the voting result for the vote on the
respective proposal.

Rule 25/0: Scoring

Once per week, the administrator shall award to each player a number
of points randomly chosen with equal probability from the range of one
to six.

Rule 26/0: Call for Judgement

A Call for Judgement (CFJ) is a statement to be judged. A CFJ can be
made by any player at any time by questioning the legality of a
player's action, or to request a clarification of the rules. The
player making the CFJ shall be known as the plaintiff, the player
whose move the plaintiff claims to be illegal, if any, shall be known
as the defendant.

Calls for Judgement are numbered objects and cannot be modified.

Rule 27/0: Judges

When a Call for Judgement has been made, the administrator shall
randomly select one player among the eligible players to be the
judge. Eligble players for the purpose of this rule are all players
but the defendant and the plaintiff. If that leaves no players
eligible to be the judge, all players are eligible.

Rule 28/0: Judgement

The judge shall, within one week after e was selected as the judge,
judge the statement in question as being either true or false or
reject the CFJ, and provide the other players with a legal analysis
that led to his decision. The judge may reject the CFJ only if the
statement in question is unclear or not related to the game.

A judgement cannot be modified. It shall be given the number given to
the CFJ it refers to.

Rule 29/0: Winning by making further play impossible

If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the
legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, then the player
who took the action in question or proposed the rule change that made
further play impossible shall win the game.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the
winner.

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:05:41 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: initial ruleset
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 11:51:24PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> > > I think that we should try and start with as simple an initial
> > > ruleset as possible, even if a lot of rules will be proposed and
> > > adopted within the first two weeks.
> > 
> > I hear the Voice of the People! I'll roast a bunch of rules soonish,
> > then go through what's left to (hopefully) ensure we're reasonably
> > free of logical inconsistencies.
> 
> I actually wrote a ruleset for a play-by-mail nomic game some time
> ago. Unfortunately, I never had the time to actually start a game
> myself. The ruleset is very similar to Peter Suber's original nomic
> ruleset, modified mostly to allow non-sequential player actions.

You know, I find myself liking the "rule set" used for Game 3 of Pure
Nomic:

http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Jake/Nomic/

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:30:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: initial ruleset
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> You know, I find myself liking the "rule set" used for Game 3 of Pure
> Nomic:

[ Game starts with only one rule: All players must agree to any changes to
the game. ]

IMO, that isn't overly feasible. Once you have more than a few players,
eventually one of 'em will have something happen, like a relative will die
or they'll get arrested or they'll get abducted by aliens and then the
whole game freezes up because, unless/until that player is returned to
Earth, or paroled, or whatever, pretty much by definition, nothing can
happen.

The obvious solution is for someone to quickly suggest a "majority rule"
addition, but then a malicious player could block its passage, and it's
all downhill from there.

To bring all this back round to Suber: I tend to believe that, for either
a Nomic or a constitutional government, at least SOME structure is needed.
More than that one rule, less than one trillion words, finding a good
balance is the tricky bit. :-)

I'm going with a fairly simple "majority rule" rule in place for the start
of B Nomic, unless something really really cool comes along and someone is
really really persuasive.

To address scoring: I've only got a "1000 points wins" rule. I haven't
defined how players actually score points; this is by design.

The ruleset has been trimmed. The only major internal inconsistency right
now is that I haven't yet defined what a Motion is, even though I've got
rules for how one passes etc. (Aside: I'm only worried about internal
inconsistencies because I want the game to start somewhat in a rational
state. After that, it's a free-for-all, natch.)

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: slowly hacking away... 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:57:27 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "David E. Smith":
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> 
> Aside to Joel: Do you mind if I co-opt the existing spoon-* lists as the
> official lists for B Nomic? Or would you prefer new lists to keep things
> separate for the new game?
> 
> ...dave

Sure, no prob. I was assuming everyone would continue using the spoon lists.

Real Soon Now(tm) I'll make a nomic.net account for the new game, too.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:28:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Would anyone object if we just dispense with some 90% of those annoying
rules and just go with the Imperial Nomic rules?

(Some version of
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/27/Initial_Rules.html probably)

Pro: We don't have to worry about voting and all that silly stuff.
Con (well, maybe): I get to be an insane fascist. ;)

I was just browsing the NomicWiki this morning and that just suddenly
struck me as being a very cool idea, but I want to know what people are
interested in before going.

...dave

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

"Use anger to throw them into disarray." -- Sun Tzu

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:56:36 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:54PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Would anyone object if we just dispense with some 90% of those
> annoying rules and just go with the Imperial Nomic rules?
> 
> (Some version of
> http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/27/Initial_Rules.html
> probably)
> 
> Pro: We don't have to worry about voting and all that silly stuff.
> Con (well, maybe): I get to be an insane fascist. ;)
> 
> I was just browsing the NomicWiki this morning and that just suddenly
> struck me as being a very cool idea, but I want to know what people
> are interested in before going.

Ummm, I have no idea how a game like that would actually play.  It seems
that TIE could more-or-less just declare emself the winner.  What's the
point?

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:55:51 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:54PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> > Would anyone object if we just dispense with some 90% of those
> > annoying rules and just go with the Imperial Nomic rules?
> > 
> > (Some version of
> > http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/27/Initial_Rules.html
> > probably)
> 
> Ummm, I have no idea how a game like that would actually play.  It seems
> that TIE could more-or-less just declare emself the winner.  What's the
> point?
> 
Technicaly, TIE could do exaclty that, but probably wont, as it would
spoil eir fun as well. Attraction of being TIE (or equivalent) is
watching the nomic evolve, plus being incedibly dictatorial :)

I say go for it.

cheers,
Iain Scott
"I have taken a vow of poverty. To anoy me, send money"

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:19:11 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:54PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Would anyone object if we just dispense with some 90% of those annoying
> rules and just go with the Imperial Nomic rules?
> 
> (Some version of
> http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/27/Initial_Rules.html probably)
> 
> Pro: We don't have to worry about voting and all that silly stuff.
> Con (well, maybe): I get to be an insane fascist. ;)
> 
> I was just browsing the NomicWiki this morning and that just suddenly
> struck me as being a very cool idea, but I want to know what people are
> interested in before going.

I fail to see the point of an Imperial Nomic.

Part of the fun of Nomic is to get other people to accept a rule which
subtly works to your advantage, and to balance the interest of the game
as a whole with your own self-interest.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:23:47 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 06:19:11PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:54PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> > Would anyone object if we just dispense with some 90% of those
> > annoying rules and just go with the Imperial Nomic rules?
> > 
> > (Some version of
> > http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/27/Initial_Rules.html
> > probably)
> > 
> > Pro: We don't have to worry about voting and all that silly stuff.
> > Con (well, maybe): I get to be an insane fascist. ;)
> > 
> > I was just browsing the NomicWiki this morning and that just
> > suddenly struck me as being a very cool idea, but I want to know
> > what people are interested in before going.
> 
> I fail to see the point of an Imperial Nomic.
> 
> Part of the fun of Nomic is to get other people to accept a rule which
> subtly works to your advantage, and to balance the interest of the
> game as a whole with your own self-interest.

That was kind of my feeling as well.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/

Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 02:08:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Ummm, I have no idea how a game like that would actually play.  It seems
> that TIE could more-or-less just declare emself the winner.  What's the
> point?

Customarily, that person doesn't actually play... it can be a bit
difficult to be impartial under such circumstances.

Heck, I wasn't planning on playing - just being the admin-type-person.
I'll still have fun just watching, believe it or not..

...dave

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:12:42 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Ummm, I have no idea how a game like that would actually play.  It
> > seems that TIE could more-or-less just declare emself the winner.
> > What's the point?
> 
> Customarily, that person doesn't actually play... it can be a bit
> difficult to be impartial under such circumstances.
> 
> Heck, I wasn't planning on playing - just being the admin-type-person.
> I'll still have fun just watching, believe it or not..

Huh.  OK, that's a bit different, I guess.  But I still am with Rob that
a lot of the fun is tricking people into voting for something you can
use against them.

Anyone else going to speak up?

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP 				http://www.lojban.org/