Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
From: Jorg Rathlev <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:02:33 +0100

> 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.

Yes. I agree.

Joerg

From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:28:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: a wacky idea

> > > 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?

Sure I will.

As a former TIE myself, Imperial Nomic can be alot of fun if played right.
The main benefit of Impnom is that it is much faster with only one person to
decide what passes or fails.  There also is no real worry of TIE being too
heavy handed with eir decisions as obviously e must keep it fun for eir
players.

True nomic is not necessarily better than Imperial Nomic or vice-versa.  Its
just different.  Its  a good temporary diversion as well since games or
cycles are generally much shorter in comparison to true nomic.

Count me in :)

Joel

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:33:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, I've got a nice polished ruleset worked out, I hope. Look at

http://www.nomic.net/~g6/

And if everyone thinks we're ready, I'll officially launch B Nomic
tomorrow or so.

...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, 4 Dec 2001 17:40:46 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:33:16PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Okay, I've got a nice polished ruleset worked out, I hope. Look at
> 
> http://www.nomic.net/~g6/
> 
> And if everyone thinks we're ready, I'll officially launch B Nomic
> tomorrow or so.

I disagree with rule 1. 'B Nomic' is not nearly as ambiguous as 'A
Nomic', and the rules should not cause a reference to 'B nomic' to fail.
Only the first sentence of the rule is necessary.

But it's not something I'd hold up the game over. In fact, I might just
propose that modification once the game starts.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:01:26 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Okay, I've got a nice polished ruleset worked out, I hope. Look at
> 
> http://www.nomic.net/~g6/

Uhh, "Motion" isn't defined anywhere.

Joerg

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:20:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Jorg Rathlev wrote:

> > Okay, I've got a nice polished ruleset worked out, I hope. Look at
> >
> > http://www.nomic.net/~g6/
>
> Uhh, "Motion" isn't defined anywhere.

So far as I can tell, it wasn't defined anywhere in the ending ruleset of
A Nomic either. (It was covered under Rule 120/0, but that rule was
rendered obsolete long before I joined the game.)

The text of that rule sorta implies a whole bunch of other rules as well.
Here it is:

"A Motion consists of one or more potential Motive Orders, as specified in
the Rules specific to the Motion.

Motions may be Privileged or Restricted. Privileged Motions may be made by
any Player at any time, while Restricted Motions may be made only as
specified in their respective Rules. Motions are revisable.

Every motion must have a unique Motion number. The base Motion number is
1."

That rule, by its letter, also requires the definition of Motive Order;
I'm trying to avoid having a 50+ rule initial ruleset here, friend. :)

Point taken, though. Is this sufficiently clear?

"A Motion is a formal request for a change in the Rules, and must dictate,
as precisely as possible, the nature of the rule changes to be enacted
upon its successful passage."

This deliberately ignores most other types of motions, which will no doubt
come into being soon enough. :)

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:30:15 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:01:26 +0100, Jorg Rathlev <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Okay, I've got a nice polished ruleset worked out, I hope. Look at
>> 
>> http://www.nomic.net/~g6/
>
>Uhh, "Motion" isn't defined anywhere.
>
Hey, I was going to say that!

also, a minor typo in rule 1:
....the second word capitalised may be take in this context, sinc.... 
                                           ^
                                           |
a missing "n"                             here
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o       __)    ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o   \o    |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |    ( \  /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:34:30 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:20:36 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
>Point taken, though. Is this sufficiently clear?
>
>"A Motion is a formal request for a change in the Rules, and must dictate,
>as precisely as possible, the nature of the rule changes to be enacted
>upon its successful passage."
>
>This deliberately ignores most other types of motions, which will no doubt
>come into being soon enough. :)
>
>...dave

in this case we might lose the concept of "motion" altogether and simply use
"Proposal" instead
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o       __)    ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o   \o    |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |    ( \  /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:39:50 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:34:30 +0100, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:20:36 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Point taken, though. Is this sufficiently clear?
>>
>>"A Motion is a formal request for a change in the Rules, and must dictate,
>>as precisely as possible, the nature of the rule changes to be enacted
>>upon its successful passage."
>>
>>This deliberately ignores most other types of motions, which will no doubt
>>come into being soon enough. :)
>>
>>...dave
>
>
>in this case we might lose the concept of "motion" altogether and simply use
>"Proposal" instead

that definition of motion also contradicts the rule about proposals:
since proposals are motions, proposals cannot modify anything but the rules,
while rule 19 states: "...upon their successful passage, a change to the Rules
or some other aspect of the game...."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o       __)    ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o   \o    |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |    ( \  /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:55:57 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:39:50 +0100, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:34:30 +0100, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:20:36 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Point taken, though. Is this sufficiently clear?
>>>
>>>"A Motion is a formal request for a change in the Rules, and must dictate,
>>>as precisely as possible, the nature of the rule changes to be enacted
>>>upon its successful passage."
>>>
>>>This deliberately ignores most other types of motions, which will no doubt
>>>come into being soon enough. :)
>>>
>>>...dave
>>
>>
>>in this case we might lose the concept of "motion" altogether and simply use
>>"Proposal" instead
>
>
>that definition of motion also contradicts the rule about proposals:
>since proposals are motions, proposals cannot modify anything but the rules,
>while rule 19 states: "...upon their successful passage, a change to the Rules
>or some other aspect of the game...."
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

on the other hand we could make the rule about Motions something like this:

"A Motion is a formal request for a number of changes in some aspect of the
game, and must dictate, as precisely as possible, the nature of the changes to
be enacted upon its successful adoption."

and change rule 19/0 to read:

"Proposals are Motions which [[ typically ]] require, upon their successful
adoption, a change to the Rules. A Proposal, when submitted, must consist of one
or more changes to the Rules.

Every Proposal must have a unique Proposal number, assigned by the
Administrator."

and maybe we also need the following change to rule 33/0:

"A Motion must be voted on to be adopted. A Motion is adopted if, and only if,
it receives a simple majority of votes [[ i.e. more than 50% of all votes cast
are affirmative ]] ."

and we may also need something to say that you can only vote during the voting
period and something about quorum

Sorry about cluttering up the mailing list, I seem to be thinking by little
steps today:

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o       __)    ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o   \o    |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |    ( \  /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:13:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:

[ a whole lot about motions/proposals/whatever ]

I decided to go with the "ultra simplification" route and get rid of that
whole motions vs proposals thing entirely.

Rule 19/0: Proposals

Proposals are formal requests for some change to the state of the game,
typically the creation, modification, or deletion of one or more rules. [[
A player could conceivably make a proposal to the effect of "I get 100,000
points" but this sort of thing is unlikely to pass. ]]

Proposals are reviseable objects. A proposal is not considered
"recognized" until it has been assigned a serial number by the
Administrator.

Rule 23/0: The Ballot

The Administrator shall, at least 48 hours prior to the close of voting
each nweek, distribute to all Players the Ballot for that nweek. The
Ballot shall list all proposals that were recognized after the start of
the previous nweek's voting period.

Rule 30/0: Vote Counting

Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each proposal on any given
Ballot.

Hopefully, that clears things up. :)

...dave

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:16:04 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 12:13:05AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:
> 
> [ a whole lot about motions/proposals/whatever ]
> 
> I decided to go with the "ultra simplification" route and get rid of
> that whole motions vs proposals thing entirely.
> 
> Rule 19/0: Proposals
> 
> Proposals are formal requests for some change to the state of the
> game, typically the creation, modification, or deletion of one or more
> rules. [[ A player could conceivably make a proposal to the effect of
> "I get 100,000 points" but this sort of thing is unlikely to pass. ]]
> 
> Proposals are reviseable objects. A proposal is not considered
> "recognized" until it has been assigned a serial number by the
> Administrator.
> 
> Rule 23/0: The Ballot
> 
> The Administrator shall, at least 48 hours prior to the close of
> voting each nweek, distribute to all Players the Ballot for that
> nweek. The Ballot shall list all proposals that were recognized after
> the start of the previous nweek's voting period.
> 
> Rule 30/0: Vote Counting
> 
> Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each proposal on any given
> Ballot.

Excellent.

-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, 5 Dec 2001 00:21:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Excellent.

Yeah, 'cept I forgot to include a definition of what constitutes
"passage."

Rule 32/0: Proposal Passage

A proposal passes if, and only if, it receives a majority of affirmative
votes.

Okay, everything darn well better work now. :)

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: what am I missing?
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 01:57:01 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:21:33 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
>> Excellent.
>
>Yeah, 'cept I forgot to include a definition of what constitutes
>"passage."
>
>Rule 32/0: Proposal Passage
>
>A proposal passes if, and only if, it receives a majority of affirmative
>votes.
>
>Okay, everything darn well better work now. :)
>
>...dave

more redundancy\potential inconsistency:

*Rule 31/0:Voting
 To cast a vote, a Player must either submit eir vote to the Administrator or to
a Public Forum. Votes which are not publicly known shall not be revealed by the
Administrator until voting ends. Players may vote multiple times; the last vote
on any given issue shall be the one counted.
 
*Rule 30/0:Vote Counting
 Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each proposal on any given Ballot.

*Rule 20/0:Eligible Voters
 Each Player is eligible to vote on each issue on any given Ballot for the
duration of the voting for which the Ballot was issued. Only the last vote on
any given Motion, Proposal, or issue will be counted. Each Player may only cast
one vote on any given Proposal or Motion.

rule 31 and 20 both state that the last vote is the one counted, rule 30 and 31
both state the "one man one vote" thing

I also think that the sentance "Votes may only be cast during the Voting" should
be added to one of the above rules and rule 32 be amended to read "A proposal
passes if and only if, it has recived a majority of affirmative votes at the end
of the Voting. A proposal that does not pass has no effect"
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o       __)    ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o   \o    |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |    ( \  /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 03:45:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: okay, it's time to go.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:

> does that mean spoon-business is the official public forum?

Yup.

> if so I declare myself the first player of B Nomic with the name of Antonio

Added to the Roster.

> and I also have a proposal ready:
> Proposal Title:Cleaning up

Recognized as Proposal 100/0 (though it's not yet on the Web page as
such). And hopefully it'll pass so I won't look like such a tool. :)

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining the game / Currency proposal
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:48:05 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:14:00 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  A Revisable Object is not an Object. A Revisiable Object is not an
>  Object either, and this sentence will delete itself once the ruleset
>  no longer refers to Revisiable Objects.
>
I'm a bit confused about this "revisable objects" thing, I fail to see the
loophole it closes. And why was it necessary to state it two times (with one
statement deleting itself) ?
What exactly is it's purpose ?
Does it simply mean that rules are not objects ?
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:55:55 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining the game / Currency proposal
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 06:48:05PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:14:00 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >  A Revisable Object is not an Object. A Revisiable Object is not an
> >  Object either, and this sentence will delete itself once the ruleset
> >  no longer refers to Revisiable Objects.
> >
> I'm a bit confused about this "revisable objects" thing, I fail to see
> the loophole it closes. And why was it necessary to state it two times
> (with one statement deleting itself) ?

It was not stated twice.  Note the spelling change.

-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: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining the game / Currency proposal
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:16:47 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:55:55 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 06:48:05PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:14:00 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >  A Revisable Object is not an Object. A Revisiable Object is not an
>> >  Object either, and this sentence will delete itself once the ruleset
>> >  no longer refers to Revisiable Objects.
>> >
>> I'm a bit confused about this "revisable objects" thing, I fail to see
>> the loophole it closes. And why was it necessary to state it two times
>> (with one statement deleting itself) ?
>
>It was not stated twice.  Note the spelling change.
>
Ah, now I see the light.

Antonio
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Joining the game / Currency proposal
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:58:00 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>   A Revisable Object is not an Object. A Revisiable Object is not an
>   Object either, and this sentence will delete itself once the ruleset
>   no longer refers to Revisiable Objects.

...except in this rule.

Won't work as intended otherwise :)

> A player recieves 10 Bucks at the end of a voting period in which e
> has voted.

>From whom? If objects are created by rules or proposals only, then the
rule has to state that the bucks are created, or they don't exist.

BTW, I suggest to call them "Things" to avoid any object/revisable
object confusion.

> Any action which is required to be performed by the Administrator
> may also be performed by an automated script acting on the
> Administrator's behalf.

A dice roller is already defined in rule 9.

Joerg

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:49:03 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Joining the game / Currency proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:58:00PM +0100, Jorg Rathlev wrote:
> >   A Revisable Object is not an Object. A Revisiable Object is not an
> >   Object either, and this sentence will delete itself once the ruleset
> >   no longer refers to Revisiable Objects.
> 
> ...except in this rule.
> 
> Won't work as intended otherwise :)

D'oh. Good point.

> > A player recieves 10 Bucks at the end of a voting period in which e
> > has voted.
> 
> >From whom? If objects are created by rules or proposals only, then the
> rule has to state that the bucks are created, or they don't exist.

I'll fix that too.

> BTW, I suggest to call them "Things" to avoid any object/revisable
> object confusion.

I've spent enough time on MU*s to know that people don't make the
distinction between "things" and "objects", or at least use the words
interchangeably.

In the MUX documentation, it says that there are four types of objects:
Player, Room, Exit, and Thing.

People on MUXes say that there are four types of things:
Player, Room, Exit, and Object.

The distinction leads to confusingly-written tutorials and buggy code,
so I'd rather avoid having to make it here.

> > Any action which is required to be performed by the Administrator
> > may also be performed by an automated script acting on the
> > Administrator's behalf.
> 
> A dice roller is already defined in rule 9.

Yes, but it is still not clear whether the Administrator would be
required to put every individual dice roll into the page. This rule may
be useful for other situations as well.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:55:25 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: More Typo Corrections
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:21:33PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal: More Typo Corrections
> 
> 1. In rule 19/0, change the word ?reviseable? to ?revisable?.
> 2.  A reviseable Object is not an Object, and this sentence will delete 
> itself once the ruleset no longer refers to reviseable Objects. 
> 3. In rule 4/0, change the word ?differientiate? to the 
> word ?differentiate?.
> 4. In rule 5/0, change the word ?intrerpolated? to the 
> word ?interpolated?.
> 5. In rule 5/0, change the word ?premissible? to the word ?permissible?.
> 6. This proposal will demonstrate an example of the theorem which 
> hypothesizes that any post commenting on typos or grammatical errors 
> will itself have at least one typo and/or grammatical errorr.

Well, you posted that to spoon-discuss, so it doesn't count as a
proposal. I was about to fix my "Reviising the typos" proposal, and I'll
include "reviseable" in that, but go ahead and include the other stuff
in your own proposal.

Also, part 2 of your proposal is not worded as part of a proposal; it
simply mentions a state of being. You could prefix "Create a rule with
the following text:" to it to make it work.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:58:42 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:08:32PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
> replace any instance of the words "revisiable" or "revisable" with "revisable
> objects"

So we get an infinitely long ruleset which says "revisable objects
objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects
objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects
objects objects objects objects objects ..." ?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:07:21 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: More Typo Corrections
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 04:55:25PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 05:21:33PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal: More Typo Corrections
> > 
> > 1. In rule 19/0, change the word ?reviseable? to ?revisable?.
> > 2.  A reviseable Object is not an Object, and this sentence will delete 
> > itself once the ruleset no longer refers to reviseable Objects. 
> > 3. In rule 4/0, change the word ?differientiate? to the 
> > word ?differentiate?.
> > 4. In rule 5/0, change the word ?intrerpolated? to the 
> > word ?interpolated?.
> > 5. In rule 5/0, change the word ?premissible? to the word ?permissible?.
> > 6. This proposal will demonstrate an example of the theorem which 
> > hypothesizes that any post commenting on typos or grammatical errors 
> > will itself have at least one typo and/or grammatical errorr.
> 
> Well, you posted that to spoon-discuss, so it doesn't count as a
> proposal. I was about to fix my "Reviising the typos" proposal, and I'll
> include "reviseable" in that, but go ahead and include the other stuff
> in your own proposal.

Actually, I now see that the self-referential part of my proposal I
needed to fix was in the "Bucks" proposal, so I'm not bothering with
changing the other proposal. So go ahead and propose all of those items.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposals
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 00:47:09 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:58:42 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:08:32PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
>> replace any instance of the words "revisiable" or "revisable" with "revisable
>> objects"
>
>So we get an infinitely long ruleset which says "revisable objects
>objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects
>objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects objects
>objects objects objects objects objects ..." ?

I propose a action (one-time), not a rule (permanent in time).
If what you claim was true, then the same kind of recursion would apply when
someone proposes "replace the second paragraph/sentence/word of rule x/y with
foo". 
The paragraph/sentence/word should be replaced infinite times, requiring an
infinite amount of the administrator's time.
I think not.
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 04:16:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining, proosing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Gavin Doig wrote:

> (I'm somewhat puzzled by
> the fact that there seems to have been pregame discussion of changes
> to the starting rules that isn't reflected in the rules on the
> website, but I'm basing these on that.)

Which discussion would that be? I must've missed it.

> I express my doubts that any proposal can actually change the rules.

By the letter, perhaps. But I'm declaring administrative fiat (vroom
vroom) for the first couple of weeks, that things can actually proceed
apace until such point as all my idiocies are worked out of the system.

> Oh, and I complain in advance about my Roster entry being incomplete...

How so?

...dave

From: "ID Scott, Science 99" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: More Typo Corrections
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:51:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Well, you posted that to spoon-discuss, so it doesn't count as a
> proposal. I was about to fix my "Reviising the typos" proposal, and I'll
> include "reviseable" in that, but go ahead and include the other stuff
> in your own proposal.
> 
Really? My version seems to have come from spoon-business (and thats 
where I intended to send it!). Probably just my newsreader. My 
apologies, in any case.

cheers,
Iain

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: joining, proosing
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:46:47 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > (I'm somewhat puzzled by
> > the fact that there seems to have been pregame discussion of changes
> > to the starting rules that isn't reflected in the rules on the
> > website, but I'm basing these on that.)
>
> Which discussion would that be? I must've missed it.
>
Maybe it was about someone's proposals... I don't think I actually saw the
first message in the thread, so I was guessing about the context.

> > I express my doubts that any proposal can actually change the rules.
>
> By the letter, perhaps. But I'm declaring administrative fiat (vroom
> vroom) for the first couple of weeks, that things can actually proceed
> apace until such point as all my idiocies are worked out of the system.
>
Yes... but that doesn't do anything (just moves the point at which we ignore
the rules back a step).

> > Oh, and I complain in advance about my Roster entry being incomplete...
>
> How so?
>
Height, weight, eye colour... ;-) And email address, although we could of
course say that the web page identifying itself as the roster is not the
roster.

uin.
idealism, not pragmatism

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: a whole bucket of recognition
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:14:50 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> ... with the administrator's fiat that "posession" will be spelled
> "possession." (heh.)

Hmmm. My dictionary tells me to agree with you :)

> (Btw: I know the "current proposals" page lists both versions
> thereof. As soon as I figure out how to fix it, I will. SQL gurus
> are welcome to heckle.)

I was going to ask this anyway -- are you planning to publish the
source code of what you've written?

Joerg

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:13:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: joining, proosing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> > > Oh, and I complain in advance about my Roster entry being incomplete...
> >
> > How so?
> >
> Height, weight, eye colour... ;-) And email address, although we could of
> course say that the web page identifying itself as the roster is not the
> roster.

The rules only require that I maintain a roster - I'm under no obligation
to share. :-)

...dave

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:51:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: a whole bucket of recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Rathlev wrote:

> > (Btw: I know the "current proposals" page lists both versions
> > thereof. As soon as I figure out how to fix it, I will. SQL gurus
> > are welcome to heckle.)
>
> I was going to ask this anyway -- are you planning to publish the
> source code of what you've written?

In a week or two, probably. (Basically, as soon as I've got enough of it
written that it's vaguely useful, and not completely embarrassing. I'm
still doing about half of "everything that needs to be done" at the MySQL
command line instead of through any automated system.)

Whee!

...dave

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: still more recognition
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:54:40 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Which reminds me, I'm not using Joel's system, so players aren't
> obliged to use those \begin{proposal} tags.

But they're useful anyway. They're easy to understand, and you don't
have to explain where your proposal begins and where it ends.

I'll continue to use them until a new unambiguous method of delimiting
proposals is introduced. (Yes, I could make up my own method, but why
should I when there is one that works?)

Joerg

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: a whole bucket of 
 recognition
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:47:23 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "David E. Smith":
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Rathlev wrote:
> 
> > > (Btw: I know the "current proposals" page lists both versions
> > > thereof. As soon as I figure out how to fix it, I will. SQL gurus
> > > are welcome to heckle.)
> >
> > I was going to ask this anyway -- are you planning to publish the
> > source code of what you've written?
> 
> In a week or two, probably. (Basically, as soon as I've got enough of it
> written that it's vaguely useful, and not completely embarrassing. I'm
> still doing about half of "everything that needs to be done" at the MySQL
> command line instead of through any automated system.)
> 
> Whee!
> 
> ...dave

Have you looked at any of the scripts I wrote? Just curious whether those 
have been useful.

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:55:41 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: More Typo Corrections
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:51:27AM +0000, ID Scott, Science 99 wrote:
> 
> 
> > Well, you posted that to spoon-discuss, so it doesn't count as a
> > proposal. I was about to fix my "Reviising the typos" proposal, and I'll
> > include "reviseable" in that, but go ahead and include the other stuff
> > in your own proposal.
> > 
> Really? My version seems to have come from spoon-business (and thats 
> where I intended to send it!). Probably just my newsreader. My 
> apologies, in any case.

Crap. I was looking at the wrong thing. You were entirely right, in
fact.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:28:25 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposals taking effect
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:37AM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
> [[Here's where I play around a bit with systems for formatting a
> proposal.]]
> <proposal title="I demand order!">
> 
> 1. Revise the most recent version of rule 32, which may be 32/0 or a
> version created by another proposal, to:
> <text>
> 
>   At the end of each voting period, the proposals that have recieved a
>   majority of affirmative votes is deemed to have passed. 
				  ^^
				  are

>   The others are deemed to have failed. All proposals that have been
>   voted on during that voting period are then processed in numerical
>   order.
> 
>   Proposals are processed in numerical order. 

Repetative.

-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, 7 Dec 2001 06:11:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: a whole bucket of  recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Have you looked at any of the scripts I wrote? Just curious whether those
> have been useful.

I've looked, yeah. I'm mostly using them to (try to) work out some of the
messier queries. Shame MySQL doesn't seem to have working subselects...

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to create judicial system
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:13:36 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> "No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding
"shall" -> "may". Restrictive, not predictive.

> started. E.g. before proposal 114 passes, it might be claimed that
> proposals do not have any effect.]]

Consider it so claimed. ;-)

(Although we might get away with it by the "implicitly" bit of r18. Maybe.
Sort of.)

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:00:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to create judicial
 system
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> > started. E.g. before proposal 114 passes, it might be claimed that
> > proposals do not have any effect.]]
>
> Consider it so claimed. ;-)
>
> (Although we might get away with it by the "implicitly" bit of r18. Maybe.
> Sort of.)

That's sorta what I'm using as the "business can be done in nweek 1"
loophole.

Note to self: next time, spend more than two weeks on initial ruleset.
(better option: get someone else to do it next time. :)

...dave

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to create judicial system
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:17:07 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > "No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding
> "shall" -> "may". Restrictive, not predictive.

Hmmm. English is not my native language, but "shall not" seems to
occur in US legalese in the same way as I used it, e.g. "No Bill of
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Guessing based on your email address, you seem to come from the UK; is
this maybe a British English vs. US English issue? Or is there really
something wrong with my sentence?

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to create judicia
	l system
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:16:45 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Guessing based on your email address, you seem to come from the UK; is
> this maybe a British English vs. US English issue? Or is there really
> something wrong with my sentence?

It's probably just me. ;-)

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to create judicial 
 system
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:48:48 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "David E. Smith":
>
> Note to self: next time, spend more than two weeks on initial ruleset.
> (better option: get someone else to do it next time. :)
> 
> ...dave

Seriously, I don't think it matters beyond some point: I spent all summer 
on the A Nomic ruleset, and look what we got. :)

-- 
J.

From: "ID Scott, Science 99" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal to create 
         judicial          system
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:20:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:17:07 +0100 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > "No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding
> > "shall" -> "may". Restrictive, not predictive.
> 
> Hmmm. English is not my native language, but "shall not" seems to
> occur in US legalese in the same way as I used it, e.g. "No Bill of
> Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> 
> Guessing based on your email address, you seem to come from the UK; is
> this maybe a British English vs. US English issue? Or is there really
> something wrong with my sentence?

"shall" does sugest prediction, but I think its meaning is heavily 
affected by context... and in this one, it also means "will" (and hence 
"may").

(I note that dictionary.com gives an archaic definition as: "To have 
to, must", which seems to fit.) 

cheers,
Iain 

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:29:14 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: a whole bucket of  recognition
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:11:49AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> 
> > Have you looked at any of the scripts I wrote? Just curious whether
> > those have been useful.
> 
> I've looked, yeah. I'm mostly using them to (try to) work out some of
> the messier queries. Shame MySQL doesn't seem to have working
> subselects...

<warning class="religion">
That's because MySQL is not a true RDBMS, since it's missing several
major features.  I can't even imagine what you'd have to pay me to use
it.
</warning>

However, any subselect is semantically equivalent to a more complicated
query without subselects.  If you send me your statement with subselect,
I'll send you a non-subselect-containing version.

-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: Re: joining, proosing
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:10:09 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> DISCLAIMER:
<snip masses of text>

Woah, is that an *evil* thing for your company to lumber all your emails
with or what?

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:38:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

Welcome to the game, Jesus!

> Proposal : Max 3 Proposals per NWeek

Recognized as 120/0.

...dave

From: "ID Scott, Science 99" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: oops
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:41:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:08:26 +0000 (GMT) "David E. Smith" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> (Either that, or I could try to get the
> Reply-To: on the business list to point back to the business list...)
> 
problem with that is that disscusion posts (like this!) would probably 
go to the business list, in which, whats the point of haveing 
spoon-discuss?

cheers,
Iain Scott

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:28:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: oops
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Jesus' proposal is still recognized, but now it's being recognized on
> the
> right list. :-)
> 
> I'm tempted to just say that both lists count as public fora, but I'm
> not
> sure how well that'd fly. (Either that, or I could try to get the
> Reply-To: on the business list to point back to the business list...)
> 
> suggestions?
> 
> ...dave
> 

Whee! that would be great!

Antonio
> 
> 
> 
> ---- 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
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:37:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: public votes
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here are My votes on the Nweek 1 Ballot.
I think the're valid on the discussion list right?
 
> Proposal 100/0: Cleaning up
Yes
> Proposal 101/0: Scoring
No -- I dont like objects
> Proposal 102/1: Bucks
No
> Proposal 103/0: Revisiing the typos
Yes
> Proposal 104/0: More Typo Corrections
Yes
> Proposal 105/0: Clean up scoring
Yes
> Proposal 106/0: Proposal revision
yes
> Proposal 107/0: Rules revision
yes
> Proposal 108/0: I wish you wouldn't say that.
yes
> Proposal 109/0: When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
yes
> Proposal 110/0: Our physical shells are rotting.
yes
> Proposal 111/0: Strictly psychosomatic.
No 
> Proposal 112/0: Say something once, why say it again?
yes
> Proposal 113/0: Did you never call? I waited for your call.
yes
> Proposal 114/0: Nothing ever happens.
No
> Proposal 115/1: I demand order!
Yes
> Proposal 116/0: Create a judicial system
No  -- too similar to the system we had in A nomic
> Proposal 117/0: Create a statute of limitation
No
> Proposal 118/0: Whee!
No  -- fun idea but I think the administrator already has enough to
keep in mind
> Proposal 119/0: Only players can make proposals
yes
> Proposal 120/0: Max 3 Proposals per NWeek
no

Antonio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:04:54 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposals
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:29:48AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> P.S. Please vote no on 118/0 so I don't have to add "Whee!" to my
> .signature and confuse all the non-nomic people with whom I exchange
> email. :-)

Oh, man.  Now I *really* have to vote yes.  8)

Remember, you only have to do it on *nomic* public forum posts.  8)

-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, 12 Dec 2001 10:42:22 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: public votes
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:37:52AM -0800, Antonio wrote:
> > Proposal 114/0: Nothing ever happens.
> No

Really?   Even though the admin has requested it?

Why?

-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, 12 Dec 2001 21:22:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: public votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:

> Here are My votes on the Nweek 1 Ballot.
> I think the're valid on the discussion list right?

The rules, as they presently stand, don't seem to disallow it... as the
admin, I've seen your votes, I'll count your votes.

(This may be another loophole, I'm not sure.)

...dave

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:23:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: public votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Really?   Even though the admin has requested it?
>
> Why?

Surely you don't expect the other players to divulge game strategy this
early... maybe e's brewing up some sort of "I single-handedly kept rules
from ever taking effect, therefore play cannot continue, therefore I win"
sorta thing.

...dave

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:31:03 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: public votes
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Really?   Even though the admin has requested it?
> >
> > Why?
> 
> Surely you don't expect the other players to divulge game strategy
> this early... maybe e's brewing up some sort of "I single-handedly
> kept rules from ever taking effect, therefore play cannot continue,
> therefore I win" sorta thing.

I was assuming it was misunderstanding rather than strategy.  8)

-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: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: public votes
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:08:26 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:42:22 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:37:52AM -0800, Antonio wrote:
>> > Proposal 114/0: Nothing ever happens.
>> No
>
>Really?   Even though the admin has requested it?
>
>Why?
>
because I voted for 115/0 which is IMO a more complete and accurate
proposal. :)

Antonio
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot for nweek 1
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:04:57 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Proposal 100/0: Cleaning up
Yes.
Proposal 101/0: Scoring
No.
Proposal 102/1: Bucks
No.
Proposal 103/0: Revisiing the typos
Yes.
Proposal 104/0: More Typo Corrections
Yes.
Proposal 105/0: Clean up scoring
Yes.
Proposal 106/0: Proposal revision
Yes.
Proposal 107/0: Rules revision
No.
Proposal 108/0: I wish you wouldn't say that.
Yes.
Proposal 109/0: When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Yes.
Proposal 110/0: Our physical shells are rotting.
Yes.
Proposal 111/0: Strictly psychosomatic.
Yes.
Proposal 112/0: Say something once, why say it again?
Yes.
Proposal 113/0: Did you never call? I waited for your call.
Yes.
Proposal 114/0: Nothing ever happens.
Yes.
Proposal 115/1: I demand order!
Yes.
Proposal 116/0: Create a judicial system
Yes.
Proposal 117/0: Create a statute of limitation
No.
Proposal 118/0: Whee!
Yes.
Proposal 119/0: Only players can make proposals
Yes.
Proposal 120/0: Max 3 Proposals per NWeek
No!

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: public votes
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:01:08 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >> > Proposal 114/0: Nothing ever happens.
> >> No
> >
> >Really?   Even though the admin has requested it?
> >
> >Why?
> >
> because I voted for 115/0 which is IMO a more complete and accurate
> proposal. :)

Maybe, but it would override 114 anyway.

Joerg

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot for nweek 1
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:01:09 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Proposal 116/0: Create a judicial system
> 
> No.
> 
> > Proposal 117/0: Create a statute of limitation
> 
> Yes.

Huh? Are you planning to suggest an alternative judicial system?
Otherwise voting yes on 117 doesn't seem to make much sense when you
vote no on 116.

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: joining, proosing
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:53:21 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Woah, is that an *evil* thing for your company to lumber all your emails
> with or what?

Just wait until someone changes their name to "the intended recipient"...

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:45:39 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Eh
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:16:37PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> If thats the case then I increase my score to 1000

Go ahead and do that, then. You are entirely within your rights to do so
(and since these are legitimate Actions, Dave shouldn't treat them as
Proposals).

However, this is not a problem, since nobody can currently win.

The entire reason you're able to set your score to an arbitrary value is
that the rules only regulate changing your number of Points, and not
your Score, and no connection is ever made between the two terms.

However, this means it is impossible for your score to "exceed 1000
points", since there is no basis for comparison between a Score and 1000
Points.

So, we must reject any proposal which would equate Score with Points.
Proposal 105 does this. I'm fairly sure I already voted against this one
anyway (I sent my votes privately), but I'll publically ensure that in
just a moment. Everyone else should make sure to change their vote on
105 to NO so that a win does not have to be awarded this early in the
game.

Any future proposal which fixes the Points/Score discrepancy should ensure
that, no matter what Score each player has, it results in the player
beginning with 0 Points. Ideally this would involve resetting the
Scores to 0 at the same time, but the idea of a Nomic where "Points" and
"Score" remain two entirely different quantities has a sort of twisted
appeal to me.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:18:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: arrrrrgh.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Why, oh why, did all you wiseguys wait 'til AFTER the game had started to
pull all these points/scores things out of your arses?

Actually, I think 21/0 covers me here...

It (implicitly) connects points to score, para. 4 and 5:

"No player's score may be decreased below zero points."
"All Players enter the game with a score of zero points."

(27/0 does the same thing, actually.)

Then there's my personal favorite, para. 3:

"The Administrator may transfer points to other players only as defined
EXPLICITLY by the Rules." (emphasis mine).

And don't even pull out "Permissibility of the Unprohibited" on me -
unless/until a justice system is created, my even-handed vigilante style
justice is all you get. (Besides, transfer of points/score/whatever is
explicitly regulated by 21/0.)

I'm real close to just declaring that the first nweek was a farce, take
the rules cleanups that passed, and calling for a do-over. :-)

...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: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:30:18 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: arrrrrgh.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:18:44PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Why, oh why, did all you wiseguys wait 'til AFTER the game had started to
> pull all these points/scores things out of your arses?
> 
> Actually, I think 21/0 covers me here...
> 
> It (implicitly) connects points to score, para. 4 and 5:
> 
> "No player's score may be decreased below zero points."
> "All Players enter the game with a score of zero points."

Y'know, I missed that.

So - though it might be a stretch - an action to change your Score would
involve changing a number of Points, since everyone's score is already
defined to be zero points, and thus it is regulated. So all four Actions
(including mine) which people performed to change their Score were not
actually permissible. Still no need to make them proposals.

I'm still voting against 105. Points should not be "owned"; this eerily
reminds me of the whole situation with the Bank in A Nomic. They should
simply be a measurement of Score, an arbitrary quantity.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:43:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: arrrrrgh.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> So - though it might be a stretch - an action to change your Score would
> involve changing a number of Points, since everyone's score is already
> defined to be zero points, and thus it is regulated. So all four Actions
> (including mine) which people performed to change their Score were not
> actually permissible. Still no need to make them proposals.

Yeah, but making 'em proposals was more amusing. :-)
Point taken, though. The two "give me points" proposals are un-recognized.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out something that should
be clear to everyone involved by now: I'm new at this. I've only played in
a few Nomics, and have never attempted to run one before. To that end,
until such time as a justice system is created, I'm it. I can only promise
that I'll try to act fairly - i.e. in the best interest of the game and
all the players. Anyone that's unhappy with such a mindset is welcome to
visit the Nomic Database and find another game in which to play.

> I'm still voting against 105. Points should not be "owned"; this eerily
> reminds me of the whole situation with the Bank in A Nomic. They should
> simply be a measurement of Score, an arbitrary quantity.

Yeah, the Bank thing was pretty ugly, what with some of the economic
gymnastics that had to be performed just to keep the darn thing solvent.

Your vote change is recognized and added to my vote-o-matic, btw.

...dave

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:44:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:20:22PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> I amend the proposal to read:

[ snip ]

I'm disallowing this, because it wasn't your proposal. Therefore you can't
request its amendment.

...dave

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:45:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> I propose the creation of a rule entitled "Screw That"
> The rule will include the following: "No player may change another players
> name."

Recognized as 122/0.

...dave

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:47:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: State of the game
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> <proposal title="No messing around with the game state">
> Create the following rule entitled "State Changes":
>
>   Changes to the state of the game may only be made via a Proposal or
>   via an Action which is permitted by the Rules.
>
> </proposal>

Philosophically, one could argue that "Permissibility of the unprohibited"
already covers this. But this seems to be more cut-throat than
philosophical...

Recognized 123/0.

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: New Proposals
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:20:10 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:44:28 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:20:22PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>> I amend the proposal to read:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>I'm disallowing this, because it wasn't your proposal. Therefore you can't
>request its amendment.
>
>...dave

Uhm, that's what proposal 106/0 fixes, right now, nothing in the rules
prohibits a player to amend another player's proposal. 

By the way, I also change my vote on proposal 105/0 to -No-, just in case
it might matter.

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:30:51 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: New Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:

> >I'm disallowing this, because it wasn't your proposal. Therefore you can't
> >request its amendment.
>
> Uhm, that's what proposal 106/0 fixes, right now, nothing in the rules
> prohibits a player to amend another player's proposal.

Heh. Once again, point taken. (I'm sorta working on the assumption that
most of these "fix things" proposals have already passed, since many of
them are certain to pass, barring a bunch of people changing their votes
at the last minute.)

The change will be officially recognized shortly.

Since one of the scoring proposals requires points to be awarded based on
the author of a proposal, I'm going to assume that the author is still the
original author, even though it's been amended by a third party.

> By the way, I also change my vote on proposal 105/0 to -No-, just in case
> it might matter.

Acknowledged.

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Oh, wait... that's tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:15:44 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

*sigh*

OK. All these changes to peoples' scores and names and so on are, I believe,
just as legal as the administrator recognising as proosals things which
clearly weren't - i.e., not at all legal (the things they attempted to
change are regulated by the rules) . I don't agree that the administrator
has any special ability to overturn the rules, or to act as a judicial
system. If we don't have a judicial system, we just don't have one.

The reason I attempted (it hasn't worked yet) to change my score (and Jesus'
name... my apologies if that caused any offence) was that if the proosals to
create a judicial system and to prohibit CFJs in the first NWeek pass, my
actions will become legal ("Such actions shall always be treated as if they
had been legal") after one NWeek.

I actually mistimed this - I mistakenly thought that voting came to an end
last night, not tonight, which wouldn't have left that much time for people
to change their votes on 117 to stop me (or from taking advantage of the
same loophole).

I change my vote on proposal 117 to No, and urge people to do the same.
Don't let THEM retroactively immanentize the eschaton!

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Oh, wait... that's tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:51:55 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I change my vote on proposal 117 to No, and urge people to do the
> same.  Don't let THEM retroactively immanentize the eschaton!

I won't do that, because then someone can claim that all the
bugfix-proposals didn't have any effect.

I do, however, change my vote on proposal 101/0 (Scoring) to NO.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Oh, wait... that's tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:58:19 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I do, however, change my vote on proposal 101/0 (Scoring) to NO.

D'oh. I change my vote on proposal 101/0 to YES. I also change my vote
on proposal 105/0 to NO.

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Oh, wait... that's tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:55:12 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I change my vote on proposal 117 to No, and urge people to do the
> > same.  Don't let THEM retroactively immanentize the eschaton!
>
> I won't do that, because then someone can claim that all the
> bugfix-proposals didn't have any effect.

I don't think so. If you're going to make a CFJ that proosals don't have any
effect, you need to do so using the CFJ rules created by one of those
proosals... not a sensible position to hold. A rule prohibiting CFJs on
whether NWeek 1 proposals could pass is absolutely worthless, because it can
exist if those proposals have already passed, so anyone who doesn't
recognise that isn't going to recognise its existence either.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Oh, wait... that's tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:21:59 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> it can exist 

it can *only* exist, even.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:39:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: vote timing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Voting closes this evening (6 PM Central time, adjust for your timezone as
needed). Just so the record's clear on that point.

I'll sort out all the re-votes and so on sometime this evening, after
investing in a rather large quantity of aspirin.

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The future never happened
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:14:48 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I create a new rule numbered 235/0

I note in passing that I'm not entirely sure what this will actually do...
vote no on 117, so we don't have to find out. ;-)

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:14:36 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The future never happened
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:30:09PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
> I create a new rule numbered 235/0, named "The Future Never Happened", with
> the following @@@ delimited text:
> @@@
> If ever any rule entitled "Statute of Limitation" exists, it is repealed,
> and this rule is then repealed.
> @@@
> 
> That'll do nicely.
> 
> NB: there are no proposals in this message.
> 
> uin.

That is quite clearly against the rules.

You can't even use "Permissibility of the Unprohibited" to weasel out,
since that is a rule change, and Permissibility of the Unprohibited is
quite clear on when you can change the rules.

Furthermore, I believe you know that it is against the rules, and you
are hoping that you can temporarily get away with it until a justice
system is created. But no justice system is necessary for such a
clear-cut case because of rule 10.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 01:53:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The future never happened
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> I create a new rule numbered 235/0, named "The Future Never Happened", with
> the following @@@ delimited text:
> @@@
> If ever any rule entitled "Statute of Limitation" exists, it is repealed,
> and this rule is then repealed.
> @@@

No you don't. Rule changes are explicitly regulated, even before taking
nweek 1 into account.

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The future never happened
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:35:56 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> No you don't. Rule changes are explicitly regulated, even before taking
> nweek 1 into account.

Yes, but
"No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding any player actions
that have happened more than one nweek ago. Such actions shall always
be treated as if they had been legal".
So after 1 nweek has passed, anything that anyone does becomes legal. And
since 
"No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding any of the rules that
were in effect, or player actions that were performed, before the
voting results of the first voting period of this nomic were made
public",
no one can make a CFJ on anyone's actions in nweek 1. So any actions anyone
took during nweek 1 become legal 1 nweek after they took place. The rules
implicitly permit me to change them, by making all my actions legal.

I don't think the score tinkerer thing worked (creating it worked, but its
actions aren't made legal by r129), but everything else that any player
attempted during nweek 1 is legal. Or at least will have been legal...

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:54:07 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The future never happened
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> > No you don't. Rule changes are explicitly regulated, even before taking
> > nweek 1 into account.
>
> Yes, but
> "No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding any player actions
> that have happened more than one nweek ago. Such actions shall always
> be treated as if they had been legal".
> So after 1 nweek has passed, anything that anyone does becomes legal.

So your action doesn't become legal via the grandfather clause until a
full nweek has passed (i.e. ten days from when you made the attempt).

> And since
> "No Calls for Judgement shall be made regarding any of the rules that
> were in effect, or player actions that were performed, before the
> voting results of the first voting period of this nomic were made
> public",
> no one can make a CFJ on anyone's actions in nweek 1. So any actions anyone
> took during nweek 1 become legal 1 nweek after they took place. The rules
> implicitly permit me to change them, by making all my actions legal.

Which also means that my flat "No you don't." is also legal. ;)

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:01:07 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> <title>Same as it ever was</title>

D'oh. I revise proposal 131/0 by changing the title to "Same as it ever
was.".

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The future never happened
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:09:54 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> So your action doesn't become legal via the grandfather clause until a
> full nweek has passed (i.e. ten days from when you made the attempt).
>
Yes. That's where things become confusing - does the rule get created then,
or merely deemed to have been created an nweek ago then? Unfortunately,
it'll become legal before the end of the next nweek, so no proosal will be
able to stop it.

> Which also means that my flat "No you don't." is also legal. ;)
>
No, because you're not a player. And Rob only stated that my actions were
against the rules, which can't even be interpreted as an attempt to cancel
my actions out in the loose sense that your "No you don't" could (perhaps)
be.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:34:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> D'oh. I revise proposal 131/0 by changing the title to "Same as it ever
> was.".

131/1. enjoy.

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: spoon-b	
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:35:48 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Fine.  I hereby give the administrator the option to act as my agent in
> cancelling your actions.
> 
Doesn't work, because (apart from anything else) this is after the end of
nweek 1, meaning there's no automatic immunity from CFJ. You'd have needed
to do this before the administrator's cancel message.

> -Robin, who'd like to get on with the game now.
>
This *is* the game!

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:38:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: spoon-b 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 05:09:54PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
> > > Which also means that my flat "No you don't." is also legal. ;)
> > >
> > No, because you're not a player. And Rob only stated that my actions
> > were against the rules, which can't even be interpreted as an attempt
> > to cancel my actions out in the loose sense that your "No you don't"
> > could (perhaps) be.
>
> Fine.  I hereby give the administrator the option to act as my agent in
> cancelling your actions.

But since game actions can't be retroactive (in general, per 17/0), I
don't know if you can do that either. :-)

I had declared a slight bit of administrative fiat during nweek 1, and I
believe "No you don't." to fall in that category.

Though since I'm declaring that to be the case now, someone could
conceivably use the fact that I'm reiterating the statement NOW as basis
for a CFJ (since it's no longer nweek 1).

> -Robin, who'd like to get on with the game now.

I thought this *was* part of the game...

...dave

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:53:31 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: withdrawal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Benjamin Bradley wrote:

> I'd like to withdraw from the game.
> I forfiet.

You'll be missed, my friend.

...dave

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: spoon-b 
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:13:54 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I had declared a slight bit of administrative fiat during nweek 1, and I
> believe "No you don't." to fall in that category.
>
The "things you've declared that don't affect the game" category? ;-)

> Though since I'm declaring that to be the case now, someone could
> conceivably use the fact that I'm reiterating the statement NOW as basis
> for a CFJ (since it's no longer nweek 1).
>
You're not covered by the nweek 1 clause anyway, I think (not being a rule
or a player). Although it might be viewed as a CFJ about the rules, I
suppose (is it legal for you to ignore them? ;-)).

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: how's this for cancelling actions?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:57:08 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[ And as long as we're cleaning up... ]]
>
> ...shall no longer possess <n> points independent of eir score...

Most of these people simply set their score, not created points (I did both,
IIRC). I at least wasn't relying on points and scores not being related
(personally, I think they were (at least implicitly)), but rather on r129's
blanket legalisation of everything I did. So no one has points independent
of their scores, they just have high scores. In fact, they will all be reset
to 0 before the end of nweek 2 when someone (whoever set their score to 1000
- you damn kids, stealing my scam) wins. (I'm not sure when it happens, but
it's after the end of nweek 1 anyway (proof of this is left as an exercise
for the reader ;-)), so it's not important).

So go ahead and kick me out and in, it doesn't matter - my score's 0 either
way. :-P

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:39:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Look! it's a rant!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> You're not covered by the nweek 1 clause anyway, I think (not being a rule
> or a player). Although it might be viewed as a CFJ about the rules, I
> suppose (is it legal for you to ignore them? ;-)).

The rules only say that Players are bound to follow them, and that I am
responsible for "all game duties not assigned by the Rules to other
players."

The word "other" could imply that I'm to be considered sort-of a player,
but that might be needless nitpicking.

Honestly, I don't much care WHO scores how many points, who wins, who
loses, who gives themselves seventeen titles or is the Red Team's Flag
Carrier. I want everyone involved to have fun, and to play as fair a game
as is possible under the circumstances (given that much of the point of
the game is to tip the rules so that they're slightly unfair).

This is why, before I started, I asked people (those who were on the old A
Nomic list, before we changed it into the B Nomic list) to look over the
initial rules, and to ensure there weren't any gaping holes. A couple of
people did, you know who you are, and I thank you for your kind efforts.

Then a few people apparently looked through the rules, found unintentional
loopholes, and kept their mouths shut, waiting 'til the game started to
exploit them.

Note "unintentional." That's another one of those key words.

I'm not a player in B Nomic, and I doubt I'll have time to be one in the
near future. In A Nomic, my time in the game was a stunning run of
mediocrity; I wouldn't want to drag down this game by my participation (or
likely lack thereof). I do have a bit of a knack for organization, and a
bit of a knack for database stuff, and so I whipped together a few pages
to track rules and proposals so others, with more time and more brains
than I, could play and have fun, and I could sit back and watch the fun
being had by everyone else.

Guess what: This is not fun.

Rules aren't being proposed and debated. The list lies mostly silent, save
for the occasional outburst of "hey, I found another dickheaded mistake
Dave made! I'm gonna bugger the game!" and a chorus of "Me too!".

IMO, much of the fun from this type of game comes from INTENTIONAL
loopholes. Ones put there on purpose by players. Sheer battle of wits
stuff, it is. People exploiting loopholes that weren't put there by
players, but instead simply by the sheer ignorance and incompetence of an
admin, is more childish than fun in any sense of the word of which I am
aware.

I would ask that everyone who has exploited these loopholes grow up a bit,
and un-do their actions. Failing that, here's what will happen:

* I will award a Win to whichever jackass gave emself 1000 points. Right
  now, I don't recall who did it, nor do I much care.
* Since the same loophole will continue to exist, there will be nothing
  to prevent anyone and everyone from continuing to do so, thus requiring
  me to award an effectively infinite number of wins.
* As I don't have an infinite amount of free time to sit round the
  keyboard awarding Wins, I consider this to be something that would
  prevent the game from continuing normally. "Therefore, play ceases."
  Have a nice life.

...dave

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:50:23 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Look! it's a rant!
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 08:39:39PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
[snip rant]
> Guess what: This is not fun.

I agree.

> Rules aren't being proposed and debated. The list lies mostly silent,
> save for the occasional outburst of "hey, I found another dickheaded
> mistake Dave made! I'm gonna bugger the game!" and a chorus of "Me
> too!".

Yup.

Unfortunately, having never been in a Nomic before, and being very sleep
deprived, I haven't thought up anything fun yet.

-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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:34:56 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Look! it's a rant!
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If I may offer a suggestion, and I very much hope that I may,
I see that your nomic has run into problems endangering continuation of
play.

I suggest you write down the *good* changes you've made since the start of
the week numbered 1,
Then lump all these bits into one big proposal, in the interests of
everyone's fun.

Then throw in a clause that resets all the scores and takes back all the
Wins players got,
And resets all the rules to the way they had been back when the ruleset had
changed not.

Set revisions to 0, set nweeks to 1, and set all else that is not right,
Then propose the whole mess, it'll fix things, I guess. Happy nomic to all,
and good night.

                                            -An Observer

Note: This circumvents the need for either 'un-doing' past actions, which is
technically illegal under rule 17/0 (actions cannot alter the past) or
destroying the game and starting over, which is just plain annoying.
If anyone decides to use this idea, you also might want to write this up,
propose it, and get it recognized before any other proposals are recognized,
so that it doesn't erase the effects of other proposals this nweek if and
when it takes effect.

P.S. It might be easier just to make a proposal that states that all actions
taken in the first two nweeks aside from proposing, voting on, and passing
this act are retroactively made illegal, and also have the act include all
the first nweek's fixes. I think either of these methods should solve
everything, though of course if you have any other changes you want made,
put them in. I'm not a player, so someone else should write this up and
propose it, if you think it's a good idea. Happy Nomic!

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:50:23 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Look! it's a rant!

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 08:39:39PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
[snip rant]
> Guess what: This is not fun.

I agree.

> Rules aren't being proposed and debated. The list lies mostly silent,
> save for the occasional outburst of "hey, I found another dickheaded
> mistake Dave made! I'm gonna bugger the game!" and a chorus of "Me
> too!".

Yup.

Unfortunately, having never been in a Nomic before, and being very sleep
deprived, I haven't thought up anything fun yet.

-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: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Look! it's a rant!
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:15:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have to admit to being almost completely baffled by this rant.

No one, so far as I can tell, has exploited (or, to the best of my
knowledge, even seen) any loopholes in the initial rules. While I'd
certainly not say that those rules were perfect, any problems I have with
them are mostly either to do with things not being explicit that imo should
be (proposals taking effect, for example), or aesthetic (I don't like rule
12 at all - I never have, in any version of nomic). (I can actually make a
good case for it being better to start with a slightly flawed initial
ruleset, but that's another story).

The only loophole surfing I've seen has been my attempt to abuse rule 129,
and those of the handful of people that copied it. Some may have thought we
were abusing the score/points thing, but I don't think that worked then, and
it's certainly fixed now.

I'll admit that my time in Ackanomic has left me with the feeling that
simply copying someone else's scam attempt is in slightly poor taste, but if
all you're doing is giving yourself some points - so what? No one I know
plays nomic for points, and all the fun of loophole surfing comes from
working out how do it and, yes, arguing your case afterwards. That, for me,
is a source of at least as much fun as actually proosing stuff.

I did try and convince people not to vote for proosal 117 (the source of the
scam), but even though they did, the net upshot was:
One person (Jebus?) got a win.
Rule 129 will shortly be repealed by rule 235.

I fail to see any one attempting, let alone succeeding, to break the game in
any of that (it would have been entirely possible for someone to have
created a rule giving themself dictatorial power over every aspect of the
game, but no one did). NWeek 1 is now over, and with it the window for
exploiting this loophole, so I can't see any way that even one more win, let
alone an infinite number of them, can come about.

It may not have been an ideal start to the game, but I don't think the sky
is falling just yet.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Look! it's a rant!
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:43:25 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:39:39 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Guess what: This is not fun.
>
>Rules aren't being proposed and debated. The list lies mostly silent, save
>for the occasional outburst of "hey, I found another dickheaded mistake
>Dave made! I'm gonna bugger the game!" and a chorus of "Me too!".
>
On my part i can say that maybe the problem is a slight confusion over the
events that happened during nweek 1 and their effects: 
does anybody have points?
what is everyone's score?
did anybody win?
do players have all sorts of strange titles and such?
Are the current players still intrested in playing?

that's the end of this reply. Proposals and RFJ's later today of tomorrow
(european time)

bye
Antonio
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:46:55 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Look! it's a rant!
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 07:43:25PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
> Are the current players still intrested in playing?

Yes, very much.  I'm currently quite sick, or I'd be proposing stuff.

I'm hoping everyone will have the maturity to allow most of the more
ridiculous stuff to be ignored by administrative fiat.

-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: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Look! it's a rant!
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:37:31 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> does anybody have points?
> what is everyone's score?

Someone should make a CFJ for those issues.

> did anybody win?

No -- Jesus set his score to 1000, which does not exceed 1000. He lost
4 points in voting, so he cannot have a score > 996.

uin and me set our scores to 523.

> do players have all sorts of strange titles and such?

Does it matter?

> Are the current players still intrested in playing?

Yes -- I've been offline for a few days due to computer problems, but
I'm still interested in playing.

Joerg

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:01:36 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: reset proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:56:23PM -0600, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> I propose that we reset the game and begin with the following initial
> ruleset. Hopefully this will start us off from a solid foundation and at a
> simple enough point that everyone will understand what's going on. I think
> that the fun of a game of nomic is that it grows to be complicated. If it
> starts out with inconsistencies and such, it's just no fun (as we've
> seen). I've also added a proposal limit so that the game will hopefully
> start off slowly. I know this rule set by no means incorporates even a
> fraction of the functionality that we want in our ruleset, but I think it
> is fairly complete in itself, consistent, and free of exploitable
> loopholes.
> How about e-mailing the list with 'yay's and 'nay's?

I think we have made enough progress already that either Dave's
administrative fiat or the CFJs should take care of the rest. Besides
the fixes to problems with the ruleset, we got some nice things accepted
like a way of getting points and a justice system, and it makes no sense
to undo that.

Besides, your ruleset leaves quite a
bit unspecified - for example, how is the "definitions" section changed?
Is it some sort of rule itself, despite having no number?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:03:15 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: reset proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, ignore that last criticism - I didn't see that definitions of
terms was listed as part of the game state.

That would be a kinda nice system IF we were starting anew. If you'd
merge the useful proposals from last week into it, I might consider it.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:05:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: reset proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> That would be a kinda nice system IF we were starting anew. If you'd
> merge the useful proposals from last week into it, I might consider it.

Since we've already gone to the trouble of trying to sort out the gaping
holes in my initial ruleset, I think we should just stick with it for now.

(Besides, I don't want to have to write *another* database system 'til at
least next week. :)

Though should there eventually be a "C Nomic" or something, yeah, I'd
definitely consider a nice simple ruleset like that.

Actually, that does bring up an interesting side notion - what about a
primarily Web-based Nomic? (instead of something like this, where the
nomic actually takes place on the mailing list and the Web site is really
just an archive/collection of historical stuff)

The discussion list is just for discussion, and the business list exists
only to receive automated mails sent by the Web site. (i.e. "A new
proposal is up for voting, visit nomic.net/~foo/blah to vote on it")

Players visit the site, log in, and can make proposals and vote there.
Instead of using a set week or nweek schedule, proposals are just open for
a flat period of, say, seven days from when they're proposed.

...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

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:24:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This will hopefully clear up all the things that are currently unclear
> about the game state.

I'm pretty sure that r129 (which still exists until the 24th) prohibits
these.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: reset proposal
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:22:30 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> How about e-mailing the list with 'yay's and 'nay's?

Nay.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:44:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'm pretty sure that r129 (which still exists until the 24th) prohibits
> these.

And I'm also pretty sure that they're all trivially false, as the
r129-allowed changed to scores won't be retroactively legal until the
23rd/24th.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:48:27 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'm pretty sure that r129 (which still exists until the 24th)
> prohibits these.

No, the CFJs don't question the legality of any player actions.
Changing the scores may or may not have been legal, due to rule 129,
it doesn't matter -- it is considered legal either way.

However there seems to be some confusion about how that affected the
game state, and the CFJs attempt to end that confusion.

> And I'm also pretty sure that they're all trivially false, as the
> r129-allowed changed to scores won't be retroactively legal until
> the 23rd/24th.

Rule 129 doesn't retroactively cause things that were illegal to
suddenly happen. Rule 17 explicitly states that "Actions occur upon
reaching the appropriate Fora."

The purpose of rule 129 is to prevent people from retroactively
messing up the game state by causing something that happened weeks ago
to be declared illegal. The idea is not to make things legal, the idea
is to force players to make a CFJ early if they want to question
something.

I think all the CFJs are trivially true, as the actions we took have
occured and are considered legal due to rule 129.

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:26:46 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 129 doesn't retroactively cause things that were illegal to
> suddenly happen. Rule 17 explicitly states that "Actions occur upon
> reaching the appropriate Fora."
> 
> The purpose of rule 129 is to prevent people from retroactively
> messing up the game state by causing something that happened weeks ago
> to be declared illegal. The idea is not to make things legal, the idea
> is to force players to make a CFJ early if they want to question
> something.
> 
> I think all the CFJs are trivially true, as the actions we took have
> occured and are considered legal due to rule 129.

I understand what the purpose of r129 is, and by r17 our actions did occur
when they reached the public fora. The problem is that the actions we took
are *not* considered to be legal due to r129 - the "such actions" r129
considers legal are those that took place more than 1 nweek ago, not those
which took place in nweek 1 (which you merely cannot call a cfj on). They
*will* be legal 1 nweek after they took place, but currently they're as
illegal as they would usually be.

As for whether a cfj on our scores is legal, it depends on what you
interpret the "regarding" clause as. Personally, I consider these cfjs to be
"regarding" nweek 1 actions, because that's pretty much what they're about,
but it's true that they don't actually explicitly refer to nweek 1 actions.

uin.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:25:52 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The problem is that the actions we took are *not* considered to be
> legal due to r129 - the "such actions" r129 considers legal are
> those that took place more than 1 nweek ago, not those which took
> place in nweek 1 (which you merely cannot call a cfj on).

Ahh, *now* I see the problem. That's not exactly what I wanted the
rule to do, but you're right.

> As for whether a cfj on our scores is legal, it depends on what you
> interpret the "regarding" clause as.

Yes, I thought about that as well. I think you could get around this
by saying the CFJ is about the administrator's actions (failing to
accurately determine our current score). But anyway, it's now up to
the judges to decide if they'll reject the CFJs.

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: reset proposal
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:42:28 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Instead of using a set week or nweek schedule, proposals are just open for
> a flat period of, say, seven days from when they're proposed.

While I dislike the idea of a web-based nomic, I greatly prefer the above to
our current system.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:57:43 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: reset proposal
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:56:23PM -0600, Benjamin Bradley wrote:
> 7. A proposal passes if, 7 days after it was proposed, there have been
> more votes "for" the proposal than "against" it.

And once again, nothing happens.

Sheesh.

Nay.

-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: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosal
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:54:12 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Create a new rule entitled "Universal Law" with the following
> EXNIHILO delimited text:

Would you amend the proposal to say that dimensions may be modified
only as explicitly allowed by rules? It might not be necessary
depending on what other proposals pass, but if it's not required, it
can be removed later.

I otherwise like the proposal, and I don't want to have to vote "no"
just because of what is now a well-known maybe-loophole.

Also I would suggest to add "Players start at the Origin" and remove
the equivalent provision from the scoring rule. Or, because that might
conflict with some dimensions, "All dimensions of new players are
initially zero, unless otherwise declared by the rule that defines the
dimension."

Joerg

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:02:12 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> \begin{CFJ}
> The name of the player who joined as "Jesus" is now "Jebus".
> \end{CFJ}

I judge this one as 'TRUE'.

Analysis:

I prefer referring to someone as 'Jebus' than having to refer to them as
'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a sacred name and shouldn't be taken lightly; if it's
someone's given name I don't mind, but otherwise I find it at best overly
distracting. This is my sole reason for this judgement.

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:03:05 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 06:02:12PM -0000, Chess wrote:
> > \begin{CFJ}
> > The name of the player who joined as "Jesus" is now "Jebus".
> > \end{CFJ}
> 
> I judge this one as 'TRUE'.
> 
> Analysis:
> 
> I prefer referring to someone as 'Jebus' than having to refer to them
> as 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a sacred name and shouldn't be taken lightly;

You've got to be fucking kidding 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/

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosal
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:19:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Would you amend the proposal to say that dimensions may be modified
> only as explicitly allowed by rules? It might not be necessary
> depending on what other proposals pass, but if it's not required, it
> can be removed later.
> 
No, absolutely not. ;-) That's the case anyway, as changes to any Dimension
will be regulated by the rules, and therefore not changeable except by the
rules, by r18. I'm even planning to vote against p123, so I'm certainly not
going to a provision like that in my own proosal.

> Also I would suggest to add "Players start at the Origin" and remove
> the equivalent provision from the scoring rule. Or, because that might
> conflict with some dimensions, "All dimensions of new players are
> initially zero, unless otherwise declared by the rule that defines the
> dimension."
>
I wasn't sure if something like that (the second version) was needed... it
wouldn't hurt, though. Under consideration.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:13:39 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I prefer referring to someone as 'Jebus' than having to refer to them as
> 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a sacred name and shouldn't be taken lightly; if it's
> someone's given name I don't mind, but otherwise I find it at best overly
> distracting. This is my sole reason for this judgement.

That's your analysis? Jesus!

uin,
who tried to stop himself,
and has just realised he can't appeal this verdict,
and is therefore glad that CFJs don't actually do anything. ;-)

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:26:38 +0100
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: the very end of irreality
From: Thomas Hirsch <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

for i lack the time to read through the records of b-nomic, and the likewise
increased amount of traffic, i propose ..er.. would like to ask you to remove 
me from the mailing lists spoon-business and spoon-discuss. 

have a good time,

relet 

-- 
thomas hirsch | [email-masked]
zwinglistr. 4 | d10555 berlin
phone   +49 (0)30 233 67 65 0
mobile  +49 (0)173 4 55 97 85

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:27:30 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Reset proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I "vote" NAY on this proposal, but might consider another game at another time.  
The more I see of alternate rule sets--not excluding my own Nomice, a hybrid of 
the Pure Nomic variant and the Icehouse abstract strategy game--the more I 
admire Peter Suber's core rules.

Octagon

Glenn E. Overby II
Clinton Twp, MI
http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/

==
::quote temporarily disabled:: 

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:34:18 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Jebus CFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Robin Lee Powell responds to the judgement by Chess:

>> Analysis:
>> 
>> I prefer referring to someone as 'Jebus' than having to refer to them
>> as 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a sacred name and shouldn't be taken lightly;
>
>You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Chess doesn't appear to be kidding.  Whether or not prefacing the statement with 
the word "Analysis" constitutes an oxymoron is left as an exercise for the student.

Octagon

Glenn E. Overby II
Clinton Twp, MI
http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/

==
::quote temporarily disabled:: 

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:37:24 -0800
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Jebus CFJ
From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:34:18PM -0500, Glenn Overby II wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell responds to the judgement by Chess:
> 
> >> Analysis:
> >> 
> >> I prefer referring to someone as 'Jebus' than having to refer to
> >> them as 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a sacred name and shouldn't be taken
> >> lightly;
> >
> >You've got to be fucking kidding me.
> 
> Chess doesn't appear to be kidding.  Whether or not prefacing the
> statement with the word "Analysis" constitutes an oxymoron is left as
> an exercise for the student.

The 'n oxy' part is unnecessary.

-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: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:59:13 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Screw Coconuts
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Whoever proposed the Screw That proposal should revise it to replace the
word 'explicitely' with 'explicitly'.

Also, isn't the Crazy as a Coconut law paradoxical? If rule 235/0 had never
been created, this proposal would never have been issued, and so it wouldn't
have changed the rules, and proposal 235/0 would have been created, and the
proposal would have been issued, and so 235/0 wouldn't exist, etc.

-Wonko

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Screw Coconuts
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:21:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Also, isn't the Crazy as a Coconut law paradoxical? If rule 235/0 had
never
> been created, this proposal would never have been issued, and so it
wouldn't
> have changed the rules, and proposal 235/0 would have been created, and
the
> proposal would have been issued, and so 235/0 wouldn't exist, etc.

No. I could just as easily propose to set the game to what it would have
been had no rule numbered 1723 ever been created; it's not paradoxical
because we're not actually meddling with time, just with the game, and the
creation of the proosal is not in any game-related way dependent on r235.
Sure, I wouldn't have done it if no r235 had been created, but I *could*
have.

And no, no r235 has been created, but one will have been as of the 24th.

uin,
who doesn't actually have 577 points,
yet.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosal revision
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:40:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I amend proposal 131/2, "Same as it ever was.", to have the following ###
> delimited text:
> 
> ###
> Create a new rule named "Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain"
> with the following @@@ delimited text: 
> @@@ 
> For the purposes of the rules, and for all other game purposes, the term
> "proposal" shall be considered precisely equivalent to the term "proosal".
> 
> @@@
> 
Create a new rule named "...about a great many things" with the following
@@@  delimited text:
@@@
> Each player who voted for proposal 131 gains 23 points, and each player
> who
> voted against proposal 131 loses 17 points. This rule is then repealed.
@@@
> ###
> 
> uin.
> 
P.S. Yes, I know that.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosal revision
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:46:50 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ack. I'm not sure what Outlook thought it was doing there...

I amend the most recent revision of proposal 131, "Same as it ever was.", to
have the following ###
delimited text:

###
Create a new rule named "Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain"
with the following @@@ delimited text: 
@@@ 
For the purposes of the rules, and for all other game purposes, the term
"proposal" shall be considered precisely equivalent to the term "proosal". 
@@@

Create a new rule named "...about a great many things" with the following
@@@ delimited text:
@@@
Each player who voted for proposal 131 gains 23 points. Each player who
voted against proposal 131 loses 17 points.
@@@
###

uin.
P.S. I still know.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Screw Coconuts
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:10:24 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> uin,
> who doesn't actually have 577 points,
> yet.

Actually, I suppose I probably have accidentally managed to get myself those
points already... not in the way I was aiming for, though. Hmm. I don't like
that interpretation, although it's probably just as valid...

Still, it'll all work out the same in a couple of days, when Jesus becomes
Jebus, and we all get our points.

And yes, I know what the CFJ says, but CFJs don't actually *do* anything.
And as for the roster... well, map != territory, and all that.

uin.

DISCLAIMER: 
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended
recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is
privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the
sender of this message as soon as possible. 

The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and
may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited 

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Calls for Judgement
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:06:43 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> You've got to be fucking kidding me.
>
No, I'm just way too lazy to do this properly. Nothing said that a legal
judgement had to be accurate and well-reasoned...

*shrugs* I'm just having fun. If it matters so much, ISTR he can change the
name back.

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:21:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fenrir is a Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 21 Dec 2001, Josh Utterback wrote:

> I declare myself to be a player known as Fenrir.

Welcome!

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Jebus CFJ
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 20:12:40 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:37:24 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:34:18PM -0500, Glenn Overby II wrote:
>> Robin Lee Powell responds to the judgement by Chess:
>> 
>> >> Analysis:
>> >> 
>> >> I prefer referring to someone as 'Jebus' than having to refer to
>> >> them as 'Jesus'. 'Jesus' is a sacred name and shouldn't be taken
>> >> lightly;
>> >
>> >You've got to be fucking kidding me.
>> 
>> Chess doesn't appear to be kidding.  Whether or not prefacing the
>> statement with the word "Analysis" constitutes an oxymoron is left as
>> an exercise for the student.
>
>The 'n oxy' part is unnecessary.
>

???

why so?
I once used the boundless power of the judge to gain a win ( with the A
nomic ruleset ) that's why I though we'd get some better CFJ rules this
time around :)
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:07:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Order, order!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:33:35PM -0000, Chess wrote:
> <proposal>
> <title = Order, order!>
> <body>
> Create a new rule called 'Order In The Monkeyhouse' with the following text:
> If there is disagreement (registered by an explicit post to a public forum)
> about the verdict given by a Judgement on a CFJ, the Judgement becomes a
> proposal, to be voted on as usual, rather than automatically correct.
> </body>
> </proposal>
> 
> [[Yeesh, I didn't know that a little mischief in a CFJ reply would get me
> into so much trouble. So I've proposed this, so we can play nice from now
> on, and people have a better outlet for their frustrations with Judgements
> than name-calling.]]

This won't help things much. The person who performed the action
considered illegal would probably disagree.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:46:43 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Stupid subject line
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I changed the name of my proposal halfway through. Pay no attention to
the subject of that message.

And now, an example of how one of Dave's actions would have come out if
he held the Cursed Sushi:

----
Judgement of 133/0 is recognized.

Matching this judgement, in order to bring the game, score of the UIN is
placed to 577. As for the well you played.

It is verified " reaction " as 142/0.

" The Wonko " is welcomed to the nomic farce, the er.

Judgement of 136/0 is recognized.

(Yes * Christ's name as for the I finally renewed the roster to the
Jebus in order to reflect the fact that the fact that it changes is
controlled.

As for Whee! Dave 
----
-- 
Rob Speer

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: judiciary reform draft
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:08:32 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:18:40 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:19:01 -0000, "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Would you amend the proposal to say that dimensions may be modified
>> only as explicitly allowed by rules? It might not be necessary
>> depending on what other proposals pass, but if it's not required, it
>> can be removed later.
>> 
>No, absolutely not. ;-) That's the case anyway, as changes to any Dimension
>will be regulated by the rules, and therefore not changeable except by the
>rules, by r18. I'm even planning to vote against p123, so I'm certainly not
>going to a provision like that in my own proosal.
>
I'm not going to vote for it if you don't add that clause.
Just saying that [it WILL be regulated by the rules] is simply bad planning
IMHO
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Judiciary reform draft
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:26:24 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Resubmitted, as my previous attempt was eaten up somewhere in the bowels of
my computer.

This set of proposals is an attemt to reform the judiciary sistem of B
nomic 
Any suggestion will be ponderd.

let's begin:

Currently we have 4 rules about CFJs : 
Rule 126 defines CFJs to exist (if in a somewhat shaky way), defines the
plaintiff and defendant and sets CFJs as non-revisable objects.
Rule 127 defines the selection of judges
Rule 128 basically defines responses to CFJs (true false or refused) but
fails to provide an effect.
Rule 129 is the infamous statute of limitation

What i'll try to do in the following proposals is rip off what can be used
from the old A nomic ruleset and try to integrate it with our current game.

so:

<proposal>
<title>Judicial reform 1</title>

Replace the text of rule 126 with the following LEGULEIO delimited text
LEGULEIO
Any player may submit a Call For Judgement (CFJ) by posting his intention
to a public list together with a Statement to be judged and optionally an
analyisis. That Agent shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to the
CFJ. While submitting CFJ the Plaintiff may also specify a player as
Defendant for that CFJ.
Calls for Judgement is given a serial number as if it were a revisable
object. A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.
LEGULEIO
</proposal>

***

<proposal>
<title>Judicial Reform 2</title>
Replace the text of rule 128 with the following GIUDICATO delimited text

GIUDICATO
A Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
following responses to the Call for Judgment to which e was assigned,
accompanied by analysis:

1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
Statement or is not germain to the game.
2. True: The Statement is true.
3. False: The Statement is false.
4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment whether
the Statement is true or false.
[[completly ripped off from A Nomic]]

This response constitutes the judge's Judgment on that CFJ and has the same
serial number of the CFJ
The Judge may then at his discretion apply changes to the gamestate to
bring it in accordance with his Judgement.
GIUDICATO
[[the last sentence is the only real change, and it probably gives too much
power to the judge, however i cant think of a good way to check the bounds
of that power, suggestions ?]]
</proposal>

***

<proposal>
<title>Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment</title>

create a new rule named "Misbehaving Judges" with the following CATTIVONE
delimited text
CATTIVONE
the List of Misbehaving Judges (LMJ) is a list of players.
A player is removed from the LMJ two nweeks after he entered it.
CATTIVONE

replace the text of rule 127/0 with the following NELLALISTA delimited text
NELLALISTA
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, the
plaintiff and players in the List of Misbehaving Judges. If that leaves no
players eligible to be the judge, all players are eligible.
NELLALISTA
</proposal>

[[I also wanted to propose something for Appeal, but then one can simply
resubmit the CFJ or issue a CFJ on the CFJ ecc. Then again it would be nice
to include an explicit "Request For Reconsideration"]]

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:03:13 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Legality of Actions
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/20/01 8:44 AM, Doig, Gavin at [email-masked] wrote:

>> I'm pretty sure that r129 (which still exists until the 24th) prohibits
>> these.
> 
> And I'm also pretty sure that they're all trivially false, as the
> r129-allowed changed to scores won't be retroactively legal until the
> 23rd/24th.

Just a general question about legality. The statement that the score changes
won't be legal until the 23rd/24th seems to imply that the score changes are
presumed illegal unless a rule specifically makes them illegal. Does this
mean that all actions are considered to be illegal until they're made legal,
and if so, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that all actions are legal
unless made illegal by a CFJ or other rule or something like that?
Otherwise, everything we do is illegal until 1 nweek after we do it, when it
retroactively becomes legal.

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:14:25 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Judiciary reform draft
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/21/01 5:26 PM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:

> <proposal>
> <title>Judicial reform 1</title>
> 
> Replace the text of rule 126 with the following LEGULEIO delimited text
> LEGULEIO
> Any player may submit a Call For Judgement (CFJ) by posting his intention
> to a public list together with a Statement to be judged and optionally an
> analyisis. That Agent shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to the

What's an Agent?

> CFJ. While submitting CFJ the Plaintiff may also specify a player as
> Defendant for that CFJ.
> Calls for Judgement is given a serial number as if it were a revisable

I'm not sure I understand the above sentence

> object. A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.
> LEGULEIO
> </proposal>
> 
> ***
> 
> <proposal>
> <title>Judicial Reform 2</title>
> Replace the text of rule 128 with the following GIUDICATO delimited text
> 
> GIUDICATO
> A Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
> following responses to the Call for Judgment to which e was assigned,
> accompanied by analysis:
> 
> 1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
> Statement or is not germain to the game.
> 2. True: The Statement is true.
> 3. False: The Statement is false.
> 4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment whether
> the Statement is true or false.
> [[completly ripped off from A Nomic]]
> 
> This response constitutes the judge's Judgment on that CFJ and has the same
> serial number of the CFJ
> The Judge may then at his discretion apply changes to the gamestate to
> bring it in accordance with his Judgement.

Why not just say that the Judge's decision has the force of law?
Then, if the Judge rules that "Player X has 3.14159 points" is true, it is.

> GIUDICATO
> [[the last sentence is the only real change, and it probably gives too much
> power to the judge, however i cant think of a good way to check the bounds
> of that power, suggestions ?]]
> </proposal>
> 
> ***
> 
> <proposal>
> <title>Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment</title>
> 
> create a new rule named "Misbehaving Judges" with the following CATTIVONE
> delimited text
> CATTIVONE
> the List of Misbehaving Judges (LMJ) is a list of players.
> A player is removed from the LMJ two nweeks after he entered it.
> CATTIVONE

How does somebody become a 'Misbehaving Judge'?

> replace the text of rule 127/0 with the following NELLALISTA delimited text
> NELLALISTA
> 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, the
> plaintiff and players in the List of Misbehaving Judges. If that leaves no
> players eligible to be the judge, all players are eligible.
> NELLALISTA
> </proposal>
> 
> [[I also wanted to propose something for Appeal, but then one can simply
> resubmit the CFJ or issue a CFJ on the CFJ ecc. Then again it would be nice
> to include an explicit "Request For Reconsideration"]]

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:28:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: lotsa recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'll be sending out a big batch of recognized stuff soon, followed by the
nweek 2 ballot. Anything on the Web site will be fictitious for about the
next half hour or so, since the database will now think these proposals
are for nweek 3 (as technically voting has already started).

Whee! ;)

...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: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:31:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Order, order!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

[ Order, order! - if judgements are publicly protested, they become
proposals ]

> This won't help things much. The person who performed the action
> considered illegal would probably disagree.

So now we have trial by public mob. Arguably, it's a step up. (As long as
nobody proposes public lynchings, we're alright.)

...dave

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 02:13:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: the very end of irreality
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> As I do not have the time to follow the increased traffic and the game of
> b-nomic, I would like to ask you to remove me from the mailing lists spoon-*.

You should be able to unsubscribe from the lists by sending:

unsubscribe spoon-business
unsubscribe spoon-discuss
end

to [email-masked].

...dave

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: reset proposal
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:05:24 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> * person - an entity inhabiting a human body

So now you're excluding computer-using dolphins and AIs? Personally I
thought the 'passes the Turing Test' criteria was better - although I've
been suspected of being a Turing Test faliure before now...

(Chess ducks and runs)

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Votes
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:11:49 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Proposal 121/0: (untitled)
NO

> Proposal 122/1: Screw That 
YES

> Proposal 123/0: No messing around with the game state
ABSTAIN

> Proposal 130/0: I've told lies without hint of regret.
YES

> Proposal 131/3: Same as it ever was.
NO

> Proposal 132/0: We have always been at war with Eastasia
NO
(It's unfair to uin, and doesn't work anyway because no one owns
points independent of eir score. uin owns real points, as found by a
CFJ, and the other players never created points but only modified eir
score.)

> Proposal 137/0: Correct our scores, please
YES

> Proposal 138/0: Just to keep from being thrown to the wolves.
YES

> Proposal 139/0: Otherwise, what are the characters going to fall ...
NO

> Proposal 140/0: The word being made into flesh.
YES

> Proposal 141/0: Crazy as a coconut.
YES
(Though I think rule 235 didn't exist anyway.)

> Proposal 142/0: No kickbacks
NO
(Way too complicated, yet circumvented already.)

> Proposal 143/0: Judicial Compensation
NO
(Nice idea, but doesn't propose the creation of a rule, so it doesn't
work.)

> Proposal 144/0: Order, order!
NO

> Proposal 145/0: The Cursed Sushi of Babel
ABSTAIN

> Proposal 146/0: Judicial reform 1
NO

> Proposal 147/0: Judicial Reform 2
NO

> Proposal 148/0: Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment
NO

> Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die
YES

Joerg

From: "Chess" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 2
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:31:38 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Proposal 121/0: (untitled)
NO - looks too loose to me.
> Proposal 122/1: Screw That
YES - obviously needed...
> Proposal 123/0: No messing around with the game state
NO - I can't see where 'game state' is defined... so this is a bit loose as
a rule.
> Proposal 130/0: I've told lies without hint of regret.
YES - it'll be entertaining...
> Proposal 131/3: Same as it ever was.
NO - the second Rule is nasty, and the first annoys me for no specific
reason...
> Proposal 132/0: We have always been at war with Eastasia.
YES - although the 'banishment' thing isn't very well defined, this prolly
needs to be done.
> Proposal 137/0: Correct our scores, please
YES
> Proposal 138/0: Just to keep from being thrown to the wolves.
NO - I like odd-length weeks...
> Proposal 139/0: Otherwise, what are the characters going to fall off of?
YES
> Proposal 140/0: The word being made into flesh.
YES - this sounds pretty cool to me...
> Proposal 141/0: Crazy as a coconut.
YES
> Proposal 142/0: No kickbacks
YES
> Proposal 143/0: Judicial Compensation
YES
> Proposal 144/0: Order, order!
NO
> Proposal 145/0: The Cursed Sushi of Babel
NO
> Proposal 146/0: Judicial reform 1
NO - what's an Agent?
> Proposal 147/0: Judicial Reform 2
NO - too much power...
> Proposal 148/0: Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment
NO - a list of players, but no starting content specified? Bad proposal, no
smarties...
> Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die
YES - I'm not feeling meanandevil enough to try to block this one to stop
normalnumbered weeks happening...

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Recognitions (again)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:09:15 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:49:21 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>Judicial Reform 1: recognized as 146/0.
>
>Judicial Reform 2: 147/0.
>
>Judicial Reform 3, or crime and punishment: 148/0.
>
ehm, those were only sent to the discussion list for suggestions, they're
not ready for voting on right now
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Judiciary reform draft
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:18:06 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:14:25 -0500, Dan <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
oops! fixed

>
>Why not just say that the Judge's decision has the force of law?
>Then, if the Judge rules that "Player X has 3.14159 points" is true, it is.
>
that would be great, but the actual wording is difficult, ill' try to come
up with something 
>
>How does somebody become a 'Misbehaving Judge'?
>
by proposal of course.
something along the lines of "in recognition of the legal skills
demonstrated in the judgement of CFJ xyz I propose player foo is added to
the list of misbehaving judges"
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:23:21 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: anti-recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I apologize for not realizing that the three "Judicial Reform" bills
weren't actually formal proposals.

Just after voting closes, I'll delete them from the proposals database and
re-issue their numbers to three of the new proposals. (I don't want to do
it during voting, because that could lead to buckets of confusion.)

In the meantime, feel free to keep voting for/against them. Consider it a
free straw-poll.

...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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 2
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 03:57:15 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:49:47 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The following proposals are on the ballot for nweek 2:
>
>Proposal 121/0: (untitled) NO
>Proposal 122/1: Screw That NO
>Proposal 123/0: No messing around with the game state  YES
>Proposal 130/0: I've told lies without hint of regret. YES
>Proposal 131/3: Same as it ever was. NO
>Proposal 132/0: We have always been at war with Eastasia. YES
>Proposal 137/0: Correct our scores, please NO
>Proposal 138/0: Just to keep from being thrown to the wolves. NO
>Proposal 139/0: Otherwise, what are the characters going to fall off of? YES
>Proposal 140/0: The word being made into flesh. YES (proposals 123 and 130 should fix the loohole)
>Proposal 141/0: Crazy as a coconut. NO
>Proposal 142/0: No kickbacks YES
>Proposal 143/0: Judicial Compensation YES
>Proposal 144/0: Order, order! NO
>Proposal 145/0: The Cursed Sushi of Babel YES YES!
>Proposal 146/0: Judicial reform 1 NO
>Proposal 147/0: Judicial Reform 2 NO
>Proposal 148/0: Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment YES (this one is fine as it is)
>Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die  NO (only two days to send/modify proposals?)
>
Antonio
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 2
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 04:10:43 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 03:57:15 +0100, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:49:47 +0000 (GMT), "David E. Smith"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
oops!
Proposal 143/0: Judicial Compensation NO

I just read Joerg's comment on this one and I agree.
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 22:24:52 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 2
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/22/01 9:57 PM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:

>> Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die  NO (only two days to send/modify
>> proposals?)

No, 149/0 would only make it so that we had two days to vote on proposals.
Which we do anyway. We'd still have the rest of the nweek to make/change
proposals. If 138/0 isn't passed and no future proposals change the length
of the nweek, 149/0 won't actually change anything. It's just there in case
the length changes.

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 05:50:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: One
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> I Forfeit all my points and possesions. One

Is this a declaration of forfeiting the game, or just forfeiting your
points and possessions?

...dave

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 2
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:07:19 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 22:24:52 -0500, Dan <[email-masked]> wrote:

>on 12/22/01 9:57 PM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:
>
>>> Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die  NO (only two days to send/modify
>>> proposals?)
>
>No, 149/0 would only make it so that we had two days to vote on proposals.
>Which we do anyway. We'd still have the rest of the nweek to make/change
>proposals. If 138/0 isn't passed and no future proposals change the length
>of the nweek, 149/0 won't actually change anything. It's just there in case
>the length changes.

very well, in that case 
Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die  YES

sorry for all this vote changing, sloppy of me
Antonio
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 17:37:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:

> sorry for all this vote changing, sloppy of me

Like it's not sloppy of me to recognize proposals that you haven't
formally submitted?

:-)

...dave

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:27:04 -0500
From: Fenrir <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

David E. Smith wrote:

> The following proposals are on the ballot for nweek 2:
> 
> Proposal 121/0: (untitled)

NO

> Proposal 122/1: Screw That

YES

> Proposal 123/0: No messing around with the game state

YES

> Proposal 130/0: I've told lies without hint of regret.

YES

> Proposal 131/3: Same as it ever was.

NO

> Proposal 132/0: We have always been at war with Eastasia.

NO

> Proposal 137/0: Correct our scores, please

YES

> Proposal 138/0: Just to keep from being thrown to the wolves.

NO

> Proposal 139/0: Otherwise, what are the characters going to fall off of?

YES

> Proposal 140/0: The word being made into flesh.

YES

> Proposal 141/0: Crazy as a coconut.

NO

> Proposal 142/0: No kickbacks

YES

> Proposal 143/0: Judicial Compensation

NO - because of the retro-active clause

> Proposal 144/0: Order, order!

NO

> Proposal 145/0: The Cursed Sushi of Babel

NO

> Proposal 149/0: Don't let the game die

YES

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 04:09:56 +0800
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proosal 131
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Ack. I'm not sure what Outlook thought it 
> > was doing there...
>
> Neither do I. So I'm ignoring the first
> attempt at a revision in favour of
> this one. Recognized as 131/3.

I thought I'd sent both of those to discuss. I certainly meant to...

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 cent a minute calls anywhere in the U.S.!

http://www.getpennytalk.com/cgi-bin/adforward.cgi?p_key=RG9853KJ&url=http://www.getpennytalk.com

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: anticipatory proposal
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 14:07:50 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:40:48 -0500, "Donald Whytock"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>This proposal is written in anticipation of my being accepted as a player. (Long as it's fresh in my mind and all.) I therefore state that it can't be considered actually proposed unless/until I'm accepted...
>
>New rule: Proxies
>A player may designate another player to be the holder of eir proxy, with or without restrictions.  The holder of a proxy may, depending on any restrictions issued along with the proxy, cast a vote in the name of the player whose proxy is held, on any matter requiring a vote, including, but not limited to, proposals and calls for judgment.  A player who has given eir proxy to be held may withdraw it at any time.

Welcome! 
At the rate new players are joining this may be the largest game of nomic I
have ever played!
One thing about your proposal:
<nitpick mode on>
You don't vote on a CFJ, you issue a Judgement on it.
<nitpick mode off>
Yay!
Antonio
--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 09:21:53 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: anticipatory proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Regarding your nitpick:  Well, that's how it works NOW...

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/25/01 at 2:07 PM Antonio wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:40:48 -0500, "Donald Whytock"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>This proposal is written in anticipation of my being accepted as a
>player. (Long as it's fresh in my mind and all.) I therefore state that it
>can't be considered actually proposed unless/until I'm accepted...
>>
>>New rule: Proxies
>>A player may designate another player to be the holder of eir proxy, with
>or without restrictions.  The holder of a proxy may, depending on any
>restrictions issued along with the proxy, cast a vote in the name of the
>player whose proxy is held, on any matter requiring a vote, including, but
>not limited to, proposals and calls for judgment.  A player who has given
>eir proxy to be held may withdraw it at any time.
>
>Welcome! 
>At the rate new players are joining this may be the largest game of nomic I
>have ever played!
>One thing about your proposal:
><nitpick mode on>
>You don't vote on a CFJ, you issue a Judgement on it.
><nitpick mode off>
>Yay!
>Antonio
>--
>Rivoluzione:
>  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
>   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
>  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:23:40 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: *Proposal* 159
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Um.... for some reason, my proposal 159 is listed as a rule on the website
instead of a proposal... did something weird happen when I wasn't looking? 

Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 12:13:54 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing the rules
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:30:22AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> I issue the following proposal:
> 
> <proposal>
> <title> Fix the rules </title>
> <body>
> In rule 150/0, replace the word 'explicitely' with 'explicitly'
> </body>
> </proposal>
> 
> Doesn't its current wording mean that no player's information may be
> changed, period, because the rules don't 'explicitely' permit anything? 

They don't "explicitly" permit anything either, in that the word
"explicitly" does not appear regarding the actions the Rules permit. So
"explicitely" is an undefined term (like the majority of the words in
the Rules) which means whatever it is generally understood to mean. I
believe that it is generally understood to mean "explicitly".

Nevertheless, a proposal to fix the typo is good.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 16:31:19 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Judiciary reform
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3092142679_45329_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I don't understand the second to last sentence of Judiciary reform #1:

Calls for Judgement is given a serial number as if it were a revisable
object.

Does this mean that each individual CFJ gets a number, or the set of all
CFJs gets a single number? 

--MS_Mac_OE_3092142679_45329_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Judiciary reform</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TT>I don't understand the second to last sentence of Judiciary reform #1:<BR>
<BR>
Calls for Judgement is given a serial number as if it were a revisable<BR>
object.<BR>
<BR>
Does this mean that each individual CFJ gets a number, or the set of all CFJs gets a single number?</TT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3092142679_45329_MIME_Part--

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Judiciary Reform, version 2b
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:33:03 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 14:33:37 +0100, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote:

i amend my proposal Judicial reform 1 
<proposal>
<title>Judicial reform 1</title>

Replace the text of rule 126 with the following LEGULEIO delimited text
LEGULEIO
Any player may submit a Call For Judgement (CFJ) by posting his intention
to a public list together with a Statement to be judged and optionally an
analyisis. That Player shall be known as the Plaintiff with regard to the
CFJ. While submitting CFJ the Plaintiff may also specify a player as
Defendant for that CFJ.
Calls for Judgement are given a serial number as if they were a revisable
object. A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.
LEGULEIO
</proposal>

[[thanks Dan for pointing that out]]

To support absentee judges I also amend Judicial reform 2:

<proposal>
<title>Judicial Reform 2</title>
Replace the text of rule 128 with the following GIUDICATO delimited text

GIUDICATO
A Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
following responses to the Call for Judgment to which e was assigned,
accompanied by analysis:

1. Refused: A Judge may refuse to hear the Request if it lacks a clear
Statement or is not germain to the game.
2. True: The Statement is true.
3. False: The Statement is false.
4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Judgment whether
the Statement is true or false.
[[completly ripped off from A Nomic]]

This response constitutes the judge's Judgment on that CFJ and has the same
serial number of the CFJ
A Judge's decision shall have the force of law.

Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Judgement within seven days
of eir selection, that Judge shall be recused and a new player shall be
selected in the ways prescribed by the rules as Judge for the CFJ 
GIUDICATO
</proposal>

--
Rivoluzione:
  \o_  (o      __)   ( /    |__     o_  _o/
   |   /\  __\o  \o   |   o/  o/__  (\   |
  / \ |\  /) |   ( \ /o) / |  (  (\  /| / \

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

Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 22:30:26 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: guess what!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/25/01 8:06 PM, David E. Smith at [email-masked] wrote:

> 158 is revised (158/1). (If you're trying to get the clock synchronized to
> when this proposal would take effect, you might want to change the "3" to
> a "4" - it'd take effect at the start of nweek 4, as it's currently nweek
> 3.)

Actually, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about that. I thought
I'd have The Clock consider the start of the game as 0 nweeks, 0 ndays, but
it might be better to start at 1:01. Which would everyone prefer? Or would
everyone prefer that I throw out this proposal and leave time as it was
running before?

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 03:59:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: guess what!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Wonko wrote:

> Actually, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about that. I thought
> I'd have The Clock consider the start of the game as 0 nweeks, 0 ndays, but
> it might be better to start at 1:01. Which would everyone prefer? Or would
> everyone prefer that I throw out this proposal and leave time as it was
> running before?

I thought it was the latter (1:01) but I could be misreading things
horribly.

Heck, I'm still worried that the title of your proposal doesn't account
for leap years. ;)

...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: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 01:53:55 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Paradox prevention proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:49:50PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> <proposal>
> <title> The Paradox Prevention Proposal </title>
> <body>
> Create a new rule entitled "Paradox" with the following %%%% delimited text:
> %%%%
> If a proposal is passed which causes the creation of a paradox, the
> proponent of the proposal shall be awarded 100 points, after which all
> effects of the proposal besides the awardment of the win shall be erased and
> the proposal shall never have occurred.

I've been reading too much Douglas Hofstadter (just got to the chapter
in Metamagical Themas where he describes Nomic, actually!) recently to
let this one go unquestioned.

What if you can't tell whether a paradox has been created or not? What
if the awarding of 100 points triggers a paradox in an earlier proposal
which never would have been a paradox if the later proposal had not been
one? What if two proposals passed simultaneously create a paradox with
each other - or what if a recently-passed proposal causes a joint
paradox with a proposal passed in nweek 1, and that proposal since then
has affected the rest of the game?

More specifically, I think this very proposal could create a paradox of
immense proportions. If one proposal is passed as a direct result of
another proposal (say, a change in the number of votes required for a
proposal to pass), and the later proposal incidentally makes the effect
of the first proposal paradoxical, then the first proposal would have to
be erased. Then the person who passed it would get 100 points as a
result of the second proposal - but wait! The awarding of 100 points is
an effect of the second proposal which was an effect of the first! Since
the first proposal never happened, the second proposal didn't pass, and
the 100 points were never awarded, yet the original Paradox proposal
says that due to this paradox 100 points must be awarded. This puts the
fault of the new paradox on the Paradox proposal itself, which then eats
itself and gives Wonko 100 points, which incidentally he never got
because the Paradox proposal is deemed to never have passed in the first
place, and then you have a third paradox which is entirely unresolvable
and has probably destroyed the entire state of the game after the
Paradox proposal passed (or didn't).

On a more down-to-earth level, I think this proposal would have to
override rule 32 in order to have any effect, anyway. Plus, it says "all
effects... besides the awardment of the win" - but no win is awarded
according to this proposal.

--
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:14:42 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet more proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--===_100937248241=_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Think you misread, guy.  Rule 33, in its current form, says that lower-numbered rules take precedence, not higher-numbered ones.  So 10 would have taken precedence over 33.

Even if it didn't, though, I'd've read it that 33 was stating a general case: "rules of this group defer to rules of that group", whereas 10 was stating a particular case: "everything defers to me," which presumably would include 33.

Still, your proposal does talk about when two "everything defers to me" rules conflict, and there may well be a rule 33+n that does what 10 does, so the proposal is still useful.  Though you might want to instead say "two or more rules try to take precedence..." rather than "two rules try to take precedence...".

On 12/25/01 at 11:03 PM Wonko wrote:
<proposal>
<title> Just to avoid confusion.... </title>
<body>
Amend rule 33 to add the following **** delimited text:
****
If a rule states that it takes precedence over another rule, it does. If a rule states that it defers to another rule, it does. If two rules try to take precedence over each other or defer to each other, then the one with the lowest identification number shall take precedence.
****
</body>
<rationale>
Technically, we have a paradox, or maybe an ambiguity, right now, because rule 33 states that higher numbered rules take precedence over lower numbered rules, but rule 10 states that it takes precedence over all other rules. The problem is that if 10 take precedence over 33, everything's fine, and if 33 takes precedence over 10, everythings fine, but there's no way to figure out which is the case. This ambiguity doesn't make much difference here, but it could concievably cause problems with other rules in the future. This proposal should fix that.
</rationale>
</proposal> 

<proposal>
<title> Charmed, I'm sure </title>
<body>
Amend rule 154 to replace the last paragraph with the following the following **** delimited text:
****

Whenever a proposal passes, the proposal's proponent's charm shall increase by one.
Whenever a proposal fails, the proposal's proponent's charm shall decrease by one.

****
</body>
<rationale>
This way charm can be increased/decreased by other rules as well as this one.
</rationale>
</proposal>

<proposal>
<title> Party like it's 2002 </title>
<body>
Each player gets 10 points.
</body>
<rationale>
Happy New Year!
</rationale>
</proposal> 

--===_100937248241=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Yet more proposals</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3314.2100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Think you misread, guy.&nbsp; Rule 33, in its 
current form, says that lower-numbered rules take precedence, not 
higher-numbered ones.&nbsp; So 10 would have taken precedence over 
33.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Even if it didn't, though, I'd've read it that 33 
was stating a general case: "rules of this group defer to rules of that group", 
whereas 10 was stating a particular case: "everything defers to me," which 
presumably would include 33.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Still, your proposal does talk about when two 
"everything defers to me" rules conflict, and there may well be a rule 33+n that 
does what 10 does, so the proposal is still useful.&nbsp; Though you might want 
to instead say "two or more rules try to take precedence..." rather than "two 
rules try to take precedence...".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>On 12/25/01 at 11:03 PM Wonko 
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><TT>&lt;proposal&gt;<BR>&lt;title&gt; 
  Just to avoid confusion.... &lt;/title&gt;<BR>&lt;body&gt;<BR>Amend rule 33 to 
  add the following **** delimited text:<BR>****<BR>If a rule states that it 
  takes precedence over another rule, it does. If a rule states that it defers 
  to another rule, it does. If two rules try to take precedence over each other 
  or defer to each other, then the one with the lowest identification number 
  shall take 
  precedence.<BR>****<BR>&lt;/body&gt;<BR>&lt;rationale&gt;<BR>Technically, we 
  have a paradox, or maybe an ambiguity, right now, because rule 33 states that 
  higher numbered rules take precedence over lower numbered rules, but rule 10 
  states that it takes precedence over all other rules. The problem is that if 
  10 take precedence over 33, everything's fine, and if 33 takes precedence over 
  10, everythings fine, but there's no way to figure out which is the case. This 
  ambiguity doesn't make much difference here, but it could concievably cause 
  problems with other rules in the future. This proposal should fix 
  that.<BR>&lt;/rationale&gt;<BR>&lt;/proposal&gt; 
  <BR><BR>&lt;proposal&gt;<BR>&lt;title&gt; Charmed, I'm sure 
  &lt;/title&gt;<BR>&lt;body&gt;<BR>Amend rule 154 to replace the last paragraph 
  with the following the following **** delimited text:<BR>****<BR><BR>Whenever 
  a proposal passes, the proposal's proponent's charm shall increase by 
  one.<BR>Whenever a proposal fails, the proposal's proponent's charm shall 
  decrease by one.<BR><BR>****<BR>&lt;/body&gt;<BR>&lt;rationale&gt;<BR>This way 
  charm can be increased/decreased by other rules as well as this 
  one.<BR>&lt;/rationale&gt;<BR>&lt;/proposal&gt;<BR><BR>&lt;proposal&gt;<BR>&lt;title&gt; 
  Party like it's 2002 &lt;/title&gt;<BR>&lt;body&gt;<BR>Each player gets 10 
  points.<BR>&lt;/body&gt;<BR>&lt;rationale&gt;<BR>Happy New 
  Year!<BR>&lt;/rationale&gt;<BR>&lt;/proposal&gt;</TT> <FONT size=2 
Arial></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>

--===_100937248241=_--

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 08:19:04 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Paradox prevention proposal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/26/01 1:53 AM, Rob Speer at [email-masked] wrote:

> What if you can't tell whether a paradox has been created or not? What
> if the awarding of 100 points triggers a paradox in an earlier proposal
> which never would have been a paradox if the later proposal had not been
> one? What if two proposals passed simultaneously create a paradox with

Two proposals never pass simultaneously b/cs of rule 32.

> each other - or what if a recently-passed proposal causes a joint
> paradox with a proposal passed in nweek 1, and that proposal since then
> has affected the rest of the game?

I intended for only the most recently passed proposal to be destroyed, to
avoid changing things that happened in the past. (of course, this still
doesn't account for the possibility of nobody noticing a paradox for a
while).
 
> More specifically, I think this very proposal could create a paradox of
> immense proportions. If one proposal is passed as a direct result of
> another proposal (say, a change in the number of votes required for a
> proposal to pass), and the later proposal incidentally makes the effect
> of the first proposal paradoxical,

The the later proposal should be erased, as it was its passing that created
the paradox.

> then the first proposal would have to
> be erased. Then the person who passed it would get 100 points as a
> result of the second proposal - but wait! The awarding of 100 points is
> an effect of the second proposal which was an effect of the first! Since
> the first proposal never happened, the second proposal didn't pass, and
> the 100 points were never awarded, yet the original Paradox proposal
> says that due to this paradox 100 points must be awarded. This puts the
> fault of the new paradox on the Paradox proposal itself, which then eats
> itself and gives Wonko 100 points, which incidentally he never got
> because the Paradox proposal is deemed to never have passed in the first
> place, and then you have a third paradox which is entirely unresolvable
> and has probably destroyed the entire state of the game after the
> Paradox proposal passed (or didn't).
> 
> On a more down-to-earth level, I think this proposal would have to
> override rule 32 in order to have any effect, anyway. Plus, it says "all
> effects... besides the awardment of the win" - but no win is awarded
> according to this proposal.

The 'awardment of the win' is there because I changed from a win to 100
points partway through and forgot to change that. Thanks for pointing out
rule 32.

> 
> --
> Rob Speer
> 

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:51:35 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: date question
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Donald Whytock wrote:

> An official question, please, for the Gregorian-challenged newbie:
> What date and time, by US east-coast standards, correspond to the next
> voting due date?

The next voting period is January 1-3, 2002. Voting will close at 6:59:59
PM on the 3rd, east coast time, on the 3rd.

(A "timer" is one of the things I need to get worked out for the Web site,
but it's a bit lower priority than, say, tools to help me track votes
automatically. We're already up to about 20 proposals for the next ballot,
so I'm likely to need one soon. :)

...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: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:03:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Forfeit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> I forfeited and yet i still get those damn e-mails, wanna take me off the b
> nomic list

I don't have control over the lists.

Send the following in an email to [email-masked]:

unsubscribe spoon-business
unsubscribe spoon-discuss
end

...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

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:42:26 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: you know it's coming...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Administrator writes:

>"Bandwidth Rationing" is recognized as 178/0. It's eerily similar to
>120/0, which was defeated, but I don't recall the margin offhand.

I voted for the earlier proposal to limit proposals, and I still think it's a good idea.  
Now more than ever.  The volume of proposals, especially the nitpicks, the 
shotguns, and the ibuprofen-inducers, threatens the game.  Certainly it's driving 
folks away.

Octagon

Glenn E. Overby II
Clinton Twp, MI
http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/

==
::quote temporarily disabled:: 

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: you know it's coming...
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:11:00 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 16:42:26 -0500, Glenn Overby II
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The Administrator writes:
>
>>"Bandwidth Rationing" is recognized as 178/0. It's eerily similar to
>>120/0, which was defeated, but I don't recall the margin offhand.
>
>I voted for the earlier proposal to limit proposals, and I still think it's a good idea.  
>Now more than ever.  The volume of proposals, especially the nitpicks, the 
>shotguns, and the ibuprofen-inducers, threatens the game.  Certainly it's driving 
>folks away.
>
Yes, and the worst of this is on David, that's not even a player, so I
think he's giving more than he's getting.
On the other hand what else can you do in a Nomic but propose stuff?
Granted, you can make and rule CFJs or you can play various
subgames-that-are-part-of-the-bigger-ruleset (but you need a lot of
proposing for the second option) but those are not the central point of the
game, no?
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:14:27 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: Bandwidth Rationing
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/26/01 3:46 PM, Donald Whytock at [email-masked] wrote:

> New Rule: Bandwidth Rationing
> 
> Each player is limited to a maximum of three proposals per nweek.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> I was also known as Geppetto in Nomopoly II
> (http://www.mit.edu/people/tivol/nomopoly/) and Blind Nomic
> (http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/blind/).  I have observed and experienced what
> it's like for a Nomic administrator to go quite buggy from being inundated
> with proposals.  If we bombard with proposals, we'll find out where the line
> is between a labor of love and just plain labor.
> 
> 

Only 3? Couldn't it be at least 5?

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:28:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Let's make it Imperial (sort of)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:

> Since the administrator is kind enough to run the game (and administer the
> website etc) just for fun, let's make it easier for him by letting him have
> the final word on any proposal (mostly so he can veto a proposal that would
> require too much work on the database or something).

Just to prove your point, I'm gonna refuse to recognize your proposal. :)

Should I choose to become a player, this could give me such an obscene
advantage it's not really even funny.

I *will* recognize it if you can come up with a version that's fair to
everyone else as well.

...dave

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:33:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: Bandwidth
 Rationing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Wonko wrote:

> Only 3? Couldn't it be at least 5?

So far, by my count, you're up to 15 for this nweek. And that's not
counting revisions, which would put you close to 20. ;)

In all honesty, this isn't that big a deal. Counting votes is a bit
tedious, because I haven't found a clever way to automate it yet, but
proposals are basically cut'n'paste (and adding a bit of HTML so they
don't look wretched).

Actually, I just might have something for the voting thing... In one of my
other hats, I'm a Usenet Volunteer Votetaker. The UVV software was mainly
designed for lots of voters, but only one or two issues per ballot; I
might have a go at it, to see how well it would work the other way round.

...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: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:06:51 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Let's make it Imperial
	(sort of)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/26/01 8:28 PM, David E. Smith at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:
> 
>> Since the administrator is kind enough to run the game (and administer the
>> website etc) just for fun, let's make it easier for him by letting him have
>> the final word on any proposal (mostly so he can veto a proposal that would
>> require too much work on the database or something).
> 
> Just to prove your point, I'm gonna refuse to recognize your proposal. :)
> 
> Should I choose to become a player, this could give me such an obscene
> advantage it's not really even funny.
> 
> I *will* recognize it if you can come up with a version that's fair to
> everyone else as well.
> 
> ...dave
> 

How about something to the effect that if the admin disapproves of a
proposal, it takes a 3/4 majority to pass it? That gives you the opportunity
to kill proposals like "The admin shall handwrite all proposals and mail
three copies, one in english, one in french, and one in pig latin, through
snailmail, to each player withing 25 minutes of the time each proposal
reaches a public forum" but leaves us the option of cutting back your power
if you become a player.

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:49:25 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Let's hang on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 10:41:44PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> <proposal>
> <title>You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
> watery tart threw a sword at you</title>
> Append the following "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" delimited text to
> rule 32
> "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
> The Administrator may Veto any given proposal by declaring so. A Vetoed
> proposal fails unless at least 3/4 of all players vote for it. If at any
> time the administrator is a player, this rule automatically amends itself to
> remove this sentence and the preceding two sentences.
> "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
> </proposal>

> How's this? It gives the admin a fair amount of power, but if e tries to
> make emself a player and use that power, the power vanishes faster than you
> can say Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem- zu-owly-zhiv 

Why not just say that if the Administrator is a Player, he cannot use
the Veto power?

Anyway, the rule is unclear. If a Veto is used, does it only succeed if
less than 3/4 of all players voted for it? Is another vote held
immediately? Or does it go to the next nweek? Furthermore, won't it be
very difficult to override a Veto considering that at least 1/4 of the
players tend to idle and not vote?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 23:01:50 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Abscence of votes
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3092252510_447964_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

What happens if nobody votes on a proposal? Rule 32 states that only votes
that have been voted on are processes. Does this mean that if nobody votes
for or against a proposal, it just sort of ceases to exist, without any
player gaining/losing points/charm for it? 

--MS_Mac_OE_3092252510_447964_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Abscence of votes</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TT>What happens if nobody votes on a proposal? Rule 32 states that only votes that have been voted on are processes. Does this mean that if nobody votes for or against a proposal, it just sort of ceases to exist, without any player gaining/losing points/charm for it?</TT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3092252510_447964_MIME_Part--

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 05:52:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Abscence of votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Wonko wrote:

> What happens if nobody votes on a proposal? Rule 32 states that only votes
> that have been voted on are processes. Does this mean that if nobody votes
> for or against a proposal, it just sort of ceases to exist, without any
> player gaining/losing points/charm for it?

If nobody voted on it, it failed to pass, and that (so far as I'm
concerned) is that.

...dave

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:11:43 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I'm in a Nomic state of mind.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 12/26/01 at 11:04 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>I propose the following:
>
><proposal name="Define the Game State">
>Amend rule 152 by appending the following paragraph:
>
>The state of the game, which can also be referred to as the game state,
>is comprised of all information that the Administrator is required to
>keep track of.
>
></proposal>
>
>-- 
>Rob Speer

The Administrator must observe all activity on the business forum; therefore this would make the business forum part of the game state.  Which would mean we'd have to submit proposals in order to email the business forum...

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:28:05 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I'm in a Nomic state of mind.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 03:11:43AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> The Administrator must observe all activity on the business forum; therefore this would make the business forum part of the game state.  Which would mean we'd have to submit proposals in order to email the business forum...

That isn't specified in the rules.

I could list everything that is part of the game state, but then that
list would have to be kept up to date, and that wouldn't be fun. I think
this works very nicely. It even prevents things like "I change the Ballot
to..." (for now, have a little common sense and don't do that, okay?)
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:39:04 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I'm in a Nomic state
  of mind.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 12/27/01 at 3:28 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 03:11:43AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> The Administrator must observe all activity on the business forum;
>therefore this would make the business forum part of the game state. 
>Which would mean we'd have to submit proposals in order to email the
>business forum...
>
>That isn't specified in the rules.
>
>I could list everything that is part of the game state, but then that
>list would have to be kept up to date, and that wouldn't be fun. I think
>this works very nicely. It even prevents things like "I change the Ballot
>to..." (for now, have a little common sense and don't do that, okay?)
>-- 
>Rob Speer

It's implied by a combination of 24:

"The Administrator is responsible for updating the Roster so that it reflects the current game state."

and 26:

"Any entity otherwise qualified as a Player may become one by posting a message to the public Forum explicitly stating eir wish to become a player."

Therefore, the Administrator is required to keep track of activity on the public forum so as to keep the Roster updated.  So the public forum must be part of the game state, since the mere presence or absence of a message on it determines whether or not a player exists.

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 06:13:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Let's make it Imperial (sort of)
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Antonio wrote:
> 
> > Since the administrator is kind enough to run the game (and
> administer the
> > website etc) just for fun, let's make it easier for him by letting
> him have
> > the final word on any proposal (mostly so he can veto a proposal
> that would
> > require too much work on the database or something).
> 
> Just to prove your point, I'm gonna refuse to recognize your
> proposal. :)
> 
> Should I choose to become a player, this could give me such an
> obscene
> advantage it's not really even funny.
> 
> I *will* recognize it if you can come up with a version that's fair
> to
> everyone else as well.
> 
> ...dave
> 
Very well: I had thought of that problem just after hitting the send
button (so typical), but then I was tired and just went to bed.
here goes:
<proposal>
<title>let's make it Imperial</title>
Create a new rule named "Administrative Veto" with the following
IMPERIAL delimited text
IMPERIAL
The Administrator may Veto any given proposal by declaring so. That
proposal fails no matter what votes it recived.
Should the Administrator become a player this rule shall repeal itself.
This rule takes precedence over rule 32.
IMPERIAL
</proposal>

I made it a separate rule so it can destroy itself more easily, but
this required taking precedence over rule 32, if you don't like that,
vote for Wonko's proposal instead.
-- 
Antonio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: I'm in a Nomic state of mind.
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:16:17 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:28:05 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 03:11:43AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> The Administrator must observe all activity on the business forum; therefore this would make the business forum part of the game state.  Which would mean we'd have to submit proposals in order to email the business forum...
>
>That isn't specified in the rules.
>
>I could list everything that is part of the game state, but then that
>list would have to be kept up to date, and that wouldn't be fun. I think
>this works very nicely. It even prevents things like "I change the Ballot
>to..." (for now, have a little common sense and don't do that, okay?)

The Ballot is one of the few things that are actually well defined by the
ruleset (rule 23: if a proposal was recognized it's on the ballot), you
cannot aritrarily change it just by declaring so.
Actually, few things (if any) are left that can be arbitrily changed at
will as rule 152:State Changes would'nt allow it (or at least it makes it
possible to issue a CFJ)
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:02:23 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: I'm in a Nomic state of mind.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 11:16:17PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 03:28:05 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 03:11:43AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> >> The Administrator must observe all activity on the business forum; therefore this would make the business forum part of the game state.  Which would mean we'd have to submit proposals in order to email the business forum...
> >
> >That isn't specified in the rules.
> >
> >I could list everything that is part of the game state, but then that
> >list would have to be kept up to date, and that wouldn't be fun. I think
> >this works very nicely. It even prevents things like "I change the Ballot
> >to..." (for now, have a little common sense and don't do that, okay?)
> 
> The Ballot is one of the few things that are actually well defined by the
> ruleset (rule 23: if a proposal was recognized it's on the ballot), you
> cannot aritrarily change it just by declaring so.
> Actually, few things (if any) are left that can be arbitrily changed at
> will as rule 152:State Changes would'nt allow it (or at least it makes it
> possible to issue a CFJ)

Right, but there's a bit of uncertainty as to what rule 152 covers. My
proposal, which modifies 152, makes it more explicit.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:19:49 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: To Propose or Not To Propose?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I find myself with a minor ethical dilemma...

On the one hand, faced with a rule proposal or a rule change proposal that I see a hole in, my first instinct is to offer advice or commentary on how that hole can be plugged.

On the other hand, new rules or changes to rules that have holes in them are prime material for proposals in the next round.  A clear case regarding the hole will make it obvious that my hole-fixing proposals are good ideas, which will mean more points for me.

At what point do I decide whether my allegiance is to myself (and thus point gain), the sanctity of the game (and thus better rules), or the community of players (and thus working to prevent undue hardship)?

Rousseau would have a field day with Nomic.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:58:28 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Clarifying the clarification
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 12/27/01 at 10:41 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>For the sake of clarity, I modify proposal 180/0 (the game state
>proposal) by appending the following sentence to the amendment it
>proposes:
>
>Messages on a Forum are not themselves part of the game state.
>
>-- 
>Rob Speer

See...this wasn't really my point.  My point is that the Administrator has to keep track of everything related to the game, and therefore, by proposal 180, everything related to the game would become part of the game state.  He has to keep track of proposals, therefore the body of proposals is part of the game state.  He has to keep track of votes on proposals, therefore votes are part of the game state.  He has to keep track of Calls for Judgment, the Roster, scores, charms...if proposal 167 passes, he has to keep track of Misbehaving Judges...and yes, all of these things are mentioned in the rules.

So, essentially, everything involved in the game is part of the game state.  Which means, given the passage of proposal 180, anything that affects the game at all must be a proposal or a rule-defined action.  Which, coupled with rule 18, means any action defined in the rules is okay, and any action *not* defined in the rules is okay.

So either your proposal creates a rule that states the obvious, or your proposal creates a paradox at some level I don't yet see.

I understand what you're trying to do: You're trying to create a general category of Things That Are Part of the Game State, so that as new things are created they can be incorporated as part of the game state without explicitly saying so.  Problem with that is, just as your recent update of your proposal demonstrates, you'll need to start making exceptions to the rule -- explicit exclusion -- which will eventually become as much work as explicit inclusion.

Besides, if you're going to do it at all, I'd just as soon have the forum messages be part of the game state.  That way if a non-player posts a message we have grounds for totally ignoring it.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:37:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Apologies for non-response to CFJ 134 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, David E. Smith wrote:

> 
> Which reminds me: none of these rules/proposals/whatnots currently include
> any way to deal with absentee judges. CFJ 134, assigned to Iain, is due by
> sometime on the 27th, and the rules don't seem to specify what happens if
> e fails completely to respond.
> 
Oops! And its to late now. Sorry! A complete failure to read my emails
properly before I left for christmas... And I missed the voting for
nweek 2. All I need to now is catch up on what else has been going on...

cheers,
Iain 

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 05:39:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dimension Reform
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- Wonko <[email-masked]> wrote:

<snip>new definitions for charm and activity

> <rationale>
> This way charm & activity can be modified by other rules as well as
> this
> one.
> </rationale>
> </proposal>
> 
Ok, now you need to define a starting Charm and Activity. Looks tricky...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:15:10 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dimension Reform
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/28/01 8:39 AM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:

> Ok, now you need to define a starting Charm and Activity. Looks tricky...

Everyone already has a value for Charm. Right now, it's the number of passes
minus the number of fails. When this amendment takes effect, it won't
actually change anyone's Charm, just the method for changing it.
Activity isn't defined yet, but proposals take effect in numerical order, so
Antonio's proposal will set everyone's activity before my proposal takes
effect, and again, my proposal won't change anyone's Activity, just the
method.

So when this takes effect, everyone's charm and activity will already be
defined.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:25:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dimension Reform
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- Wonko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> on 12/28/01 8:39 AM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > Ok, now you need to define a starting Charm and Activity. Looks
> tricky...
> 
> Everyone already has a value for Charm. Right now, it's the number of
> passes
> minus the number of fails. When this amendment takes effect, it won't
> actually change anyone's Charm, just the method for changing it.
> Activity isn't defined yet, but proposals take effect in numerical
> order, so
> Antonio's proposal will set everyone's activity before my proposal
> takes
> effect, and again, my proposal won't change anyone's Activity, just
> the
> method.
> 
> So when this takes effect, everyone's charm and activity will already
> be
> defined.
> 

Tricky, as I said. What about new players?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:00:25 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dimension Reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 08:15:01AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> and the following TOBE delimited text, if it exists, with the following
> NOTTOBE delimited text:
> 
> TOBE
> A player's Activty is the number of Ballots in which that player casted at
> least one vote minus the number of Ballots in which that player did not
> cast any vote."
> TOBE
> 
> NOTOBE
> Whenever an nweek ends and a player voted on that nweek's Ballot, eir
> Activity increases by 1.
> Whenever an nweek ends and a player didn't vote on that nweek's Ballot, eir
> Activity decreases by 1.
> NOTTOBE
> 
> </body>
> <rationale>
> This way charm & activity can be modified by other rules as well as this
> one.
> </rationale>
> </proposal>
> 

Let me point out that there isn't any NOTTOBE delimited text there,
though it might be considered to start at the only NOTTOBE and run to
the end of the message...

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 23:23:35 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Request to be designated as a Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Just wait until I start cranking out some proposals to add to it. :-)

--gritter

At 04:14 AM 12/29/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>on fri, 28 dec 2001, greg ritter wrote:
>
> > i would like to be known as a player in b nomic with the name of "gritter"
>
>welcome! (you picked a heck of a time to sign on. you're just gonna love
>this week's ballot. :)
>
>...dave

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 04:37:31 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Request to be designated as a Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/28/01 at 11:40 PM Greg Ritter wrote:

>{BEGIN PROPOSAL A}
>{TITLE: Currency}
>
>{BEGIN PROPOSAL B}
>{TITLE: Proposal Awards}
>
>{BEGIN PROPOSAL C}
>{TITLE: Sharing the Wealth}
>
>{BEGIN PROPOSAL D}
>{TITLE: Victory By Monopoly}
>

Okay...these would turn B Nomic into a zero-sum game, which is an interesting idea, yes...but why couldn't this be done by re-working the points system?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 13:48:38 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Zero-sum via Economics?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Nah, I don't think so. The game itself doesn't become a zero-sum game, 
because there is still a non-zero sum strategy for winning (e.g. points) 
that is a victory criteria entirely independent of a monopoly win. For a 
game to be a zero-sum game it has to be zero-sum for ALL strategies.

The goal of these proposals isn't to turn B Nomic into a zero-sum game (and 
I don't think it does). At best, my proposals provide a single zero-sum 
strategy for winning only if the fourth proposal (Victory By Monopoly) 
passes. Remove that last proposal and we still have a currency system 
without a zero-sum strategy for winning the game. And that also assumes 
that no one ever comes up with another rule that affects that rule or the 
amount or value of currency in circulation (which is probably unlikely if 
this is like other Nomic games).

gritter

At 04:37 AM 12/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:

>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>
>On 12/28/01 at 11:40 PM Greg Ritter wrote:
>
> >{BEGIN PROPOSAL A}
> >{TITLE: Currency}
> >
> >{BEGIN PROPOSAL B}
> >{TITLE: Proposal Awards}
> >
> >{BEGIN PROPOSAL C}
> >{TITLE: Sharing the Wealth}
> >
> >{BEGIN PROPOSAL D}
> >{TITLE: Victory By Monopoly}
> >
>
>Okay...these would turn B Nomic into a zero-sum game, which is an 
>interesting idea, yes...but why couldn't this be done by re-working the 
>points system?
>
>                                                 Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:11:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: today's random thoughts on voting and stuff.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If the next nweek's ballot ends up being anything like the current one
(i.e. 30+ proposals), I'll have to design an automatic vote-counting
system. Should it come to that, would anyone object to voting on the Web
site (as opposed to voting by email), assuming I can conjure up a
reasonably secure way to do it?

(This may not be strictly permissible, per 31/2, but I may drive my fiat -
vroom vroom - through that rule, if need be. Or just have the Web site
automatically send me an email containing votes. ;)

Also, if anyone has submitted a proposal that I've completely missed and
neglected to recognize (as opposed to the one I just outright refused to
recognize), please let me know.

Proposals will be accepted through 5:59 PM CDT on Monday, the 31st. Voting
will be from 6:00 PM CDT on the 31st through 5:59 PM CDT on Thursday,
January 3, 2002. Adjust for your timezone as necessary. (I'm in Central
time, so that's what I use, but officially the game uses GMT or UCT or
whatever.)

The results of this ballot will likely be delayed 'til Friday morning,
because of the sheer size of the ballot, and the fact that several
proposals, if successful, will require more than five minutes of work to
implement.

...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: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 16:18:59 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: today's random thoughts on voting and
  stuff.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 12/29/01 at 8:11 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>If the next nweek's ballot ends up being anything like the current one
>(i.e. 30+ proposals), I'll have to design an automatic vote-counting
>system. Should it come to that, would anyone object to voting on the Web
>site (as opposed to voting by email), assuming I can conjure up a
>reasonably secure way to do it?
>
>(This may not be strictly permissible, per 31/2, but I may drive my fiat -
>vroom vroom - through that rule, if need be. Or just have the Web site
>automatically send me an email containing votes. ;)
>
>Also, if anyone has submitted a proposal that I've completely missed and
>neglected to recognize (as opposed to the one I just outright refused to
>recognize), please let me know.
>
>Proposals will be accepted through 5:59 PM CDT on Monday, the 31st. Voting
>will be from 6:00 PM CDT on the 31st through 5:59 PM CDT on Thursday,
>January 3, 2002. Adjust for your timezone as necessary. (I'm in Central
>time, so that's what I use, but officially the game uses GMT or UCT or
>whatever.)
>
>The results of this ballot will likely be delayed 'til Friday morning,
>because of the sheer size of the ballot, and the fact that several
>proposals, if successful, will require more than five minutes of work to
>implement.
>
>...dave

You don't have a fiat.  You have a veto.  You remember them...?  They bought out Yugo?  And I don't think you can drive a veto or a yugo through an already-established rule...:)

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 16:44:09 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: today's random thoughts on voting and
  stuff.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

An afterthought on a web-based ballot:

I don't think the rules define the word "forum" anywhere, certainly not as necessarily meaning a mailing list.  If the webpage itself allowed interaction, the webpage itself would qualify as a forum.  If the webpage was capable of receiving votes, and also allowing those votes to be designated public or private, and display the current publicly submitted votes, then it would qualify as both a public forum for the publicly submitted votes and the Administrator for the privately submitted ones.

So howzabout a version of the current proposal list, with Yes/No/Abstain radio buttons followed by the current public votes below the text of each proposal, and a Submit Publicly button and a Submit Privately button at the bottom?

Awful tempting to make this a proposal, but I haven't a clue what sort of server-side coding nomic.net is permitting you...

						Glotmorf

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Request to be designated as a Player
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 02:14:39 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 23:40:56 -0500, Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Note: this email contains FOUR separate proposals.
>
<snip>

Sorry to always be the nitpick, but those proposals do nothing.
You should make them create rules to work :)

-- 
Antonio, who is thinking about adding officers just so that he can get to
be called the Supreme Nitpick
-- 
Antonio

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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: today's random thoughts on voting and stuff. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 19:18:56 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Donald Whytock":
[snip]
> 
> Awful tempting to make this a proposal, but I haven't a clue what sort of>  server-side coding nomic.net is permitting you...
> 
> 						Glotmorf

Ask for whatever you need. BTW, I once coded a vote counter for A Nomic; it might be worth looking at, though I seem to remember that I still had to enter the votes by hand (it just counted them).

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 20:41:32 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Request to be designated as a Player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have only one response to those proposals.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
NO BANK NO BANK FOR THE LOVE OF JEBUS DON'T LET THERE BE A BANK.

It wasn't all that fun when A Nomic ran out of money, especially on top
of the fact that with the extra bookkeeping nobody knew how many points
anyone had. Those proposals are _eerily_ similar to what started that
situation in A Nomic.

Anyway, even though I am going to vote against all of your proposals -
welcome to B Nomic!
--
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 21:15:55 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Economic Change
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3092505356_801701_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

One small problem with the monopoly victory  if you get a monopoly, your
score becomes 1000, you get a win, all scores go to 0, you still have a
monopoly, you get 1000 points, you get another win, all scores go to 0, you
still have a monopoly, etc.
Thus, as soon as you got all the $N, you'd get an infinite number of wins
instantaneously. 

--MS_Mac_OE_3092505356_801701_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Economic Change</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TT>One small problem with the monopoly victory  if you get a monopoly, your score becomes 1000, you get a win, all scores go to 0, you still have a monopoly, you get 1000 points, you get another win, all scores go to 0, you <B><U>still</U></B> have a monopoly, etc. <BR>
Thus, as soon as you got all the $N, you'd get an infinite number of wins instantaneously.</TT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3092505356_801701_MIME_Part--

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:09:40 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Vote counters
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

One of my Nomice (another nomic, now in progress) players wrote an elegant little 
vote counter which we've been using satisfactorily.  It even has the players 
inputting their own proposals as well as making their votes.  There are some 
differences in practice, of course.  I don't know if he'd share, but if you like I can 
put you together off-list.

Octagon

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:32:48 -0500
From: Josh Utterback <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: you know it's coming...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Glenn Overby II wrote:

> The Administrator writes:
> 
> 
>>"Bandwidth Rationing" is recognized as 178/0. It's eerily similar to
>>120/0, which was defeated, but I don't recall the margin offhand.
>>
> 
> I voted for the earlier proposal to limit proposals, and I still think it's a good idea.  
> Now more than ever.  The volume of proposals, especially the nitpicks, the 
> shotguns, and the ibuprofen-inducers, threatens the game.  Certainly it's driving 
> folks away.

I tend to agree.  I find that if too many proposals are made at one time 
it becomes difficult to not only keep track of them, but to give any of 
them the attention and discussion that they deserve.

Fenrir

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:59:03 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: today's random thoughts on voting and
  stuff.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 12/29/01 at 7:18 PM Joel Uckelman wrote:

>Thus spake "Donald Whytock":
>[snip]
>> 
>> Awful tempting to make this a proposal, but I haven't a clue what sort
>of=
>>  server-side coding nomic.net is permitting you...
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>
>Ask for whatever you need. BTW, I once coded a vote counter for A Nomic; it might be worth looking at, though I seem to remember that I still had to enter the votes by hand (it just counted them).

Very generous, but I still don't think I'll make it a proposal.  It's one thing to require some characters be added to a text file; it's another to mandate the development of an interactive database-driven web app.

Since you brought it up, though, if one were to start another Nomic game, would nomic.net be willing to host it?  And what sort of server-side coding options would there be?  Perl and mySQL?  ASP and Access?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:03:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: One last proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Wonko wrote:

> <proposal  name="Start at the beginning">

Recognized 192/0.

> Thanks for fixing the NOTOBE/NOTTOBE error, Dave.

I'm just cool like that. :-)

I don't want to let silly little typoes interfere with the integrity of
the game. There are a couple of proposals out there that have trivial
speling/punctuation errors; should they pass, I'll fix those in the
relevant rules as well.

(This is the nasty after-effect of working, albeit briefly, as a copy
editor for a newspaper. The job pretty much requires one to be anal about
such things, and it can be a hard habit to break.)

...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: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:09:23 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revisions to Economics Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Greg Ritter wrote:

> >Sorry to always be the nitpick, but those proposals do nothing.
> >You should make them create rules to work :)
>
> Arggh. Chalk it up to being the new borg on the cube.

I was just assuming that, if they passed, new rules with the text there
would be created.

So much so, in fact, that I'm basically disregarding these.

If you made any changes to the text, please let me know ASAP and I'll do a
proper revision. If all you did, though, was add the "Create a new rule"
boilerplate, I'm just gonna ignore this. (Hey, players! Those proposals do
in fact mean that new rules will be created! I'm just a lazy typist.)

...dave

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:13:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Josh Utterback wrote:

> <PROPOSAL>
> <TITLE>I Can't See the Clock</TITLE>

193/0. And again, it WAS on my to-do list, as soon as I get it all
properly de-bugged, but now I'm gonna wait to see if it's required. :)

> <TITLE>I Can't See My Watch Either</TITLE>
194/0. Same disclaimer.

...dave

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:19:29 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revisions to Economics
  Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 08:09 AM 12/30/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Greg Ritter wrote:
>
> > >Sorry to always be the nitpick, but those proposals do nothing.
> > >You should make them create rules to work :)
> >
> > Arggh. Chalk it up to being the new borg on the cube.
>
>I was just assuming that, if they passed, new rules with the text there
>would be created.
>
>So much so, in fact, that I'm basically disregarding these.
>
>If you made any changes to the text, please let me know ASAP and I'll do a
>proper revision. If all you did, though, was add the "Create a new rule"
>boilerplate, I'm just gonna ignore this. (Hey, players! Those proposals do
>in fact mean that new rules will be created! I'm just a lazy typist.)

No changes were made to the actual text of the proposals except to ad the 
"Create a new rule blah blah blah" stuff.

I was assuming the same thing, but game custom differs from Nomic to Nomic. :-/

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:37:00 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Economic Change
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Good catch. I'll submit a change.

At 09:15 PM 12/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>One small problem with the monopoly victory  if you get a monopoly, your 
>score becomes 1000, you get a win, all scores go to 0, you still have a 
>monopoly, you get 1000 points, you get another win, all scores go to 0, 
>you still have a monopoly, etc.
>Thus, as soon as you got all the $N, you'd get an infinite number of wins 
>instantaneously.

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:47:02 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A different sort of bandwidth
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So if someone submits 10 proposals, then only lose five points?

Not much of a disincentive, especially in the later stages of a game. 
Perhaps 10(n-5) or some other multiple would be more of a disincentive.

At 09:42 AM 12/30/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>At the beginning of each voting period, each player shall lose n-5 points, 
>where n is the number of proposals e submitted which are on the current 
>Ballot. If n-5 is less than zero, eir score shall remain the same. If e 
>would lose more points than eir score, eir score becomes zero.

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 13:44:30 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A different sort of bandwidth
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> <proposal>
> <title> The Many </title>
> <body>
> If a rule entitled "Bandwidth Rationing" exists, amend its text to be the
> following !!!! delimited text. If such a rule doesn't exist, create a new
> rule entitled "Bandwidth Rationing" with the following !!!! delimited text.
> !!!!

I think your delimiters have eaten your rule. A stubborn interpretation
would say that the text would be amended to be "delimited text."

-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: today's random thoughts on voting and stuff. 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:15:38 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Donald Whytock":
> >
> >Ask for whatever you need. BTW, I once coded a vote counter for A Nomic;>  it might be worth looking at, though I seem to remember that I still had>  to enter the votes by hand (it just counted them).
> 
> Very generous, but I still don't think I'll make it a proposal.  It's one>  thing to require some characters be added to a text file; it's another to>  mandate the development of an interactive database-driven web app.
> 
> Since you brought it up, though, if one were to start another Nomic game,>  would nomic.net be willing to host it?  And what sort of server-side>  coding options would there be?  Perl and mySQL?  ASP and Access?
> 
> 						Glotmorf

Sure. That's what it's for.

As for options, if it's free and runs on Linux, it can be made available.

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 22:31:46 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Babel
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3092596307_414976_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Might I suggest that the proponent of the Cursed Sushi of Babel amend eir
proposal to replace the word Japanese with Korean? I find the results are
more interesting that way. 

--MS_Mac_OE_3092596307_414976_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Babel</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TT>Might I suggest that the proponent of the Cursed Sushi of Babel amend eir proposal to replace the word Japanese with Korean? I find the results are more interesting that way.</TT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3092596307_414976_MIME_Part--

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:00:57 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Delimiting example
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I propose this rule:

{{
__Standard Delimiters__

The character sequences '{{' and '}}' (without the single quotes) serve 
to delimit a proposal or a rule; in any Action where they appear, they 
are considered to mark the beginning and end, respectively, of a
proposal or rule. The message in which they appear should specify which.
If the action being performed is to "Propose a Rule" according to the
"Elimination of Boilerplate" proposal, they delimit both simultaneously.
If there are more '{{' than '}}' in a proposal, the end of the Forum
message serves to end the proposal or rule; if there are more '}}' than
'{{', the extra closing delimiters are ignored.

The character sequence '__' (again without the single quotes) delimits
the title of a Rule or Proposal; the title begins after the first '__'
and ends after the second '__'. The title is applied to whatever Rule or
Proposal has most recently been introduced in the text of the message.

}}

[[ This is posted to the Discuss list, and so isn't the real proposal.
It's just an example of using 'Elimination of Boilerplate' and 'Standard
Delimiters'. ]]

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:08:50 -0500
From: Josh Utterback <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet another form of bandwidth
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wonko wrote:

> I amend my proposals entitled " The Many " to be the following:
> 
> <proposal>
> <title> The Many </title>
> <body>
> If a rule entitled "Bandwidth Rationing" exists, amend its text to be 
> the following !!!! delimited text. Otherwise, create a new rule entitled 
> "Bandwidth Rationing" with that text.
> !!!!
> At the beginning of each voting period, each player shall lose 7n-35 
> points, where n is the number of proposals e submitted which are on the 
> current Ballot. If 7n-35 is less than zero, eir score shall remain the 
> same. If e would lose more points than eir score, eir score becomes zero.
> !!!!
> </body>
> <rationale>
> Alright, now you lose 7 points for each proposal beyond the fifth, and 
> the !!!!'s delimit the right text.
> </rationale>
> </proposal>

Mmm, so by not making any proposals a player would gain 35 points ?? (or 
lose minus 35)  You might want to take a second look at that.

Fenrir

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:18:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet another form of bandwidth
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Josh Utterback wrote:

> > At the beginning of each voting period, each player shall lose 7n-35
> > points, where n is the number of proposals e submitted which are on the
> > current Ballot. If 7n-35 is less than zero, eir score shall remain the
> > same. If e would lose more points than eir score, eir score becomes zero.

> Mmm, so by not making any proposals a player would gain 35 points ?? (or
> lose minus 35)  You might want to take a second look at that.

If you make zero proposals, you gain no points (because -35 is less than
zero).

...dave

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: New Proposal: Spur Clause
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:51:55 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Idleness should not be rewarded.  There may be some time in the
> future when all the active players have abysmally low scores and the
> game is declared over; I would hate to see victory go to a player
> who hasn't played for months, yet has a high score precisely because
> he hasn't done anything.

But you aren't rewarded, the proposal says that "If 7n-35 is less than
zero, eir score shall remain the same." so you don't lose or get any
points if n < 5.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: "B Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rule 31?
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:22:05 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi,

I realized yesterday evening that my how-to-abstain-proposal still has
a small problem (it's not clear that you can replace a previous vote
with an abstention when you vote multiple times), and now I can't
reach nomic.net (seems to be a DNS problem).

Could someone send rule 31 to me so I can update the proposal?

Thanks,
Joerg

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:14:23 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Proposal: Spur Clause
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 12/31/01 at 4:10 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Spur Clause
>
>I can only wonder just what you're trying to accomplish here... 198/0.
>
>...dave

What I'm trying to accomplish is to get people to be constantly involved.  With a combination of a penalty for too many proposals and a penalty for no proposals, it's in everyone's interest to submit at least one proposal but not inundate the game with them.

After all, why should only those who propose every turn have all the fun/work/points/opportunities to subvert the system?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:23:52 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet another form of
  bandwidth
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

No, if a player makes 0 proposals then they formula would be ((7*0)-35) or 
-35. At which point, the second sentence kicks in: "If 7n-35 is less than 
zero, eir score shall remain the same." So no change to the score. If they 
had proposed 6 proposals then the formula would be ((7*6)-35) or 7. Greater 
than zero, so they'd lose 7 points .... of course they also gain 3d6 points 
if the proposal passed, so if the sixth proposal proposal passed they'd 
score 3d6 - 7.

Mathematically, it functions as (I believe) the author intended....but I'm 
still not going to vote for it! :-)

I'll vote for "bandwidth rationing" -- hard limits on proposals per player 
-- because that's a potential problem that needs solving. This proposal 
just makes dumping dozens of proposals on the game riskier. It's a 
deterrent instead of a "regulation." In this instance -- because there's so 
much room for abuse and decay of game play -- I prefer a regulation.

At 12:08 AM 12/31/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Wonko wrote:
>
>>I amend my proposals entitled " The Many " to be the following:
>><proposal>
>><title> The Many </title>
>><body>
>>If a rule entitled "Bandwidth Rationing" exists, amend its text to be the 
>>following !!!! delimited text. Otherwise, create a new rule entitled 
>>"Bandwidth Rationing" with that text.
>>!!!!
>>At the beginning of each voting period, each player shall lose 7n-35 
>>points, where n is the number of proposals e submitted which are on the 
>>current Ballot. If 7n-35 is less than zero, eir score shall remain the 
>>same. If e would lose more points than eir score, eir score becomes zero.
>>!!!!
>></body>
>><rationale>
>>Alright, now you lose 7 points for each proposal beyond the fifth, and 
>>the !!!!'s delimit the right text.
>></rationale>
>></proposal>
>
>
>Mmm, so by not making any proposals a player would gain 35 points ?? (or 
>lose minus 35)  You might want to take a second look at that.
>
>Fenrir

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:58:51 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 183 revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Rathlev wrote:

> I make the following revision to proposal 183:

183/1.
...dave

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:18:21 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Proposal: Spur Clause
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 02:14:23PM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> 
> On 12/31/01 at 4:10 PM David E. Smith wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Donald Whytock wrote:
> >
> >> Proposal: Spur Clause
> >
> >I can only wonder just what you're trying to accomplish here... 198/0.
> >
> >...dave
> 
> What I'm trying to accomplish is to get people to be constantly involved.  With a combination of a penalty for too many proposals and a penalty for no proposals, it's in everyone's interest to submit at least one proposal but not inundate the game with them.
> 
> After all, why should only those who propose every turn have all the fun/work/points/opportunities to subvert the system?

I foresee this leading to lame proposals, created just to satisfy the
requirement of making a proposal. 
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:31:14 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet another form of
	bandwidth
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/31/01 3:23 PM, Greg Ritter at [email-masked] wrote:

> No, if a player makes 0 proposals then they formula would be ((7*0)-35) or
> -35. At which point, the second sentence kicks in: "If 7n-35 is less than
> zero, eir score shall remain the same." So no change to the score. If they
> had proposed 6 proposals then the formula would be ((7*6)-35) or 7. Greater
> than zero, so they'd lose 7 points .... of course they also gain 3d6 points
> if the proposal passed, so if the sixth proposal proposal passed they'd
> score 3d6 - 7.
> 
> Mathematically, it functions as (I believe) the author intended....but I'm
> still not going to vote for it! :-)
> 
> I'll vote for "bandwidth rationing" -- hard limits on proposals per player
> -- because that's a potential problem that needs solving. This proposal
> just makes dumping dozens of proposals on the game riskier. It's a
> deterrent instead of a "regulation." In this instance -- because there's so
> much room for abuse and decay of game play -- I prefer a regulation.
> 

I suppose there should be a bigger penalty for extra proposals, (maybe 18
points/proposal, so you lose between 0 and 15 points per proposal) but I
still prefer deterrent to regulation, and if there must be a regulation, 3
is too low. I favor five if there's a strong deterrent, and maybe even
something higher if it's a regulated cutoff.

Actually, what if we have both? Something like, you can't make more than 7
proposals, and you lose points for the last three?
-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:57:28 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 3
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/31/01 8:41 PM, Rob Speer at [email-masked] wrote:

> NO > Proposal 158/1:Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Minutes
> YES > Proposal 159/0:Now you see me, now you don't

If 159 passes but 158 fails, do the sentences in 159 referring to The Clock
simply have no effect?
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:02:15 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: My nweek3 votes
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 12/31/01 9:05 PM, Glenn Overby II at [email-masked] wrote:

>> Proposal 188/0:Currency: ABSTAIN
>> Proposal 189/0:Proposal Awards: ABSTAIN
>> Proposal 190/0:Sharing The Wealth: ABSTAIN
>> Proposal 191/1:Victory by Monopoly: ABSTAIN

Abstention doesn't exist yet. Won't these be counted as non-affirmative
votes?

Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 03:16:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: My nweek3 votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Wonko wrote:

> >> Proposal 188/0:Currency: ABSTAIN
> >> Proposal 189/0:Proposal Awards: ABSTAIN
> >> Proposal 190/0:Sharing The Wealth: ABSTAIN
> >> Proposal 191/1:Victory by Monopoly: ABSTAIN
>
> Abstention doesn't exist yet. Won't these be counted as non-affirmative
> votes?

Proposals are handled in order, remember? If 183/1 passes, then they will
be abstentions. (Otherwise, yeah, they will be "no" votes.)

...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

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:34:01 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: My nweek3 votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wonko writes:

>>> Proposal 188/0:Currency: ABSTAIN
>>> Proposal 189/0:Proposal Awards: ABSTAIN
>>> Proposal 190/0:Sharing The Wealth: ABSTAIN
>>> Proposal 191/1:Victory by Monopoly: ABSTAIN
>
>Abstention doesn't exist yet. Won't these be counted as non-affirmative
>votes?

Maybe yes, maybe no.  What they mean, literally, is that I have not yet decided to 
vote in favour or against.  I have the better part of three days to change my 
alleged mind.  :)

Octagon

Glenn E. Overby II
Clinton Twp, MI

==
Icehouse Games Pages (take the IcePoll!)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/IceGames.html