Subject: spoon-discuss: Abstentions in this nweek
From: Jorg Rathlev <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:10:54 +0100

> > >> 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.)

Yes, but note that, as of now, it gets kind of strange if you replace
an actual vote with an abstention. Because 183/1 cannot pass during or
have any effect on what happens in this voting period, it will have
added a non-affirmative vote to your list of (multiple) votes.

Now 183/1 passes, and says your later votes have replaced the previous
ones. This doesn't make any difference if you replaced them with
actual votes, but what did you replace your vote with if your last
vote was an abstention? Did you now abstain (as the now-amended rule
31 would suggest), or did you vote with a non-affirmative vote (that's
what you actually did during the voting period).

The question here is, in what order does vote counting and proposal
application happen? Are the votes of *all* proposals counted first,
and then the proposals are put into effect? Or are the votes of the
first proposal counted, then it is put into effect (if it passed),
then the votes of the second proposal are counted, and so on?

I think rule 32 suggests counting happens before application ("the
proposals that HAVE RECEIVED a majority of affirmative votes", and
"are THEN processed"), but you might prefer to not replace any actual
votes with abstentions in this nweek.

Joerg

Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:59:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Proposal 156/0:The Timeline's on this Mobius Strip
No
> Proposal 157/1:Let's do it right this time
No.
> Proposal 158/1:Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Minutes
Yes
> Proposal 159/0:Now you see me, now you don't
Yes.
> Proposal 160/0:The Garbageman Can
Yes.
> Proposal 161/0:Boondoggles! Boondoggles! Boondoggles!
Yes
> Proposal 162/0:Santa Claus is coming to town!
No.
> Proposal 163/0:Proxies
No.
> Proposal 165/1:Judicial reform 1
Yes
> Proposal 166/1:Judicial reform 2
Yes
> Proposal 167/0:Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment
Yes
> Proposal 168/0:Fix the rules
Yes
> Proposal 169/1:Taking a vow of non-silence
Yes
> Proposal 170/0:Global Positioning System
Yes
> Proposal 171/1:The Paradox Prevention Proposal
No
> Proposal 172/0:Just to avoid confusion...
Yes
> Proposal 174/0:Party like it's 2002
Yes
> Proposal 175/0:Ain't ain't a word
Yes
> Proposal 176/0:Paper Trail
Yes
> Proposal 177/0:Appeal Clause
Yes
> Proposal 178/0:Bandwidth Rationing
mo
> Proposal 179/1:You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just
>                'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Yes
> Proposal 180/1:Define the Game State
No
> Proposal 181/0:Apathy Clause
Yes
> Proposal 182/0:let's make it Imperial
No
> Proposal 183/1:To abstain is an explicit way of *not* voting
Yes
> Proposal 184/0:Reform Dimensions
Yes
> Proposal 185/1:The Cursed Sushi of Babel
Yes
> Proposal 186/0:Charmed, I'm sure
Yes
> Proposal 187/0:Clean-up Kickback Clause
Yes
> Proposal 188/0:Currency
Yes
> Proposal 189/0:Proposal Awards
Yes
> Proposal 190/0:Sharing The Wealth
Yes
> Proposal 191/1:Victory by Monopoly
No
> Proposal 192/0:Start at the beginning
Yes
> Proposal 193/0:I Can't See the Clock
Yes
> Proposal 194/0:I Can't See My Watch Either
Yes
> Proposal 195/1:The Many
No
> Proposal 196/0:Elimination of Boilerplate
No
> Proposal 197/0:Standard Delimiters
Yes
> Proposal 198/0:Spur Clause
No.

Good luck with the counting!

cheers,
Iain

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 05:17:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 3
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here are ny votes for nweek 3

156/0 YES
157/1 NO
158/1 YES
159/0 NO
160/0 NO
161/0 YES
162/0 YES
163/0 YES
165/1 YES
166/1 YES
167/0 YES
168/0 YES
169/1 YES
170/0 YES
171/0 NO
172/0 YES
173/1 MU
174/0 YES
175/0 YES
176/0 YES
177/0 YES
178/0 YES
179/1 YES
180/1 NO
181/0 YES
182/0 NO
183/1 YES
184/0 YES
185/1 YES
186/0 NO
187/0 NO
188/0 NO
189/0 NO
190/0 NO
191/0 NO
192/0 YES
193/0 YES
194/0 YES
195/0 NO
196/0 NO
197/0 YES
198/0 NO

-- 
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: Player Announcement:  Scoff!
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 01:35:51 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:49:55 -0600, "Jonathan Van Matre"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

><pleasantries>
>A warm handshake to all present, and slightly-belated best wishes for a
>Happy New Year!
></pleasantries>
>
>Scoff!
>
Welcome aboard!
The thirteenth player: now _that's_ a good number :)
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 01:03:07 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Player Announcement:  Scoff!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> The assumption is made, for the purposes of this e-mail, that I will be
> accepted as an entity capable of passing the Turing Test.

Anyone who's crazy enough to use all those pseudotags in an email is cool
by me. Welcome!

...dave

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:36:01 -0500
From: Josh Utterback <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Nweek 3 ballot
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

156/0 - Yes
157/1 - Yes
158/1 - Yes
159/0 - Yes
160/0 - Yes
161/0 - Yes
162/0 - Yes
163/0 - No
165/1 - Yes
166/1 - Yes
167/0 - Yes
169/1 - Yes
170/0 - Yes
171/1 - No
172/0 - Yes
174/0 - Yes
176/0 - Yes
177/0 - Yes
178/0 - Yes
179/1 - No
180/1 - Yes
181/0 - Yes
182/0 - No
183/1 - Yes
184/0 - Yes
185/1 - No
186/0 - Yes
187/0 - Yes
188/0 - No
189/0 - No
190/0 - No
191/1 - No
192/0 - Yes
193/0 - Yes
194/0 - Yes
195/1 - Yes
196/0 - Yes
197/0 - Yes
198/0 - Yes

Fenrir

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:35:46 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 3
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/2/02 8:17 AM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:

> Here are ny votes for nweek 3
> 
> 156/0 YES
> 157/1 NO
> 158/1 YES
> 159/0 NO
> 160/0 NO
> 161/0 YES
> 162/0 YES
> 163/0 YES
> 165/1 YES
> 166/1 YES
> 167/0 YES
> 168/0 YES
> 169/1 YES
> 170/0 YES
> 171/0 NO
> 172/0 YES
> 173/1 MU
> 174/0 YES
> 175/0 YES
> 176/0 YES
> 177/0 YES
> 178/0 YES
> 179/1 YES
> 180/1 NO
> 181/0 YES
> 182/0 NO
> 183/1 YES
> 184/0 YES
> 185/1 YES
> 186/0 NO
> 187/0 NO
> 188/0 NO
> 189/0 NO
> 190/0 NO
> 191/0 NO
> 192/0 YES
> 193/0 YES
> 194/0 YES
> 195/0 NO
> 196/0 NO
> 197/0 YES
> 198/0 NO

Don't you have to send this to the Business list?

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 04:36:12 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:

> on 1/2/02 8:17 AM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Here are ny votes for nweek 3
>
> Don't you have to send this to the Business list?

Technically, yes, e does.

Antonio: If you like, you can just send a note to the business list to the
effect of "count all those votes I accidentally sent to the discuss list"
and I will. You don't have to re-write 'em all.

...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, 3 Jan 2002 00:39:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Ballot, nweek 3
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:
> 
> > on 1/2/02 8:17 AM, Antonio at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Here are ny votes for nweek 3
> >
> > Don't you have to send this to the Business list?
> 
> Technically, yes, e does.
> 
> Antonio: If you like, you can just send a note to the business list
> to the
> effect of "count all those votes I accidentally sent to the discuss
> list"
> and I will. You don't have to re-write 'em all.
> 
> ...dave
> 

???
I've always sent my votes to the discussion list, I reasoned that if
the administrator was receiving them, then it was well (rule 31).
In the future I promise I'll send them to the business list like
everyone else.

-- 
Antonio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 07:03:00 -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 1/2/02 2:26 AM, Donald Whytock at [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 168/0:Fix the rules
> No.  I think I'd rather see Wonko's Typo rule in place.
>
> Proposal 175/0:Ain't ain't a word
> No.  Typo rule again.

The Typo rule, as of now, just allows for the rectification of proposals. I
figured that after these passed, there'd be no more rules that needed fixing
as long as all the proposals were fixed. Also, it's harder to determine who
gets to object to a rule rectification since a rules don't have proponents.

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:34:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing my nweek3 votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Glenn Overby II wrote:

> Please change all my ABSTAIN votes on proposals 188/0, 189/0, 190/0, and
> 191/1 to YES votes.  (The proposals aren't perfect, but it may be fun to "perfect"
> them.)   All my other votes remain unchanged.

Done.

There's still a few people out there who haven't voted - hopefully, you
know who you are. Votes have to be postmarked by about 6 1/2 hours from
now.

Show your civic pride - vote!

...dave

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:27:35 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Now You See Me, Now you don't
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/4/02 at 3:21 PM Josh Utterback wrote:

>I would like to propose the following rule.  (I think this format
>conforms to 217)
>
>__Now You See Me, Now You Don't__
>
>{{Apend the following paragraph to the end of rule 205.
>{{
>Any player who is not already On Leave and who's Activity has decreased
>for two consecutive nweeks shall be placed onto Forced Leave.  In all
>other respects being on Forced Leave is identical to being On Leave.
>}}
>[[This way players that have disappeared from the game without telling
>anyone will be placed onto Leave and won't factor into the game until they
>choose to return.  Or until rule 206 kicks in and gets rid of them all
>together.]]
>}}
>
>
>Fenrir
>

It should be "whose" rather than "who's".

Aside from that, do you want to make any allowance for proxies?  Otherwise, a player could give eir proxy to another player, then vanish into the wilds of Africa or the rubble of Manhatten, and never enter Forced Leave because eir vote is being cast every nweek for em.

						Glotmorf

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: CFJ: The clock...
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:34:48 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

ANALYSIS:
Due to an error in forethought on the part of the clock/watch proposal,
the clock now (validly, wrt the proposal) reads nweek 3, even though
this is supposed to be nweek 4.

Note the following, from Proposal 158/1:
"At the time that this amendment takes effect, the number of days on the
Clock shall be set to 0, the number of nweeks shall be set to 3, and the
word 'day' in all rules shall be changed to 'nday'. The last paragraph
of this rule will then delete itself."

Thus we find ourselves in nweek 3 again, because the amendment took
effect (as all amendments must under current rules) AFTER the end of
nweek 3, and therefore AFTER the point at which the clock would have
incremented.  Even if it had taken effect before 00:00:00 UTC (which it
could not, since voting was still open), it would have incremented to
nweek 3, nday 1, NOT nweek 4, nday 0.

Under Rule 17/0, which says "Events may occur only in the present, and
may not alter the past." and  32/1, which notes that "Proposals may not
take effect retroactively." this has the makings of a time paradox, and
a violation of the rules.  Rule 204/0 may also apply, but as it has a
higher rule number, rule 158 will take precedence over it.

Still, I suggest that repeating nweek 3 would effectively result in
events altering the past, and proposals taking effect retroactively, and
call for judgement on the following statements.

Since the game state is currently undefined in Rule 152, and further
under the Permissibility of the Unprohibited, the Administrator should
have power to act as prescribed in the first statement since the clock
is not necessarily part of the game state.  The only alternative I see
is to repeal Proposal 158/1 in its entirety, but perhaps the judge will
get creative.

I name the author of Proposal 158/1, Wonko, as defendant.

STATEMENT 1:
The clock should be updated by the Administrator to read the appropriate
nweek and nday at time of judgement on this statement, as if the clock
had read nweek 4, nday 0 at 00:00:00 UTC at the end of nweek 3.  

STATEMENT 2:
If Statement 1 is ruled False or Undecided, then Proposal 158 should be
repealed in toto.

--Scoff!

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:40:46 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hope Rob issues a judgement within the first 4 days, so we can
experience the judicial wisdom dispensed by the Cursed Sushi of Babel.
;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:45 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
> 
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
> 
> > Does the Administrator qualify as a Public Forum under rule 
> 28, since
> > he is "reasonably accessible to all players"?  After all, anyone can
> > email him. (Note that neither "forum" nor "accessible" is currently
> > defined in the rules.)
> >
> > Specifically, is an action considered valid if submitted directly to
> > the Administrator, as opposed to submitting it to spoon-business?
> > Rule 31 seems to serve as precedent for conducting business through
> > the Administrator.
> 
> This is CFJ 218, assigned to Rob.
> 
> ...dave
> 
> 

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:42:06 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Gee...how do the concepts of "true" and "false" translate from Korean? :) (Vote Ruetay!)

BTW, John...I suggest you post to spoon-business or spoon-discuss, not both at once.  One's a named public forum for B Nomic business, the other's for casual discussion.

						Glotmorf

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

On 1/4/02 at 9:40 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>I hope Rob issues a judgement within the first 4 days, so we can
>experience the judicial wisdom dispensed by the Cursed Sushi of Babel.
>;-)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:45 AM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> 
>> > Does the Administrator qualify as a Public Forum under rule 
>> 28, since
>> > he is "reasonably accessible to all players"?  After all, anyone can
>> > email him. (Note that neither "forum" nor "accessible" is currently
>> > defined in the rules.)
>> >
>> > Specifically, is an action considered valid if submitted directly to
>> > the Administrator, as opposed to submitting it to spoon-business?
>> > Rule 31 seems to serve as precedent for conducting business through
>> > the Administrator.
>> 
>> This is CFJ 218, assigned to Rob.
>> 
>> ...dave
>> 
>>

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: Hogging Bandwidth
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:49:48 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Unintentional mistake.  My apologies to all.

--Scoff!

p.s.  I'll answer to my given name, but make sure you spell it Jon.  :)

> BTW, John...I suggest you post to spoon-business or 
> spoon-discuss, not both at once.  One's a named public forum 
> for B Nomic business, the other's for casual discussion.
> 
> 						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:52:23 -0600 (CST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: CFJ: The clock...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Thus we find ourselves in nweek 3 again, because the amendment took
> effect (as all amendments must under current rules) AFTER the end of
> nweek 3, and therefore AFTER the point at which the clock would have
> incremented.  Even if it had taken effect before 00:00:00 UTC (which it
> could not, since voting was still open), it would have incremented to
> nweek 3, nday 1, NOT nweek 4, nday 0.
> 
> Under Rule 17/0, which says "Events may occur only in the present, and
> may not alter the past." and  32/1, which notes that "Proposals may not
> take effect retroactively." this has the makings of a time paradox, and
> a violation of the rules.  Rule 204/0 may also apply, but as it has a
> higher rule number, rule 158 will take precedence over it.

I don't really see a conflict here.  Rules 17 and 32 are referring to
causing events to occur in the past that didn't occur.  Just because the
nweek is called nweek 3 doesn't mean that anything that happens this nweek
actually happened last nweek.  Just that we are calling the nweeks the
same thing.  Its merely a symantic issue, not a paradoxal issue.  

Just my thoughts, of course, I'm not the judge ;)

Fenrir

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: CFJ: The clock...
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:13:17 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A few things stick out, even allowing for your interpretation of the
matter:

1) The primary paradox comes in the administrative headaches involved.
If I search the website history for rules as of nweek 3, what am I going
to get?  Both weeks smushed together on one page?  A 50/50 chance of
seeing one or the other?  

My primary reason for the CFJ is to preserve the sanity of our gracious
administrator, and the integrity of the tools already built for the
website.  

2) Under rule 15/2, since both ballots will be the "nweek 3 ballot" I
should be able to vote on ballots for both this nweek and last nweek,
enabling me to effectively take action in the past.

> I don't really see a conflict here.  Rules 17 and 32 are referring to
> causing events to occur in the past that didn't occur.  Just 
> because the
> nweek is called nweek 3 doesn't mean that anything that 
> happens this nweek
> actually happened last nweek.  Just that we are calling the nweeks the
> same thing.  Its merely a symantic issue, not a paradoxal issue.  
> 
> Just my thoughts, of course, I'm not the judge ;)
> 
> Fenrir

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:40:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> I hope Rob issues a judgement within the first 4 days, so we can
> experience the judicial wisdom dispensed by the Cursed Sushi of Babel.
> ;-)

Y'know, as soon as I got the random player assignment for that, I thought
exactly the same thing.

(Actually, due to a bug in my "pick a random player" code, the first time,
it actually did select the Cursed Sushi as the judge for that. The fact
that Rob came up after I fixed that is merely a very amusing coincidence.)

...dave

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:26:45 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/4/02 at 5:46 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> {{ _Justice Never Sleeps_
>
>221/0.
>
>(And, if it passes, my undying emnity for forcing me to actually figure
>out how to implement all that Clock stuff. :)
>
>...dave

Well...Joel says nomic.net is a Linux system.  How about a cron job that runs at 00:00 UTC and updates a text file, which the B Nomic homepage then includes?  Of course, the cron job would have to check, perhaps, another text file that shows whether the Clock is on or off, and what nday and wday it is...

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:01:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Well...Joel says nomic.net is a Linux system.  How about a cron job
> that runs at 00:00 UTC and updates a text file, which the B Nomic
> homepage then includes?  Of course, the cron job would have to check,
> perhaps, another text file that shows whether the Clock is on or off,
> and what nday and wday it is...

That's almost TOO easy. :-)

Seriously. There's no challenge in that.

Part of why I volunteered for the admin job is the chance to put together
a neat nifty new Web system that's not too much like anything I've done
before (see .signature for what I have done before). I'm a geek, I admit
it, I don't have a problem with it.

Should it become an issue, I can just adjust DEADDAYS in my nweek-handling
functions, like thus:

(out-of-context snippage)

define("DEADDAYS", 0);
define("ONEDAY", 86400);
define("STOPTIME", DEADDAYS * ONEDAY);
define("GAMESTART", 1007510400 + STOPTIME);

(end snippage)

As long as nobody "fixes" the "loophole" in the Clock rules that allow
time to seem to be stopped but not really to be stopped, there's no
problem.

Loophole Example: suppose that at 00:00:01 on a given day, the Clock is
turned off.  At 23:59:59, the Clock is turned back on, left on for two
seconds, and then turned back off. Thus, the clock will advance a day, but
for all practical purposes nothing could actually be done. (Getting
something to hit nomic.net's mail system so that it's timestamed in that
two-second window is, effectively, impossible unless you're inclined to
spam the darn thing, and I certainly don't recommend/endorse/encourage
that action.)

If someone chooses to "fix" that, then I have to take into account Clock
stoppages of less than a day, and that crontab-based system breaks. (So
does my brain, but that's another story.)

Disclaimer: I don't actually want anyone to fix that. It will make my life
much less pleasant and may force me to exercise the administrative veto.

Aside: Anyone that wants some easy points should propose a modification to
rule 32. As it now stands, I can veto anything and cause players to lose
points and Charm arbitrarily, despite the will of the people. My veto
shouldn't be a reason to penalize players who have good and popular ideas
that just happen to be technically infeasible (which is basically the only
thing I intend to use the veto for). The hard part will be getting the
wording sufficiently clear, which is why I'm not even trying. ;)

I also noticed that, if you treat the Clock as zero-based, then the fact
that we're in nweek 3 actually makes sense. (This came up a few days back
on the discuss list, actually.) Regardless of what the Clock displays, for
the time being I'm going to continue using "nweek=4" for adding stuff to
the database. And probably will continue to do so, but the internal
representations of these things shouldn't be too much of a bother. (The
only visible effect of this that I can think of just now is that, if you
need to look up historical proposals or rules, you'll have to adjust the
nweek by 1 when searching. Shouldn't be too much of a problem...)

...dave

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 13:36:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Frieda <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--0-1669445288-1010180181=:28615
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 
  "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> {{ _Justice Never Sleeps_

221/0.

(And, if it passes, my undying emnity for forcing me to actually figure
out how to implement all that Clock stuff. :)

...dave

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online at Yahoo! Greetings.
--0-1669445288-1010180181=:28615
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P> 
<P>&nbsp; <B><I>"David E. Smith" &lt;[email-masked]&gt;</I></B> wrote: 
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; {{ _Justice Never Sleeps_<BR><BR>221/0.<BR><BR>(And, if it passes, my undying emnity for forcing me to actually figure<BR>out how to implement all that Clock stuff. :)<BR><BR>...dave<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Send your FREE holiday greetings online at <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://greetings.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Greetings</a>.
--0-1669445288-1010180181=:28615--

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: Question on the Plague of Gremlins
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:14:16 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's a little unclear whether the proposed Plague of Gremlins votes as
one entity, or if each Gremlin in existence votes as a separate entity.
I would guess that the intent was the latter, but Wonko, you might want
to clarify the proposal to make your intent perfectly clear.

--Scoff!

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:22:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: REVISED Proposal: Limitation of Veto Power and
 Clarification of Administrative Powers
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Yarrgh.  I posted the wrong saved draft of this message.  Here's the
> adjusted version, which dovetails better with the Typo proposal on the
> issue of public notification, and leaves the handling of proposal Typos
> in the jurisdiction of that proposal:

Since both versions arrived at the same time (more or less), I'm just
taking the revised version. (It's a lot less typing. :)

Recognized as 222/0. (Please double-check everything, as I may have
accidentally cut out a character here or there in the process of cleaning
out all those > marks.)

...dave

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:25:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Question on the Plague of Gremlins
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> It's a little unclear whether the proposed Plague of Gremlins votes as
> one entity, or if each Gremlin in existence votes as a separate entity.
> I would guess that the intent was the latter, but Wonko, you might want
> to clarify the proposal to make your intent perfectly clear.

Heck, to me it's unclear whether they get to vote at all. The rules seem
to strongly imply that only players can vote, but this might fall under
that old "Permissibility of the Unprohibited" chestnut tree.

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:21:02 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "David E. Smith":
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
[snip]
> 
> (Getting
> something to hit nomic.net's mail system so that it's timestamed in that
> two-second window is, effectively, impossible unless you're inclined to
> spam the darn thing, and I certainly don't recommend/endorse/encourage
> that action.)

On that note, I should mention my standing policy of destruction in re 
anyone who dares do that. :)

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:56:55 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/4/02 at 6:42 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>In the Thu, the Jan on the 03rd, 03:51:26AM 2002 years -0500, Donald
>Whytock wrote,
>> Does the Administrator qualify as a Public Forum under rule 28, since he
>is "reasonably accessible to all players"?  After all, anyone can email
>him. (Note that neither "forum" nor "accessible" is currently defined in
>the rules.)
>> 
>> Specifically, is an action considered valid if submitted directly to the
>Administrator, as opposed to submitting it to spoon-business?  Rule 31
>seems to serve as precedent for conducting business through the
>Administrator.
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>
>That the bill is incorrect, I administer justice.
>
>Objection explanation:
>
>Him as being an aerial forum the executive official assuredly the
>declaration summer solstice anh ass the flag thing in because, him is
>not aerial forum.
>
>But, consequently, the executive official as personal forum is spared in
>this rule and that it does not know, it is vivid.
>
>-- 
>Plunder Speer

Is it a valid judgment if I can't understand the "objection explanation"? Or should I submit another CFJ that consists of "Huh?" :)

I mean, I think "aerial" is supposed to mean "public", but what the hell is "summer solstice"?  And how does one "ass the flag thing in"?

						Glotmorf

PS: This is your fault, Plunder. :)

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:45:24 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On 1/4/02 at 6:42 PM Rob Speer wrote:
>
> >That the bill is incorrect, I administer justice.
> >
> >Objection explanation:
> >
> >Him as being an aerial forum the executive official assuredly the
> >declaration summer solstice anh ass the flag thing in because, him is
> >not aerial forum.
> >
> >But, consequently, the executive official as personal forum is spared in
> >this rule and that it does not know, it is vivid.
> >
> >--
> >Plunder Speer
> 
> Is it a valid judgment if I can't understand the "objection explanation"? Or should I submit another CFJ that consists of "Huh?" :)
> 
> I mean, I think "aerial" is supposed to mean "public", but what the hell is "summer solstice"?  And how does one "ass the flag thing in"?
> 

I will attempt the fact that it explains.

Is aerial forum, it spreads out to confront, it hits.

Consequently, the executive official selects an aerial forum in rule 28.
As he being aerial forum did not talk the executive official assuredly.

When you see the web page of B Nomic, the aerial forum which is only is
the spoon enterprise.

It is unfortunate, in the side of equality ratiocination, in me the
spoon toe lon the spoon toe lon does the grudge multi roster inside
Great Britain and the forum spoon toe lon is not the forum in the public
affairs which it does and there is not a possibility of talking. 
It excepts the inside a Korean. I did not prearrange that.

I understand the fact that this message does not do to be clear.
-- 
Plunder Speer

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:20:49 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:45:24 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I mean, I think "aerial" is supposed to mean "public", but what the hell is "summer solstice"?  And how does one "ass the flag thing in"?
>> 
>
>I will attempt the fact that it explains.
>
>Is aerial forum, it spreads out to confront, it hits.
>
>Consequently, the executive official selects an aerial forum in rule 28.
>As he being aerial forum did not talk the executive official assuredly.
>
>When you see the web page of B Nomic, the aerial forum which is only is
>the spoon enterprise.
>
>It is unfortunate, in the side of equality ratiocination, in me the
>spoon toe lon the spoon toe lon does the grudge multi roster inside
>Great Britain and the forum spoon toe lon is not the forum in the public
>affairs which it does and there is not a possibility of talking. 
>It excepts the inside a Korean. I did not prearrange that.
>
>I understand the fact that this message does not do to be clear.

*Antonio hits the floor laughing hysterically*

I particularly liked the "ass the flag thing in", so unsensically
pornographic. "There is not a possibility of talking" indeed.
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:19:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Antonio wrote:

> *Antonio hits the floor laughing hysterically*

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'll be going on about "I administer
justice" for a while. :-)

> "There is not a possibility of talking" indeed.

Yup.

In the meantime, I presume the judgement to be "False" but I'm not
entirely sure. Plunder, if you can clarify that in a relatively
unambiguous way, feel free.

...dave

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:23:47 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/5/02 at 3:19 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Antonio wrote:
>
>> *Antonio hits the floor laughing hysterically*
>
>I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'll be going on about "I administer
>justice" for a while. :-)
>
>> "There is not a possibility of talking" indeed.
>
>Yup.
>
>In the meantime, I presume the judgement to be "False" but I'm not
>entirely sure. Plunder, if you can clarify that in a relatively
>unambiguous way, feel free.
>
>...dave

Well...summer solstice!  Go ass a flag thing in! :)

Amazing.  We may have just developed our own private obscenity list...

Anyway...a suggestion?  Plunder (and yes, lad, you're probably branded with that now) is only prohibited from sending unsillified text to the public fora. There isn't anything stopping him from emailing another player the original text and having it relayed here.  Okay, that may defeat the spirit of the thing, but I just gotta know what that started out as...

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:31:09 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > "There is not a possibility of talking" indeed.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> In the meantime, I presume the judgement to be "False" but I'm not
> entirely sure. Plunder, if you can clarify that in a relatively
> unambiguous way, feel free.

It is like that.  That is the right side.  

-- 
Plunder Speer

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:44:56 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:23:47AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Anyway...a suggestion?  Plunder (and yes, lad, you're probably branded with that now) is only prohibited from sending unsillified text to the public fora. There isn't anything stopping him from emailing another player the original text and having it relayed here.  Okay, that may defeat the spirit of the thing, but I just gotta know what that started out as...

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Perhaps someone could issue a CFJ on
it, and if it's false, pretend you never heard this message.

See, when I meant "public forum", I put in the rule "official forum".
And a "forum" is just a means by which players communicate, and that's
the most official definition there is. So, I meant for conversation on
spoon-discuss to be unaffected, but I'm not sure it works that way.

I tried to say something to that effect, except it came out as stuff
like "the spoon toe lon do" and babbling about Great Britain.

When I said 'It spreads out, it hits,' that started as 'You are
correct'. I am not kidding.

'the spoon enterprise' at least came out as a comprehensible
approximation of 'spoon-business'.

And you should see what it does to some of your names. David E. Smith is
'place bead E. su Miss'. uniquely identifying names is 'It is only and
it confirms a name'. Robin Lee Powell is 'The new windscreen piece
Powell which will cry'.

The gist of my analysis was:

Since the Administrator has never designated himself a public Forum, he
is not one, according to rule 28.

He may be considered a Private Forum, though.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:49:58 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Modify Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:34:28AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Amend proposal 221, "Justice Never Sleeps", to add the following text to the end of the rule it creates:
> 
> Rule 213, "The Cursed Sushi of Babel", shall not apply to the text of a judgment and accompanying analysis for a CFJ. This rule takes precedence over rule 213.

Is this really necessary? All that really matters is the decision - the
analysis can amuse in the meantime, and be clarified later. And the
decision can be one of:

"I judge that the statement is false." -> "That the bill is incorrect, I
administer justice."

"I judge that the statement is true." -> "That the bill is vividness, I
administer justice."
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:58:26 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Modify Proposal:
  Justice Never Sleeps
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/5/02 at 2:49 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:34:28AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Amend proposal 221, "Justice Never Sleeps", to add the following text to
>the end of the rule it creates:
>> 
>> Rule 213, "The Cursed Sushi of Babel", shall not apply to the text of a
>judgment and accompanying analysis for a CFJ. This rule takes precedence
>over rule 213.
>
>Is this really necessary? All that really matters is the decision - the
>analysis can amuse in the meantime, and be clarified later. And the
>decision can be one of:
>
>"I judge that the statement is false." -> "That the bill is incorrect, I
>administer justice."
>
>"I judge that the statement is true." -> "That the bill is vividness, I
>administer justice."
>-- 
>Rob Speer

Well, the rules say that the judgment, which presumably includes its analysis, has the force of law.  And since my Appeal Clause wasn't voted in, that means that if a judgment states that the executive official assuredly the declaration summer solstice, that's the law.  A babbled proposal can be voted down; a babbled CFJ can be laughed out of court; a babbled judgment that comes close enough to legible meaning yet doesn't mean what the judge wanted it to can be dangerous.

Am I overreacting?  If enough people want the clock provisions without the babble provision, let me know and I'll take it out.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 15:37:50 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Modify Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/5/02 at 7:11 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> Amend proposal 221, "Justice Never Sleeps", to add the following text
>> to the end of the rule it creates:
>
>Recognized as 221/1. And thanks for depriving us of a good source of
>entertainment. "I administer justice" indeed...
>
>...dave

Tsk.  Let's wait and see someone submit a proposal with the sushi on. :)

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:26:12 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:44:56 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:23:47AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Anyway...a suggestion?  Plunder (and yes, lad, you're probably branded with that now) is only prohibited from sending unsillified text to the public fora. There isn't anything stopping him from emailing another player the original text and having it relayed here.  Okay, that may defeat the spirit of the thing, but I just gotta know what that started out as...
>
>I'm not entirely sure that's true. Perhaps someone could issue a CFJ on
>it, and if it's false, pretend you never heard this message.
>
>See, when I meant "public forum", I put in the rule "official forum".
>And a "forum" is just a means by which players communicate, and that's
>the most official definition there is. So, I meant for conversation on
>spoon-discuss to be unaffected, but I'm not sure it works that way.
>

The way I read it, ALL messages you send on ANY fora should be cursed.
And you just broke them, twice it seems.
Tell you what, I'll issue a CFJ on it and we'll see.
-- 
Antonio

_________________________________________________________
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: Modify Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:42:59 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:49:58 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:34:28AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Amend proposal 221, "Justice Never Sleeps", to add the following text to the end of the rule it creates:
>> 
>> Rule 213, "The Cursed Sushi of Babel", shall not apply to the text of a judgment and accompanying analysis for a CFJ. This rule takes precedence over rule 213.
>
>Is this really necessary? All that really matters is the decision - the
>analysis can amuse in the meantime, and be clarified later. And the
>decision can be one of:
>
>"I judge that the statement is false." -> "That the bill is incorrect, I
>administer justice."
>
>"I judge that the statement is true." -> "That the bill is vividness, I
>administer justice."

I agree with Plunder, on the other hand my computer does not support korean
fonts, so if I had to administer justice it would probably come out
differently.

More seriously. If a time comes when we are really worried about
misunderstandings, then we can always convince some kind soul to release
the appointed judge of the curse by taking it on emself.
-- 
Antonio

_________________________________________________________
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: Modify Proposal: Justice Never Sleeps
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:55:17 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:42:59 +0100, Antonio <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>I agree with Plunder, on the other hand my computer does not support korean
>fonts, so if I had to administer justice it would probably come out
>differently.
>
ok I tried it and it came out so:
I judge that the instruction is right.
I judge that the instruction is bad.
not even half as amusing :(
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 04:20:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ about the sushi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Antonio wrote:

> I present the following statement for judgement:
> The lexical construct "official forum" refers to all forums.

CFJ 224, assigned to gritter.

...dave

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 12:46:55 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Call For Judgment
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/6/02 at 4:26 AM Antonio wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 02:44:56 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:23:47AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>>> Anyway...a suggestion?  Plunder (and yes, lad, you're probably branded
>with that now) is only prohibited from sending unsillified text to the
>public fora. There isn't anything stopping him from emailing another
>player the original text and having it relayed here.  Okay, that may
>defeat the spirit of the thing, but I just gotta know what that started
>out as...
>>
>>I'm not entirely sure that's true. Perhaps someone could issue a CFJ on
>>it, and if it's false, pretend you never heard this message.
>>
>>See, when I meant "public forum", I put in the rule "official forum".
>>And a "forum" is just a means by which players communicate, and that's
>>the most official definition there is. So, I meant for conversation on
>>spoon-discuss to be unaffected, but I'm not sure it works that way.
>>
>
>The way I read it, ALL messages you send on ANY fora should be cursed.
>And you just broke them, twice it seems.
>Tell you what, I'll issue a CFJ on it and we'll see.
>-- 
>Antonio

We still haven't defined "forum" officially for the sake of the rules.  I suppose that that means a given person can use a given dictionary to determine the definition, though I'd hesitate to say that...Imagine if Plunder were to visit Washington DC tomorrow.  He'd have to use a Palm Pilot if he wanted to say anything in the Capitol.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:21:42 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: nweek 3 results
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> (Remember the "Bandwidth Rationing" proposal is now in effect. No more
> than three proposals for the next ballot. Wonko, sit back, relax, you've
> already hit your limit.)
> 

The Bandwith Rationing rule limits me to 3 proposals per nweek, not per
ballot. The earlier three I made were proposed last nweek, so I believe I
can make three more this nweek.

Also, Rule 4/3:Versions and Revision Numbers states that:

Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
play creates a new version of it.

Doesn't that mean that amending proposals counts towards the 3 prop/week
thing?

And lastly, if a proposal is rescinded, does it still count as one of the
three? (i.e., could somebody propose 3, rescind 1, and propose a new one?)

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:31:16 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Displaying non-zero-based nweeks
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/6/02 10:31 AM, Jörg Rathlev at [email-masked] wrote:
> {{ __Displaying non-zero-based nweeks__
> 
> Modify rule 214 to read: {{
> 
> The current value of The Clock, with the number of nweeks increased by
> one [[because The Clock is zero-based]], shall be displayed in public
> view.
> 
> }}}}

If you're going to do that, why not just propose that the Clock's nweek
value is increased by one and make nweeks non-zero-based?

Also, it might be a good idea to do the same thing to ndays if you're going
to do it to nweeks, 'cause ndays are zero-based too.

-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:36:26 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Displaying non-zero-based
	nweeks
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/6/02 5:31 PM, Wonko at [email-masked] wrote:

> on 1/6/02 10:31 AM, Jörg Rathlev at [email-masked] wrote:
>> {{ __Displaying non-zero-based nweeks__
>> 
>> Modify rule 214 to read: {{
>> 
>> The current value of The Clock, with the number of nweeks increased by
>> one [[because The Clock is zero-based]], shall be displayed in public
>> view.
>> 
>> }}}}
> 
> If you're going to do that, why not just propose that the Clock's nweek
> value is increased by one and make nweeks non-zero-based?
> 
> Also, it might be a good idea to do the same thing to ndays if you're going
> to do it to nweeks, 'cause ndays are zero-based too.

Oh, I see. That would mean that an nweek and a day passed by
instantaneously, wouldn't it?
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:50:10 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Starting Activity
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> After all rules were processed, the initial value of "Activity" was
> undefined, so I'm assuming it to be zero. Therefore, it only reflects
> "Activity" for this nweek (and can only be +/- 1).

I believe that because proposals are processed in numerical order, Activity
was briefly defined to be "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," before my proposal changed it, so everyone should have had a
starting activity of however many they voted on minus however many they
didn't.

Incidentally, my apologies for making all these responses to messages from a
few days ago. I've been away for two and a half days.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:11:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Displaying non-zero-based nweeks
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Rathlev wrote:

> I am one of the players who prefer a non-zero-based counting of
> nweeks, even if only for historical reasons.

I prefer it because it means I don't have to re-create the whole darn
database. :-)

> I make the following proposal:
>
> {{ __Displaying non-zero-based nweeks__

Recognized as 225/0.

...dave

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:14:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: nweek 3 results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:

> The Bandwith Rationing rule limits me to 3 proposals per nweek, not per
> ballot. The earlier three I made were proposed last nweek, so I believe I
> can make three more this nweek.

That's a judgment call (pardon the lousy pun). Make some proposals and see
if anyone challenges. :-)

> Doesn't that mean that amending proposals counts towards the 3 prop/week
> thing?

Again, that's a judgment call. I'm inclined to think that's not the case -
the revision supercedes the original proposal, so I'd think it's still
only one "live" proposal.

> And lastly, if a proposal is rescinded, does it still count as one of the
> three? (i.e., could somebody propose 3, rescind 1, and propose a new one?)

Technically, I don't think the rules allow proposals to be rescinded at
all, but as I've already done so, someone oughta make it official at some
point. ;)

...dave

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:12:13 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: nweek 3 results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/6/02 at 5:21 PM Wonko wrote:

>> (Remember the "Bandwidth Rationing" proposal is now in effect. No more
>> than three proposals for the next ballot. Wonko, sit back, relax, you've
>> already hit your limit.)
>> 
>
>The Bandwith Rationing rule limits me to 3 proposals per nweek, not per
>ballot. The earlier three I made were proposed last nweek, so I believe I
>can make three more this nweek.

I think you're right.  Rule 23 defines the ballot as those proposals that were recognized after the start of the prior voting period.  So that would include proposals made during the prior nweek that weren't part of the prior ballot.  Which means you'd get six this nweek, and three every nweek thereafter.

In an only loosely related question, can one make a proposal that's specifically not for the current nweek's ballot?  Could I, say, make three proposals for nweek 6 this nweek, three for nweek 6 next nweek, and three during nweek 6, and have a total of nine proposals on nweek 6's ballot?

>
>Also, Rule 4/3:Versions and Revision Numbers states that:
>
>Every modification to a revisable object that does not eliminate it from
>play creates a new version of it.
>
>
>Doesn't that mean that amending proposals counts towards the 3 prop/week
>thing?

No, proposals carry their amendability with them, according to Rule 19.  Therefore, amending a proposal is a game action.

>
>And lastly, if a proposal is rescinded, does it still count as one of the
>three? (i.e., could somebody propose 3, rescind 1, and propose a new one?)

Well, the Administrator left rescinded proposals in the proposal list, along with their serial numbers.  But consider that you can totally replace the text (and, I suppose, title) of a proposal, which in effect would make it a totally different proposal, yet not be an additional one.

Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:05:15 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: nweek 3 results
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/6/02 10:12 PM, Donald Whytock at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> In an only loosely related question, can one make a proposal that's
> specifically not for the current nweek's ballot?  Could I, say, make three
> proposals for nweek 6 this nweek, three for nweek 6 next nweek, and three
> during nweek 6, and have a total of nine proposals on nweek 6's ballot?
> 

I believe the rules say that each Ballot shall contain all proposals issued
since the beginning of the last Voting period, so anything you propose
during an nweek goes on that nweek's Ballot. You could, however, propose no
proposals for one Ballot and propose your three proposals during the Voting
Period, in which case you could get six proposals the next Ballot, but it
would mean putting nothing on the first Ballot.

-- 
Wonko 

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:48:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> <analysis>
> Join me, and together we will rule the galaxy as player and... other
> player.
> It is your *destiny*.
> </analysis>
> 

Arrrgh! 
That's pretty good uin, I wish I had come up with it.
-- 
Antonio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:31:29 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 5:15 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

><proposal>
><title>Helter Skelter!</title>
><body>
>Create a new rule, named "Same As It Ever Was", with the following
>@@@-delimited text:
>@@@
>For the purposes of the rules, and for all other purposes within the game,
>the term "proposal" shall be considered precisely equivalent to the far
>superior term "proosal". Each player who voted for the proosal that created
>this rule gains 23 points and each player who voted against it loses 17
>points (once only [[true anyway, but *someone* would complain ;-)]]) and
>this sentence is then removed from the rules.
>@@@
></body>
></proposal>

Sorry, guy.  Rule 155 says that if a proposal tries to determine who voted what for itself, all the votes would come from Bob the Voting Fish.  Which means all those points you promise would go to Bob too.

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:35:08 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Sorry, guy.  Rule 155 says that if a proposal tries to determine who voted
what
> for itself, all the votes would come from Bob the Voting Fish.  Which
means all
> those points you promise would go to Bob too.

No. The proposal does nothing of the sort; it creates a rule which does, but
that's not covered by r155.

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: Displaying non-zero-basednweeks
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:42:30 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Oh, I see. That would mean that an nweek and a day passed by
> instantaneously, wouldn't it?

Yes.

Joerg

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:43:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 5:35 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

>> Sorry, guy.  Rule 155 says that if a proposal tries to determine who
>voted
>what
>> for itself, all the votes would come from Bob the Voting Fish.  Which
>means all
>> those points you promise would go to Bob too.
>
>No. The proposal does nothing of the sort; it creates a rule which does,
>but
>that's not covered by r155.
>
>uin.

Ah, but the proposal is creating the rule, and the rule is creating the points, which means the proposal is creating the circumstances under which the points are created.  Les'n you can think of a way of creating the rule without a proposal.

Hmm...That just might win me a pink scarf...:)

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: The Pink Cashmere Scarf Of Impeccable Style
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:56:44 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:08:43 -0600, "Jonathan Van Matre"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>A player who is in possession of The Pink Scarf may be referred to as
>The Style Police. 

Maybe a better name would be the Arbiter Eleganitarum ?
-- 
Antonio

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

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:50:11 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Ah, but the proposal is creating the rule, and the rule is
> creating the points, which means the proposal is
> creating the circumstances under which the points are
> created.

Yes, but so what? That's not what rule 155 says. You need something like
Joerg's proosal to make this work (assuming you think it's important).
Although his first one should be amended to read "... if proposal 227
passed"; otherwise, he's causing a worse problem than the one he's fixing
(because it's not like it *will* pass).

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 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: The Pink Cashmere Scarf Of Impeccable Style
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:56:45 -0600
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

FYI, please note I specified "best imitation" of a lisp in the rule.
The primary reason for the scarf is to provide a mechanism for awarding
style points to each other.  The lisping and muffling stuff is just
thrown in so the Style Police can have some fun at eir own discretion --
one cursed item is probably enough at present (I know I laughed for 10
minutes straight at the first few Sushi messages).  So if you get the
scarf, feel free to insist your best imitation of a lisp is none at all.

And god help us if anyone ever has the sushi and a muffled scarf at the
same time.

--jvm

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:51:47 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 6:42 PM Jörg Rathlev wrote:

>{{ __Public voting. Secret votes.__
>
>Add the following paragraph to rule 31:
>
>No player shall be awarded a win and no player's information (score
>etc.) shall be modified based on how e voted on a given issue.
>
>Repeal rule 155.
>
>}}
>
>
>Joerg

Um...what if a proposal passes by a single vote, and the proposer voted for it?  It could be argued that the proposal wouldn't have won without the proposer voting for it, and therefore the score he'd get from the proposal winning is a result of his vote...

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:57:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 5:50 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

>> Ah, but the proposal is creating the rule, and the rule is
>> creating the points, which means the proposal is
>> creating the circumstances under which the points are
>> created.
>
>Yes, but so what? That's not what rule 155 says. You need something like
>Joerg's proosal to make this work (assuming you think it's important).
>Although his first one should be amended to read "... if proposal 227
>passed"; otherwise, he's causing a worse problem than the one he's fixing
>(because it's not like it *will* pass).
>
>uin.

You don't think so?  By my count, proposal 227 is going to be the Pink Scarf proposal.  And hell, I didn't think the Sushi proposal would pass.

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:03:08 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Please note:

"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. "

Rule 1/0 falls into that category.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:53 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
> 
> 
> I submit the following Call For Judgement:
> <statement>
> Rule 1 has the following @@@ delimited text:
> @@@
> The name of this game shall be 'B Nomic.'
> 
> The player who, as of the 1st of January 2002, was known as "uniquely
> identifying names", and the player who was selected to judge 
> the first Call
> For Judgement submitted by uniquely identifying names in this 
> game, may
> alter the rules of this game, and any other aspect of the 
> game they choose,
> by mutually agreeing, in a public forum, to such an alteration.
> 
> Additionally, either of the players mentioned above may, at 
> any time, by
> declaring that they are so doing in a public forum, Zap any 
> proposal, or any
> Call For Judgement. Zapping a proposal replaces its text with 
> the string
> "FNORD". Zapping a Call For Judgement replaces its statement 
> with the string
> "FNORD".
> 
> This rule may only be amended or repealed as described in 
> this rule. This
> rule takes precedence over all other rules, including those 
> which claim to
> take precedence over it. This rule will be repealed on the 
> 21st of January
> 2002.
> @@@
> </statement>
> <analysis>
> Join me, and together we will rule the galaxy as player 
> and... other player.
> It is your *destiny*.
> </analysis>
> 
> 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: Proposals
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:08:33 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Um...what if a proposal passes by a single vote, and the proposer
> voted for it?  It could be argued that the proposal wouldn't have
> won without the proposer voting for it, and therefore the score he'd
> get from the proposal winning is a result of his vote...

You could argue that it didn't pass because of his particular vote,
but rather because of the voting results. But I'll try to make that
more explicit.

Joerg

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:09:41 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> "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. "

That's an unintentional (but useful right now :)) side-effect of that
paragraph. I think it should be repealed by now (as any actions of
that time fall under the provisions of the first paragraph anyway). I
would propose that, but I'm out of proposals for this nweek.

Joerg

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:36:54 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 6:13 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

>> Rule 1/0 falls into that category.
>
>I'm pretty sure I can argue around that. However, I instead submit the
>following Call for Judgement:
>
><statement>
>Rule 22 has the following @@@-delimited text:

Rule 22 was part of the initial set too.  Try rule 6. :)

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:41:12 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 22 was part of the initial set too.  Try rule 6. :)

Ah, but r22's been revised, and I'm CFJing the current version. ;-)

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: spoon-business: Force of law, you say?
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:44:20 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 22 was part of the initial set too.

But not rule 22/2. I think if no revision number is specified the CFJ
should be assumed to refer to the current revision.

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: a reiteration of the sushi
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:51:57 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> In reward for his cunning the player known as "uniquely identifying names"
> is awarded The Cursed Sushi of Babel }}

Pardon me for playing nomic. ;-)

uin,
waiting for some Zapping.

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, 07 Jan 2002 14:06:55 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal:  _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
   (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 1:01 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>> At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged 
>> in the past 10 ndays that referred specifically to the judge 
>> assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge specifically 
>> assigned to judge any other specific CFJ, will have its 
>> ruling summarily changed to REFUSED.  This paragraph will then 
>> delete itself from this rule.  The following paragraph is 
>> inactive until this paragraph is deleted.

So...a judgment is a revisable object?  As in, players can submit proposals to reverse judgments? :)

						Glotmorf

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal:  _My Gavel Up Your Ass_  (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:14:16 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Under current law, it would appear you are correct.  Hence the final
"sleeper" paragraph in my proposal.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal: _My Gavel Up
> Your Ass_ (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
> 
> 
> On 1/7/02 at 1:01 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> >> At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged 
> >> in the past 10 ndays that referred specifically to the judge 
> >> assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge specifically 
> >> assigned to judge any other specific CFJ, will have its 
> >> ruling summarily changed to REFUSED.  This paragraph will then 
> >> delete itself from this rule.  The following paragraph is 
> >> inactive until this paragraph is deleted.
> 
> So...a judgment is a revisable object?  As in, players can 
> submit proposals to reverse judgments? :)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:19:20 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal:  _My
  Gavel Up Your Ass_  (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hm...you might want to reconsider that, then.  Otherwise, under the rules, I could submit a statement that says, for example:

"Rule 152 reads as follows: Changes to the state of the game may only be made via a Proposal or via an Action which is permitted by the Rules. "

...which would be judged true because, indeed, rule 152 currently reads that way.  At which point rule 152 becomes unrevisible because the judgment would have the force of law.  In this way I could engrave in stone any rule I wanted to by issuing a CFJ verifying its current wording.

						Glotmorf

On 1/7/02 at 1:14 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>Under current law, it would appear you are correct.  Hence the final
>"sleeper" paragraph in my proposal.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:07 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal: _My Gavel Up
>> Your Ass_ (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/7/02 at 1:01 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>> 
>> >> At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged 
>> >> in the past 10 ndays that referred specifically to the judge 
>> >> assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge specifically 
>> >> assigned to judge any other specific CFJ, will have its 
>> >> ruling summarily changed to REFUSED.  This paragraph will then 
>> >> delete itself from this rule.  The following paragraph is 
>> >> inactive until this paragraph is deleted.
>> 
>> So...a judgment is a revisable object?  As in, players can 
>> submit proposals to reverse judgments? :)
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>>

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:26:43 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RE: Proposal:  _My
  Gavel Up Your Ass_  (aka No Judicial Kickbacks)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/7/02 at 2:19 PM Donald Whytock wrote:

>Hm...you might want to reconsider that, then.  Otherwise, under the
>rules, I could submit a statement that says, for example:
>
>"Rule 152 reads as follows: Changes to the state of the game may only be
>made via a Proposal or via an Action which is permitted by the Rules. "
>
>...which would be judged true because, indeed, rule 152 currently reads
>that way.  At which point rule 152 becomes unrevisible because the
>judgment would have the force of law.  In this way I could engrave in
>stone any rule I wanted to by issuing a CFJ verifying its current wording.
>
>						Glotmorf

Even better...I try to engrave a rule in stone, but the judgship falls into the hands of someone who doesn't like the rule, and who then says, "Nope, sorry, that's false."  As a result, rule 152 doesn't say anything in particular; all we know is that it doesn't say what it says it says.

Gawd, I'm replying to my own replies now.  Someone fedex me a life?

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:51:18 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re:Force of law
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

One small problem with the 'Force of law' CFJ  if it's true, then rule 1's
text changes to what the CFJ says. Then, on Jan. 21, rule 1 rewrites itself
to change its text. Meanwhile, the CFJ, also with the force of law,
continues to define rule 1's text the same way it did earlier. Thus, rule
1's text is both what the CFJ says and what the text specified by the CFJ
says, which are different from each other. This is a contradiction. What
happens?
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:06:00 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Force of Law
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oops. I just figured out why that doesn't happen. Please disregard my
previous email.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:33:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Karin L. Kross wrote:

> My friend Jonathan aka Scoff! has introduced me to this game, and
> having read through (most of) the necessary materials on the
> nomic.net site, I wish to announce my intention to become a
> Player, with the nickname of Congenital Optimist.

Greetings! Welcome to the Roster. It'll be a trip.

(I'm a lazy typist - not to be confused with a lousy typist - so do you
prefer being "informally" addressed as Optimist, or Karin, or something
else entirely?)

...dave

Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:16:01 -0600
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New player
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"David E. Smith" wrote:

> Greetings! Welcome to the Roster. It'll be a trip.

Thanks!
 
> do you
> prefer being "informally" addressed as Optimist, or Karin, or something
> else entirely?)

Optimist will do just fine, or Congenital O if one feels like being
contrary.  
-karin
 congenital optimist

--
[email-masked] / seishonagon.org
"Life is short, but tacky just
 goes on forever." -Caitlin R. Kiernan

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:00:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The desire to become a player...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Eric Gerlach wrote:

> ... is only too great after discovering the Cursed Sushi of Babel. (and of
> course the hilarity that ensued)

Who woulda thunk the Sushi would be a recruitment device?

Welcome, Bean!

...dave

Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:27:35 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The desire to become a
  player...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/8/02 at 8:00 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
>> ... is only too great after discovering the Cursed Sushi of Babel. (and
>of
>> course the hilarity that ensued)
>
>Who woulda thunk the Sushi would be a recruitment device?
>
>Welcome, Bean!
>
>...dave

So what kind of people will the sushi and the pink scarf together attract?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:25:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The desire to become a 
 player...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> So what kind of people will the sushi and the pink scarf together attract?

*raises hand*

Scoff!'s relaying to me of some of the effects of the Cursed
Sushi was enough to almost make me hurt myself from laughing.
And I know a little bit about where the pink scarf originated,
so...

-Congenital Optimist

-- 
[email-masked] | http://seishonagon.org
"Life is short, but tacky just goes on forever."
               --Caitlin R. Kiernan, 11/27/2001

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:20:06 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Part 1 - Designed to specifically prohibit graft, kickbacks, and
> generally dishonest judicial behavior.  A judicial companion to the
> excellent No Kickbacks rule.
>
"Excellent"? It doesn't even work! No, not even the revised version. If
people putting bribery provisions into their proosals bother you, just do
what I've always done, and vote against them.

And your CFJ version is flawed too (I think - no time to try and break it
right now). An appeal mechanism, coupled with making CFJs in no way have any
kind of force of law, would clear things up.

> Part 2 - Clear up the notion of CFJs having the force of law.  I think
> this strikes a decent balance between the notion that CFJs should have
> some legal potency, and the fact that according them too much potency
> opens up the floodgates for Glotmorf's loophole.  Precedence of rules
> over CFJs is established.
>
The whole idea of the "force of law" thing is a Bad Idea. I think I've
probably demonstrated that. The usual way (I think based on Suber) of
defining a CFJ  is just to have it guide "game custom", a
deliberately-nebulous term (still defined to some extent). It's a lot less
open to abuse. 

> Part 3 - Establish a process for judicial review, so we can clean up
> CFJs that have been rendered obsolete by developments in the rules, or
> whose context has changed significantly.
>
All you need is for CFJs just to apply to the game as it was at the time of
the CFJ. It seems crazy to me to think they do otherwise, but you could
always make it explicit. (Although some of overturning CFJs that have you
feel have been poorly judged is a very good idea).

uinish.

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 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:22:20 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The whole idea of the "force of law" thing is a Bad Idea. I think I've
> probably demonstrated that. The usual way (I think based on Suber) of
> defining a CFJ  is just to have it guide "game custom", a
> deliberately-nebulous term (still defined to some extent). 
> It's a lot less
> open to abuse. 

Force of law works for the U.S. Supreme Court.  Game custom is just as
easily abused as force of law.  

Under a game custom system, I'm free to be a rogue player, flouting
custom at whim.  CFJs become a useless tool, and no one will use them.
All changes that anyone wants to have the force of law will have to be
made via proposals to change the law.  

If we want to be a legislature-only game, that's certainly one available
option.  But legislative and judicial branches with checks and balances
between them have been known to work every once in a while.  I can't
really speak to their prevalence in Nomics, due to a limited sample size
in my own experience with Nomics, but the notion has enjoyed a modicum
of popularity in human systems of government.

As for an appeal process, one could use the CFJR that way, with the
understanding that you'd probably be getting the same judge.  Beyond
that, since rules supersede CFJs under the system I've proposed, what I
envisioned as the next step for appeal is to create a proposal that
implements the decision you wanted as a rule, and convince a majority of
your peers to agree.  I think that's probably sufficient, but if someone
wants to suggest another method of handling appeals, feel free.

--jonathan

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosals
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:22:48 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Repeal rules:
> 7 [[does nothing]]

Serves a useful purpose to new players who may be unfamiliar with Spivak
pronouns.  Does it enforce anything?  No.  But is it useful?  I think
yes.

> 12 [[tells us nothing we don't know anyway]]

One might think that, but I suspect in the absence of such a rule we'd
see a lot of CFJs questioning the validity of proposals / rules/ rule
changes that do that sort of thing.  If for no other reason, just to be
difficult.  One wonders if we have anyone around here who is inclined to
do things just to be difficult....hmmm....  ;-)

> 150 [[redundant, thanks to 152 (and I think anyway ;-))]]

It wouldn't be redundant thanks to 152 if you things went your way and
CFJs ceased to have the force of law.  The only thing currently making
scores part of the game state is a CFJ ruling, and possibly the
indication in rule 24 that the Roster is updated by the Administrator to
show the current game state, though that one is open to interpretation.

> 155 [[doesn't work]]

Hmmm.  I have seen the light.  Let's take everything that doesn't work
100% perfectly out of the ruleset right now.  If it isn't perfect, it
must be bad.  Rule 1 is right out -- "The name of this game shall be 'B
Nomic.'" but I can call it whatever I want.  I can call it Scoff!s Game
Of World Domination.  Rule 1 doesn't work...goodbye Rule 1...and so on,
and so on...

--Scoff!

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:17:34 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Do you know sushi like I know sushi?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 08:29:03AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> I'm going to voluntarily take the sushi off Plunder's hands for a while.
> 
> 						Glotmorf

Gah. It'd been 4 days; I was about to give it to Gavin. I was just too
busy yesterday to make the action (and to figure out how to refer to
"uniquely identifying names" in an unambiguous way through the Sushi).

Oh well.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 23:36:14 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My
  Gavel Up Your Ass_
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:22 PM 2002-01-08 -0600, you wrote:
><snip>
>
>As for an appeal process, one could use the CFJR that way, with the
>understanding that you'd probably be getting the same judge.  Beyond
>that, since rules supersede CFJs under the system I've proposed, what I
>envisioned as the next step for appeal is to create a proposal that
>implements the decision you wanted as a rule, and convince a majority of
>your peers to agree.  I think that's probably sufficient, but if someone
>wants to suggest another method of handling appeals, feel free.

Well.... the thing with CFJs is AFAIK they're supposed to be clarifications 
(of rules or otherwise).  So if there was a confusion about rules or game 
state (such as what happened with scores a while ago - looking at the first 
few CFJs) then a CFJ would clarify that.  OTOH, judgements on things that 
are obviously not vague, undefined or ambiguous should not be made in the 
first place.

So I agree that judges should not be able to have the "force of law" in 
such a way that essentially makes new rules, on the other hand, the 
clarifications that they make should stand as law.  Allow me to address 
this in a proosal (so I like the word, sue me), which I will post tomorrow 
or so on the business list.

Okay.  Now I'm done being serious.  Time for some sl.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:20:08 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/8/02 at 10:44 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>_Judicial Rear View_
>
>{{
>If at any time a player believes that changes to the rules have
>invalidated the prior ruling on a Call For Judgement (hereafter CFJ)
>statement, that player may post a Call For Judicial Review in a public
>forum.  The Call For Judicial Review (hereafter CFJR) must name the
>serial number of the CFJ to be reviewed, and the player requesting the
>CFJR.
>
>The player who originally judged the statement, even if playing under a
>different name, shall be assigned to review the statement and issue a
>new ruling under current law.  If the original judge is On Leave or no
>longer an active player, the Administrator shall select a new judge in
>the same manner prescribed in rule 127 for selection of judges for Calls
>For Judgement, with the additional stipulation that the player issuing
>the CFJR is not eligible to judge.
>
>The Judge shall, within seven days of eir selection, give one of the
>following responses to the Call for Judicial Review 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 germane 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.
>The Judge's ruling shall be created as a new revision of the original
>CFJ, under the same serial number.  Only the most recent revision number
>of a CFJ statement may have the force of law, and then only as
>specifically prescribed by the rules.   Judges may revise their ruling
>on the CFJR within one nday of the first posting of that ruling in a
>public forum, after which time all rulings are final.
>}}
>
>
>--Scoff!

Is this simplicity doesn't put the swallow of distiller unchecked force inside the hand of the person? When all it is opposed to it, judgement the overrule el there must be a E for method?   

Glotmorf (el For a E for reason, my name does not translate in a Korean. Imagine that.)

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:41:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth
  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/8/02 at 8:41 PM Jörg Rathlev wrote:

>I revise proposal 232 as follows:
>
>{{ __Titles, and a better bandwidth limit__
>
>Create the following rule:
>
>{{ __Titles__
>
>Titles are names that are defined to be titles by the rules.
>
>A player holds a title when it has been awarded to em as specified by
>the rules, e ceases to hold the title when the rules specify that e
>loses it.  Unless otherwise specified by the rules, it is possible
>that no player holds a certain title or that the same title is held by
>multiple players at the same time.
>
>Players have an attribute named Nobility which is a list of all titles
>the player currently holds.
>
>New players initially hold no titles.
>}}
>
>
>Create the following rule:
>
>{{ __Legislative Zealot__
>
>Legislative Zealot is a title.
>
>At the beginning of each voting period, all players currently holding
>the title of Legislative Zealot lose it; then it is awarded to each
>player with a probability of (n-3)/10 (where n is the number of
>proposals submitted by the player for that nweek's ballot, or three,
>whichever is greater).
>
>For any player that holds the title of Legislative Zealot, the effects
>that the failure or passage of eir proposals has on eir dimensions
>shall be reversed, unless more than two thirds of eir proposals on
>that nweek's ballot, rounded to the nearest integer, have failed
>[[otherwise a player might gain lots of points by making lots of
>stupid proposals that are certain to fail]].
>
>}}
>
>
>Repeal rule 212.
>
>}}
>
>
>Joerg

The sushi and Anui existence of the pink color scarf to the aim which has the effect which is clear it creates, for suggest a historical example. Do we as do a subject with the target thing together well actual in necessity? The Perhaps, five lye at legislating fanatic subject more, we at legislating have the badge of the Zealousness. To those method us one triumph more the enemy rule iss c. Or for the aim which carries the function which spreads out it creates a type it tries the thing?   
 
						Glotmorf

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth limi
	t
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:20:14 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> At the beginning of each voting period, all players currently holding
> the title of Legislative Zealot lose it; then it is awarded to each
> player with a probability of (n-3)/10 (where n is the number of
> proposals submitted by the player for that nweek's ballot, or three,
> whichever is greater).

<evil math troll>
Shouldn't you cap the probability at 1?
</evil math troll>

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 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: An attempt at translation...
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:35:55 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You may respond by indicating in the affirmative or negative...

If I may hazard a guess, are you saying you think that the Rear View /
CFJR part of the proposal puts too much power in the hands of the judge?

1)  YES or NO

And you would prefer something that involves more of a power to the
people approach?

2)  YES or NO

And you feel the option of submitting a rule proposal that overturns the
CFJ is not sufficient?  That there must be some other way for a majority
of players opposed to a judgement to overrule it?

3)  YES or NO
 
--Scoff!

> >_Judicial Rear View_
> >
> Is this simplicity doesn't put the swallow of distiller 
> unchecked force inside the hand of the person? When all it is 
> opposed to it, judgement the overrule el there must be a E 
> for method?   
> 
> Glotmorf (el For a E for reason, my name does not translate 
> in a Korean. Imagine that.)
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:13:16 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: An attempt at translation...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/9/02 at 8:35 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>You may respond by indicating in the affirmative or negative...
>
>If I may hazard a guess, are you saying you think that the Rear View /
>CFJR part of the proposal puts too much power in the hands of the judge?
>
>1)  YES or NO

It is like that.

>
>And you would prefer something that involves more of a power to the
>people approach?
>
>2)  YES or NO

It is like that.

>
>And you feel the option of submitting a rule proposal that overturns the
>CFJ is not sufficient?  That there must be some other way for a majority
>of players opposed to a judgement to overrule it?
>
>3)  YES or NO

Think:

-Proposal _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
-
-Create a rule as follows:
-
-{{
-_No Judicial Kickbacks_
-...
-...
-...
-No ruling on a CFJ may be changed except by the judge assigned to rule
-on that CFJ, or by a Call For Judicial Review.  No rule may directly
-alter or revise the ruling on a CFJ or specific class of CFJs.  Judges
-may revise their ruling within one nday of the first posting of that
-ruling in a public forum, after which time all rulings are final (except
-in the case of a Call For Judicial Review).
-}}

When we will be able to change, overturn possibility there are not that time we. 

Your translation was good one.  

						Glotmorf

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: Ongoing discussions with the sushi
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:34:45 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Miraculously, I think I spy what you're getting at.

The biggest problem is this part, yes? -- 

> No ruling on a CFJ may be changed except by the judge 
> assigned to rule on that CFJ, or by a Call For Judicial Review.  No
rule may directly
> alter or revise the ruling on a CFJ or specific class of CFJs.

In other words, while my intent is for rules to be able to overturn CFJs
by superseding them, this seems to say that they can't, that only a
judge can alter the effect of a CFJ.

The idea I was having here was that a rule can't just say "The ruling on
CFJ 377 is now TRUE" or "All new CFJs by Glotmorf are to be summarily
ruled FALSE", but it should still be able to override a CFJ by just
enacting as a rule whatever *effect* the author wants to see, without
changing the ruling.

In retrospect, that restriction is probably unnecessary anyway, and
there are certainly ways in which allowing rules to modify CFJ rulings
would be valuable.  It's also in the spirit of the game -- since rules
can modify other rules, they should be able to modify anything that
falls under the banner of "the letter of the law".  And, as Mike Judge
(formerly uin) has pointed out, if people don't like such proposals,
they can vote them down.

I'll submit a revision to fix that.  Thanks, and let me know if you have
any other good suggestions.

--Scoff!

> Think:
> 
> -Proposal _My Gavel Up Your Ass_
> -
> -Create a rule as follows:
> -
> -{{
> -_No Judicial Kickbacks_
> -...
> -...
> -...
  Judges
> -may revise their ruling within one nday of the first posting of that
> -ruling in a public forum, after which time all rulings are 
> final (except
> -in the case of a Call For Judicial Review).
> -}}
> 
> When we will be able to change, overturn possibility there 
> are not that time we. 
> 
> Your translation was good one.  
> 
> 						Glotmorf

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth  limit
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:35:14 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The sushi and Anui existence of the pink color scarf to the aim
> which has the effect which is clear it creates, for suggest a
> historical example. Do we as do a subject with the target thing
> together well actual in necessity?

Let me guess a translation: you think the Titles rule is not
necessary, it could be implemented the same way as the Sushi and the
Scarf are implemented?

I don't think so, as the Sushi and the Scarf can only be assigned to
one player at a time, while titles can be held by multiple or no
players.

> The Perhaps, five lye at legislating fanatic subject more, we at
> legislating have the badge of the Zealousness. To those method us
> one triumph more the enemy rule iss c. Or for the aim which carries
> the function which spreads out it creates a type it tries the thing?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

Joerg

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosals
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:45:44 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosals</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">One wonders if we have anyone around here who is inclined to</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">do things just to be difficult....hmmm....&nbsp; ;-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If you think that, you're missing the point.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; 150 [[redundant, thanks to 152 (and I think anyway ;-))]]</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It wouldn't be redundant thanks to 152 if you things went your way and</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">CFJs ceased to have the force of law.</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Yes, it would. Because the term &quot;game state&quot; isn't defined by the rules, its meaning becomes a part of (what we don't yet explicitly call) game custom. I've seen your objections that this allows you to be a &quot;rogue player&quot;, but they're unfounded. Consider that you could just as easily go rogue by insisting that the term &quot;the rules&quot; in fact applied to you (perhaps changing your name to enhance your claim), or even that the rules were not in fact written in english, but instead in a secret language which merely looks a lot like english, and that what they actually say is that we must worship you as a god.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The reason why neither of those things work is that we're *already* operating on a game-custom basis. There's nothing in the rules that says they're written in english; indeed, any such provision would be meaningless, as it would need to be assumed to be in english to have any effect. The reason that the rules work as being in english is because that's what we choose to interpret them as - to put it another way, because that's what game custom says.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Assuming standard english usage is generally fine, but there are times when the rules are unclear, or where they use new terms for which we don't yet have a customary interpretation. That's how a game custom-based CFJ system works; it explicitly establishes how we're going to interpret the rules (whether a player actions succeeded or not is a consequence of the rules), where they're unclear or in dispute.</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; 155 [[doesn't work]]</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hmmm.&nbsp; I have seen the light.&nbsp; Let's take everything that doesn't work</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">100% perfectly out of the ruleset right now.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">When I say it doesn't work, I don't mean that it fails to work perfectly, I mean that it completely fails to do anything (except require some extra wording to sidestep, which is hardly an improvement). In fact, there's no point in even trying to regulate proosal bribery - proosals can alter the rules, so they can simply alter the rules such that bribery is possible. The only way (well, it might be possible to create an unmodifiable rule, but that conjecture is unproven) to prevent proosals from bribing players is simply not to vote for them if they do. True, r155 isn't harmful, but it is redundant. And pointless. And it doesn't do anything. And I'm on a self-imposed and fairly pointless quest to eliminate all forms of redundancy, pointlessness, and redundancy, and not-doing-anything-ness. And neologisms, probably.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gave
	l Up Your Ass_
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:55:38 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236/1 _My Gavel Up Your Ass_</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">All changes that anyone wants to have the force of law will have to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">made via proposals to change the law.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">That's precisely the point. CFJs should only be there to settle uncertainties and disputes. Any changes anyone wants *should* have to be proosed. Anything that has the force of law has the potential to rewrite the rules, bootstrapping itself up to have enough precedence (assuming, again, no unmodifiable rules exists). Yes, you can put safeguards around CFJs, as you have attempted, but I'm entirely unconvinced of their reliability. I greatly prefer not having the problem to work around in the first place.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'm especially concerned about this because, while proosals can change anything, they take a majority to do so. CFJs only require 2 people. Again, you can try and put up fences around this, but I've already thought of at least one way of circumventing your judicial kickbacks rule.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:58:37 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: CFJ</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Statement: &nbsp; The phrase &quot;the rules&quot; is not a uniquely identifying name</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Actually, that's probably true, but &quot;</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">all the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect&quot; (or something along those lines) would make my point just as well.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:55:30 -0000 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_Judicial Rear View_</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I think this would establish the (potentially somewhat dangerous, as has been pointed out) precedent that CFJs remain true until reviewed. I'd be much happier with simply adding something along the lines of &quot;A CFJ shall be judged based upon whether its statement was true at the time it was submitted.&quot;, instead of the whole review process (except for appeals, which are a Good Thing).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 19:28:26 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:49:29 -0600, "Jonathan Van Matre"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
>CFJ Statements do not have the force of law.  CFJ Statements whose most
>recent revisions are ruled "True" or "False" are regarded, with their
>associated rulings, as explicit statements of current game custom.  At
>no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled "True", become or create a
>rule.  Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused" and their associated
>statements have no force of law or custom.  Only the most recent
>revision number of a CFJ statement is ever regarded as a statement of
>game custom. 
> 

This part is strange, what you are proposing is basically:

-if the ruling is TRUE or FALSE then the *statement and the ruling* are
part of game custom
-if the ruling is UNDECIDED or REFUSED then the *statement and the ruling*
are NOT part of game custom

I think the second part is unnecessary, and actually it would be better if
Undecided and Refused rulings were part of game custom too.

heck, why not? Is ther a loophole I don't see?
-- 
Antonio

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

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jörg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:28:47 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> No Call For Judgement may include a statement which refers
> specifically to the judge assigned to judge that CFJ, or the judge
> specifically assigned to judge any other specific CFJ

Wouldn't this sentence alone be sufficient?

I have to agree with uin in that as long as we keep the rules
modifyable, there'll always be a way to circumvent this stuff, so I'm
opposed to applying an overly complex solution that doesn't even work
to a minor problem. But the above sentence would make clear that it's
against game custom, so having a simple provision like that is a good
thing (IMHO).

As for replacing the force-of-law thing, I'd also prefer to replace
that with something simple. Like "A Judge's decision shall be in
accordance with and guide further interpretation of the rules."

> Judges may revise their ruling within one nday of the first posting
> of that ruling in a public forum, after which time all rulings are
> final

I don't think judges should be able to revise their decisions. What
happens for example if a judge decides "false" first, players act
accordingly, then, one day later, the judge changes eir mind and
judges "true"? Saying the rulings aren't final before one day has
passed won't help because, before the judgement was made, the rules
were probably unclear. Should players continue to consider them
unclear even though a judgement was published already?

> In any event of conflict between the rules and a CFJ statement, the
> rules shall in all circumstances supersede a CFJ statement,
> including CFJ statements which directly claim to supersede this or
> any other rule.

But wouldn't the conflict itself be something that is unclear and
therefore subject to a CFJ? But how can a CFJ ever resolve such
conflicts if the conflict takes precedence over its resolution?

> If at any time a player believes that changes to the rules have
> invalidated the prior ruling on a Call For Judgement (hereafter CFJ)
> statement

What if the rules are changed *because of* a judge decision (e.g.  a
statement that most players want to be true was judged false, and now
the rules have been changed to make it true), but no player ever
submits a CFJR? Does the original CFJ still guide interpretation of
the rules, creating a contradiction?

Joerg

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:57:14 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

What would it mean for an Undecided ruling to be part of game custom,
exactly?  That we customarily don't bother to decide that issue?

My reasoning is that True or False are ways of making a clear decision
about what our custom is at the moment.  Undecided and Refused, on the
other hand, indicate that the Judge either can't or won't determine what
the current custom is.  Since the Judge has made no determination of
custom, how then can the ruling and statement be part of game custom?

> This part is strange, what you are proposing is basically:
> 
> -if the ruling is TRUE or FALSE then the *statement and the 
> ruling* are
> part of game custom
> -if the ruling is UNDECIDED or REFUSED then the *statement 
> and the ruling*
> are NOT part of game custom
> 
> I think the second part is unnecessary, and actually it would 
> be better if
> Undecided and Refused rulings were part of game custom too.
> 
> heck, why not? Is ther a loophole I don't see?
> -- 
> Antonio
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> 
> Do You Yahoo!?
> 
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revision of 236
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:06:35 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I have to agree with uin in that as long as we keep the rules
> modifyable, there'll always be a way to circumvent this stuff, so I'm
> opposed to applying an overly complex solution that doesn't even work
> to a minor problem. But the above sentence would make clear that it's
> against game custom, so having a simple provision like that is a good
> thing (IMHO).

Modifying rules would require a majority vote, though.  As uin has
already demonstrated, packing a kickback into a CFJ is quite easy to do,
and requires no such majority vote.  I think some level of protection
against (or at least proscription against) graft in CFJs makes sense.
I'm about to post yet another revision that will hopefully tidy that up
in a more satisfactory, less complex manner.

> I don't think judges should be able to revise their decisions. What
> happens for example if a judge decides "false" first, players act
> accordingly, then, one day later, the judge changes eir mind and
> judges "true"? Saying the rulings aren't final before one day has
> passed won't help because, before the judgement was made, the rules
> were probably unclear. Should players continue to consider them
> unclear even though a judgement was published already?

Stricken in the upcoming revision.  I originally put that in to allow
for the "oh s#!t" factor just after e-mailing a CFJ and realizing you
want to change your mind.  Or accidentally typed the wrong word for your
ruling, while providing analysis supporting the ruling you intended.
But your point about the effect of implementing the CFJ and then
changing the ruling makes a world of sense.

> > In any event of conflict between the rules and a CFJ statement, the
> > rules shall in all circumstances supersede a CFJ statement,
> > including CFJ statements which directly claim to supersede this or
> > any other rule.
> 
> But wouldn't the conflict itself be something that is unclear and
> therefore subject to a CFJ? But how can a CFJ ever resolve such
> conflicts if the conflict takes precedence over its resolution?

Since CFJs are game custom now, and rules are what they are, I suppose
that makes this bit about superseding redundant.  It's out.

> > If at any time a player believes that changes to the rules have
> > invalidated the prior ruling on a Call For Judgement (hereafter CFJ)
> > statement
> 
> What if the rules are changed *because of* a judge decision (e.g.  a
> statement that most players want to be true was judged false, and now
> the rules have been changed to make it true), but no player ever
> submits a CFJR? Does the original CFJ still guide interpretation of
> the rules, creating a contradiction?

Per uin's input, the proposal now clearly states that CFJs guide
interpretation of the rules as they existed at the time of judgement.
They have no enduring force other than as a reference to conditions at
that point in time.

--Scoff!

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Kick in the Ass
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:45:19 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Is that to include replying to HTML-formatted mail, thereby having your
message inadvertently transmuted into HTML mail against your will?

--Scoff!

> 2. Add "Sending HTML mail to a Forum" to the List of 
> Generally Abhorred
> Stuff.
> }}
> -- 
> Rob Speer
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:47:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the Ass
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> Multiple Kicks in the Ass may not be given in response to a single
> Action or Forum message.

Clarification: when you say "Multiple Kicks in the Ass", does
that mean from a single player, or from all players?  That is, if
Player X receives a kick from Player Z, it's understood that Z
can't give X another kick or three, but can Players A, B, and C
also join in?  Or does the Kick in the Ass, having been
administered by one player, suffice for all?

-- 
[email-masked] | http://seishonagon.org
"Life is short, but tacky just goes on forever."
               --Caitlin R. Kiernan, 11/27/2001

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:00:39 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:57:14 -0600, "Jonathan Van Matre"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>What would it mean for an Undecided ruling to be part of game custom,
>exactly?  That we customarily don't bother to decide that issue?
>
>My reasoning is that True or False are ways of making a clear decision
>about what our custom is at the moment.  Undecided and Refused, on the
>other hand, indicate that the Judge either can't or won't determine what
>the current custom is.  Since the Judge has made no determination of
>custom, how then can the ruling and statement be part of game custom?
>
If a Judge Refuses a CFJ (or decides it's Undecided) he does so
deliberatley because of some kind of reasoning (That reasoning may well be
"I don't have time right now", but it will more often be for a founded
reason).
There are some kinds of CFJ that SHOULD be refused/undecided.
Game custom must reflect that in some way, hence my suggestion.
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:14:32 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the Ass
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:47:22PM -0600, Karin L. Kross wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> > Multiple Kicks in the Ass may not be given in response to a single
> > Action or Forum message.
> 
> Clarification: when you say "Multiple Kicks in the Ass", does
> that mean from a single player, or from all players?  That is, if
> Player X receives a kick from Player Z, it's understood that Z
> can't give X another kick or three, but can Players A, B, and C
> also join in?  Or does the Kick in the Ass, having been
> administered by one player, suffice for all?

>From all players, only one kick in the ass may be given.
Since the proposal doesn't say "per player" or anything of the sort, I
believe it's reasonably clear now.

So, to pick an entirely arbitrary :) example: Though I do believe Gavin
deserves a Kick in the Ass for each time he posts in HTML, especially in
what appears to be a 4-point font, it would not do if every other player
gave the Kick for the same message.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:16:37 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Kick in the Ass
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:45:19PM -0600, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> Is that to include replying to HTML-formatted mail, thereby having your
> message inadvertently transmuted into HTML mail against your will?

The rule does cover that, yes. I have seen how HTML manages to infest
mailing lists, always starting with one person.

The solution would be to use a mail client which doesn't use HTML, or
find the option that says "Reply to HTML messages in HTML" and turn it
off.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:19:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Let's give this another shot.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 06:31:34PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> <proposal>
> <title>Don't Do That!</title>
> <body>
> Create a new rule entitled 'Individuality' with the following #### delimited
> text:
> ####
> No player may change eir name to that of an entity defined in a current
> proposal.
> ####
> </body>
> <rationale>
> Much better. If Uin had waited to change his name to Mike Judge once the
> Voting period had started, Scoff! couldn't have fixed it. This way, it won't
> happen again.
> </rationale>
> </proposal>
> 
> And a new proposal:
> 
> <proposal>
> <title>Don't do that! II </title>
> <body>
> If the LOGAS exists, add "Violating Game Custom" to it.
> </body>
> <rationale>
> This is really annoying. It should be allowed, because sometimes it will be
> neccessary, but it ought to be frowned upon. If it's really justified, then
> the Admin will just not recognize the Kick.
> </rationale>
> </proposal>

It's good to separate those, since I probably wouldn't vote for the
second. It should be very clear-cut whether an action is deserving of a
Kick in the Ass, and "Violating Game Custom" is one of the most undefined
phrases I've ever heard in a Nomic rule.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:15:57 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Typos and Gremlins
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:50 PM 2001-12-31 -0500, you wrote:
>  Each Gremlin shall have a Bank Account.

Don't know if anyone cares.... but there is no bank.... this could get 
interesting :)

Bean

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:17:24 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 02:31 PM 2002-01-09 -0600, you wrote:
>OK, let's try this.

And well done.  I personally like this much better than the previous 
revisions, and you have sucessfully stopped me from making my own Justice 
System Revision proposal. :)

However, I couldn't help noticing a coulple of things...

>  <snip>
>
>I. Legislative Kickbacks
>
>A proposal is invalid if it calls for one or more effects that
>discriminate in any way between players based on their voting actions on
>that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals identified in
>the proposal.

<nitpick>However, nothing says that players cannot make invalid 
proposals.  My personal sense on this would be to say that "A player may 
not make a proposal which calls for ..." or "A proposal shall not call 
for...", but that's just me.  A CFJ would likely straighten this bit out 
anywho.</nitpick>  Sorry 'bout that.

><snip>
>
>At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged in the past
>10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
>way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
>CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the CFJ, shall
>have its ruling summarily changed to "Refused".  This paragraph will
>then delete itself from this rule.

Hate to point this out... but I think this paragraph violates rule 204/0...

><more snippage>
>
>{{
>At any time within 7 ndays following the posting of a Judgement of
>"True" or "False" on a CFJ, any player may propose that the Judgement be
>overruled by posting an Appeal to Overturn in a public forum.  If
>limitations on the number of proposals per nweek are in effect, Appeals
>to Overturn will not count against a player's proposal limit.  The
>Appeal to Overturn will be placed on the next available ballot as a
>proposal.  If the proposal is adopted, the ruling on the CFJ will be
>changed to "Undecided" by creating a new revision of the CFJ with the
>"Undecided" ruling.
>}}

Hmmm.... what happens to "Undecided" rulings?  I guess you could just 
resubmit the CFJ if you wanted a new ruling that badly.  You should 
probably add a statement to the effect of overturning any "indirect 
effect[s] of the ruling on a CFJ [which required] alterations to the rule 
set or game state, to bring them in accordance with the 
judgement".  Otherwise, if there were any auxilliary effects, they're 
stuck!  And an nweek might pass in the appeal time, making another CFJ 
impossible.

Well, that's all my ideas for the Justice System.... now it's time to fix 
up the Temporal Dept...

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:09:30 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses to 
hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is maintained.

Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury -- 
again, the status quo is maintained.

At 01:00 AM 1/10/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>If a Judge Refuses a CFJ (or decides it's Undecided) he does so
>deliberatley because of some kind of reasoning (That reasoning may well be
>"I don't have time right now", but it will more often be for a founded
>reason).
>There are some kinds of CFJ that SHOULD be refused/undecided.
>Game custom must reflect that in some way, hence my suggestion.
>--
>Antonio
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:31:44 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:43 PM 1/7/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>On 1/7/02 at 5:35 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:
>
> >> Sorry, guy.  Rule 155 says that if a proposal tries to determine who
> >voted
> >what
> >> for itself, all the votes would come from Bob the Voting Fish.  Which
> >means all
> >> those points you promise would go to Bob too.
> >
> >No. The proposal does nothing of the sort; it creates a rule which does,
> >but
> >that's not covered by r155.
> >
> >uin.
>
>Ah, but the proposal is creating the rule, and the rule is creating the 
>points, which means the proposal is creating the circumstances under which 
>the points are created.  Les'n you can think of a way of creating the rule 
>without a proposal.

You don't even have to go through those hoops. 155/0 says:

"When a proposal goes into effect, if its actions include making use of the 
information of what people's votes were for that proposal, this information 
is denied to the proposal, in the following way: "

The actions of the proposal going into effect -- e.g. the creation of a 
rule -- makes use of information about people's votes for that proposal.

Ergo, Bob the Voting Fish gets the points.

Go Bob!

--gritter

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:14:11 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a
  better bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The problem with this isn't the Title rule, which is fairly innocuous in 
and of itself.

The Title rule is just a kludge (and, yes, potentially unncessary) to 
create the Legislative Zealot title (and rule).

The Legislative Zealot rule
         (a) has incorrect math
         (b) is designed to allow someone to make 40 proposals if they want

Point (b) is evidenced by the tiny rider at the bottom of the proposal that 
repeals Bandwidth Rationing.

So, in effect, this is really just a (crappy) way of getting rid of 
bandwidth rationing.

It is *not* a better bandwidth limit, because THERE IS NO LIMIT. There's a 
deterrent, which is not at all the same thing as a limit.

I don't care if you're willing to risk 40 proposals. I don't care if all 40 
of them are good proposals. I don't want players to have the ability to 
post 40 proposals (good ones or bad ones) every nweek because .... well, 
because I have a life outside of B Nomic.

Heck, right now *with* bandwidth legislation and 15 recognized players, we 
have the possibility of having to slog through 45 proposals (not to mention 
the subsequent discussions) each nweek. Bandwidth Rationing is a Good 
Thing(TM).

VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 232!!!

At 05:35 PM 1/9/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> > The sushi and Anui existence of the pink color scarf to the aim
> > which has the effect which is clear it creates, for suggest a
> > historical example. Do we as do a subject with the target thing
> > together well actual in necessity?
>
>Let me guess a translation: you think the Titles rule is not
>necessary, it could be implemented the same way as the Sushi and the
>Scarf are implemented?
>
>I don't think so, as the Sushi and the Scarf can only be assigned to
>one player at a time, while titles can be held by multiple or no
>players.
>
>
> > The Perhaps, five lye at legislating fanatic subject more, we at
> > legislating have the badge of the Zealousness. To those method us
> > one triumph more the enemy rule iss c. Or for the aim which carries
> > the function which spreads out it creates a type it tries the thing?
>
>I have no idea what you're trying to say here...
>
>
>Joerg

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:18:23 -0500
From: Josh Utterback <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

David E. Smith wrote:

> 
> UIN (or whoever)'s "Crucify myself" proposal is 239/0.
> 

Uh, shouldn't "Crucify myself" actually by proposal 231/1, as UIN stated 
that e was modifing is earlier proposal.  If not, then it should be 
invalid as it would be is fourth proposal of the week.

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:20:24 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 02:31 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>CFJ Statements do not have the force of law.  CFJ Statements whose most
>recent revisions are ruled "True" or "False" are regarded, with their
>associated rulings, as explicit statements of current game custom at the
>time of the ruling.  At no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled
>"True", become or create a rule.  Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused"
>and their associated statements have no force of law or custom.  Only
>the most recent revision number of a CFJ statement is a potential
>statement of game custom.

I don't think this statement solves anything. You've taken one undefined 
phrase ("force of law") and replaced it with another undefined phrase 
"statement of game custom"). "Force of law" isn't even mentioned anywhere 
in the ruleset other than in Rule 128.

The problem with "force of law" is NOT that it's too forceful or limiting, 
but that because it is undefined it can be *interpreted* as too forceful or 
limiting. It seems to me that "game custom" is an equally vague and shady 
term.

What makes "game custom" better than "force of law"?

--gritter

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:31:00 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a
  better bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:14 AM 2002-01-10 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't care if you're willing to risk 40 proposals. I don't care if all 
>40 of them are good proposals. I don't want players to have the ability to 
>post 40 proposals (good ones or bad ones) every nweek because .... well, 
>because I have a life outside of B Nomic.

That's a good point, accentuated by the idea that, if I made 40 proposals 
which were "Bean recieves 9000 points", it's a win-win scenario; if they're 
all voted down, since the effects are reversed I *gain* points and charm 
not lose them, and if they're voted in, I get a ton of points nonetheless.

I must admit I like the "titles" part though...

Bean

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:28:35 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised
  proposal ever:  236 again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:20 AM 2002-01-10 -0500, you wrote:
>The problem with "force of law" is NOT that it's too forceful or limiting, 
>but that because it is undefined it can be *interpreted* as too forceful 
>or limiting. It seems to me that "game custom" is an equally vague and 
>shady term.
>
>What makes "game custom" better than "force of law"?

Well, "force of law" is likely to be interpreted as having the same 
strength as a rule.  I don't think that we want CFJs to have ultimate 
power, so to speak.  So, either we need an appealate method (which is in 
the proposal), or we need to make the rulings less powerful.  The "game 
custom" thing does this, albeit not perfectly.  I'd be inclined to pass the 
proposal and modify the text later.  The proposal contains many good things 
too.

Bean

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:43:22 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Hungry Gremlins
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/10/02 at 12:43 AM Josh Utterback wrote:

>__Hungry Gremlins__
>
>Hey, why not? It will make things intersting.
>
>Fenrir

This manufactures for the gremlins which is almost price poll. 

						Glotmorf

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:25:30 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses to </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is maintained.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">again, the status quo is maintained.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't decide certain things would be useful.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:19:51 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">However, the indirect effect of the ruling on a CFJ may require</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">alterations to the rule set or game state, to bring them in accordance</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">with the judgement. </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">No! Kitty is a bad Kitty!</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">By which I mean, the ruling should never change anything. It may require changes to *our records of things*, but that's not the same thing. Although the opposite viewpoint is probably defensible.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Platonism, not idealism.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:28:52 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The actions of the proposal going into effect -- e.g. the creation of a </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">rule -- makes use of information about people's votes for that proposal.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Not so. The rule is created, with exactly the same text, regardless of how people vote. What happens after that is an action of the rule, not the proosal, and r155 doesn't cover the actions of rules.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Kick in the Ass
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:31:53 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Kick in the Ass</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The solution would be to use a mail client which doesn't use HTML</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Not an option.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">or</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">find the option that says &quot;Reply to HTML messages in HTML&quot; and turn it</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">off.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">As far as I can tell, there is no such option in Outlook. Although the &quot;send in plain text&quot; option was sufficiently hidden that I can't rule out the possibility.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:11:55 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:25 AM 1/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses to
> > hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is 
> maintained.
> >
> > Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury --
> > again, the status quo is maintained.
>
>This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't 
>decide certain things would be useful.
>
>uin.

Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?

I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful. No 
argument there.

I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that proposal, 
only True or False judgments can change game custom. He objects that a 
Refused or Undecided judgment would *not change* the game custom.

My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided judgment 
is that the status quo persists (as in a hung jury or refused case in real 
courts).

--gritter

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:25:42 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:28 AM 1/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > The actions of the proposal going into effect -- e.g. the creation of a
> > rule -- makes use of information about people's votes for that proposal.
>
>Not so. The rule is created, with exactly the same text, regardless of how 
>people vote. What happens after that is an action of the rule, not the 
>proosal, and r155 doesn't cover the actions of rules.
>
>uin.

Ahh, good old nomic hair-splitting.

CFJ on the way. 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a be
	tter bandwidth  limit
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:22:17 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth  limit</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">That's a good point, accentuated by the idea that, if I made 40 proposals </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">which were &quot;Bean recieves 9000 points&quot;, it's a win-win scenario; if they're </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">all voted down, since the effects are reversed I *gain* points and charm </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">not lose them, and if they're voted in, I get a ton of points nonetheless.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">There's an &quot;unless 2/3rds fail&quot; clause in there, so that wouldn't work.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">As for bandwidth rationing being a good thing... it's really not likely to be necessary. Yes, the first couple of nweeks were quite busy, but you'd expect that. Things will quiet down significantly after that, even without the restriction. What'll we'll probably see is most people submitting relatively few proosals,&nbsp; and a few people submitting relatively many, so it'll all balance out to a reasonably small average of proosals/player/nweek.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I prefer the idea of there being some cost associated with submitting a proosal, rather than just imposing a limit, but I understand that some people are concerned about the numbers. I'd recommend to Joerg that he fix the maths, and perhaps include some higher maximum - 5 at the very least, preferably 7. Or 23, of course.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Aside from anything else, I'd rather see 2 smaller proosals, with the choice of which parts of the idea you want to vote for, than 1 big proosal that I might have to vote against because I dislike one part while really liking another.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:30:42 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;decide certain things would be useful.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&quot;Our situation is unlike that of your example. The conclusions you draw from your example don't apply to our situation&quot;. Or something like that.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful. No </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">argument there.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that proposal, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">only True or False judgments can change game custom. He objects that a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Refused or Undecided judgment would *not change* the game custom.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided judgment </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">is that the status quo persists (as in a hung jury or refused case in real </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">courts).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But that doesn't make sense. If I submit a CFJ saying (in effect) &quot;the status quo persists&quot; (and most CFJs say either that, or its opposite), and it is judged Undecided, that shouldn't mean that the status quo persists - it should mean that we are unable to determine whether the status quo persists or not. It would be useful to have game custom say that the circumstances we're in lead to undecidability. Likewise, it'd be useful to have some game custom as to what kind of statement should be Refused.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: =?US-ASCII?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a  better bandwidth  limit
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:11:11 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The Legislative Zealot rule
>          (a) has incorrect math

I'll fix that.

>          (b) is designed to allow someone to make 40 proposals if
>          they want
> 
> Point (b) is evidenced by the tiny rider at the bottom of the
> proposal that repeals Bandwidth Rationing.

Yes, it is. But with 40 proposals, you'll become a judicial zealot and
as such, you're almost certain to lose points.

> It is *not* a better bandwidth limit, because THERE IS NO LIMIT.
> There's a deterrent, which is not at all the same thing as a limit.

Yes, that's because I want no strict limit.

Actually, I think a much better solution to the problem would be to
have shorter nweeks, multiple voting periods, or to vote on proposals
at once (though that creates the problem of overlapping voting
periods, which might be confusing). Then you could vote on proposals
as soon as the proponents believe they're ready, and you don't have to
re-read all of them at once because they're all on one giant ballot
and some of them have been discussed more than a week ago.

However such a reform would be a quite radical one and I'm not sure if
you could propose that with just three proposals while still keeping
the more controversial parts optional. So our short-term solution even
prevents a (possible) long-term solution.

> Bandwidth Rationing is a Good Thing(TM).

Then you'll have to vote against my proposal because I'm not going to
change that.

The problem with a bandwith limit is that it doesn't generate less
proposals, it just generates longer ones. One of them is my own one, I
might have splitted the proposal into a "Titles" proposal and a
"Zealot" proposal" (or I could have made the repeal clause a seperate
proposal), but I couldn't do so because I'm limited to three
proposals. There seems to be at least one player (Bean) who might vote
against the proposal due to this combination, even though he likes the
Titles part.

Proposal 236 is another example, I might vote against it because I
don't like all of its parts. Unfortunately, Scoff! also has no
proposals left to split things up. This could actually lead to a
situation where judges keep their force-of-law power, which is *not*
what I want.

Besides, you're always free to vote against all proposals of someone
who in your opinion makes too many of them.

Joerg

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:42:42 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Doesn't this go against your previous argument that CFJ rulings should
be a statement of game custom *at a point in time* and not applicable in
perpetuity thereafter?  A Refused or Undecided CFJ becomes judicial
precedent anyway, by being archived regardless of the decision.  But
only a True or False ruling represents a clear decision by the judge on
how the rules are guiding game custom at a point in time.  

Just because something can't be decided now doesn't mean the rules won't
make it possible to decide later.

--Scoff!

-----Original Message-----
From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:26 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236

> This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses
to 
> hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is
maintained. 
> 
> Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury
-- 
> again, the status quo is maintained. 
This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't
decide certain things would be useful. 
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 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: HTML Mail
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:53:06 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

For the record, as a user of Outlook when at work myself...

1) Users of Outlook who want to send formatted e-mail to other Outlook
users at their company, but prevent their messages from spilling HTML
tags into online forums can make use of the Outlook Rich Text Format.  I
use this all the time.  When I send to people within the company, I bold
and italicize text to my heart's content.  When I send to non-Exchange
servers, it gets sent as plain text.

>> or 
>> find the option that says "Reply to HTML messages in HTML" and turn
it 
>> off. 
>> 
> As far as I can tell, there is no such option in Outlook. Although the
> "send in plain text" option was sufficiently hidden that I can't
> rule out the possibility.

2) When editing messages in Outlook, you can change the format of the
message as you are editing it.  Under the Format menu are 3 options:
HTML, Plain Text, and Rich Text.  But there is no option to force
replies to all HTML messages to automaticall remove the HTML.  I suppose
one could program a macro in VBA to switch Format modes automatically
every time you start a new message, but it would be a lot easier to just
prevent the problem in the first place by using Rich Text mode as noted
in #1.

--Scoff!

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:54:23 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Doesn't this go against your previous argument that CFJ rulings should
> be a statement of game custom *at a point in time* and not applicable in
> perpetuity thereafter? 
>
No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if the rules say "A
is a thingy", and we rule that that means the statement "A is > 3" is
undecided, then at a later time if the rules say "A is 2. B is a thingy."
the precedent would apply to "B is > 3" being undecided, even though "A is >
3" would no longer be undecided at that later point in time.

> A Refused or Undecided CFJ becomes judicial
> precedent anyway, by being archived regardless of the decision.  But
> only a True or False ruling represents a clear decision by the judge on
> how the rules are guiding game custom at a point in time.  
>
I'd say that ruling something undecided is a clear decision that game custom
is saying we can't determine what the rules are saying, and ruling refused
is a clear decision that it's not a valid subject for a CFJ.

> Just because something can't be decided now doesn't mean the rules won't
> make it possible to decide later.
>
Just so. But the circumstances that made it undecidable might apply to
something else.

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 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: Undecided and Refused rulings...
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:10:42 -0600
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if the 
> rules say "A is a thingy", and we rule that that means the 
> statement "A is > 3" is undecided, then at a later time if 
> the rules say "A is 2. B is a thingy." the precedent would 
> apply to "B is > 3" being undecided, even though "A is > 3" 
> would no longer be undecided at that later point in time.

Yes, but what if meanwhile, after the A CFJ and before the B CFJ,
someone has introduced a rule that says "All thingys are < 3"?  Then,
the conditions that made the A CFJ undecidable have been remedied, and
the B CFJ can be decided.

My vision is that the Undecided ruling *is* a part of judicial
precedent, and *can* be consulted by a judge when making a ruling on a
similar or related CFJ.  But it shouldn't be game custom to refuse all
CFJs of a certain type just because a CFJ of that type was refused
before.

> > Just because something can't be decided now doesn't mean 
> the rules won't
> > make it possible to decide later.
> >
> Just so. But the circumstances that made it undecidable might 
> apply to something else.

And they might have been remedied, or altered.  I'll borrow an example
from the U.S. Supreme Court again.  They refuse to hear cases all the
time, for a variety of reasons, but there's nothing to stop them from
deciding to hear a case they've refused in the past 10 sessions, either
because the law has made it possible to decide the case, or just because
they bally well feel like it.  Granted, we're not in the real world, but
I think the same principle should apply.

--Scoff!

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:37:34 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Suber's initial ruleset doesn't define "game custom", despite using the
term.  I haven't turned up *any* Nomics that do, actually, and a great
many of them do refer to game custom in their rulesets.

If anyone wants to propose a rule that clearly defines "game custom" and
"force of law", go for it.  I'll add it to the judicial reform prop, or
you can float it on your own.  But my gut feeling is that there's a
certain amount of uncertainty principle behind these concepts, and
attempts to pin them down (beyond what common sense and standard English
usage tell us) will just make them that much more difficult to
interpret.

Personally, I wouldn't know where to begin.  I think the prop as it is,
though, does at least establish a hint of what game custom is by stating
that CFJ True & False rulings become explicit statements of game custom.
It sort of traces round the concept without filling it in.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ritter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal
> ever: 236 again
> 
> 
> At 02:31 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> 
> >CFJ Statements do not have the force of law.  CFJ Statements 
> whose most
> >recent revisions are ruled "True" or "False" are regarded, with their
> >associated rulings, as explicit statements of current game 
> custom at the
> >time of the ruling.  At no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled
> >"True", become or create a rule.  Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused"
> >and their associated statements have no force of law or custom.  Only
> >the most recent revision number of a CFJ statement is a potential
> >statement of game custom.
> 
> I don't think this statement solves anything. You've taken 
> one undefined 
> phrase ("force of law") and replaced it with another undefined phrase 
> "statement of game custom"). "Force of law" isn't even 
> mentioned anywhere 
> in the ruleset other than in Rule 128.
> 
> The problem with "force of law" is NOT that it's too forceful 
> or limiting, 
> but that because it is undefined it can be *interpreted* as 
> too forceful or 
> limiting. It seems to me that "game custom" is an equally 
> vague and shady 
> term.
> 
> What makes "game custom" better than "force of law"?
> 
> --gritter

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:50:55 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hypothetical situation:

I submit four proposals.  Someone forgets to count them.  All four get
adopted and enacted.  Someone realizes what has happened and CFJs me for
exceeding the bandwidth limit.  CFJ: "Scoff! submitted one too many
proposals."  Ruling: True.  Now what?  We can change our *records* of
the game state and rules, but if all that changes is the records, that
means my 4th rule is in effect even if it's not on the record.  I still
have the points I received for that 4th proposal, even if they are not
on the record.

There has to be some kind of power somewhere for the game state to be
changed when CFJs require it.  One can always CFJ the actions taken as a
result of a CFJ if necessary.

--Scoff!

-----Original Message-----
From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal
ever: 236 again

> However, the indirect effect of the ruling on a CFJ may require 
> alterations to the rule set or game state, to bring them in accordance

> with the judgement. 
> 
No! Kitty is a bad Kitty! 
By which I mean, the ruling should never change anything. It may require
changes to *our records of things*, but that's not the same thing.
Although the opposite viewpoint is probably defensible.
uin. 

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:17:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- Greg Ritter <[email-masked]> wrote:
 
> Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?
> 
> I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful.
> No 
> argument there.
> 
> I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that
> proposal, 
> only True or False judgments can change game custom. He objects that
> a 
> Refused or Undecided judgment would *not change* the game custom.
> 
> My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided
> judgment 
> is that the status quo persists (as in a hung jury or refused case in
> real 
> courts).
> 
> --gritter
> 
You seem to confuse game state (well defined properties such as scores,
rules, players and such) and game custom (vague metagame interpretation
of the rules).
The status quo persists regardless of wether a refused/undecided CFJ
modifies game custom or not.
Of course this is just my own very personal interpretation of "game custom".

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Undecided and Refused rulings...
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:20:36 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Undecided and Refused rulings...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if the </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; rules say &quot;A is a thingy&quot;, and we rule that that means the </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; statement &quot;A is &gt; 3&quot; is undecided, then at a later time if </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; the rules say &quot;A is 2. B is a thingy.&quot; the precedent would </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; apply to &quot;B is &gt; 3&quot; being undecided, even though &quot;A is &gt; 3&quot; </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; would no longer be undecided at that later point in time.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; Y</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">es, but what if meanwhile, after the A CFJ and before the B CFJ,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">someone has introduced a rule that says &quot;All thingys are &lt; 3&quot;?&nbsp; Then,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the conditions that made the A CFJ undecidable have been remedied, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the B CFJ can be decided.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The (new) rules would override the (old) game custom, and the judge would (or should, at least) rule false. The game custom would not be that thingys being &gt; 3 is undecidable, it would be that stuff which isn't defined as a number being &gt; 3 is undecidable. It's exactly the same situation as the rules saying &quot;thingys are &lt; 3&quot; and then being changed to say &quot;thingys are &gt; 3&quot; (yes, that's a trivial example that would never be CFJed, but you get the point).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">My vision is that the Undecided ruling *is* a part of judicial</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">precedent, and *can* be consulted by a judge when making a ruling on a</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">similar or related CFJ.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If it were part of game custom that thingys were undefined, then it would remove the need for CFJing each instance of a thingy, rather than merely guide the judges of the CFJs.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But it shouldn't be game custom to refuse all</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">CFJs of a certain type just because a CFJ of that type was refused</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">before.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Yes, it should - unless something has changed in the meantime. Just as it should be game custom to judge all CFJs whose statements depend on the same issue true, if one was judged true before (again, until something changes).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; Just so. But the circumstances that made it undecidable might </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt; apply to something else.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">And they might have been remedied, or altered.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In which case the circumstances wouldn't be relevant to that situation. Just as, if something changes, a CFJ which was judged true at the time might now be false.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal 
	ever:  236 again
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:29:54 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hypothetical situation:</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I submit four proposals.&nbsp; Someone forgets to count them.&nbsp; All four get</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">adopted and enacted.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Cannot happen. We may *think* they've all been adopted and enacted, but we'd be wrong. Just as if the admin changed all the rules to &quot;banana&quot; - *our records* might say that, but the *actual rules* wouldn't.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&nbsp; Someone realizes what has happened and CFJs me for</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">exceeding the bandwidth limit.&nbsp; CFJ: &quot;Scoff! submitted one too many</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">proposals.&quot;&nbsp; Ruling: True.&nbsp; Now what?&nbsp; We can change our *records* of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the game state and rules, but if all that changes is the records, that</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">means my 4th rule is in effect even if it's not on the record.&nbsp; I still</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">have the points I received for that 4th proposal, even if they are not</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">on the record.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">No, you never had those points in the first place, our records merely incorrectly reported that you did. We're changing our records to be in accordance with the true game state, as determined by the CFJ, not changing the game state to be in accordance with the CFJ.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">nomic Platonist.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:42:58 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> Hypothetical situation:
>>
>> I submit four proposals.  Someone forgets to count them.  All four
get
>> adopted and enacted.
>Cannot happen. We may *think* they've all been adopted and enacted, but
we'd be 
>wrong. Just as if the admin changed all the rules to "banana" - *our
records* might
>say that, but the *actual rules* wouldn't.

No, it does happen.  Under the statute of limitations, if no one noted
the discrepancy and submitted a CFJ, those changes to the game state
would be regarded as legal once the statute of limitations expired.  The
rules and game state are changed -- actually changed -- until someone
CFJs and a ruling is made that invalidates the changes.

In other words, actions that change the rules and game state are
innocent until proven guilty.

I'll grant you that once the game state, rules, and affiliated records
are updated post-judgement, it is *as if* the changes never happened.
But meanwhile, they did happen.  They may well have created effects
meanwhile, both legal and illegal, that need to be undone.

It's probably possible to create a better example of this, one where the
action being judged was not clearly illegal or legal, but subject to
interpretation.  The action taken is legal until judged otherwise.

In any event, I'll grant that there are cases where only the records
need to be changed, to match the actual game state (e.g. your banana
example).  But there are others where changes have actually taken place,
and must be reversed.

--Scoff!

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:10:21 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged 
> in the past
> >10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
> >way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
> >CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the 
> CFJ, shall
> >have its ruling summarily changed to "Refused".  This paragraph will
> >then delete itself from this rule.
> 
> Hate to point this out... but I think this paragraph violates 
> rule 204/0...

The intent was that a new revision gets created, changing the ruling in
the here and now, without altering the past ruling.  Clarified in the
next (and I hope final) revision.

> Hmmm.... what happens to "Undecided" rulings?  I guess you could just 
> resubmit the CFJ if you wanted a new ruling that badly.  You should 
> probably add a statement to the effect of overturning any "indirect 
> effect[s] of the ruling on a CFJ [which required] alterations 
> to the rule 
> set or game state, to bring them in accordance with the 
> judgement".  Otherwise, if there were any auxilliary effects, they're 
> stuck!  And an nweek might pass in the appeal time, making 
> another CFJ 
> impossible.

Good point.  I'm adding explicit provisions for implementation of
rulings, suspension of their effects during appeal, and reversal of
their effects in the event of an overturn.

Thanks!

--Scoff!

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an official revision
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:08:48 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ye gods, the cause of judicial reform has proved a heavy burden to bear.
Continuing thanks to all for their fine-toothed nit-picking, though -- I
hope the end result will be a more robust and clearly-defined system of
justice.  Note I've replaced all instances of the term "Ruling" with
"Judgement", to make it all more consistent and readable.  Here's the
latest rev--pick away so I can tweak further before subjecting the Admin
to another revision update.

{{
Proposal 236/?
(Author: Scoff!)
My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex Reconstructive Surgery

Replace the entirety of rule 155 with the following, or if no rule 155
exists, enact a new rule containing the following (compiled and cobbled
together from research into a handful of handily-archived dead Nomic
games, to which I am gratefully indebted):

[[An earlier proposal may have repealed 155 by the time we get to this
one, in which case it will just be a new rule]]

{{ 
_No Kickbacks_ 

I. Legislative Kickbacks 

No player or other game entity may submit a proposal that calls for one
or more effects that discriminate in any way between players based on
their voting actions on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or
proposals identified in the proposal. 

If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate
effects which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any
other specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then
those rules generate no effects based on the way players vote on that
particular proposal. 

II. Judicial Kickbacks 

No player or other game entity may submit a CFJ that calls for one or
more effects that discriminate in any way between players based on their
judgement or non-judgement of that CFJ, or of any other specific CFJ.

At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged in the past
10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the CFJ, shall
have its Judgement summarily changed to "Refused" by the creation of a
new revision of the CFJ with the "Refused" Judgement.  All effects of
the prior Judgement on the CFJ will be retracted by the Administrator.
This paragraph will then delete itself from this rule.

III. Cleanup 

After the enactment of all proposals passed in the nweek in which this
proposal was adopted, the following sequence of events will occur, in
numerical order: 

1. If an entity called "Bob the Voting Fish" exists, and the only rule
in the current rule set that refers to "Bob the Voting Fish" is this
one, uncreate the entity called "Bob the Voting Fish". 

2. Section III. will delete itself from this rule. 
}} 

[[We don't need Bob anymore, unless the Cursed Sushi mod passes.  Also,
changed language referring to "invalid" proposals, and added Bean's
suggestion to just explicitly prohibit submission of such proposals.]]

Then modify Rule 126/1, replacing

{{A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.}}

with

{{Once submitted, a CFJ cannot be modified or revised by the plaintiff.
CFJs can only be revised by a judge's Judgement, an Appeal to Overturn,
or as otherwise explicitly permitted in the rules.}}

[[To make things consistent with the notion of judgements and appeals as
revisions of the original CFJ.]]

Then replace the entire text of 128/2 with:

{{
__Judgement__

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 germane 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.
 
[[completely ripped off from A Nomic]] 

This response constitutes the judge's Judgment on that CFJ and has the
same serial number of the CFJ.  It is incorporated as a new revision of
the CFJ object.

All Judgements are final (except where revision is explicitly permitted
by the rules). 

}}

[[Breaking down the justice stuff into smaller chunks this time, to make
the resulting rule set a bit easier to read.  Also correcting a few
typos, since I'm fiddling with the rule anyway.]]

Then add a new rule:

{{
__Recusal Of Judges__

Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Judgement on a CFJ
assigned to em within seven days of eir selection for that CFJ, that
Judge shall be recused and a new player shall be selected as Judge for
the CFJ in the ways prescribed by the rules. When a Judge is recused in
this manner, e shall lose 10 points and eir name shall be added to the
List of Misbehaving Judges.
}}

[[More breaking down into smaller chunks, plus a minor clarification
here.  The previous wording could have been interpreted as allowing a
Judge to escape recusal by issuing *any* Judgement within the allotted
time, whether it was on the CFJ assigned to em or not.]]

Then add a new rule:

{{
__Effects Of CFJs__

Calls For Judgement are intended to guide interpretation of the rule
set. 

All Judgements must be in accordance with the rules in effect at the
time of judgement. Where the interpretation of the rules is unclear, or
the rules are silent or inconsistent concerning the issue being judged,
judges may consider judicial precedent, prior & current game custom,
common sense, the spirit of the game, and the best interests of the
game. 

Neither CFJ Statements nor their Judgements have the force of law. CFJ
Statements whose most recent revisions are judged "True" or "False" are
regarded, with their associated Judgements, as explicit statements of
current game custom at the time of judgement.  At no time does a CFJ
Statement, even when judged "True", become or create a rule, or any part
of a rule.  Judgements of "Undecided" or "Refused" and their associated
statements have no force of law or authority as statements of game
custom.

Only the most recent revision of a CFJ Statement and its Judgement is a
potential statement of game custom.

The judge's analysis and any other text apart from the Judgement itself
shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
custom, but will be archived by the administrator as a reference to
judicial precedent for future judges.  Likewise, analysis and other text
submitted with the CFJ by the plaintiff apart from the CFJ Statement
shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
custom, but will be archived by the administrator for reference
purposes.

CFJs must not directly create, alter, or remove rules. CFJs may not
directly protect rules from alteration or removal from the rule set.
However, the indirect effect of the Judgement on a CFJ may require
alterations to the records, rule set or game state, to bring them in
accordance with the Judgement.  These alterations are accomplished by
Judicial Orders.
}}

[[Nothing especially new here from the latest revision, except a lead-in
to the concept of Judicial Orders]]

Then add a new rule:

{{
__Judicial Orders__

Judges may include one or more Judicial Orders with a Judgement.  A
Judicial Order is a statement of action to be completed by the
Administrator to bring the records, rule set, or game state in
accordance with the result of the Judgement on the CFJ.  An Implicit
Judicial Order is a special instance of the Judicial Order, which can
only be created by the Administrator.

Judicial Orders presented with the Judgement will be made based on the
game state at the time of the judgement. [[so if a problem has worked
itself out already, we don't have to fix it twice]]

In the event that the Administrator discovers actions required by the
Judgement on a CFJ that were not specifically prescribed by the Judge in
a Judicial Order, the Administrator shall post a revision of the CFJ to
the public forum, including as an Implicit Judicial Order a description
of the actions required to satisfy the Judgement.  The Administrator
shall then carry out the actions specified in the Implicit Judicial
Order.

In the event of an Appeal to Overturn, the actions of all Judicial
Orders affiliated with the appealed CFJ are suspended, or retracted if
they have already been enacted, until the resolution of the appeal.  If
the Judgement still stands following the appeal, the Judicial Orders are
then carried out by the Administrator.  If the Appeal to Overturn was
successful, the Judicial Orders remain suspended or retracted.

Players may also CFJ a specific action taken in a Judicial Order within
7 ndays of the Administrator's completion of that action.  Judicial
Orders challenged by a CFJ are not automatically retracted or suspended
while judgement is pending, but may be retracted or suspended by the
judgement on that CFJ.
}} 

[[To clarify the process by which the effects of CFJs get implemented,
and provide a mechanism for Appeals to delay the effects of a CFJ
Judgement until the Appeal is resolved.]]

Then add a rule: 

_Judicial Rear View_ 

{{ 
At any time within 7 ndays following the posting of a Judgement of
"True" or "False" on a CFJ, any player may propose that the Judgement be
overruled by posting an Appeal to Overturn in a public forum. 

An Appeal to Overturn is a special instance of a Proposal.  If
limitations on the number of proposals per player per nweek are in
effect, Appeals to Overturn will not count against a player's proposal
limit.  All Appeals to Overturn will have the following one-sentence
structure:  "Player <name of player submitting the appeal> Appeals to
Overturn CFJ #<serial number of CFJ>".  Players may optionally include
analysis in their Appeal to Overturn as Comments, using the standard
delimiters described in Rule 8.

The Appeal to Overturn will be placed on the next available ballot as a
Proposal.  If the Proposal is adopted, the Judgement on the CFJ will be
changed to "Undecided" by creating a new revision of the CFJ with the
"Undecided" Judgement.  When a CFJ Judgement is overturned by an Appeal
to Overturn, all effects of the prior Judgement on that CFJ, and any
Judicial Orders attached to that Judgement, will be retracted to restore
the game state and rule set as if the CFJ had originally been judged
"Undecided". 
}}

[[Modified to avoid allowing players to exploit a potential loophole in
the prior version Appeals to circumvent the bandwidth limitation by
incorporating non-Appeal business in their so-called Appeal proposal.
Appeals must now conform to a strict one-sentence structure, with
optional analysis included as comments.  Also added, per Bean's
suggestion, explicit provision for retracting the effects of an
overturned Judgement.]]

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:18:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: just so's ya know...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've been swamped at The Day Job (TM) and so I may not be able to get to
the latest big batch of stuff officially until tomorrow
afternoon/evening/something like that. I'm not sure actually.

Rest assured, though, that I'll try to get everything recognized and added
to the Web site before 6 PM tomorrow (which is when the next round of
Voting starts, my time zone, OC).

And even if I can't get it all added properly, everything that's
timestamped before the deadline will be considered recognized before that
time (i.e. in time for the nweek 4 ballot)

But anyway, apologies for the delay. If you want to motivate me, I'd like
to go on record as saying the Administrator CAN be bribed, and does have a
PayPal account. :-)

(Hm. There's an interesting proposal idea: is bribery considered a legit
game tactic? Anyone dare to codify it?)

...dave

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:19:12 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Bits of Judicial Reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 03:11 PM 2002-01-10 +0100, Joerg wrote:
>Proposal 236 is another example, I might vote against it because I
>don't like all of its parts. Unfortunately, Scoff! also has no
>proposals left to split things up. This could actually lead to a
>situation where judges keep their force-of-law power, which is *not*
>what I want.

I'm thinking of trying to help split that one up too... but don't know 
where to start.  Joerg, Scoff!, since the former of you seems to be torn 
over voting on proposal 236, and the latter is the proponent of the 
aforementioned proposal, give me some ideas on if/how it should be 
split.  Sometime tomorrow I'll make a proposal with what are deemed the 
"good" and/or "important" bits (if needed).

I'm starting to think that better bandwidth rationing is needed too....

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:20:17 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a
  be tter bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:22 PM 2002-01-10 +0000, you wrote:
>There's an "unless 2/3rds fail" clause in there, so that wouldn't work.

Yes, you're right.  I *am* a moron.

Bean

P.S. Hmmm.... If only "Titles" were separated from "Legislative Zealot".... 
then I could gain the title of "Moron"

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an official 
 revision
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:53:20 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Jonathan Van Matre":
> Ye gods, the cause of judicial reform has proved a heavy burden to bear.

A very difficult problem, to be sure. I recall devoting considerable effort 
to it in Berserker and A Nomic, to no effect. (We had a win or two awarded 
because of flaws in the judicial system, IIRC.) I'm now convinced that you 
can't legislate a "fair" judiciary, you just have to rely on the goodwill 
of players to constitute one.

My $0.02, and I'm not a player anyhow, so... :)

-- 
J.

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:15:02 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised
  proposal ever:  236 again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:42 PM 1/10/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >> Hypothetical situation:
> >>
> >> I submit four proposals.  Someone forgets to count them.  All four
>get
> >> adopted and enacted.
> >Cannot happen. We may *think* they've all been adopted and enacted, but
>we'd be
> >wrong. Just as if the admin changed all the rules to "banana" - *our
>records* might
> >say that, but the *actual rules* wouldn't.
>
>No, it does happen.  Under the statute of limitations, if no one noted
>the discrepancy and submitted a CFJ, those changes to the game state
>would be regarded as legal once the statute of limitations expired.  The
>rules and game state are changed -- actually changed -- until someone
>CFJs and a ruling is made that invalidates the changes.

But in that case, the game state would not have been changed by the lack of 
a CFJ, but rather the game state would have been changed by the Statute of 
Limitations rule which codified the erroneous records into the game state, 
thus making them part of the game state.

Again a real life example: if a criminal is not convicted within the 
statute of limitations for his crime, then while the crime is not erased 
from history, for all intents and purposes the judicial and legislative 
systems must behave as if it had been. In effect, the error has been 
codified by the inaction.

Conceptually, that's what a statute of limitations is: the resolution of a 
mistake by codifying it as part of the current state of affairs.

>In any event, I'll grant that there are cases where only the records
>need to be changed, to match the actual game state (e.g. your banana
>example).  But there are others where changes have actually taken place,
>and must be reversed.

Yup. So what?

I guess reversing actions could be a violation of rule 17/0 (which is 
problematic in a lot of ways, I think). 

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:21:45 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 08:17 AM 1/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:

>--- Greg Ritter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?
> >
> > I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful.
> > No
> > argument there.
> >
> > I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that
> > proposal,
> > only True or False judgments can change game custom. He objects that
> > a
> > Refused or Undecided judgment would *not change* the game custom.
> >
> > My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided
> > judgment
> > is that the status quo persists (as in a hung jury or refused case in
> > real
> > courts).
> >
> > --gritter
> >
>You seem to confuse game state (well defined properties such as scores,
>rules, players and such) and game custom (vague metagame interpretation
>of the rules).
>The status quo persists regardless of wether a refused/undecided CFJ
>modifies game custom or not.
>Of course this is just my own very personal interpretation of "game custom".

Repeated: Huh?

I'm not talking about game state (which is a clear, quantifiable concept in 
comparison to "game custom" or "force of law," as evidenced by this thread).

If the game custom has been modified, then by definition, the status quo 
has not persisted.

"Change" is mutually exclusive with "the status quo persists."

--gritter

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:00:23 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a
   better bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 03:11 PM 1/10/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>The problem with a bandwith limit is that it doesn't generate less
>proposals, it just generates longer ones.

I agree with that, but it's a separate issue.

Long proposals aren't a result of Bandwidth Rationing, but a result of Rule 
19/4 which says "A proposal is a formal request for a set of Rule Changes 
or other changes."

We change that to singular -- (e.g. A proposal is a formal request for a 
Rule Change or other change) and we have no problem with lengthy legislation.

Repealing Bandwidth Rationing doesn't solve the problem of length 
legislation. That can only be done by changing Rule 19/4.

>Besides, you're always free to vote against all proposals of someone
>who in your opinion makes too many of them.

Who wants to spend that much time typing "NO" over and over???

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:52:38 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:30 PM 1/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful. No
> > argument there.
> >
> > I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that proposal,
> > only True or False judgments can change game custom. He objects that a
> > Refused or Undecided judgment would *not change* the game custom.
> >
> > My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided judgment
> > is that the status quo persists (as in a hung jury or refused case in real
> > courts).
> >
>But that doesn't make sense. If I submit a CFJ saying (in effect) "the 
>status quo persists" (and most CFJs say either that, or its opposite), and 
>it is judged Undecided, that shouldn't mean that the status quo persists - 
>it should mean that we are unable to determine whether the status quo 
>persists or not.

There's no "we" there!! Where are you getting "we" from?!?

It means *that individual Judge* was unable to determine whether the status 
quo persists. It doesn't say anything about 'reality' outside of that's 
Judge's perception. In the absence of a Judge's ability to make a 
determination, nothing has changed.

>It would be useful to have game custom say that the circumstances we're in 
>lead to undecidability.

Which is nonsense because an individual judge's inability to decide doesn't 
indicate anything about anybody else's ability to decide. Another Judge 
might be quite capable of deciding on the validity of the statement.

The only reason a "True" or "False" ruling -- which is also just the 
perception or interpretation of an individual judge -- changes anything is 
because the rules say it does.

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:45:12 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an
  official revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 05:08 PM 1/10/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged in the past
>10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
>way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
>CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the CFJ, shall
>have its Judgement summarily changed to "Refused" by the creation of a
>new revision of the CFJ with the "Refused" Judgement.  All effects of
>the prior Judgement on the CFJ will be retracted by the Administrator.
>This paragraph will then delete itself from this rule.

Still in violation of 204 because a Judgment is not a revisable object.

The Judgment is given the same serial number as the CFJ (Rule 128/2). CFJs 
are assigned serial numbers "AS IF they were revisable objects." [emphasis 
added] (Rule 126/1).

The "as if" means that a CFJ is not a revisable objects, but is assigned a 
serial number by the same process one would assign serial numbers to 
revisable objects. This is supported by the next sentence of Rule 126/1 
which states "A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted," pretty much making 
it clear that it's not revisable.

You edit out the unrevisability of the CFJ later in the proposal, but the 
CFJ isn't the Judgment, so the revisability of the CFJ doesn't have 
anything to do with the dictate in the above quoted paragraph that it 
"shall have its Judgment summarily changed." The paragraph revises the 
Judgment, not the CFJ.

Since the rules don't say Judgments are not revisable, you might attempt 
slide it in under 18/1, but then Rule 204kicks in. Making changes to the 
past -- which includes Judgments -- *is* regulated.

And even if you can somehow slip the revisability of Judgments through the 
Radar, you're still in violation of 204 with the sentence "All effects of 
the prior Judgment on the CFJ will be retracted" because now you're talking 
about retracting *effects*, not just the text of the judgment itself, which 
is a change to the past game state. So if a judgment gave someone points, 
this would make the game state as if those points had never been awarded -- 
a 204 violation.

In fact, 204 may make any judicial appeal process problematic....

Too many questions, too many potential loopholes, too much at one time. 
This proposal is out of hand. I think you have bitten off more than you can 
chew. Noble, but ultimately tragic, Ulysses.

--gritter

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:12:33 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:25 AM 1/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > This is incorrect. If a judge (in a real live court, I mean) refuses to
> > hear a case then by definition that refusal means the status quo is 
> maintained.
> >
> > Likewise, if a court does not come to a decision -- e.g. a hung jury --
> > again, the status quo is maintained.
>
>This isn't real life, it's nomic. Establishing a precedent that we can't 
>decide certain things would be useful.

Huh? How does the second sentence follow from the first sentence?

I agree that deciding we can't decide certain things would be useful.

I was responding to Antonio's objection to Prop 236; under that proposal, 
he objects that a Refused or Undecided judgment would not *change* the game 
custom in the same fashion that a True or False judgment would.

My take on it is that the *usefulness* of a Refused or Undecided judgment 
is that it doesn't change the status quo.

--gritter

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a be
	tter bandwidth  limit
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:15:11 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth  limit</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We change that to singular -- (e.g. A proposal is a formal request for a </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Rule Change or other change) and we have no problem with lengthy legislation.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">That just doesn't work at all. All you see is people creating a rule which performs all the separate rule changes and then repeals itself, so you end up with proosals which are actually slightly longer (and much uglier).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:55:32 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an
  official  revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:53 AM 1/11/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Thus spake "Jonathan Van Matre":
> > Ye gods, the cause of judicial reform has proved a heavy burden to bear.
>
>A very difficult problem, to be sure. I recall devoting considerable effort
>to it in Berserker and A Nomic, to no effect. (We had a win or two awarded
>because of flaws in the judicial system, IIRC.) I'm now convinced that you
>can't legislate a "fair" judiciary, you just have to rely on the goodwill
>of players to constitute one.
>
>My $0.02, and I'm not a player anyhow, so... :)

One underlying problem is that the Judges are also Players and are thus not 
impartial. 

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:49:03 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a
  be tter bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:15 AM 1/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > We change that to singular -- (e.g. A proposal is a formal request for a
> > Rule Change or other change) and we have no problem with lengthy 
> legislation.
>
>That just doesn't work at all. All you see is people creating a rule which 
>performs all the separate rule changes and then repeals itself, so you end 
>up with proosals which are actually slightly longer (and much uglier).

Which can be easily solved by making a Proposal the only vehicle for a Rule 
Change. Hence you couldn't implement a Rule full of Rule Changes.

I would argue that Rule 19/4 does that already, and it's probably the 
intent of 19/4, but not explicit enough. It would be an easy enough to fix 
with the addition of an additional sentence:

"A proposal is a formal request for a Rule Change or other change. Rule 
Changes may only be implemented via a Proposal."

In any event, I'm sure that you can come up with a way to attempt to 
circumvent that as well. Doesn't matter. My point is I'd rather deal with 
the odd player trying to circumvent what's regulated, than to attempt to 
manage proposal spam via deterrence. 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a be
	 tter bandwidth  limit
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:08:40 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a be tter bandwidth  limit</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In any event, I'm sure that you can come up with a way to attempt to </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">circumvent that as well. Doesn't matter.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">There's no way you can stop a proosal from being able to (change the game in such a way that it is able to) change as much as it likes.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">My point is I'd rather deal with </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the odd player trying to circumvent what's regulated, than to attempt to </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">manage proposal spam via deterrence. </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It wouldn't be the odd player. It'd be a lot of the players, a lot of the time. Being able to do more than 1 change per proosal isn't some weird arcane thing that only happens once in a while; it's absolutely essential in any number of cases, unless you want to submit dozens of tiny proosals instead, which may not be a sensible thing to do if one change wouldn't make sense without another. On the current ballot, proosals 222, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, and 238 all contain more than one change (some of them are a mix of rule and gamestate changes). That's 7 out of 26 proosals. Yes, some of them are long, but p233 certainly isn't, and anyway, just because a proosal is long, doesn't mean it's *too* long. Sometimes you just want to change or add a lot of stuff.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Like I say, though, people proosing too much stuff isn't likely to be a problem. Most nomics end up having problems with lack of activity, not with being overactive.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal 
	ever:  236 again
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:13:29 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever:  236 again</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;No, it does happen.&nbsp; Under the statute of limitations, if no one noted</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;the discrepancy and submitted a CFJ, those changes to the game state</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;would be regarded as legal once the statute of limitations expired.&nbsp; The</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;rules and game state are changed -- actually changed -- until someone</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;CFJs and a ruling is made that invalidates the changes.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But in that case, the game state would not have been changed by the lack of </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">a CFJ, but rather the game state would have been changed by the Statute of </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Limitations rule which codified the erroneous records into the game state, </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">thus making them part of the game state.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">What he said. ;-)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I was ignoring the statute of limitations because it complicates things, but CFJs should never change the gamestate. If they're before the statute, then they simply lead to changes in our records, and if they're after, then they don't change anything because the &quot;illegal&quot; action has been made legal.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:25:51 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Revision of 236</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;But that doesn't make sense. If I submit a CFJ saying (in effect) &quot;the </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;status quo persists&quot; (and most CFJs say either that, or its opposite), and </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;it is judged Undecided, that shouldn't mean that the status quo persists - </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;it should mean that we are unable to determine whether the status quo </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;persists or not.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">There's no &quot;we&quot; there!! Where are you getting &quot;we&quot; from?!?</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">That's the point of CFJs. That's what they do. They tell us how *we* should interpret the rules.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It means *that individual Judge* was unable to determine whether the status </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">quo persists. It doesn't say anything about 'reality' outside of that's </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Judge's perception. In the absence of a Judge's ability to make a </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">determination, nothing has changed.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">In exactly the same way, a verdict of True means that that individual judge determined that the statement was true. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;It would be useful to have game custom say that the circumstances we're in </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;lead to undecidability.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Which is nonsense because an individual judge's inability to decide doesn't </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">indicate anything about anybody else's ability to decide. Another Judge </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">might be quite capable of deciding on the validity of the statement.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">And another Judge might be capable of proving that a CFJ judged True should have been judged False.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The only reason a &quot;True&quot; or &quot;False&quot; ruling -- which is also just the </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">perception or interpretation of an individual judge -- changes anything is </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">because the rules say it does.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I don't understand how you can accept this, yet have problems with undecided also changing game custom. It's the *same* *thing*! We select a judge to tell us whether the statement is true, false, undecidable, or irrelevant to the game. Yes, the judge may not be correct, and there may be a better answer - that's what the appeals process is for. But limitations in the judges ability apply no matter what verdict he reaches; if true and false establish game custom, then so should the other verdicts.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">[Snip of argument that the rules are powerless over game custom anyway.]</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an official revision
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:52:40 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Still in violation of 204 because a Judgment is not a 
> revisable object.
> 
> The Judgment is given the same serial number as the CFJ (Rule 
> 128/2). CFJs 
> are assigned serial numbers "AS IF they were revisable 
> objects." [emphasis 
> added] (Rule 126/1).

The construct "As if A were a B" does not automatically mean that A is
not B.  

For example, I am currently addressing you *as if* you are a human
being, but under the rules of the game you *could be* a well-trained AI
program.  Just because I'm making that "as if" assumption, it doesn't
mean you're not a human being, only that you *could* not be one.

> And even if you can somehow slip the revisability of 
> Judgments through the 
> Radar, you're still in violation of 204 with the sentence 
> "All effects of 
> the prior Judgment on the CFJ will be retracted" because now 
> you're talking 
> about retracting *effects*, not just the text of the judgment 
> itself, which 
> is a change to the past game state. So if a judgment gave 
> someone points, 
> this would make the game state as if those points had never 
> been awarded -- 
> a 204 violation.

No, the past is not being edited, the present is being revised.  Those
effects were real for so long as they were in effect.  Basically, I
believe 204 can already be interpreted to mean what Bean spells out more
plainly in Prop 240: "A proposal shall not, by its adoption, have any
retroactive effect on actions, proposals, rules, CFJs, or game state. A
rule shall not change any actions which occured before its adoption or
alter any game state at a time before its adoption. However, a rule may
allow changes to actions, proposals, rules, CFJs, or any other aspect of
game state, so long as the point in time to be changed (if the time is
an interval, the beginning of that interval is to be used) is after the
time of adoption of the rule. "

--Scoff!

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:29:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Greg Ritter wrote:

> Grrrrrrr! Rule 215 requires that the Watch's value "must be displayed in
> public view."

Clock != Watch.

The Watch currently has a value of 0/0, since it hasn't been defined to be
anything else, and so isn't required to be displayed. And the Clock is
shot anyway (IMO OC), but for what little it may be worth, the Clock IS
publicly displayed (it's on the first page of the Web site, which is about
as public as I can get).

> Who do I bark at since it's not?

Since the Watch doesn't have to be displayed at this time, nobody. :-)

...dave

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:46:24 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a better bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 04:00:23PM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> At 03:11 PM 1/10/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> 
> >The problem with a bandwith limit is that it doesn't generate less
> >proposals, it just generates longer ones.
> 
> I agree with that, but it's a separate issue.
> 
> Long proposals aren't a result of Bandwidth Rationing, but a result of Rule 
> 19/4 which says "A proposal is a formal request for a set of Rule Changes 
> or other changes."

There's always a way out. You could make a request to change a Rule to
one which does a whole lot, or even a Rule which uses self-modification
to fragment itself into other rules or modify other rules.

And do you mean to say that it shouldn't be possible for a proposal to
perform a Rule and an Action simultaneously? Consider the rule that
dealt with Bob the Voting Fish - it was also necessary to create Bob.

Of course, Bob could have been created by a line of the rule which would
delete itself. And that's what you're going to get if you limit
proposals - rules will begin to contain mini-proposals instead.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:55:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a be tter bandwidth  limit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:49:03AM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> At 11:15 AM 1/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> 
> >> We change that to singular -- (e.g. A proposal is a formal request for a
> >> Rule Change or other change) and we have no problem with lengthy 
> >legislation.
> >
> >That just doesn't work at all. All you see is people creating a rule which 
> >performs all the separate rule changes and then repeals itself, so you end 
> >up with proosals which are actually slightly longer (and much uglier).
> 
> Which can be easily solved by making a Proposal the only vehicle for a Rule 
> Change. Hence you couldn't implement a Rule full of Rule Changes.

... which every rule would then override.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:57:40 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Joining the Game
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've only been here a few days meself, but welcome to the game!

Bean

At 07:28 AM 2002-01-11 -0500, you wrote:
>I wish to join the game.  What do I have to do?  A name, right... hmm 
>*rubs chin and thinks*... The Voice.  That's my name.  Anyway, you can add 
>me after the ballot for nweek 4 if you wish.
>
>--The *Aforementioned* Voice

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:42:34 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Titles, and a be
	tter bandwidth  limit
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/11/02 3:55 PM, Rob Speer at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:49:03AM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
>> At 11:15 AM 1/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>> 
>>>> We change that to singular -- (e.g. A proposal is a formal request for a
>>>> Rule Change or other change) and we have no problem with lengthy
>>> legislation.
>>> 
>>> That just doesn't work at all. All you see is people creating a rule which
>>> performs all the separate rule changes and then repeals itself, so you end
>>> up with proosals which are actually slightly longer (and much uglier).
>> 
>> Which can be easily solved by making a Proposal the only vehicle for a Rule
>> Change. Hence you couldn't implement a Rule full of Rule Changes.

I'm currently involved in a face to face Nomic where only one rule-change is
allowed per turn, and my biggest grievance with the game is how hard it is
to make changes affecting more basic ideas. The problem is that there would
be entrenched ideas mentioned in multiple rules which couldn't be changed in
one without creating paradoxes in the others, and various bugs would never
be fixed because it would take three or four turns to extract an idea from
these rules so it could be modified. If multiple rule changes are allowed,
however, then it's possible to fix the same problem in multiple rules at
once, which is much faster and neater.

As for the lengthy proposal thing, the solution is just to vote NO on
anything too long and complicated to read. That way, it's always possible to
make compound changes, but if you get excessive, you'll lose points.
Eventually people will stop trying to make big nasty multiple changes, and
everything will be simpler.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:55:21 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ... and a proposal for nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:57:33PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> WHOLE
> Whenever the current value of The Clock is displayed or referred to, it 
> shall be displayed or referred to with the number of nweeks increased by 
> one and the number of ndays increased by one.
> WHOLE

Why? I think that voting on days 7 through 9 makes more sense than days
8 through 10. This way the Clock keeps track of how many ndays have
actually elapsed since the beginning of the nweek.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:15:08 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yes > Proposal 199/0:Me failed English? That's Unpossible! (Wonko)
Yes > Proposal 200/0:They're everywhere! (Wonko)
Yes > Proposal 201/0:They're Everywhere! Part 2 (Wonko)

The Plague of Gremlins says it votes, not each part of it, so it only gets
one vote. The Hiding thing is there because I thought it would be useful if
certain Gremlins could turn themselves off if they weren't needed or if
something to prevent them from performing their function.

Yes > Proposal 202/0:Neener (Glotmorf)
Yes > Proposal 203/0:Don't mess up vote counting! (Joerg)
No  > Proposal 220/0:Now You See Me, Now You Don't (Fenrir)
No  > Proposal 221/2:Justice Never Sleeps (Glotmorf)
Yes > Proposal 222/0:Limitation of Veto, Explicit Clarification of
    > Administrative Powers (Scoff!)
Yes > Proposal 223/0:Sushi (Rob)
Yes > Proposal 225/1:Displaying non-zero-based nweeks (Joerg)
No  > Proposal 226/0:Rosetta Clause (Glotmorf)
Yes > Proposal 228/0:The Pink Cashmere Scarf Of Impeccable Style (Scoff!)
No  > Proposal 229/0:Helter Skelter! (Uncle Psychosis)
No  > Proposal 230/0:This one's optimistic. (Uncle Psychosis)
No  > Proposal 231/1:Crucify myself. (Uncle Psychosis)
No  > Proposal 232/3:Titles, and a de facto bandwidth limit (Joerg)
No  > Proposal 233/1:Public voting. Secret votes. (Joerg)
MU  > Proposal 235/1:The return of the Sushi (Antonio)
No  > Proposal 236/4:My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex
    > Reconstructive Surgery (Scoff!)
Yes > Proposal 238/0:Kick in the Ass (Rob)
Yes > Proposal 239/0:Hungry Gremlins (Fenrir)
Yes > Proposal 240/1:Don't do that! (Wonko)
Yes > Proposal 241/0:Don't do that! II (Wonko)
Yes > Proposal 242/0:Don't do that! III (Wonko)
No  > Proposal 243/0:A little time-warping is acceptable (Bean)
Yes > Proposal 244/0:One outta two ain't bad (Bean)

-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:27:27 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: Ass Kicking is encouraged
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/11/02 6:53 AM, Greg Ritter at [email-masked] wrote:

> PROPOSAL: "Ass kicking is encouraged"
> 
<snip> 
> EXPLANATION:
> 
> C'mon, ass-kicking should be recognized and rewarded as the art form it is.
> 
> --gritter
> 
Yes, but only if you're kicking other people's asses, not your own. As it
is, I could send three HTML msgs with the text "Wonko gets a Kick in the
Ass." I'd lose 15 points for being kicked, gain 15 for kicking, and get 10
more for kicking three times. That's ten bonus points for doing evil stuff.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:35:57 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 09:15:08AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> The Plague of Gremlins says it votes, not each part of it, so it only gets
> one vote. The Hiding thing is there because I thought it would be useful if
> certain Gremlins could turn themselves off if they weren't needed or if
> something to prevent them from performing their function.

But how useful would that be if all of them come out of hiding
automatically every nweek, except in the very small chance that they all
go into hiding instead?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:40:11 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:10:37PM +0000, ID Scott wrote:
> > Proposal 231/1:Crucify myself. (Uncle Psychosis)
> 
> YES (why not?)

Are you looking at the same proposal I am? The one which would make it
so that proposals only need a 1/3 majority to pass?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:32:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock...
 (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> Are you looking at the same proposal I am? The one which would make it
> so that proposals only need a 1/3 majority to pass?

Obviously not, since it's a 2/3 majority.

Unless you see something I don't...

...dave

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:29:44 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock...
	(nweek 4 ballot)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/12/02 5:35 PM, Rob Speer at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 09:15:08AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
>> The Plague of Gremlins says it votes, not each part of it, so it only gets
>> one vote. The Hiding thing is there because I thought it would be useful if
>> certain Gremlins could turn themselves off if they weren't needed or if
>> something to prevent them from performing their function.
> 
> But how useful would that be if all of them come out of hiding
> automatically every nweek, except in the very small chance that they all
> go into hiding instead?
They only come out of hiding each week if ALL gremlins are hiding.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:35:33 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock...
	(nweek 4 ballot)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/12/02 6:32 PM, David E. Smith at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
>> Are you looking at the same proposal I am? The one which would make it
>> so that proposals only need a 1/3 majority to pass?
> 
> Obviously not, since it's a 2/3 majority.
> 
> Unless you see something I don't...
> 
> ...dave
> 
I see the words "Half again as many", which would seem to imply a 3/5
majority.
It's not all that bad, but I've always disliked things that make it harder
to change the game.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:45:57 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 11:32:04PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> > Are you looking at the same proposal I am? The one which would make it
> > so that proposals only need a 1/3 majority to pass?
> 
> Obviously not, since it's a 2/3 majority.

"at least half again as many affirmative as negative votes"

For one thing, I don't know what the word "again" is doing there. But if
a proposal gets half as many affirmative as negative votes, then the
affirmative votes are 1/3 of the total votes.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:48:50 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 08:35:33PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> I see the words "Half again as many", which would seem to imply a 3/5
> majority.

"Half again as many" means "1.5 times as many"? I never would have
guessed. Here in the Northeastern US I've never heard the phrase "half
again" used like that.

Thus, based on what you interpret the "again" to mean, proposals require
either 1/3 or 3/5 of the votes to pass. That is a very very bad
ambiguity. Let's keep regional idioms (if that's what it is) out of the
Rules.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:05:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock...
 (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> "Half again as many" means "1.5 times as many"? I never would have
> guessed. Here in the Northeastern US I've never heard the phrase "half
> again" used like that.

That's how I read it, which means my 2/3 number was inaccurate. I read it
rather too quickly, I suppose.

(And in the midwest US, that "half again" thing is not uncommon.)

Yeah, 3/5 appears to be correct. Should this pass, I'll interpret it as
3/5 unless it's CFJ'd to some other definition.

> Thus, based on what you interpret the "again" to mean, proposals require
> either 1/3 or 3/5 of the votes to pass. That is a very very bad
> ambiguity. Let's keep regional idioms (if that's what it is) out of the
> Rules.

To bring another thread into this: there's a regional idiom that all the
rules be written in English. (Depends on the region, I guess.)

Whether "half again" is an idiom or an ambiguity is a question I don't
think I'm qualified to answer.

...dave

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:08:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ... and a proposal for nweek
 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> Why? I think that voting on days 7 through 9 makes more sense than days
> 8 through 10. This way the Clock keeps track of how many ndays have
> actually elapsed since the beginning of the nweek.

Matter of perspective, I suppose. (Another regional idiom?)

Most of us are used to conventional clocks (which don't have a zero hour,
'cept for military timekeeping) and calendars (which don't have a zero
day). Were it up to me, I'd make them both one-based.

I can deal with zero-based things when I'm expecting them easily enough --
it's hard to write anything meaningful in C without dealing with its
arrays, which are zero-based -- but in places where I don't expect the
zero, it just messes with my head.

...dave

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:10:33 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 03:05:10AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> To bring another thread into this: there's a regional idiom that all the
> rules be written in English. (Depends on the region, I guess.)

Let me point out that my "Sushi" proposal which was translated to Korean
and back is harder to misinterpret than "Crucify myself".
-- 
Rob Speer

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:18:36 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rob writes:

>"Half again as many" means "1.5 times as many"? I never would have
>guessed. Here in the Northeastern US I've never heard the phrase "half
>again" used like that.

Regional usage has a way of biting like that...if this usage is in fact regional.  I've 
grown up with it.

Encarta World English Dictionary's 3rd definition of "again", with example:  3. IN 
ADDITION in addition to a previously mentioned quantity * <i>You'll need all that 
and half as much again.</i>

Close, although not quite a match.

>Thus, based on what you interpret the "again" to mean, proposals require
>either 1/3 or 3/5 of the votes to pass. That is a very very bad
>ambiguity. Let's keep regional idioms (if that's what it is) out of the
>Rules.

I do not agree that it is ambiguous, although it would be far better to specify 60% 
or three-fifths of the votes cast...

Octagon

Glenn E. Overby II
Clinton Twp, MI

==
Icehouse Games Pages (take the IcePoll!)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/IceGames.html

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 07:09:53 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: Ass Kicking
  is encouraged
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My assumption was that would be policed by the Administrator because the 
recognition of an ass-kick is at eir discretion. The Administrator would 
have to recognize your self-Kicks, but point taken. Revision on the way.

At 05:27 PM 1/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > C'mon, ass-kicking should be recognized and rewarded as the art form it is.
> >
> >
>Yes, but only if you're kicking other people's asses, not your own. As it
>is, I could send three HTML msgs with the text "Wonko gets a Kick in the
>Ass." I'd lose 15 points for being kicked, gain 15 for kicking, and get 10
>more for kicking three times. That's ten bonus points for doing evil stuff.
>--
>Wonko

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 07:59:34 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based
  Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:18 PM 1/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>Encarta World English Dictionary's 3rd definition of "again", with 
>example:  3. IN
>ADDITION in addition to a previously mentioned quantity * <i>You'll need 
>all that
>and half as much again.</i>

American Heritage Dictionary: "half again as many (or much) One-and-a-half 
times more; 50 percent more."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/11/H0021100.html

--gritter

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:22:51 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- invalid proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 05:35 AM 1/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>Proposals 229, 230, 231, 240, 241 and 242 are not valid proposals because 
>they do not use the Standard Delimiters listed in Rule 217.

Nowhere does Rule 217 require that the Standard Delimiters be used; it only 
defines what they mean.

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:45:42 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based
  Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 05:40 PM 2002-01-12 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:10:37PM +0000, ID Scott wrote:
> > > Proposal 231/1:Crucify myself. (Uncle Psychosis)
> >
> > YES (why not?)
>
>Are you looking at the same proposal I am? The one which would make it
>so that proposals only need a 1/3 majority to pass?

I think it reads that one would need a 2/3 majority to pass... but I'm not 
100% clear on it.  That's why I voted no on it.

Bean

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:34:08 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: For discussion, before I make it an
  official revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 05:08 PM 2002-01-10 -0600, you wrote:
>Ye gods, the cause of judicial reform has proved a heavy burden to bear.

Well, one problem seems to be that you have to put it all in one proposal 
due to the bandwidth limit.  Until we find a good way around that, I'm 
willing to help by volunteering my proposals to help split this up.

>{{
>Proposal 236/?
>(Author: Scoff!)
>My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex Reconstructive Surgery
>
>{{
>_No Kickbacks_
><rule text snipped>

I like this rule now.

>Then modify Rule 126/1, replacing
>
>{{A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.}}
>
>with
>
>{{Once submitted, a CFJ cannot be modified or revised by the plaintiff.
>CFJs can only be revised by a judge's Judgement, an Appeal to Overturn,
>or as otherwise explicitly permitted in the rules.}}

<nitpick>If this gets split up, I'd remove the part referring specifically 
to the Appeal to Overturn... as the Appeal to Overturn rule will explicitly 
permit modification of a CFJ anyways, and the text as it is could lead to 
loopholes</nitpick>

>Then replace the entire text of 128/2 with:
>
>{{
>__Judgement__
>
><text of rule snipped>

I like.

>Then add a new rule:
>
>{{
>__Recusal Of Judges__
>
>Should it happen that a Judge has not issued a Judgement on a CFJ
>assigned to em within seven days of eir selection for that CFJ, that
>Judge shall be recused and a new player shall be selected as Judge for
>the CFJ in the ways prescribed by the rules. When a Judge is recused in
>this manner, e shall lose 10 points and eir name shall be added to the
>List of Misbehaving Judges.
>}}

<nitpick>Might want to replace "days" with "ndays", just for 
consistancy.</nitpick>

>Then add a new rule:
>
>{{
>__Effects Of CFJs__
>
><snip>
>
>Neither CFJ Statements nor their Judgements have the force of law. CFJ
>Statements whose most recent revisions are judged "True" or "False" are
>regarded, with their associated Judgements, as explicit statements of
>current game custom at the time of judgement.  At no time does a CFJ
>Statement, even when judged "True", become or create a rule, or any part
>of a rule.  Judgements of "Undecided" or "Refused" and their associated
>statements have no force of law or authority as statements of game
>custom.

I think I said this already, but I believe that this paragraph is 
redundant. Escpecially considering its similarity to this paragraph:

><snip>
>The judge's analysis and any other text apart from the Judgement itself
>shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
>custom, but will be archived by the administrator as a reference to
>judicial precedent for future judges.  Likewise, analysis and other text
>submitted with the CFJ by the plaintiff apart from the CFJ Statement
>shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
>custom, but will be archived by the administrator for reference
>purposes.

... which I think is the more substantial one.

><snip>
>Then add a new rule:
>
>{{
>__Judicial Orders__
>
><snip>

This rule is good methinks, but this paragraph:

>In the event of an Appeal to Overturn, the actions of all Judicial
>Orders affiliated with the appealed CFJ are suspended, or retracted if
>they have already been enacted, until the resolution of the appeal.  If
>the Judgement still stands following the appeal, the Judicial Orders are
>then carried out by the Administrator.  If the Appeal to Overturn was
>successful, the Judicial Orders remain suspended or retracted.

Should be in the Appeal to Overturn rule, not the Judicial Orders rule. 
(Which it already is)

><snip>
>Then add a rule:
>
>_Judicial Rear View_

I believe this rule is okay as well.

Well, I think the biggest problem with this is the size.  However, if it 
were to be split up, I think a great many parts would pass.  Like I said, 
I'm willing to help with that if you run out of proposals (or don't want to 
waste them all on this cause).  My first suggestion would be splitting it 
into three parts: (No Kickbacks), (Judgement, Recusal of Judges, Effects of 
CFJs, Judicial Orders), and (Judicial Rear View).

Well, that's all for now.

Bean, out.

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:20:27 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 07:59:34AM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> At 11:18 PM 1/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> 
> >Encarta World English Dictionary's 3rd definition of "again", with 
> >example:  3. IN
> >ADDITION in addition to a previously mentioned quantity * <i>You'll need 
> >all that
> >and half as much again.</i>
> 
> 
> American Heritage Dictionary: "half again as many (or much) One-and-a-half 
> times more; 50 percent more."
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/11/H0021100.html

Well, I'd hardly say it's well defined if American Heritage Dictionary
can't even be consistent about it. One-and-a-half times _more_ is 150
percent more, or 2.5 times the original.

I realize that's probably not what they meant, but it's what they said.

I asked a friend of mine from Quebec (yes, his native language is
English). He had never heard the phrase either, but assumed it meant
"one-quarter as many" - which would make sense; you take half, and then
half again.

So, putting these together:
By my friend's interpretation, a proposal would require a 1/5 majority.
By my interpretation, a proposal would require a 1/3 majority.
By the intent of the rule, a proposal would require a 3/5 majority.
By many people's reading, a proposal would require a 2/3 majority.
By the AHD's erroneous definition, a proposal would require a 5/7 majority.

That's quite a range.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:21:24 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 05:26:29AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> I give the sushi to uncle psychosis.

Allow me to be picky, and ask what text you put into Babelfish to get
that as a result. That doesn't sound nearly messy enough.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:22:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- invalid proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:22:51AM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> At 05:35 AM 1/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >Proposals 229, 230, 231, 240, 241 and 242 are not valid proposals because 
> >they do not use the Standard Delimiters listed in Rule 217.
> 
> Nowhere does Rule 217 require that the Standard Delimiters be used; it only 
> defines what they mean.

Right. I didn't even conceive of my rule being interpreted to say that
Standard Delimiters had to be used.

They are a convenience, like Spivak pronouns.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:21:41 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 2:21 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 05:26:29AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> I give the sushi to uncle psychosis.
>
>Allow me to be picky, and ask what text you put into Babelfish to get
>that as a result. That doesn't sound nearly messy enough.
>-- 
>Rob Speer

It's identical to what I used.  I really did.  I was amazed at how clear it was.  I thought it would at least do something to "psychosis."  Try it yourself and see.

Thank you for your concern, though.

						Glotmorf

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:26:20 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I just ran it myself and it translates perfectly.  E to K and back to E
with the same text.  Fancy that.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 05:26:29AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> > I give the sushi to uncle psychosis.
> 
> Allow me to be picky, and ask what text you put into Babelfish to get
> that as a result. That doesn't sound nearly messy enough.
> -- 
> Rob Speer
> 
> 

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:28:12 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> I just ran it myself and it translates perfectly.  E to K and back to E
> with the same text.  Fancy that.

Weird. Didn't work for me... I started with:

"I give the Sushi to Uncle Psychosis."

and got back:

"The Psychosis I give the sushi to the uncle."

But, if you use:

"i give the sushi to uncle psychosis"

You get exactly the same thing back.

I didn't try it with StUdLyCaPs but that would probably just be sick and
wrong...

...dave

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:54:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new players
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> I discussed the game of Nomic in general, and B Nomic in particular,
> with 21 of my imaginary friends. Since there doesn't seem to be a game
> requirement that players exist in this physical reality, they all
> agreed to join. Unfortunately, that very state renders them somewhat
> impaired for dealing with the internet in this reality, as well as the
> computers required for accessing it, so they have asked me to relay
> messages to and from the fora for them. Similarly, they have all given
> me their proxies, so I'll be casting their votes as per their
> instructions.

Well, you'd better get those imaginary friends to a computer...

Each of them must individually declare eir intent and desire to become a
Player, and eir ability to pass the Turing Test.

(Though not strictly required by the rules, I also desire that each of em
have a separate email address - mostly because, in the near future, I'll
mail out individual ballots, so players can vote via the Web site, and
have votes automatically counted, thus making my life easier.)

Then, after they become players, they can give you their proxies. Not
before, sorry.

I'm ignoring the whole "game custom" thing that players be in possession
of physical bodies and independent sentience for now.

...dave

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:57:43 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new players
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 7:54 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> I discussed the game of Nomic in general, and B Nomic in particular,
>> with 21 of my imaginary friends. Since there doesn't seem to be a game
>> requirement that players exist in this physical reality, they all
>> agreed to join. Unfortunately, that very state renders them somewhat
>> impaired for dealing with the internet in this reality, as well as the
>> computers required for accessing it, so they have asked me to relay
>> messages to and from the fora for them. Similarly, they have all given
>> me their proxies, so I'll be casting their votes as per their
>> instructions.
>
>Well, you'd better get those imaginary friends to a computer...
>
>Each of them must individually declare eir intent and desire to become a
>Player, and eir ability to pass the Turing Test.
>
>(Though not strictly required by the rules, I also desire that each of em
>have a separate email address - mostly because, in the near future, I'll
>mail out individual ballots, so players can vote via the Web site, and
>have votes automatically counted, thus making my life easier.)
>
>Then, after they become players, they can give you their proxies. Not
>before, sorry.
>
>I'm ignoring the whole "game custom" thing that players be in possession
>of physical bodies and independent sentience for now.
>
>...dave

What, you'd discriminate against those with physical limitations? :)  I can relay a verbatim message from each of them.  Must they be in separate emails, or can it be one big one, at least this time?

						Glotmorf

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: new players
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:10:26 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:41:30 -0500, "Donald Whytock"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I discussed the game of Nomic in general, and B Nomic in particular, with 21 of my imaginary friends. Since there doesn't seem to be a game requirement that players exist in this physical reality, they all agreed to join. Unfortunately, that very state renders them somewhat impaired for dealing with the internet in this reality, as well as the computers required for accessing it, so they have asked me to relay messages to and from the fora for them. Similarly, they have all given me their proxies, so I'll be casting their votes as per their instructions.
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>The list of new players in the game is:
>
>
>Maggie Peters 
>Tabatha Sayle 
>Shea 
>Eliza Carter 
>Mahmoud Rafik 
>Bob Harney 
>Cheryl Smith 
>Jason Hodges 
>Bob Brown 
>Clio the Cat 
>Janice Yeh 
>Joe MacArthur 
>Lydia Blankenship 
>Steve Osgood 
>Pirx 
>Aknar the Hunter 
>Fidelio 
>Eva Vilevska 
>Asnaggazeth 
>Sir Fancys Bacon 

Lol! Do you think you can get away with THAT?
I won't even try to officially stop you right now, I'd just like to draw
your attention to the following rules:

rule 13:
A Player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing Test, consents
to said designation as a Player, and has become a Player in the manner
prescribed in the Rules.

One could simply question one of your imaginary friends capability of
passing the turing test on his own.

rule 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.

I'm sorry, but the rules require that the new player posts a message on his
own. Too ethereal to use a computer? Then you're too ethereal to play B
Nomic !

Rule 208/0:Proxies
A player may designate another player to be the holder of eir proxy....

I didn't see any of your friends designate you.
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:13:53 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: new players
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 9:10 PM Antonio wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:41:30 -0500, "Donald Whytock"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>I discussed the game of Nomic in general, and B Nomic in particular, with
>21 of my imaginary friends. Since there doesn't seem to be a game
>requirement that players exist in this physical reality, they all agreed
>to join. Unfortunately, that very state renders them somewhat impaired for
>dealing with the internet in this reality, as well as the computers
>required for accessing it, so they have asked me to relay messages to and
>from the fora for them. Similarly, they have all given me their proxies,
>so I'll be casting their votes as per their instructions.
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>>
>>The list of new players in the game is:
>>
>>
>>Maggie Peters 
>>Tabatha Sayle 
>>Shea 
>>Eliza Carter 
>>Mahmoud Rafik 
>>Bob Harney 
>>Cheryl Smith 
>>Jason Hodges 
>>Bob Brown 
>>Clio the Cat 
>>Janice Yeh 
>>Joe MacArthur 
>>Lydia Blankenship 
>>Steve Osgood 
>>Pirx 
>>Aknar the Hunter 
>>Fidelio 
>>Eva Vilevska 
>>Asnaggazeth 
>>Sir Fancys Bacon 
>
>Lol! Do you think you can get away with THAT?
>I won't even try to officially stop you right now, I'd just like to draw
>your attention to the following rules:
>
>rule 13:
>A Player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing Test, consents
>to said designation as a Player, and has become a Player in the manner
>prescribed in the Rules.
>
>One could simply question one of your imaginary friends capability of
>passing the turing test on his own.
>
>rule 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.
>
>I'm sorry, but the rules require that the new player posts a message on his
>own. Too ethereal to use a computer? Then you're too ethereal to play B
>Nomic !
>
>Rule 208/0:Proxies
>A player may designate another player to be the holder of eir proxy....
>
>I didn't see any of your friends designate you.
>-- 
>Antonio
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

A turing test determines whether a personality is distinguishable as an artificial intelligence, i.e. a machine.  I assure you I can relay responses from them that are nothing like a machine. :)

And would you discriminate against, oh, say, quadriplegic Nomic players? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:28:57 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new players
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/13/02 2:41 PM, Donald Whytock at [email-masked] wrote:

> I discussed the game of Nomic in general, and B Nomic in particular, with 21
> of my imaginary friends. Since there doesn't seem to be a game requirement
> that players exist in this physical reality, they all agreed to join.
> Unfortunately, that very state renders them somewhat impaired for dealing with
> the internet in this reality, as well as the computers required for accessing
> it, so they have asked me to relay messages to and from the fora for them.
> Similarly, they have all given me their proxies, so I'll be casting their
> votes as per their instructions.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> The list of new players in the game is:
> 
> 
> Maggie Peters
> Tabatha Sayle
> Shea
> Eliza Carter
> Mahmoud Rafik
> Bob Harney
> Cheryl Smith
> Jason Hodges
> Bob Brown
> Clio the Cat
> Janice Yeh
> Joe MacArthur
> Lydia Blankenship
> Steve Osgood
> Pirx
> Aknar the Hunter
> Fidelio
> Eva Vilevska
> Asnaggazeth
> Sir Fancys Bacon
> 
> 

I believe that it is required for all players to be capable of passing the
Turing Test. With Imaginary entities, it is impossible to determine whether
the entity or the person imagining the entity is the one taking the test,
and therefore it is impossible to prove that any imaginary entity is capable
of passing it.
-- 
Wonko 

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: new players
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:36:36 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:13:53 -0500, "Donald Whytock"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>rule 13:
>>A Player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing Test, consents
>>to said designation as a Player, and has become a Player in the manner
>>prescribed in the Rules.
>>
>>One could simply question one of your imaginary friends capability of
>>passing the turing test on his own.
>>
>
>A turing test determines whether a personality is distinguishable as an artificial intelligence, i.e. a machine.  I assure you I can relay responses from them that are nothing like a machine. :)
>

If you relay the proof then it has no worth.
They must be capable of passing the test ON THEIR OWN.
:)
for all we know you might be imaginating artificially intelligent friends.

-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:35:47 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: new players
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 9:36 PM Antonio wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:13:53 -0500, "Donald Whytock"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>>>rule 13:
>>>A Player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing Test,
>consents
>>>to said designation as a Player, and has become a Player in the manner
>>>prescribed in the Rules.
>>>
>>>One could simply question one of your imaginary friends capability of
>>>passing the turing test on his own.
>>>
>>
>>A turing test determines whether a personality is distinguishable as an
>artificial intelligence, i.e. a machine.  I assure you I can relay
>responses from them that are nothing like a machine. :)
>>
>
>
>If you relay the proof then it has no worth.
>They must be capable of passing the test ON THEIR OWN.
>:)
>for all we know you might be imaginating artificially intelligent friends.
>
>-- 
>Antonio

Do you have any idea how tempting it was to do that? :)  But no, they're all corporeal, at least in their own reality.  Would you like to see the brief bios I worked up on them?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:40:12 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Imagination
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 3:39 PM Wonko wrote:

>In case this whole 'imaginary friends' thing is decided in favor of
>Glotmorf, my 30 imaginary friends wish to be admitted to the game. They
>wish
>to be known as:
>
>Bob1,Bob2,Bob3,Bob4,Bob5,Bob6,Bob7,Bob8,Bob9,Bob10,
>Bob11,Bob12,Bob13,Bob14,Bob15,Bob16,Bob17,Bob18,Bob19,Bob20,
>Bob21,Bob22,Bob23,Bob24,Bob25,Bob26,Bob27,Bob28,Bob29,and Bob30
>
>They have consented to give me eir proxies.
>
>They all vote NO on 202, 221, and 226.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Fine.  Let's see THEIR bios. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:43:05 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Glotmorf 'Wins' B Nomic
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Just thought I might point out that 'to Win' means nothing in the rules. Had
you said 'Glotmorf is awarded a Win', then something might happen, but as it
is, it doesn't really do anything.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:45:58 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Scoff!  votes for nweek 4 / zero-based 3
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/13/02 1:54 PM, Jonathan Van Matre at [email-masked] wrote:

> I don't like the ambiguity of Plague of Gremlins voting, and these
> proposals appear to be creating something without creating a use for it
> yet.  I also don't like that they have (completely undefined) Bank
> Accounts.  However, I would like to see the Gremlins return along with a
> proposal that demonstrates their Usefulness.

I've actually got some uses for this, but I haven't been able to create them
'cause the Bandwidth cut me off. I was hoping that if this passed, then I
could starting making it useful.

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:03:52 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based
  Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 02:20 PM 1/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>I asked a friend of mine from Quebec (yes, his native language is
>English). He had never heard the phrase either, but assumed it meant
>"one-quarter as many" - which would make sense; you take half, and then
>half again.

The phrase isn't "half again." The phrase is "half again as many" as in 
"take as many as you have then take half that again."

I'm not arguing for the phrase; idioms are unclear because they depend upon 
locale. Although, I find the whole situation amusing because I couldn't 
even begin to count the number of times I've heard this phrase, and it's 
mind-boggling that someone doesn't get it. But then I'm sure folk up in the 
Northeast say all sorts of funny things, too, like "fuhgeddaboutit." And 
Canada! My god! They put gravy and cheese curds on french fries. I'm 
surprised they can speak at all after that. ;-)

--gritter

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:09:12 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Scoff!  votes for nweek 4 / zero-based 3
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/13/02 1:54 PM, Jonathan Van Matre at [email-masked] wrote:

> I don't like the ambiguity of Plague of Gremlins voting, and these
> proposals appear to be creating something without creating a use for it
> yet.  I also don't like that they have (completely undefined) Bank
> Accounts.  However, I would like to see the Gremlins return along with a
> proposal that demonstrates their Usefulness.

Here are two examples of how Gremlins could be Useful. As soon as the next
nweek starts, I plan to propose these (if my Gremlin acts pass, that is).

<not a proposal yet>
<title>The Scoring Gremlin</title>
<body>
Create a new rule entitled "The Scoring Gremlin" with the following GREMLIN
delimited text:
GREMLIN
There exists a Gremlin known as the Scoring Gremlin. Whenever a proposal is
recognized, if the Scoring Gremlin is active, it shall award the player with
the fewest points 1 point. If at any time multiple players are tied for the
lowest score, or the player with the lowest score has at most 10 fewer
points than any other player, the Scoring Gremlin shall go into Hiding. If
the player with the lowest score has at least 30 fewer points than any other
player, the Scoring Gremlin shall become Active.
</body>
<rationale>
If someone falls behind, or joins when everyone else is way ahead, this guy
helps them recover.
</not a proposal yet>

<not a proposal yet>
<title>The Witch Gremlin</title>
<body>
Create a new rule entitled "The Witch Gremlin" with the following GREMLIN
delimited text:
GREMLIN
There exists a Gremlin known as the Witch Gremlin. If the Witch Gremlin is
active, any player who has not done so already that nweek may pay 30 points
to make the Witch Gremlin Curse a player. When a player is Cursed, e may not
vote. At the end of each Voting Period, all players cease to be Cursed and,
if the Witch Gremlin is Hiding, it becomes Active. If at any time more than
2 players are Cursed, the Witch Gremlin goes into Hiding.
</body>
<rationale>
For a moderate fee, you can stop someone from voting. Only 3 people may be
Cursed each period, however, and nobody can Curse more than one other
player. (otherwise I could curse everyone but me and be the only voter)
</rationale>
</not a proposal yet>

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:41:15 -0500
From: Josh Utterback <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: zero-based nweek 3 votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Jorg Rathlev wrote:

>
>>Proposal 220/0:Now You See Me, Now You Don't (Fenrir)
>>
> NO
> (PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS ONE! It might stop the game by putting more
> than 2/3 of all players on leave, which will stop the clock, which in
> turn will prevent garbage collection from working!)

*Thanks* for mentioning that when there was something that could have 
been done about.  (Note sarcasim)  That proposal was listed for 6 days 
and only Glotmorf made any comments on it.  I might have been able to 
revise the otherwise good proposal to your liking.  Of course, maybe it 
slipped through your attention, which is another supporting reason for 
bandwidth limitation, since only a few proposals get any discussion at 
all, even when there is disagreement on it.

Besides, A) if you have that many players that are inactive to the point 
that this proposal will shut the game down, the Nomic is probably on the 
verge of death anyway, B) if it is just a temporary anomoly, players can 
come off leave and start the clock again and C) if anyone is paying 
attention then that threat can be intentfied ahead of time and dealt 
with as appropriate.

Fenrir

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:47:52 -0500
From: Josh Utterback <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Scoff!  votes for nweek 4 / zero-based 3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> NO > Proposal 239/0:Hungry Gremlins (Fenrir)
> 
> I voted against Gremlins anyway, plus this one fails to specify an
> initial Active/Hiding state for the P.E. Gremlin.  And with a 3 per
> nweek bandwidth in place, I'm not really in favor of proposal-eating at
> present.  With a higher limit, or more players in the game to reduce the
> odds of it happening to a given player, maybe.

The starting Active/Hiding state is defined in the proposal that allows 
Gremlins (200).  Since I didn't define a different state the default 
state of Active would apply.

Fenrir

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:58:11 +0800
Subject: spoon-discuss: Votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

199 no
200 yes
201 no
202 yes
203 yes
220 no
221 yes
222 yes
223 yes
225 yes
226 yes
228 yes
229 yes
230 yes
231 yes
232 yes
233 yes
235 no
236 yes
238 no
239 no
240 no
241 no
242 no
243 yes
244 yes

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:59:10 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: zero-based nweek 3
  votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/12/02 at 9:41 PM Josh Utterback wrote:

>Jorg Rathlev wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Proposal 220/0:Now You See Me, Now You Don't (Fenrir)
>>>
>> NO
>> (PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS ONE! It might stop the game by putting more
>> than 2/3 of all players on leave, which will stop the clock, which in
>> turn will prevent garbage collection from working!)
>
>
>*Thanks* for mentioning that when there was something that could have 
>been done about.  (Note sarcasim)  That proposal was listed for 6 days 
>and only Glotmorf made any comments on it.  I might have been able to 
>revise the otherwise good proposal to your liking.  Of course, maybe it 
>slipped through your attention, which is another supporting reason for 
>bandwidth limitation, since only a few proposals get any discussion at 
>all, even when there is disagreement on it.
>
>Besides, A) if you have that many players that are inactive to the point 
>that this proposal will shut the game down, the Nomic is probably on the 
>verge of death anyway, B) if it is just a temporary anomoly, players can 
>come off leave and start the clock again and C) if anyone is paying 
>attention then that threat can be intentfied ahead of time and dealt 
>with as appropriate.
>
>Fenrir

If you have that many players inactive, you'll eventually get down to one player...who can vote himself the winner.  Assuming, of course, you still have an administrator too...

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:04:44 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proposal: The Immunity Idol
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since I still have one proposal left for nweek3 (using the zero-based 
calculation of the Clock), I propose a new rule with the following text:

{{
_The Immunity Idol_

There shall exist an object called the Immunity Idol.

The Player who holds the Immunity Idol is immune to any effect generated by 
Gremlins. No rule may create a Gremlin that can circumvent the Immunity 
Idol's protection.

At the beginning of an nweek, the Immunity Idol is awarded to the Player 
who scored the most points in the previous nweek. [[For example, at 
00:00:00 on nday 0 of nweek 7, the Immunity Idol would be awarded to the 
player who scored the most points in nweek 6. This example assumes a 
zero-based Clock.]]

In the event a group of Players are tied for scoring the most points in the 
previous nweek, the Immunity Idol is awarded to the Player in that group 
who has the most total points. In the event a group of Players are tied for 
scoring the most points in the previous nweek *and* there are two or more 
Players in that group that are also tied for the most total points in that 
group, then the Immunity Idol shall Speak, saying "Hell with that," and is 
awarded to the Player who joined the game most recently.

The Immunity Idol may not be transferred to another Player except by means 
explictly prescribed by the rules.
}}

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:30:42 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ - Just to be difficult
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 11:18 PM ID Scott wrote:

>Statement:
>The rules do not require the entity which casts votes to be a player,
>and hence the votes submitted by Glortmorfs imaginary friends (and,
>for that matter, Wonkos friends) are valid, and should be taken in to
>account when the administrator tallies the votes and determines the
>passage or failure of the proposals in the cuurent ballot.
>
>cheers,
>Iain

Difficult doesn't even scratch the surface, lad.  I at least was prepared to provide turing-test question responses for my imaginary friends.  But if a voter doesn't have to be a player, a voter doesn't have to pass a turing test either, or have the email address that Our Admin was requiring; therefore one could have: "50,000 of my imaginary friends (names withheld for purposes of confidentiality and spam prevention) all vote Yes to my proposal."

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:11:17 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:58:11AM +0800, Gavin Doig wrote:
> 199 no
> 200 yes
> 201 no
> 202 yes
> 203 yes
> 220 no
> 221 yes
> 222 yes
> 223 yes
> 225 yes
> 226 yes
> 228 yes
> 229 yes
> 230 yes
> 231 yes
> 232 yes
> 233 yes
> 235 no
> 236 yes
> 238 no
> 239 no
> 240 no
> 241 no
> 242 no
> 243 yes
> 244 yes

These votes aren't valid. The word "yes" translates to Korean and back
as "it is like that".

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:48:36 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this dosent happen again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/13/02 at 11:37 PM ID Scott wrote:

>Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Limitation of Voting__
>which contains the following:
>{{Only entites specifically allowed by these rules may cast votes.
>
>Players may vote.}}
>}}
>
>
>Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Power to the Gremlins!__
>which contains the following:
>{{If the entity known as "the Plague of Gremlins" exists, then it may
> vote as specified elsewhere in these rules. Else, this rule deletes
>itself}}
>}}
>
>cheers,
>Iain

If the "this" that this is trying to prevent happening again has to do with imaginary friends, might I note that there still doesn't exist a proper definition of "player" in the rules.  There's the turing test requirement, and Our Admin's de facto email address requirement, but nothing that, say, identifies a "player" as being tied to a single personality or state of consciousness.  Otherwise, not only are imaginary friends valid, equally valid are (with reference to a currently popular movie, name withheld to avoid plot spoilage) hallucinations.  Tying playerness to states of consciousness or personalities eliminates these, while not discriminating against sufferers of multiple personality disorder. (Like me.) (Stop that.)

But I'm telling you right now...if Dad the Lawyer comes back from the grave and wants to play, I'm gonna get annoyed if y'all tell him no.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:12:53 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this dosent happen
  again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:48 PM 2002-01-13 -0500, you wrote:
>On 1/13/02 at 11:37 PM ID Scott wrote:
>
> >Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Limitation of Voting__
> >which contains the following:
> >{{Only entites specifically allowed by these rules may cast votes.
> >
> >Players may vote.}}
> >}}
> >
> >
> >Proposal: {{Create a rule entitled: __Power to the Gremlins!__
> >which contains the following:
> >{{If the entity known as "the Plague of Gremlins" exists, then it may
> > vote as specified elsewhere in these rules. Else, this rule deletes
> >itself}}
> >}}
> >
> >cheers,
> >Iain
>
>If the "this" that this is trying to prevent happening again has to do 
>with imaginary friends, might I note that there still doesn't exist a 
>proper definition of "player" in the rules.  There's the turing test 
>requirement, and Our Admin's de facto email address requirement, but 
>nothing that, say, identifies a "player" as being tied to a single 
>personality or state of consciousness.

No, but they have to (on their own) post to a public forum their intent to 
become a player.  Yes, this discriminates against the non-corporeal, but 
it's currently in the rules.  You don't like it, change it.

I think that covers this problem.

Bean

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (
	nweek 4 ballot)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:49:49 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Darn zero-based Clock... (nweek 4 ballot)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Let me point out that my &quot;Sushi&quot; proposal which was translated to Korean</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">and back is harder to misinterpret than &quot;Crucify myself&quot;.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Only, it would seem, if your name is &quot;Rob&quot;. ;-)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But seriously... the &quot;half again&quot; usage was recognised by people on a different continent from myself, and a quick search under &quot;half&quot; on dictionary.com shows it listed in the American Heritage dictionary, so it appears to be neither regional, nor ambiguous.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Scoff!  votes for nweek 4 / zero-based 3
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:43:55 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: Scoff!  votes for nweek 4 / zero-based 3</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">YES &gt; Proposal 229/0:Helter Skelter! (Uncle Psychosis)</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'm opposed to the methods by which this proposal attempts to obtain</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">votes, and I'm not a fan of its effect, either.&nbsp; We need two words for</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">the same thing?&nbsp; And the misspelled one is superior?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">No, the correctly spelled one is superior. Just like the rule says.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Ironically enough, though, I'd agree with you about the methods.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Votes
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:38:46 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Votes</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">These votes aren't valid. The word &quot;yes&quot; translates to Korean and back</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">as &quot;it is like that&quot;.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Doesn't matter. I was voting by sending my votes to the admin, not via a public forum. The fact that my message also went to the spoon-discuss list isn't important, because I was not communicating with players, so it wasn't a forum. I may have communicated with the admin in a way which other players could see, but that's merely incidental.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Aside from which, the sushi rule has no power over my actions, despite what it may claim.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretation
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:01:04 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I submit the following Statement to be judged:</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">{{</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Any points awarded as a result of the passage of Proposal 229 and/or a rule </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">resulting from its passage must be awarded to Bob the Voting Fish as </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">indicated by Rule 155, assuming Rule 155 was in effect at the time of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">passage of Proposal 229. If Proposal 229 failed to pass, this CFJ is </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">rescinded.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">}}</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I think that (regardless of the fact that it's false anyway) the last sentence renders this statement false, as the rules provide no way in which a CFJ can be rescinded, and in fact state &quot;</FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">A CFJ cannot be modified once submitted.&quot;</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:21:35 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">CFJ 234 is reassigned to Wonko.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This CFJ is now the ultimate power in the game. I suggest we use it.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "ID Scott, Science 99" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this dosent happen again
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:39:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If the "this" that this is trying to prevent happening again has to 
>do with imaginary friends, might I note that there still doesn't exist 
>a proper definition of "player" in the rules.  

But it does, I think, stop completly random entities voting.
A workable defenition of a player is left to the student :-)

cheers,
Iain 

>There's the turing test 
>requirement, and Our Admin's de facto email address requirement, but 
>nothing that, say, identifies a "player" as being tied to a single 
>personality or state of consciousness.  Otherwise, not only are 
imaginary friends valid, equally valid are (with reference to a 
currently popular movie, name withheld to avoid plot spoilage) 
hallucinations.  Tying playerness to states of consciousness or 
personalities eliminates these, while not discriminating against 
sufferers of multiple personality disorder. (Like me.) (Stop that.)
> 
> But I'm telling you right now...if Dad the Lawyer comes back from the grave and wants to play, I'm gonna get annoyed if y'all tell him no.

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:09:42 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Meanwhile, my judgement is on the way.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Judge it true, and we'll implement your revised justice system.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Quicker, easier, more seductive.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:32:25 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A tempting offer, but a) I already submitted my judgement, and b)
dictators have a tendency to be rather unpopular once they have left
office.  I suspect taking the democratic road will find me less likely
to see a widespread voting backlash against my future proposals once the
dictatorship has dissolved.

It would have been amusing to attempt to mutually agree in the public
forum, though, considering you are currently in possession of the Sushi.

You would at least have been lucky in the fact that "zap" does not
translate to Korean on babelfish.

Cheers,

Scoff!

-----Original Message-----
From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:10 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer

> Meanwhile, my judgement is on the way. 
Judge it true, and we'll implement your revised justice system. 
uin. 
Quicker, easier, more seductive. 

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 Daily Recognizer
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:36:01 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It would have been amusing to attempt to mutually agree in the public</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">forum, though, considering you are currently in possession of the Sushi.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I nonetheless am cooking my fish.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">As for ex-dictators being unpopular... we could have either just left really quickly, to minimise sour grapes, or stayed on forever (bwuhahaha!).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">You will pay the price for your lack of vision.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "ID Scott, Science 99" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:45:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It is more difficult to appreciate your interesting and informative 
contributions when you post in HTML.

cheers,
Iain

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:36:01 -0000 "Doig, Gavin" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

<something in HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:56:45 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It is more difficult to appreciate your interesting and informative </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">contributions when you post in HTML.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If it's *still* happening, then there's officially *no* way of turning it off.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: HTML Mail
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:13:17 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D16.60247D50
Content-Type: text/plain

> 1) Users of Outlook who want to send formatted e-mail to other Outlook
> users at their company, but prevent their messages from spilling HTML
> tags into online forums can make use of the Outlook Rich Text Format.  I
> use this all the time.  When I send to people within the company, I bold
> and italicize text to my heart's content.  When I send to non-Exchange
> servers, it gets sent as plain text.
>
I've set the options for spoon-discuss to use this, but when I actually go
to reply to a message, it's turned off when I right-click on the address
(although I've tried manually turning it on in this message... we'll see how
that goes).

> 2) When editing messages in Outlook, you can change the format of the
> message as you are editing it.  Under the Format menu are 3 options:
> HTML, Plain Text, and Rich Text. 
>
Not in my version (97).

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D16.60247D50
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D16.60247D50--

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Test; ignore
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:15:14 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D16.A5DEFBE0
Content-Type: text/plain

Really.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D16.A5DEFBE0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D16.A5DEFBE0--

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:46:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: HTML Mail
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Doig, Gavin wrote:
> >
> I've set the options for spoon-discuss to use this, but when I actually go
> to reply to a message, it's turned off when I right-click on the address
> (although I've tried manually turning it on in this message... we'll see how
> that goes).
Seems to work. Yay!

cheers,
Iain

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: HTML Mail
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:47:18 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D1B.20EF3530
Content-Type: text/plain

> Seems to work. Yay!

Thank you, Jebus!

uin.
Not that one...

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D1B.20EF3530
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19D1B.20EF3530--

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:56:43 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: HTML Mail
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/14/02 at 4:47 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

>> Seems to work. Yay!
>
>Thank you, Jebus!
>
>uin.
>Not that one...
>

...Though at the same time your email now have attachments on them.  I certainly hope they're benign...

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:07:13 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/14/02 at 7:40 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>226/0 is not being counted yet (currently: passed 7-6).

Since all my friends voted in favor of the proposal, isn't it passed either way?  Merely a question of how much it passed by?

						Glotmorf

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered
	 Piecemeal)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:53:46 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">II. Judicial Kickbacks </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">No player or other game entity may submit a CFJ that calls for one or</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">more effects that discriminate in any way between players based on their</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">judgement or non-judgement of that CFJ, or of any other specific CFJ.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If the CFJ system allows us to call for effects of any kind, then this won't work. It's therefore probably a bad idea to put this in, as it might give us an illusion of security, and encourage us to allow CFJs to change things. Which is a Bad Thing.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Kitty is still a bad Kitty.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:45:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ max 6000 characters per player per ballot ]]

> [[I welcome input from the Administrator on how this might be
> implemented, or if it's impossible.  There are any number of
> freeware/shareware/bloatware editing programs that count non-whitespace
> text (e.g. MS Word, UltraEdit).  But the most elegant solution might be
> to make all proposal submissions via a web page that would automatically
> count the characters and automatically notify the player whether it was
> accepted or rejected.  Saves everyone having to find their own method of
> counting.

The counts will never be precise, since I have to add at least a little
HTML to each proposal/rule/whatever. Just linebreaks and so on, but that's
4 characters per linebreak and 8 per blank line.

http://www.nomic.net/~g6/sizer.php is the two-minute prototype. It's
broken, but it shows that it sorta kinda works. It counts whitespace and
HTML because I'm lazy. Here's all it does:

// first a quick SQL query, then...

while($row=mysql_fetch_array($res) {
  $playersize[$row["owner"]] += strlen($row["ruletext"]);
}

Writing a function to only count "real" characters wouldn't be that
difficult, but it does border on the "takes more than five minutes to do"
category, since it has to track at least a little bit of state internally.
(And do I count the Standard Delimiter characters or not? The fun
grows...)

For reference: player 6 is Iain, player 16 is gritter, 17 is Scoff!, and
21 is Bean. (The Web page mentioned above only lists player numbers. Like
I said, it was a quickie. I've spent more time on this email than on that
page, and I'm not even done with this email yet.)

Personally, I like Bandwidth Rationing, for two reasons:

1. It keeps my workload down. I know that right now, in the worst possible
case, I'll only have to deal with about 48 proposals (assuming all 16
players submit all three proposals). That doesn't count the fact that some
people hold theirs over through an (unintended?) loophole in Bandwidth
Rationing, but it's still vaguely tolerable.

2. In a backhanded way, it can encourage player cooperation. If you have
some sweeping change you'd like to implement, but it's too complex for one
big omnibus bill (236 just leaps to mind here), you can always work with
another player. You can submit part of the changes, and someone else can
submit the other part of the changes. Yeah, you have to share the points
and the glory; it's called compromise (or, "playing nice with others"). If
we look at Nomic in general as a microcosm of real-world government, this
sort of thing is almost necessary.

...dave

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:54:29 -0600
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is like saying that putting on mosquito repellent might encourage
mosquitos to bite me, because wearing the repellent is an admission that
a mosquito *might* bite me.

This proposal is not in any way permitting CFJs to change things.  It's
simply stipulating a protection against a particular abuse that can
happen *if* they can change things.  This is the mosquito repellent, not
the mosquito.  To take a page from your own book, if you don't like
mosquitos, then vote against them when they are proposed.

Also, nota bene that no one is being encouraged to make CFJs change
things because you have kindly pointed out that it is a "Bad Thing", and
of course everyone will take your advice to heart and avoid the path of
adversity.  ;-)

--Scoff!
  
-----Original Message-----
From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks
(Justice, Administered Piecemeal)

> II. Judicial Kickbacks 
> 
> No player or other game entity may submit a CFJ that calls for one or 
> more effects that discriminate in any way between players based on
their 
> judgement or non-judgement of that CFJ, or of any other specific CFJ. 
> 
If the CFJ system allows us to call for effects of any kind, then this
won't work. It's therefore probably a bad idea to put this in, as it
might give us an illusion of security, and encourage us to allow CFJs to
change things. Which is a Bad Thing.
uin. 
Kitty is still a bad Kitty. 

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 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:18:31 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If it will make things easier, we could just pad the number a little
more and say something like 7000 or 8000 characters including whitespace
and HTML markup.  My preference is for non-whitespace only, though,
because I want to encourage the use of whitespace to make the rules more
readable.  I'd hate to see people submitting big, unformatted, 500-word
block paragraphs as rules just to squeeze in under the limit.

In any event, I think delimiter characters should count, since it will
encourage use of the standard delimiters, while permitting (but mildly
discouraging) creative delimiters like @@WORDTOYOMOTHA@@.

Overall, providing we can implement this (and fairly), I think it does a
decent job of closing the proposals per nweek loophole, enabling the
proposal of non-interdependent concepts as separate ballot measures, and
still providing a reasonable limit on ballot bandwidth (which still
encourages cooperation if vast systems of rules on the order of 236 are
being proposed).  

I'll leave the prop as is for now, but remain open to friendly
amendments as our esteemed Admin tinkers with the methodology and gains
a better sense of what seems doable.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 1:46 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: 
> Bandwidth Limiting
> That Works?
> 
> 
> 
> [[ max 6000 characters per player per ballot ]]
> 
> > [[I welcome input from the Administrator on how this might be
> > implemented, or if it's impossible.  There are any number of
> > freeware/shareware/bloatware editing programs that count 
> non-whitespace
> > text (e.g. MS Word, UltraEdit).  But the most elegant 
> solution might be
> > to make all proposal submissions via a web page that would 
> automatically
> > count the characters and automatically notify the player 
> whether it was
> > accepted or rejected.  Saves everyone having to find their 
> own method of
> > counting.
> 
> The counts will never be precise, since I have to add at 
> least a little
> HTML to each proposal/rule/whatever. Just linebreaks and so 
> on, but that's
> 4 characters per linebreak and 8 per blank line.
> 
> http://www.nomic.net/~g6/sizer.php is the two-minute prototype. It's
> broken, but it shows that it sorta kinda works. It counts 
> whitespace and
> HTML because I'm lazy. Here's all it does:
> 
> // first a quick SQL query, then...
> 
> while($row=mysql_fetch_array($res) {
>   $playersize[$row["owner"]] += strlen($row["ruletext"]);
> }
> 
> Writing a function to only count "real" characters wouldn't be that
> difficult, but it does border on the "takes more than five 
> minutes to do"
> category, since it has to track at least a little bit of 
> state internally.
> (And do I count the Standard Delimiter characters or not? The fun
> grows...)
> 
> For reference: player 6 is Iain, player 16 is gritter, 17 is 
> Scoff!, and
> 21 is Bean. (The Web page mentioned above only lists player 
> numbers. Like
> I said, it was a quickie. I've spent more time on this email 
> than on that
> page, and I'm not even done with this email yet.)
> 
> Personally, I like Bandwidth Rationing, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. It keeps my workload down. I know that right now, in the 
> worst possible
> case, I'll only have to deal with about 48 proposals (assuming all 16
> players submit all three proposals). That doesn't count the 
> fact that some
> people hold theirs over through an (unintended?) loophole in Bandwidth
> Rationing, but it's still vaguely tolerable.
> 
> 2. In a backhanded way, it can encourage player cooperation. 
> If you have
> some sweeping change you'd like to implement, but it's too 
> complex for one
> big omnibus bill (236 just leaps to mind here), you can 
> always work with
> another player. You can submit part of the changes, and 
> someone else can
> submit the other part of the changes. Yeah, you have to share 
> the points
> and the glory; it's called compromise (or, "playing nice with 
> others"). If
> we look at Nomic in general as a microcosm of real-world 
> government, this
> sort of thing is almost necessary.
> 
> ...dave
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:20:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Gender and the Pink Scarf
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, David E. Smith wrote:

> As a matter of personal opinion: I'm not a fan of players
> being able to change their gender on a whim, if for no other
> reason than it'll be more stuff I have to keep track of. :-)

Actually, I thought about that after I submitted the proposal,
and am thinking about submitting a revision that keep the gender
change from taking effect until the beginning of the subsequent
nweek.  Scoff! also had some good feedback for me, and I will
revise the proposal sometime in the next couple of days, pending
any further feedback/discussion.

-Congenital Optimist

-- 
[email-masked] | http://seishonagon.org
"Life is short, but tacky just goes on forever."
               --Caitlin R. Kiernan, 11/27/2001

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: The Daily Recognizer
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:09:44 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:56:45 -0000, "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
....and it goes on and on and on...just to say this:
>If it's *still* happening, then there's officially *no* way of turning it off.

change mail client?

for your convenience I can suggest some free mail clients that are able to
send completley HTML free mail:
pegasus(quite good): http://www.pmail.com/downloads.htm
eudora (it even has an utility to convert outlook's adress book):
http://www.eudora.com/products/eudora/updater1.html
opera has a working email client builtin (and is a great browser)
http://www.opera.com/download/
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:45:28 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback
  Interpretation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

rescind != modify

At 01:01 PM 1/14/2002 +0000, you wrote:

> > I submit the following Statement to be judged:
> >
> > {{
> > Any points awarded as a result of the passage of Proposal 229 and/or a 
> rule
> > resulting from its passage must be awarded to Bob the Voting Fish as
> > indicated by Rule 155, assuming Rule 155 was in effect at the time of the
> > passage of Proposal 229. If Proposal 229 failed to pass, this CFJ is
> > rescinded.
> > }}
>
>I think that (regardless of the fact that it's false anyway) the last 
>sentence renders this statement false, as the rules provide no way in 
>which a CFJ can be rescinded, and in fact state "A CFJ cannot be modified 
>once submitted."
>
>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, 14 Jan 2002 19:08:07 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: The Daily Recognizer
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yeah, but as evidenced by the disclaimer after everyone one of his emails, 
he's mailing via a company account so he's probably locked into using the 
official corporate email client.

The easy solution is to get a Yahoo account or whatever to use as his nomic 
account.

Hmmmm....maybe if uin aka Uncle Psychosis gets out of hand, we can just 
email the CEO of Azur Group and point out that one of his employees is 
using company resources (and company time!) to play silly games!

Who's going BWUAHAHAHAHA now, eh?!?

At 12:09 AM 1/15/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>change mail client?
>
>
>for your convenience I can suggest some free mail clients that are able to
>send completley HTML free mail:
>pegasus(quite good): http://www.pmail.com/downloads.htm
>eudora (it even has an utility to convert outlook's adress book):
>http://www.eudora.com/products/eudora/updater1.html
>opera has a working email client builtin (and is a great browser)
>http://www.opera.com/download/
>--
>Antonio
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:17:12 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks
  (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 05:53 PM 2002-01-14 +0000, you wrote:
>If the CFJ system allows us to call for effects of any kind, then this 
>won't work. It's therefore probably a bad idea to put this in, as it might 
>give us an illusion of security, and encourage us to allow CFJs to change 
>things. Which is a Bad Thing.

Is it???  What happens if someone takes an action which is illegal?  Even 
if someone makes a CFJ, if the CFJ cannot change anything, and the person 
has gotten away scot-free with their illegality!  That's not the kind of 
justice system _I_ want to see operating.  The Judge or the ruling has to 
have some ability to edit things which have passed.  I proposed the 
modification to Rule 204 anticipating this.  Well, the other option is that 
we make a penalty for players who disobey the law.

I think that a better outlining of a judge's obligations and powers is 
important (and they have to have some of both at least).  So therefore I 
humbly submit that the ability to have CFJs that change things (within 
strict limitations) is a Good Thing (tm).

Bean

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:05:41 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/14/02 at 12:10 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>__Verbosity Sux!__
>
>{{
>Repeal rule 212.
>
>Then, create a new rule as follows:
>
>{{
>__All the Proposals You Want, but Keep It Simple__
>
>All players are limited to 6000 non-whitespace characters per ballot.  A
>players may submit as many proposals as e wishes, providing the
>collective text of the player's proposals on the ballot (including
>comments) does not exceed 6000 non-whitespace characters.  This limit
>applies regardless of the nweek in which the proposal was submitted for
>the ballot.
>
>In the event that a player exceeds the limit, eir proposals shall be
>accepted or rejected in the order submitted.  Any proposal that would
>cause the player to exceed the limit will be rejected by the
>Administrator.
>
>If a player submits a revision of a previously-submitted proposal that
>would push the player over the limit, the Administrator will reject that
>revision.
>}}
>
>[[I welcome input from the Administrator on how this might be
>implemented, or if it's impossible.  There are any number of
>freeware/shareware/bloatware editing programs that count non-whitespace
>text (e.g. MS Word, UltraEdit).  But the most elegant solution might be
>to make all proposal submissions via a web page that would automatically
>count the characters and automatically notify the player whether it was
>accepted or rejected.  Saves everyone having to find their own method of
>counting.
>
>Anyway, the rationale should be pretty plain.  Discourage the practice
>(exacerbated by the current 3-prop limit) of making big bloated single
>proposals like my own 236, while still placing some kind of enforceable
>limit on the amount of text we can be subjected to per nweek.  6000
>characters should work out to roughly 800 to 1000 words, depending on
>your preferred vocabulary.  Seems a reasonable limit to me, and that's
>despite the fact that 236 alone was over 8000 non-whitespace
>characters.]]
>}}

Hey, if we want to shorten things, how about:

New rules must comprise six words.

Mind you, someone might try to modify those rules later, but it'd be interesting to see what people come up with.

						Glotmorf

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Ju
	stice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:03:57 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This is like saying that putting on mosquito repellent might encourage</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">mosquitos to bite me, because wearing the repellent is an admission that</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">a mosquito *might* bite me.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The problem is that it's not mosquito repellent, it's just a bottle of water with &quot;mosquito repellent&quot; on the label. ;-)</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I don't think there's anything actually *wrong* with your proosal. I mean, I won't vote for it, because I don't think any of it has anything other than a symbolic effect (well, it'll add some verbiage for people circumventing it), but I don't think it'll break the game if it passes.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Ju
	stice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:23:40 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19DC7.D89746D0
Content-Type: text/plain

> >If the CFJ system allows us to call for effects of any kind, then this 
> >won't work. It's therefore probably a bad idea to put this in, as it
might 
> >give us an illusion of security, and encourage us to allow CFJs to change

> >things. Which is a Bad Thing.
>
> Is it???  What happens if someone takes an action which is illegal?  Even 
> if someone makes a CFJ, if the CFJ cannot change anything, and the person 
> has gotten away scot-free with their illegality!
>
Well... no. If someone *attempts* to take an action which is illegal, it
doesn't work (although more on this later). A CFJ doesn't need to *change*
anything to prevent it from happening, because it never happened in the
first place; a CFJ just establishes whether it was legal or not. Of course,
if someone takes an action that's illegal, and no one notices, then the
statute of limitations kicks in after a week, and it *becomes* legal.

I don't think the statute of limitations works that well the way it's
currently written, but that's another story.

> Well, the other option is that 
> we make a penalty for players who disobey the law.
>
In most cases, it's impossible to disobey the law; nomic laws aren't like
legal laws, they're more akin to physical laws (although they have a
strictly limited domain, as I'll argue in a CFJ I'm currently writing).
Similarly, CFJs aren't like the adversarial system of criminal justice;
they're more like an inquest, which attempts to determine what happened (or
some better example).

uin.
NAL.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19DC7.D89746D0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19DC7.D89746D0--

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:55:00 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks
  (Ju stice, Administered Piecemeal)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:23 PM 2002-01-15 +0000, you wrote:
> > >If the CFJ system allows us to call for effects of any kind, then this
> > >won't work. It's therefore probably a bad idea to put this in, as it
>might
> > >give us an illusion of security, and encourage us to allow CFJs to change
>
> > >things. Which is a Bad Thing.
> >
> > Is it???  What happens if someone takes an action which is illegal?  Even
> > if someone makes a CFJ, if the CFJ cannot change anything, and the person
> > has gotten away scot-free with their illegality!
> >
>Well... no. If someone *attempts* to take an action which is illegal, it
>doesn't work (although more on this later). A CFJ doesn't need to *change*
>anything to prevent it from happening, because it never happened in the
>first place; a CFJ just establishes whether it was legal or not.

Okay, you're absolutely right on that.  Perhaps rephrasing it like this 
will make more sense:  We all have a mass hallucination that something 
happened that was against the rules.  So now we wake up from said 
hallucination (via a CFJ); what does the world look like?  It is my belief 
that the ruling on the CFJ should outline what has to be corrected in our 
mental represenatations (and the "official" ones) to bring them in 
accordance with what actually happened.  I think this was the spirit of 
"Judicial Orders", but it was worded in a less-than-optimum 
manner.  Perhaps tonight (if I have time between eating and watching 24) I 
will draft a new judicial reform proposal which addresses this.

>  Of course,
>if someone takes an action that's illegal, and no one notices, then the
>statute of limitations kicks in after a week, and it *becomes* legal.
>
>I don't think the statute of limitations works that well the way it's
>currently written, but that's another story.

I hate to be the civic promoter, but draft a proposal then!  The justice 
system sure ain't perfect the way it is now (as it appears it can 
circumvent rules with no appeal), so we have to fix it somehow.

> > Well, the other option is that
> > we make a penalty for players who disobey the law.
> >
>In most cases, it's impossible to disobey the law; nomic laws aren't like
>legal laws, they're more akin to physical laws (although they have a
>strictly limited domain, as I'll argue in a CFJ I'm currently writing).
>Similarly, CFJs aren't like the adversarial system of criminal justice;
>they're more like an inquest, which attempts to determine what happened (or
>some better example).

Again, 100% correct.

And as a point of personal preference... is the CFJ really the best way to 
go about that?

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:56:18 -0600
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Well... no. If someone *attempts* to take an action which is 
> illegal, it doesn't work (although more on this later). A CFJ 
> doesn't need to *change* anything to prevent it from 
> happening, because it never happened in the first place; a 
> CFJ just establishes whether it was legal or not. Of course, 
> if someone takes an action that's illegal, and no one 
> notices, then the statute of limitations kicks in after a 
> week, and it *becomes* legal.

Let's try some logic, shall we?

1)  Any player action can be CFJed up to one week after it has occurred.

Therefore, *any* player action is potentially illegal for one week.

2)  Assume, as you assert, that potentially illegal actions become legal
when one of two things happens:

	a) The statute of limitations kicks in, or

	b) The action is CFJed, and the CFJ "establishes whether it was
legal or not", deciding in favor of the legality of the action

Therefore, *no* action is certifiably legal until either a) or b)
occurs.  No change to the rule set or game state is real until it has
gone unquestioned for one week.

This is plainly ridiculous.   It undermines the very fabric of the game,
since the rules are being constantly applied to the current game state.
They can't wait a week to see if the game state is real.

For example, if the rules say the player with the lowest score gets the
Sushi, and the records show I have the lowest score, following your
logic I can dodge the Sushi by claiming that my score isn't real until
all actions which have changed it have lapsed unquestioned for one week,
or been ratified by a CFJ.

As I said previously, actions should essentially be "innocent until
proven guilty" -- real and legal, until found to be illegal in a CFJ /
inquest / whatever you want to call it.

You said yourself, an inquest is to find out what happened.  The inquest
/ CFJ establishes a course of events that took place in the past, as
well as a decision on the legality of those events.  What it can't do is
un-event those events -- a murder inquest can't un-murder a body, a
Senate hearing on a political scandal can't un-publicize the scandal.

Remedial actions are taken in the here and now.  When things can be
undone in the same way they were done, they are (e.g. the Secretary of
the Treasury embezzles $1 billion, so it is taken back into the Treasury
from eir Grand Cayman bank account), and it is *as if* they never
happened.  But in other cases, such as a very dead, very murdered corpse
(or to offer a potential game example, a player has resigned the game
due to the illegal action taken against em by another player), the
correction cannot directly undo the course of events, so a suitable
remedy is chosen (such as penalizing the person / player responsible).

This whole mass-hallucination it-was-just-a-dream it-never-happened tack
is the stuff of bad soap opera plots.

--Scoff!

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretati
	on
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:02:52 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">rescind != modify</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Well, that's open to debate a little, but rescinding a CFJ is certainly a change to the game state, and since (I'm pretty sure) it's not permitted by the rules, it falls foul of that anyway.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretati
 on
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> 
> > rescind != modify
> 
> Well, that's open to debate a little, but rescinding a CFJ is certainly a
> change to the game state, and since (I'm pretty sure) it's not permitted
> by the rules, it falls foul of that anyway.

CFJ it and see what comes of it.

Bean

(And then someone could CFJ your CFJ of the CFJ.... and on and on and on!
He he he)

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Ju
	 stice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:13:58 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Ju stice, Administered Piecemeal)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It is my belief </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">that the ruling on the CFJ should outline what has to be corrected in our </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">mental represenatations (and the &quot;official&quot; ones) to bring them in </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">accordance with what actually happened.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">While I don't have the same philosophical objections to this, it'd need to be worded very carefully for me to not have similar pragmatic objections.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;I don't think the statute of limitations works that well the way it's</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;currently written, but that's another story.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I hate to be the civic promoter, but draft a proposal then!</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I've been trying to work out how best to do so. I've got 1 more proosal free than I was expecting this nweek, since my proosal proosal passed. :-) But I have the sushi at the moment; while I don't think that stops me from doing anything, I'd like to unambigously establish that first.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;In most cases, it's impossible to disobey the law; nomic laws aren't like</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;legal laws, they're more akin to physical laws (although they have a</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;strictly limited domain, as I'll argue in a CFJ I'm currently writing).</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;Similarly, CFJs aren't like the adversarial system of criminal justice;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;they're more like an inquest, which attempts to determine what happened (or</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;some better example).</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Again, 100% correct.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">And as a point of personal preference... is the CFJ really the best way to </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">go about that?</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;<BR>
The CFJ's about the specific case of the sushi. And I'm by no means sure that it's true anyway... at least, depending on how I word it... hmm.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">thinking.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:48:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks
 (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> > Well... no. If someone *attempts* to take an action which is 
> > illegal, it doesn't work (although more on this later). A CFJ 
> > doesn't need to *change* anything to prevent it from 
> > happening, because it never happened in the first place; a 
> > CFJ just establishes whether it was legal or not. Of course, 
> > if someone takes an action that's illegal, and no one 
> > notices, then the statute of limitations kicks in after a 
> > week, and it *becomes* legal.
> 
> Let's try some logic, shall we?
> 
> 1)  Any player action can be CFJed up to one week after it has occurred.
> 
> Therefore, *any* player action is potentially illegal for one week.
> 
> 2)  Assume, as you assert, that potentially illegal actions become legal
> when one of two things happens:
> 
> 	a) The statute of limitations kicks in, or
> 
> 	b) The action is CFJed, and the CFJ "establishes whether it was
> legal or not", deciding in favor of the legality of the action

That's not what happens at all.  Rule 10 reads:
"All game entities must always abide by all the Rules then in effect, in
the form in which they are then in effect. This Rule takes precedence over
all other Rules."

Since players are game entities, in theory it is *impossible* for a player
to perform an action which is against the rules.  However, since we aren't
perfect rule machines, then sometimes we slip outside.  When this happens,
in theory something should come in and say "STOP!  You can't do that!"
Unfortunately, the Adminstrator (also being human) will sometimes miss
those.

So now we've got another problem.  How do we determine that an action
really hasn't happened?  That's where the CFJ should come in.
 
> Therefore, *no* action is certifiably legal until either a) or b)
> occurs.  No change to the rule set or game state is real until it has
> gone unquestioned for one week.
> 
> This is plainly ridiculous.   It undermines the very fabric of the game,
> since the rules are being constantly applied to the current game state.
> They can't wait a week to see if the game state is real.

Not true.  Every action *must* abide by the rules.  That's Rule 10.  But
there are mistakes.  And those mistakes are where the CFJs apply.  The
statute of limitations is just to aviod TOO much confusion if someone
CFJ'd an action taken in nweek 1 (imagine the ramifications!)

> For example, if the rules say the player with the lowest score gets the
> Sushi, and the records show I have the lowest score, following your
> logic I can dodge the Sushi by claiming that my score isn't real until
> all actions which have changed it have lapsed unquestioned for one week,
> or been ratified by a CFJ.
> 
> As I said previously, actions should essentially be "innocent until
> proven guilty" -- real and legal, until found to be illegal in a CFJ /
> inquest / whatever you want to call it.

That's essentially what is happening (as I see it).  An action is
*assumed* to follow the rules.  However, if it didn't, then it couldn't
have happened (as per Rule 10), and so anything we thought was true about
the game may not be so.

After all, the game lives on without us... well sort of.

> You said yourself, an inquest is to find out what happened.  The inquest
> / CFJ establishes a course of events that took place in the past, as
> well as a decision on the legality of those events.  What it can't do is
> un-event those events -- a murder inquest can't un-murder a body, a
> Senate hearing on a political scandal can't un-publicize the scandal.

Again, Rule 10 says you can't perform an illegal action.  And therefore it
couldn't have happened.  It is impossible.  The "murderer" just reported 
the person murdered.

> Remedial actions are taken in the here and now.  When things can be
> undone in the same way they were done, they are (e.g. the Secretary of
> the Treasury embezzles $1 billion, so it is taken back into the Treasury
> from eir Grand Cayman bank account), and it is *as if* they never
> happened.  But in other cases, such as a very dead, very murdered corpse
> (or to offer a potential game example, a player has resigned the game
> due to the illegal action taken against em by another player), the
> correction cannot directly undo the course of events, so a suitable
> remedy is chosen (such as penalizing the person / player responsible).

Well, in the player leaving due to an illegal action example:  Eir action
of leaving was legal, and so be it.  All the "action never happened" thing
means is that the game is in a different state than we thought it was in.
If a player leaves due to a misinterpretation of the real game state, then
that's unfortunate.

The only clearly defined thing is the game rules.  After that, the game
takes on a life of its own, and it we interpret that incorrectly, then its
our fault, and we have to bring our vision in-line with what has actually
transpired.

> This whole mass-hallucination it-was-just-a-dream it-never-happened tack
> is the stuff of bad soap opera plots.

... and, by our current ruleset, Nomic.

Bean

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: for the administrator
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:23:21 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Dave, could you put the name of the assigned judge on still unanswered
CFJs?
With the volume of traffic this game generates it's easy to miss an
assignement. I was away during the last weekend and I still have 50+ unread
messages to browse through (but I did read the ones from the adsministrator
so I shouldnt have missed anything really important).
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:09:12 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretati on
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:02:52PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
[more flythpeckth]

[[ I'm going to make my lithp a bit leth theriouth, and not lithp the
voithed ethes, like that one just there. ]]

Gavin, if you're thtill having problems ficthing your HTML, could you at
_leatht_ make the font thize thomething bigger than 2 in the time being?
I realize that I've probably got the only HTML viewer which takes that
literally, but thtill, I'd like to be able to read what you're thaying.

-- 
The Thtyle Poleeth

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Kickback Interpretati 
 on
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:00:21 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake Rob Speer:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:02:52PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
> [more flythpeckth]
> 
> [[ I'm going to make my lithp a bit leth theriouth, and not lithp the
> voithed ethes, like that one just there. ]]
> 
> Gavin, if you're thtill having problems ficthing your HTML, could you at
> _leatht_ make the font thize thomething bigger than 2 in the time being?
> I realize that I've probably got the only HTML viewer which takes that
> literally, but thtill, I'd like to be able to read what you're thaying.
> 
> -- 
> The Thtyle Poleeth

It occurs to me that it might be possible to set majordomo (or write a 
script) to translate and then strip out all HTML sent to the lists. I think 
I could probably do it without too much trouble. Would you guys be 
interested in something like that?

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:18:10 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: N Heads are Better Than 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Woah...

This is a vague and dangerous proposal in its current form.  While I 
half-agree with the spirit behind this proposal, I'm not at all confident 
with the execution.  With this, 2 players could team up to completely 
circumvent the Bandwidth Rationing process.  Not to mention, a rule which 
did the same thing as bandwidth rationing, but not named "Bandwidth 
Rationing" could possibly circumvent this entirely...

Perhaps adding something akin to the following would work:  "The unordered 
set containing the player names in <namelist> is known as the Team 
submitting the proposal.  Each Team may only submit one Team Proposal per 
nweek."  That way, you would have to have different teams for each team 
proposal, makes it harder to spam the system.  I'm still not sure if I like 
that (creates a whole "alliances" aspect to the game), but that would make 
the proposal much better.

I would also suggest changing: "Team Proposals are not subject to Bandwidth 
Rationing." to something akin to "If there is any restriction on the number 
or size of proposals submitted by one player, Team Proposals do not count 
towards that restriction", that way it qualifies for any current or future 
rationing.

Bean

At 01:34 AM 2002-01-15 -0500, you wrote:
>{{ _N Heads are Better Than 1_
>
>Create a new rule:
>
>{{ _N Heads are Better Than 1_
>
>A Team Proposal is a proposal submitted by more than one person.  A Team 
>Proposal must be identified as such by the inclusion of the following text:
>
>         "Team Proposal, submitted by <namelist>"
>
>where <namelist> is the list of names of players submitting the 
>proposal.  Note that the definition of "team" here does not indicate any 
>relationship between the players outside the context of the Team Proposal.
>
>A Team Proposal is posted to the public forum by a single player.  It is 
>then recognized by the Administrator as a Provisional 
>Proposal.  Thereafter, each player in the <namelist> other than the 
>original posting player must post an acknowledgment of their being part of 
>the proposal's team, in order for the Team Proposal to be recognized as a 
>Proposal.
>
>Any player in <namelist> may submit a revision to the Team Proposal, 
>though not to the <namelist> within it.  However, if a player revokes his 
>acknowledgment of the proposal, the proposal is withdrawn with no point loss.
>
>If a Team Proposal passes, it receives the same number of points as a non 
>Team Proposal; each player in <namelist> receives an equal portion of 
>those points, rounded down, or 2 points, whichever is greater.  If a Team 
>Proposal fails, it loses the same number of points as a non Team Proposal; 
>each player in <namelist> loses an equal portion of those points, rounded 
>down, or 1 point, whichever is greater.
>
>If a Team Proposal is still a Provisional Proposal at the time of voting, 
>it is excluded from the ballot, and is considered to have failed; for 
>calculating point losses, <namelist> comprises the original poster, and 
>those who acknowledged the proposal.
>
>Team Proposals are not subject to Bandwidth Rationing.
>}}
>
>}}

From: Glenn Overby II <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:53:01 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Forfeiture
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Regrettably, perhaps, I do not have time for this...as evidenced by missing the 
vote, and putting forward just one proposal all game.

Octagon forfeits B Nomic.

Glenn E. Overby II
Clinton Twp, MI

==
Icehouse Games Pages (take the IcePoll!)
http://home.earthlink.net/~guardcaptain/IceGames.html

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:16:39 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks
  (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 08:56 AM 1/15/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>You said yourself, an inquest is to find out what happened.  The inquest
>/ CFJ establishes a course of events that took place in the past, as
>well as a decision on the legality of those events.  What it can't do is
>un-event those events -- a murder inquest can't un-murder a body, a
>Senate hearing on a political scandal can't un-publicize the scandal.
>Remedial actions are taken in the here and now.  When things can be
>undone in the same way they were done, they are (e.g. the Secretary of
>the Treasury embezzles $1 billion, so it is taken back into the Treasury
>from eir Grand Cayman bank account), and it is *as if* they never
>happened.  But in other cases, such as a very dead, very murdered corpse
>(or to offer a potential game example, a player has resigned the game
>due to the illegal action taken against em by another player), the
>correction cannot directly undo the course of events, so a suitable
>remedy is chosen (such as penalizing the person / player responsible).

Bingo. Dead on accurate. Well spoken.

If I had any points beyond the three I got for being funny, I'd give you 
one...but I'm too stingy right now.

--gritter 

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:38:31 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is not bandwidth rationing that works.

Length of proposals is not a problem; number of proposals is a problem. Ask 
yourself: would you rather receive one long spam message or forty short ones???

Under this rule, players could still spam the game with forty 
5000-character proposals.

Furthermore, long proposals have their own inherent problems that will 
probably make them "self-regulating" to an extent. Witness the lengthy and 
complex judicial reform proposal last nweek -- many people supported 
individual portions of it, but the whole thing was too complex to pass as a 
single proposal.

Rule 212 rules!!!

Long live Bandwidth Limitations!!!

--gritter

At 12:10 PM 1/14/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>__Verbosity Sux!__
>
>{{
>Repeal rule 212.
>
>Then, create a new rule as follows:
>
>{{
>__All the Proposals You Want, but Keep It Simple__
>
>All players are limited to 6000 non-whitespace characters per ballot.  A
>players may submit as many proposals as e wishes, providing the
>collective text of the player's proposals on the ballot (including
>comments) does not exceed 6000 non-whitespace characters.  This limit
>applies regardless of the nweek in which the proposal was submitted for
>the ballot.
>
>In the event that a player exceeds the limit, eir proposals shall be
>accepted or rejected in the order submitted.  Any proposal that would
>cause the player to exceed the limit will be rejected by the
>Administrator.
>
>If a player submits a revision of a previously-submitted proposal that
>would push the player over the limit, the Administrator will reject that
>revision.
>}}
>
>[[I welcome input from the Administrator on how this might be
>implemented, or if it's impossible.  There are any number of
>freeware/shareware/bloatware editing programs that count non-whitespace
>text (e.g. MS Word, UltraEdit).  But the most elegant solution might be
>to make all proposal submissions via a web page that would automatically
>count the characters and automatically notify the player whether it was
>accepted or rejected.  Saves everyone having to find their own method of
>counting.
>
>Anyway, the rationale should be pretty plain.  Discourage the practice
>(exacerbated by the current 3-prop limit) of making big bloated single
>proposals like my own 236, while still placing some kind of enforceable
>limit on the amount of text we can be subjected to per nweek.  6000
>characters should work out to roughly 800 to 1000 words, depending on
>your preferred vocabulary.  Seems a reasonable limit to me, and that's
>despite the fact that 236 alone was over 8000 non-whitespace
>characters.]]
>}}

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: The statute got me high: not a proosal
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:08:32 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19E8E.E5D01AD0
Content-Type: text/plain

Not a proosal yet.

No, really. Look, it's not even on spoon-business.

<lookmradminitsnotaproosal>
<title>The dust you seldom see.</title>
<body>
Amend rule 129 by replacing the current text with the following
MONUMENTOFGRANITE-delimited text:
MONUMENTOFGRANITE
2 Nweeks after the Administrator, in a Public Forum, makes any statement
about the rules or game state, the rules and gamestate shall be altered to
reflect that statement, unless in the intervening time any player objects to
the statement in a Public Forum, in which case the usual methods for
determining the current rules and game state shall apply.
MONUMENTOFGRANITE
[[Kinder, gentler, more seductive.]]
</body>
</lookmradminitsnotaproosal>

This should mean that player actions don't automatically get made legal (for
example, if I hide a statement saying I'm awarded a win inside a long
message and no one notices it) unless the Admin acks them in his daily
recogniser mail. It also ups the time to 2 NWeeks, which gives us more time
to notice problems. The "usual methods" part is deliberately vague to allow
us to use CFJs, or just to arrive at a consensus. It only takes one player
to stop the auto-legalisation, but one player can't just block things,
because the standard methods will apply, and it should prevent the Admin
from being able to abuse this, because we'd all need to let him for it to
work.

Although if (when) we do end up breaking the proosal mechanism, this would
allow the admin to change things to fix it, by our unanimous consent.

I'll probably proose this once I'm un-sushied.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19E8E.E5D01AD0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19E8E.E5D01AD0--

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: History database
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:51:25 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

While not required by the rules, it would be nice if the archives
included the author of the proposal in the same way the current
proposals page does.

Any chance we can just make that a matter of game custom by unanimous
lack-of-dissent?  Or is someone sufficiently opposed to want it to be a
ballot measure?

I think it's useful as a reference to what changes players have endorsed
in the past, which is a valuable part of the history of the game.  And
it also allows giving credit where it is due if anyone ever happens to
be inspired by a proposal e encounters in the history to write a
similar-but-improved proposal.

--Scoff!

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (monday morning edition)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:56:22 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (monday morning edition)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">UIN transfers 3 points from emself to gritter.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Actually, I now believe that this didn't work (thanks to an elegant synergy between the sushi and rule 152).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Repeal rule 10!</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:58:40 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

gritter,

You're misunderstanding the proposal.  Players are limited to 6000
characters on the ballot per nweek, regardless of the number of
proposals involved.  They could not submit forty 5000-character
proposals.  They could submit forty *150-character* proposals, maximum.

In the rare event of that happening, that too will have its own
self-policing effects, since more than a few players will just vote
against all of them in exasperation.

Plus, there's an advantage to not breaking things down too small -- a
lot of proposals involve two or more interdependent rules which are
useless when split up if only one of them gets adopted.

Having a hard limit on the amount of text a player can send in each
nweek makes it possible to use as many or as few proposals as one needs
to give something the best chance of being adopted on its merits, while
providing a ceiling for people to bump against if they take advantage of
this to submit too many proposals, or too-large ones.

The problem with the number-of-proposals limit is it is causing players
to submit proposals containing multiple non-interdependent changes that
might be adopted on their merits if they could be submitted as separate
proposals.  

If you really want a limit on number of proposals as well, what about a
10-prop-per-nweek limit, plus the 6000-char. limit?

--j

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Ritter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: 
> Bandwidth Limiting
> That Works?
> 
> 
> This is not bandwidth rationing that works.
> 
> Length of proposals is not a problem; number of proposals is 
> a problem. Ask 
> yourself: would you rather receive one long spam message or 
> forty short ones???
> 
> Under this rule, players could still spam the game with forty 
> 5000-character proposals.
> 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Ju
	stice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:24:44 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19EAA.4EC75600
Content-Type: text/plain

Bean wrote:
[a whole bunch of good stuff, ending with]
> ... and, by our current ruleset, Nomic.

*applause*
Well said.

uin.
Repeal rule 10!

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19EAA.4EC75600
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19EAA.4EC75600--

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: CFJ: Kickback Interpretati  on
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:13:14 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 18:00:21 -0600, Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Thus spake Rob Speer:
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:02:52PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
>> [more flythpeckth]
>> 
>> [[ I'm going to make my lithp a bit leth theriouth, and not lithp the
>> voithed ethes, like that one just there. ]]
>> 
>> Gavin, if you're thtill having problems ficthing your HTML, could you at
>> _leatht_ make the font thize thomething bigger than 2 in the time being?
>> I realize that I've probably got the only HTML viewer which takes that
>> literally, but thtill, I'd like to be able to read what you're thaying.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The Thtyle Poleeth
>
>It occurs to me that it might be possible to set majordomo (or write a 
>script) to translate and then strip out all HTML sent to the lists. I think 
>I could probably do it without too much trouble. Would you guys be 
>interested in something like that?

Yes!
Yes!
Please!
-- 
Antonio

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

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rob
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:33:10 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Shouldn't rob have the attribute: "Thyle Polithe" on the player roster?

Just a thought.

-0-Thus Spake The Voice-0-

_________________________________________________________________
Discutez en ligne avec vos amis, essayez MSN Messenger : 
http://messenger.msn.fr/

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:04:22 -0500
From: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> gritter,
> 
> You're misunderstanding the proposal.  Players are limited to 6000
> characters on the ballot per nweek, regardless of the number of
> proposals involved.  They could not submit forty 5000-character
> proposals.  They could submit forty *150-character* proposals, maximum.

Okay, fair enough. My bad. I misinterpreted that part. But I'm still utterly 100% against any rule changes that allows players to submit forty proposals (of any length). Period. 

Bandwidth problems caused by volume of proposals are much more annoying than bandwidth problems caused by the length of a single proposal. 

I support Rule 212 because it limits the *number* of proposals, and I will support no proposal that
a) attempts to repeal 212
b) attempts to manage bandwidth by any metric other than number of proposals
c) attempts to increase the limit on number of proposals in the current version of 212. 

The only one I might budge on in the future is c), but even that is EXTREMELY unlikely. Only if the game looked like it was going to die because of lack of proposals. Which doesn't seem to be an issue!
 
> In the rare event of that happening, that too will have its own
> self-policing effects, since more than a few players will just vote
> against all of them in exasperation.

Exactly. That's my point. It is *exasperating* to have to go through forty proposals. Whether they pass or not is not the point. Frankly, that itself is the problem -- there may be good proposals in those forty, but since I don't have the time to adequately consider forty proposals on their own merit I would have to vote on them based of the fact that some idiot sent in forty proposals. 

I prefer to vote based on the merit of the proposal. Proposal Spam forces Those Of Us Who Have A Life into voting against or for proposals without being able to take appropriate time to debate and consider them effectively. Look at how much traffic we generate *with* a cap on proposals already!

The only acceptable bandwidth limitation (IMHO) is that which limits the number of proposals. Period.

> The problem with the number-of-proposals limit is it is causing players
> to submit proposals containing multiple non-interdependent changes that
> might be adopted on their merits if they could be submitted as separate
> proposals.  

Yup. That's exactly why it's so great. Forces players into submitting multiple (to a max of three) short, to-the-point proposals. Since you've only got three shots per week, players should put more thought and value into those three that you have to use than spamming the game with bunches of useless, dumb, ill-considered proposals. 

And, best of all, it means there's a cap (number of players * 3) of proposals that anyone will have to deal with in a week. It prevents spam! Right now, that cap is manageable -- if our player roster doubled and everyone was proposing, I might even support *decreasing* the limit from three to two. 

> If you really want a limit on number of proposals as well, what about a
> 10-prop-per-nweek limit, plus the 6000-char. limit?

Character limits are an ineffective idea. First, it's damn hard to track and a burden on the admin. And it's a de facto limit now...long proposals are going to have a tough time passing, as you said yourself. 

Nope. I *love* 212 as it is now. Anything else just ain't bandwidth limitations! 

Instead of trying to repeal bandwidth limitations, why don't you use what proposals you have more effectively?

--gritter

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:26:58 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision to 267/0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A very nithe proposal. Ith open-minded, encompathing all the
pothibilities, yet it thtrives for thimplithity - and I think the
crackling drones would complement other thenery like the Voting Fish,
and thith thcarf itthelf, *tho* nicely. All in ecthelent tathte.

Thuth thpake the thtyle poleeth.
-- 
Rob Thpeer

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:31:51 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > gritter,
 >
 > You're misunderstanding the proposal.  Players are limited to 6000
 > characters on the ballot per nweek, regardless of the number of
 > proposals involved.  They could not submit forty 5000-character
 > proposals.  They could submit forty *150-character* proposals, maximum.

Okay, fair enough. My bad. I misinterpreted that part. But I'm still utterly 
100% against any rule changes that allows players to submit forty proposals 
(of any length). Period.

-Yeah, guys, NO ONE has that many proposals with any merit in them. That's a 
lot of stupid proposals to have to read. Keep it down, all right? It's a 
simple matter, related to selling stuff. At low prices, you'll sell a lot, 
but not for much. At high prices, you'll sell only a few, but at a nice 
amount per item. You have to find a middle ground. Same here. A lot of 
proposals won't net you a lot of points because many of them won't pass.-

Bandwidth problems caused by volume of proposals are much more annoying than 
bandwidth problems caused by the length of a single proposal.

-And there are some good rules I've seen that were EXTREMELY long. They were 
only borderline legal, but they were long and they made the game work.-

I support Rule 212 because it limits the *number* of proposals, and I will 
support no proposal that
a) attempts to repeal 212
b) attempts to manage bandwidth by any metric other than number of proposals
c) attempts to increase the limit on number of proposals in the current 
version of 212.

The only one I might budge on in the future is c), but even that is 
EXTREMELY unlikely. Only if the game looked like it was going to die because 
of lack of proposals. Which doesn't seem to be an issue!

 > In the rare event of that happening, that too will have its own
 > self-policing effects, since more than a few players will just vote
 > against all of them in exasperation.

Exactly. That's my point. It is *exasperating* to have to go through forty 
proposals. Whether they pass or not is not the point. Frankly, that itself 
is the problem -- there may be good proposals in those forty, but since I 
don't have the time to adequately consider forty proposals on their own 
merit I would have to vote on them based of the fact that some idiot sent in 
forty proposals.

I prefer to vote based on the merit of the proposal. Proposal Spam forces 
Those Of Us Who Have A Life into voting against or for proposals without 
being able to take appropriate time to debate and consider them effectively. 
Look at how much traffic we generate *with* a cap on proposals already!

The only acceptable bandwidth limitation (IMHO) is that which limits the 
number of proposals. Period.

-I second the Gritter.-

 > The problem with the number-of-proposals limit is it is causing players
 > to submit proposals containing multiple non-interdependent changes that
 > might be adopted on their merits if they could be submitted as separate
 > proposals.

Yup. That's exactly why it's so great. Forces players into submitting 
multiple (to a max of three) short, to-the-point proposals. Since you've 
only got three shots per week, players should put more thought and value 
into those three that you have to use than spamming the game with bunches of 
useless, dumb, ill-considered proposals.

And, best of all, it means there's a cap (number of players * 3) of 
proposals that anyone will have to deal with in a week. It prevents spam! 
Right now, that cap is manageable -- if our player roster doubled and 
everyone was proposing, I might even support *decreasing* the limit from 
three to two.

-We might do that already... The number of messages this game generates are 
enormous!-

 > If you really want a limit on number of proposals as well, what about a
 > 10-prop-per-nweek limit, plus the 6000-char. limit?

Character limits are an ineffective idea. First, it's damn hard to track and 
a burden on the admin. And it's a de facto limit now...long proposals are 
going to have a tough time passing, as you said yourself.

-Forget it being a burden on the admin, it's a burden on the players. What 
if you have to cut 127 letters, but if you do, the rule falls apart? You're, 
um, what's the word, SCREWED. Especially if it's the only rule you're 
proposing.-

Nope. I *love* 212 as it is now. Anything else just ain't bandwidth 
limitations!

Instead of trying to repeal bandwidth limitations, why don't you use what 
proposals you have more effectively?

-That might also work... but then again, this isn't a game based on 
efficient use of one's time *coughgremlinsscarveskicksintheasscough*, but 
it's a good waste of time...-

--gritter

                                       -Baron von Skippy-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:28:56 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision to 267/0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:44 AM 2002-01-16 -0600, you wrote:
>The act of announcing changes of gender more than twice in an
>nday and/or more than twice in an nweek shall be added to the
>LOGAS.  A player changing eir Gender from Undeclared to any
>declared state counts as a change of gender for this purpose.

I like this proposal a lot.  As the self-proclaimed Nitpicking King, 
however, I must suggest that you move this bit our of the rule, and make it 
a third action in your proposal (along with the rule creation and 
modification).  Just makes it more concise.

(Hey, if anyone has a spare proposal and wants to propose to give me the 
Title "Nitpicking King" or "Moron", I'd entreat that and vote in favour!!! 
- I am planning to use three proposals this week.... though  maybe getting 
that Moron title is more important than the other rule change I was going 
to make)

Bean

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:14:34 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: N Heads are
  Better Than 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/15/02 at 7:18 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>Woah...
>
>This is a vague and dangerous proposal in its current form.  While I 
>half-agree with the spirit behind this proposal, I'm not at all confident 
>with the execution.  With this, 2 players could team up to completely 
>circumvent the Bandwidth Rationing process.  Not to mention, a rule which 
>did the same thing as bandwidth rationing, but not named "Bandwidth 
>Rationing" could possibly circumvent this entirely...
>
>Perhaps adding something akin to the following would work:  "The unordered 
>set containing the player names in <namelist> is known as the Team 
>submitting the proposal.  Each Team may only submit one Team Proposal per 
>nweek."  That way, you would have to have different teams for each team 
>proposal, makes it harder to spam the system.  I'm still not sure if I
>like 
>that (creates a whole "alliances" aspect to the game), but that would make 
>the proposal much better.
>
>I would also suggest changing: "Team Proposals are not subject to
>Bandwidth 
>Rationing." to something akin to "If there is any restriction on the
>number 
>or size of proposals submitted by one player, Team Proposals do not count 
>towards that restriction", that way it qualifies for any current or future 
>rationing.
>
>Bean

Thanks, Bean.  I was a little tired when I typed this up.  I'll re-qualify the exemption.

Yes, it's possible for two players to get together to spam the ballot, except for a couple things:

1. The player posting the proposals is taking an awful risk, since his name is the only one with any sort of acknowledgment attached to the proposal.  Suppose, for example, Wonko offers to let me be his teammate for his current barrage of 50-some proposals, and I agree.  Whereupon he submits his proposals with his and my name on them.  If I, through omission or commission, fail to get my acknowledgment in for each of those proposals, they collectively cost Wonko at least 50-some points.

2. The player agreeing to co-sign the proposals is taking a lesser, though still significant, risk, because if the player community decides the posting player is spamming and boycotts him wholesale, the co-signer will suffer too.

3. Even if you limit it to one Team Proposal per Team per nweek, that still means a given player can team up with each of all the other players for the sake of one Team Proposal per.  As of the current count, isn't that around 14 proposals on top of their normal 3?

I forget who it was who said bandwidth rationing would foster cooperation as people try to do more with less, but I'd think that'd be accomplished by forcing them to work together to accomplish more.

Still, if you're that concerned about giving any given team free rein, how about this:

"For a given *namelist* set of players, the number of Team Proposals that can be submitted is ((number of players in *namelist*) - 1)/nweek."

That way, the larger the number of people who get together to submit proposals is, the more proposals they can submit.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:30:20 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justice reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:22:07PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> Proposal #1:
> {{
> __You Break the Law, You Pay the Price__
> 
> Revise Rule 10 to read:
> 
> {{
> __Follow The Rules__
> 
> All game entities, except Players, must always abide by all the Rules then 
> in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.  Players may make 
> actions which are against the rules, however these actions are known as 
> Illegal.  This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.
> 
> }}
> 
> [[ This must be done to get over the "mass-hallucination" effect. ]]
> 
> Revise Rule 126 to read:

You don't mess with Rule 10. Let me demonstrate what you just made
possible.

"I abolish Rule 126, illegally."
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Moderation among the justice reform
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:12:40 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19F58.A4210390
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

[pragmatist version (i.e., bad and wrong one)]

> If the CFJ concerns a matter of correctness of the rules or game state, a 
> Judge may issue a minimum number of Judicial Orders required to bring the 
> rules or game state to their correct representation. [[If a player
believes 
> a judge oversteps eir bounds, well, it was an Illegal action.]]
>
This is broken. Judicial orders: 1 - create a rule allowing me dictatorial
powers, and 2 - repeal the CFJ rules. Illegal? Perhaps. Fixable? Not really.

[Platonist version (i.e., good and right one)]

> If a player believes that any action taken by any entity was against the 
> rules, or that the recorded or assumed game state (including but not 
> limited to revisable objects, entities including eir attributes, and 
> players and eir attributes) is not in accordance with the actual game
state 
> as prescribed by the rules, e may issue a Call For Inquiry (CFI, or for 
> historical [[and Roman]] reference, CFJ).
>
"If a player has any question or complaint regarding the rules or their
application, e may...".
Simpler, more general, still covers game state (which is (the result of) the
application of the rules).

> 2. True: The Statement is true.
> 3. False: The Statement is false.
> 4. Undecided: It cannot be determined at the time of the Resolution
whether 
> the Statement is true or false.
>
Not "at the time of the Resolution". "It cannot be determined whether the
statement was true or false at the time of its submission." (if a proosal
fixing something passes in the meantime, it'd be good to still have the
precedent set as to the actual situation). And that should apply to all the
verdicts, not just "undecided".

> The Interpretation of the Resolution is the reasoning that the Arbiter
used 
> to arrive at the Resolution, and must be a direct interpretation of the 
> rules.
>
"...interpreted according to currently existing game custom and precedent."

> If the Resolution is "True", and the recorded game state is not in 
> accordance with the Statement, then the Adminstrator must correct the 
> recorded game state so that it reflects the Statement.  An Arbiter may 
> recommend a possible way to do this as part of eir Resolution.
>
I still think this is ugly and unnecessary, and that it would be better to
leave all the "recorded game state" stuff out. But I don't think it's
harmful or broken, so I'll still vote for the proosal with it in.

> There is more cleaning up to do with the second proposal if the
temrinology 
> is acceptable.  Otherwise I'll just revert it to "Judge"-whatever.
>
I don't think there's any need to introduce new terminology; it's just added
confusion, really, and if it needs cleaning up, then it's probably not worth
the effort.

> Now, I'm not trying to make one proposal better than the other.  So if you

> see problems with either of these (other than fundamental philosophical 
> ones) let me know, and I'll fit it in.
>
"other than fundamental philosophical ones"??? This is *nomic*! It's pretty
much applied philosophy; fundamental philosophical issues are pragmatic
concerns.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19F58.A4210390
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19F58.A4210390--

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:22:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justice reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:22 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay everyone, I'm getting the feeling that there are two distinct camps 
>among the justice reformers.  As I see it, those are:
>
>a) Players may do whatever they want, things that have happened have 
>happened and cannot be reversed.
>b) Players may attempt to do whatever they want, but an action which is 
>against the rules is not allowed to occur.

Hello? You're missing the actual situation:

c) Players may do or attempt whatever they want, but an action which is 
against the rules can be reversed or allowed to occur.

I think you believe this is the "mass-hallucination" effect that needs to 
be gotten over, but your "mass-hallucination" is a hallucination itself, 
dude. No such thing.

That concept is your stumbling block and is echoed here in the Writings of 
Uncle Psychosis (with which you expressed agreement):

      "In most cases, it's impossible to disobey the law; nomic laws aren't 
like
      legal laws, they're more akin to physical laws."

Which, to put it simply, is utter and complete nonsense.

The rules of the game are just that: rules. NOT physical laws. A rule is "a 
prescribed guide for conduct or behavior" (c.f. http://www.m-w.com). It 
*guides* actions, it does not *limit* actions in the fashion that the "laws 
of physics" do. This is the key distinction between a rule or a law that 
can be violated and an inviolable "law of physics."

The laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive. The describe a 
situation instead of guiding actions within a certain situation.

Physical laws might appear to be violated, e.g. hundreds of years ago it 
was assumed the physical law mean the sun revolved around the earth. That 
the earth revolves around the sun doesn't mean that law was violated, but 
that silly imperfect humans had failed to develop an accurate description 
of the physical law. The physical law doesn't change...our description of 
it changes to adjust to our increasing knowledge about the physical law. 
Which is almost the reverse of prescriptive law. When we discover a 
violation of prescriptive law we don't adjust the law to accommodate the 
violation ("Oh, wait, you mean cars can be stolen?!? Oh, crap, someone get 
the Legislature on the horn, we need to adjust that law!"); we adjust the 
violator to be in compliance with the law and/or the prescribed 
consequences of violating the law ("Here's a nice new prison cell for you. 
Adjust to it.").

You can disobey prescriptive rules and laws all you want. Walk to the 
corner and steal a car. You've just disobeyed a law (the legal kind). 
Post  40 proposals in one nweek. You've just disobeyed a B Nomic rule. Try 
to violate the "law of gravity" though and you'll find yourself in a pickle.

If Nomic laws were like physical laws, then there would be no need for a 
judicial system. You can't disobey laws of physics, so we don't have courts 
to prosecute violations of the laws of physics, right? (E.g. "Excuse me, 
Mr. Bean? Yes, would you kindly stop floating in mid-air. We need to take 
you into custody for violating the Law of Gravity.") The reason we have 
judges and courts to interpret and adjudicate laws and Nomic rules is 
because Nomic rules (prescriptive) are NOT AT ALL like laws of physics 
(descriptive).

As long as you insist on treating prescriptive Nomic rules as if they are 
descriptive physical law, then you're going to ultimately fail in any 
judicial reform because, by its very nature, physical laws *don't need* 
judicial forces to determine if they've been violated.

Nomic rules, however, are not inviolable. If you attempt to create a 
judicial system that treats Nomic rules as if they are inviolable, though, 
then you're dooming that system because, since because a violation of an 
inviolable law can't "exist," the inevitable violations will only be 
interpretable as "mass hallucinations" (e.g. Boy: "Hey, Ma, that man is 
flying." Mother: "Shut up, Bean. A flying man would be a violation of the 
laws of physics. Clearly, you've been hallucinating." or Boy: "Hey, Ma, 
that man posted 40 proposals." Mother: ""Shut up, Bean. Forty proposals 
would be a violation of the rules of Nomic. Clearly, you've been 
hallucinating."

Accepting that Nomic rules can be violated, then the purpose of a judicial 
system (in real life or in Nomic) is to determine if a rule has been 
disobeyed, and, if so, what the consequences of disobeying should be.

Sometimes that consequence means reversing actions (e.g. "Here's your car 
back, Mrs. Jones! It was only stolen by someone breaking the law, not 
actually erased from existence like we originally thought when it 
disappeared in the middle of the night! Imagine that!).

In fairness, that also means that sometimes illegal actions are allowed to 
occur without consequence (e.g. "We know you stole Mrs. Jones car 72 years 
ago, you thief. But the car has long since been compacted, melted down, and 
turned into belt buckles and the statute of limitations passed 65 years 
ago, so there's nothing we can do to you, you lucky bastard. And don't 
think we pity you because of the ventilator!)

In this approach, appeals, statutes of limitations, reparations, changes 
(e.g. discounting the last 37 of the 40 proposed rule changes) etc. are not 
logically inconsistent, i.e. do not result in "mass hallucinations." They 
might be complex and uncomfortable and hard to work with, but they are not 
hallucinations. And hallucinations are MORE complex, uncomfortable, and 
harder to work with!

--gritter

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justi
	ce reform
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:19:32 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justice reform</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">You don't mess with Rule 10. Let me demonstrate what you just made</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">possible.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&quot;I abolish Rule 126, illegally.&quot;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">That's pretty much the problem with the whole pragmatist approach to the CFJ system.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Contrast it with our current, Platonist, system, where we can repeal rule 10 with no ill effects (proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader, or me later when I have more time). In fact, I think in many ways we'd be better off without it, because it claims powers it simply cannot have.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Admittedly, abolishing r126 illegally possible at the moment if no one CFJs you, but I think my soon-to-be-submitted proosal to replace the statute fixes that.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Repeal rule 10!</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:31:33 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the
  justi ce reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:19 PM 1/17/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Contrast it with our current, Platonist, system, where we can repeal rule 
>10 with no ill effects (proof of this is left as an exercise for the 
>reader, or me later when I have more time). In fact, I think in many ways 
>we'd be better off without it, because it claims powers it simply cannot have.

There is nothing inherently Platonist about the current ruleset.

Rule 10 only "claims powers it simply cannot have" if you view it from a 
Platonist perspective.

 From the pragmatic viewpoint, it causes no problems because rules are 
prescriptive, not descriptive. In fact, in this view, Rule 10 becomes the 
cornerstone for a judicial system because it is the prescription from which 
the need for further interpretation of rules springs.

Didn't platonism go out with the Ancient Greeks? You are so friggin' passe. 
Someone pass that boy a stylish pink scarf.

Yay Pragmatism!

--gritter

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justi
	ce reform
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:24:17 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19F6B.073A8FC0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Didn't platonism go out with the Ancient Greeks? 
>
As a view of real life, perhaps. As a view of nomic? No. It's a good idea
not to confuse the two. ;-)

Platonism is pretty much a standard nomic viewpoint, largely because it just
makes a lot more sense (for nomic). I'm not just making this stuff up as I
go along; it's a shoulders-of-giants thing.

Our rules *are* like inviolable laws of physics; rule 152 ensures that. In
fact, the analogy (although remember that analogy != identity)  with
physical laws works well - the rules completely define the behaviour of
everything *within the universe*. The universe, in this case, is the game
state. Rule 10 is unnecessary because any entity defined solely by the rules
cannot help but obey them, and players can't be made to do so (because we
come from outside the universe of the rules). I can post English messages to
public fora even with the sushi, or post 40 proosals, for example, and
nothing can stop me. If I do, though, r152 kicks in, and any such actions I
attempt never take place *within the game universe* because the rules don't
permit them.

You miss the point of the CFJ system. Yes, physical laws don't need courts
to enforce them; that's not what the CFJ system does. It simply lets *us*
know what has happened. We're chained up in the cave, looking at the shadows
on the wall. Our records of the rules and gamestate are the shadows; the
actual rules and gamestate are what cast the shadows; and the CFJ system is
just what we use to interpret the shadows. Exactly as you describe - the
physicals laws are just *there*, but our approximations to them sometimes
have to be updated to reflect them better.

The only problem with the Platonist interpretation is that it can lead to
having to recalculate months worth of game if you miss an error in our view
of the game for a long time, and that's what the statute of limitations is
for.

Platonism is more elegant, and much, much cooler.

uin.
Repeal rule 10!

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19F6B.073A8FC0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C19F6B.073A8FC0--

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:52:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justice
 reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Greg Ritter wrote:

> At 11:22 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Okay everyone, I'm getting the feeling that there are two distinct camps 
> >among the justice reformers.  As I see it, those are:
> >
> >a) Players may do whatever they want, things that have happened have 
> >happened and cannot be reversed.
> >b) Players may attempt to do whatever they want, but an action which is 
> >against the rules is not allowed to occur.
> 
> Hello? You're missing the actual situation:
> 
> c) Players may do or attempt whatever they want, but an action which is 
> against the rules can be reversed or allowed to occur.
> 
> I think you believe this is the "mass-hallucination" effect that needs to 
> be gotten over, but your "mass-hallucination" is a hallucination itself, 
> dude. No such thing.

Okay, "mass-hallucination" was a term I used for simplicity.  It was a bad
one... and I'm hoping we can move away from it... more to follow (details
at 11!)
 
> That concept is your stumbling block and is echoed here in the Writings of 
> Uncle Psychosis (with which you expressed agreement):
> 
>       "In most cases, it's impossible to disobey the law; nomic laws aren't 
> like
>       legal laws, they're more akin to physical laws."
> 
> Which, to put it simply, is utter and complete nonsense.
> 
> The rules of the game are just that: rules. NOT physical laws. A rule is "a 
> prescribed guide for conduct or behavior" (c.f. http://www.m-w.com). It 
> *guides* actions, it does not *limit* actions in the fashion that the "laws 
> of physics" do. This is the key distinction between a rule or a law that 
> can be violated and an inviolable "law of physics."

Well, the problem with your argument is that Nomic is a self-describing,
closed system.  Being as that is the case, and rule 10 says that we have
to *always* perform conduct in accordance with the rules, no, you can
never violate the rules.

Your "flying man" example later does make a point, but I will show that
the analogy isn't as good as another.

> <snip>
>
> You can disobey prescriptive rules and laws all you want. Walk to the 
> corner and steal a car. You've just disobeyed a law (the legal kind). 
> Post  40 proposals in one nweek. You've just disobeyed a B Nomic rule. Try 
> to violate the "law of gravity" though and you'll find yourself in a pickle.

Here's the rub:  If you make 40 proposals in one week, only the first
three "exist" as proposals (under current ruleset).  The rest were just
noise in the public forum.
 
> <snip - to be pasted back later>
>
> As long as you insist on treating prescriptive Nomic rules as if they are 
> descriptive physical law, then you're going to ultimately fail in any 
> judicial reform because, by its very nature, physical laws *don't need* 
> judicial forces to determine if they've been violated.
> 
> Nomic rules, however, are not inviolable. If you attempt to create a 
> judicial system that treats Nomic rules as if they are inviolable, though, 
> then you're dooming that system because, since because a violation of an 
> inviolable law can't "exist," the inevitable violations will only be 
> interpretable as "mass hallucinations" (e.g. Boy: "Hey, Ma, that man is 
> flying." Mother: "Shut up, Bean. A flying man would be a violation of the 
> laws of physics. Clearly, you've been hallucinating." or Boy: "Hey, Ma, 
> that man posted 40 proposals." Mother: ""Shut up, Bean. Forty proposals 
> would be a violation of the rules of Nomic. Clearly, you've been 
> hallucinating."

But here's the difference:  we can't *see* what is happening in the little
Nomic world we've created.  The conversation should read more like:

Boy: "Hey, Ma, that man said he posted 40 proposals."
Mother: "Silly, Bean. Forty proposals would be a violation of the rules of
Nomic. Clearly, e has lied to you."

That is the big difference.  You can *say* you do whatever you want, but
what you actually *do* is regulated by the rules... you can lie about what
you're doing, but if the rules don't allow it, it doesn't happen.  If you
manage to dope all the players and the administrator into believeing you,
well done.  But you never really did it...

> If Nomic laws were like physical laws, then there would be no need for a 
> judicial system. You can't disobey laws of physics, so we don't have courts 
> to prosecute violations of the laws of physics, right? (E.g. "Excuse me, 
> Mr. Bean? Yes, would you kindly stop floating in mid-air. We need to take 
> you into custody for violating the Law of Gravity.") The reason we have 
> judges and courts to interpret and adjudicate laws and Nomic rules is 
> because Nomic rules (prescriptive) are NOT AT ALL like laws of physics 
> (descriptive).

We need a judicial system to weed out the liars and interpret the laws.
The rules are not 100% clear.  Sometimes you might lie about making an
action without even knowing it (you thought it was okay!).  And so someone
has to call you on it so we're all clear.

This isn't a physical world.  It's a rhetorical world.  We need to think
of things in terms of rhetoric, not physics.

> <snip>
> 
> In this approach, appeals, statutes of limitations, reparations, changes 
> (e.g. discounting the last 37 of the 40 proposed rule changes) etc. are not 
> logically inconsistent, i.e. do not result in "mass hallucinations."

Never said they did.  Statutes of limitations make the game *much* easier
to play, because they make any reported action actually true after one
nweek.  I'm actually 100% pro appeals as well (in one form or another).

> They 
> might be complex and uncomfortable and hard to work with, but they are not 
> hallucinations. And hallucinations are MORE complex, uncomfortable, and 
> harder to work with!

They're harder to work with because by allowing any action you're making
the game unnecessarily complex.  Rob "Plunder" Speer demonstrated that
perfectly.  I don't think I can do a better job.  However, I am optimistic
that the first proposal can be fixed so that stuff like that can't happen.

Now, the original reason I made the two proposals was to try to make
consistent rulesets for the two modes of thought.  Maybe none of them will
pass, maybe one will pass, maybe both will pass (I'm going to revise to
make sure that this doesn't cause problems).  I wanted to avoid this
philosophical debate, and see what "the masses" thought of both ideas.

Our current judicial system is broken.  I want to fix it in a democratic
way.  So, please give input to the proposals... and we'll let the masses
decide.

Bean

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Moderation among the justice reform
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:35:08 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:22:06 -0500, Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>At 11:22 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>Okay everyone, I'm getting the feeling that there are two distinct camps 
>>among the justice reformers.  As I see it, those are:
>>
>>a) Players may do whatever they want, things that have happened have 
>>happened and cannot be reversed.
>>b) Players may attempt to do whatever they want, but an action which is 
>>against the rules is not allowed to occur.
>
>Hello? You're missing the actual situation:
>
>c) Players may do or attempt whatever they want, but an action which is 
>against the rules can be reversed or allowed to occur.
>
>I think you believe this is the "mass-hallucination" effect that needs to 
>be gotten over, but your "mass-hallucination" is a hallucination itself, 
>dude. No such thing.
>
>That concept is your stumbling block and is echoed here in the Writings of 
>Uncle Psychosis (with which you expressed agreement):
>
>      "In most cases, it's impossible to disobey the law; nomic laws aren't 
>like
>      legal laws, they're more akin to physical laws."
>
>Which, to put it simply, is utter and complete nonsense.
>
>The rules of the game are just that: rules. NOT physical laws. A rule is "a 
>prescribed guide for conduct or behavior" (c.f. http://www.m-w.com). It 
>*guides* actions, it does not *limit* actions in the fashion that the "laws 
>of physics" do. This is the key distinction between a rule or a law that 
>can be violated and an inviolable "law of physics."
>

I belive there's a stardard response for this argument:
Consider the game of chess, it has a set of rules.
When playing chess nothing physically prohibits you to move your pawn two
squares to the side, but if you do, then you're not playing chess, you are
rather playing some other game (or you are cheating).
Nomic is a game. Even if there was no "follow the rules" you still must
follow the rules as you have accepted them implicitly simply by accepting
to play the game.
The rules of a game *are* physical laws as long as you play that game,
since a game is defined by it's rules in the same way that the
world/reality/whatever is defined by it's physical laws.

You say:"Players may do or attempt whatever they want, but an action which
is against the rules can be reversed or allowed to occur."
and this is true, it is inherent in any selfmodifying game such as B Nomic.
It is not true because game rules are "a prescribed guide for conduct or
behavior", it is true because you can modify the rules themselves.

-- 
Antonio

_________________________________________________________
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: Moderation among the justice reform
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:35:34 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:22:07 -0500, Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>(These are very much first versions... long way to go... hope to make 1+ 
>revisions daily.... comment!  Comment lots!  Be criticizing!  But please be 
>constructive in your criticism!)
>
ok now for the constructive criticism
>
>If the Administrator has been named as the Defendant in a CFJ, e may not 
>select a judge.  Instead, that duty falls to the player with the highest Score.
>}}
>
this is a abusable:
suppose I am the player with the highest score and I submit a CFJ naming
the Administrator as Defendant.
I'd get to judge my own CFJ
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:53:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Moderation among the justice reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Antonio wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:22:07 -0500, Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> 
> >If the Administrator has been named as the Defendant in a CFJ, e may not 
> >select a judge.  Instead, that duty falls to the player with the highest Score.
> >}}
> >
> this is a abusable:
> suppose I am the player with the highest score and I submit a CFJ naming
> the Administrator as Defendant.
> I'd get to judge my own CFJ

Anything is abusable, but in this case I think the the task which falls
to the player with the highest score is the task of randomly selecting a
judge _from the eligable players_, and the player who submited a CFJ is
inelegible to be selected to judge it. Or at least that would be my
analysis, where I called to Judge a CFJ.

chers,
Iain 

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:09:52 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/17/02 at 4:44 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

><proosal>
><title>The dust you seldom see.</title>
><body>
>Amend rule 129 by replacing the current text with the following
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE-delimited text:
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE
>2 Nweeks after the Administrator, in a Public Forum, makes any statement
>about the rules or game state, the rules and gamestate shall be altered to
>reflect that statement, unless in the intervening time any player objects
>to
>the statement in a Public Forum, in which case the usual methods for
>determining the current rules and game state shall apply.
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE
>[[Kinder, gentler, more seductive.]]
></body>
></proosal>
>
>This should mean that player actions don't automatically get made legal
>(for
>example, if I hide a statement saying I'm awarded a win inside a long
>message and no one notices it) unless the Admin acks them in his daily
>recogniser mail. It also ups the time to 2 NWeeks, which gives us more time
>to notice problems. The "usual methods" part is deliberately vague to allow
>us to use CFJs, or just to arrive at a consensus. It only takes one player
>to stop the auto-legalisation, but one player can't just block things,
>because the standard methods will apply, and it should prevent the Admin
>from being able to abuse this, because we'd all need to let him for it to
>work.
>
>Although if (when) we do end up breaking the proosal mechanism, this would
>allow the admin to change things to fix it, by our unanimous consent.
>
>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

Er.  Let me get this straight.

It is Nweek X.  The Administrator reads off the scores following the previous voting session.

At the beginning of Nweek X+2, the game state is altered to the game state stated by the Administrator in Nweek X, thereby rendering everyone's score to be that which the Administrator said it was two Nweeks ago, as opposed to whatever it should be as a result of the voting session from Nweek X+1.

And this is desirable why?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:02:50 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Moderation among the justi ce reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:24:17PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
> Our rules *are* like inviolable laws of physics; rule 152 ensures that. In
> fact, the analogy (although remember that analogy != identity)  with
> physical laws works well - the rules completely define the behaviour of
> everything *within the universe*. The universe, in this case, is the game
> state. Rule 10 is unnecessary because any entity defined solely by the rules
> cannot help but obey them, and players can't be made to do so (because we
> come from outside the universe of the rules). I can post English messages to
> public fora even with the sushi, or post 40 proosals, for example, and
> nothing can stop me. If I do, though, r152 kicks in, and any such actions I
> attempt never take place *within the game universe* because the rules don't
> permit them.

Thith is athounding. For wonth I agree completely with uin.

-- 
Rob Thpeer

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:30:35 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: die-rolling
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is a thought for a side issue, especially seeing as how we have an Administrator with an itch to write code:

There is a website that concentrates on play by mail (and nowadays play by email) games that features a mail-based die roller: you send email to a certain address that includes the number of dice and the number of sides and who-all you want to see the results, and the server generates a die roll and sends email to the intended recipients.  Nice, impartial, fair and good for both public and private mailing lists.

Now, not to say that anyone would ever cheat in a game of Nomic on such a thing as a die roll, but we're talking in various instances of having a player randomly select a judge if the Administrator is the defendant.  In such a case, wouldn't it be handy to have something that could send a die roll to spoon-business?  I'd add a comment to the things sent to the server, so that it can be seen exactly what the die roll is in regards to.  Even the Administrator could use such a thing, pain in the prostate though it may be.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:24:04 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Moderation among the
  justice reform
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:12 PM 2002-01-17 +0000, you wrote:
><snip>

I believe I fixed all the above concerns in my revision...

> > Now, I'm not trying to make one proposal better than the other.  So if you
>
> > see problems with either of these (other than fundamental philosophical
> > ones) let me know, and I'll fit it in.
> >
>"other than fundamental philosophical ones"??? This is *nomic*! It's pretty
>much applied philosophy; fundamental philosophical issues are pragmatic
>concerns.

Okay, true.  But what I *meant* was that I don't want to hear too many 
complaints about the fundamental philosophies behind the two proposals, 
just complaints about the icky details.  That sentiment seems to have been 
lost in the shuffle though.  Oh well.

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:30:57 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revisions to my proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 08:23 PM 2002-01-17 -0500, you wrote:
>Proposal 275 has gotten a lot of flack, but very little constructive 
>criticism.

I was just thinking about this.... if no-one is going to vote for this (as 
it has gotten a lot of flack, it is not an unfounded assumption), I'll 
magically turn it into another completely different and more useful 
proposal (such as giving me that ever-sought-after "Moron" title).  Is 
anyone going to vote in favour?

Bean

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revisions to my proposals
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:17:46 -0000
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: Revisions to my proposals</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The Analysis of the Judgement is the reasoning that the Judge used to </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">arrive at the Judgement, and must be a direct interpretation of the rules. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I still think this should take into account game custom and precedence. Is that an oversight, or do you disagree?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:31:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bean and the LON
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Tyler Crosby wrote:
> Also, Bean recieves the title, "Nitpicking King of Morons".
> [[There you go, old chap.]]

Sweet!  I was just going to make a "Moron" proposal at the last minute...
but Nitpicking King _OF_ Morons??  That rocks!

Maybe I can give people the title Moron now and then I'll be able to say:
"We're all Morons; and I am your king!" (stolen from Monty Python's Quest
for the Holy Grail)

Hee hee!

Bean

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:49:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> <proosal>
> <title>Walk unafraid.</title>
> <body>
> Repeal rule 10.
> </body>
> <proosal>

I hate to say it, but even though it may seem redundant, I'm scared to
repeal Rule 10.  It just seems like a good thing to have written down
*somewhere* and it will protect us if some loophole allows someone do
break the rules somehow.  It's not doing any harm, is it?

If there is a reason it *is* doing harm... I'd like to hear it.

Bean

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:56:16 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A038.A9B99890
Content-Type: text/plain

> If there is a reason it *is* doing harm... I'd like to hear it.
>
I just think it'd be cool not to have it. ;-)

I'm not expecting that proosal to pass; probably only I'll vote for it, and
I'll revise it if I think of something better to proose.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A038.A9B99890
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A038.A9B99890--

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: CFJ
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:49:18 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A040.123E2BE0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Uncle Psychosis's did not succeed in giving gritter 3 points.

What a badly written sentence. I changed the phrasing halfway through
writing it, but obviously didn't make a particularly good job of it.

D'oh!

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A040.123E2BE0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A040.123E2BE0--

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Numbering the monkeys
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:00:15 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A041.99E45140
Content-Type: text/plain

Mr Admin, just how attached are you to your current rule-numbering "system"?
I'd like to renumber them so there's some semblance of sense there - all the
dimensions together, all the proosal rules together, and so on. If that's
going to cause huge problems for you, though, then I... won't.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A041.99E45140
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A041.99E45140--

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: Numbering the monkeys
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:04:58 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Since the numbering system factors into rule precedence, it's probably a
bad idea to fiddle with it.

However, there's no reason we can't also create another page that lists
the rules categorically instead of in numerical order.

--Scoff!

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	[email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]  On Behalf Of Doig, Gavin
> Sent:	Friday, January 18, 2002 11:00 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Numbering the monkeys
> 
> Mr Admin, just how attached are you to your current 
> rule-numbering "system"? I'd like to renumber them so there's 
> some semblance of sense there - all the dimensions together, 
> all the proosal rules together, and so on. If that's going to 
> cause huge problems for you, though, then I... won't.
> 
> 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, 18 Jan 2002 12:08:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revisions to my proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Doig, Gavin wrote:

> 
> > The Analysis of the Judgement is the reasoning that the Judge used to
> > arrive at the Judgement, and must be a direct interpretation of the
> rules.
> 
> I still think this should take into account game custom and precedence.
> Is that an oversight, or do you disagree?

I'll add precedent (that was an unintentional omission).... but the more I
think about it, the more I don't want to use the phrase "game custom".  Do
you think that's a problem?

Bean

From: =?us-ascii?Q?Jorg_Rathlev?= <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: zero-based nweek 3 votes
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:31:42 +0100
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > NO
> > (PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS ONE! It might stop the game by putting
> > more than 2/3 of all players on leave, which will stop the clock,
> > which in turn will prevent garbage collection from working!)
> 
> *Thanks* for mentioning that when there was something that could have 
> been done about.  (Note sarcasim)

Yeah, I know. Sorry, but I really didn't notice this before voting.
Unfortunately, I didn't have too much time to play in the last two
weeks :(

Joerg

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:04:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Frieda <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: zero-based nweek 3 votes
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--0-599719924-1011395046=:38249
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 
  Jorg_Rathlev <[email-masked]> wrote: > > NO
> > (PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS ONE! It might stop the game by putting
> > more than 2/3 of all players on leave, which will stop the clock,
> > which in turn will prevent garbage collection from working!)
> 
> *Thanks* for mentioning that when there was something that could have 
> been done about. (Note sarcasim)

Yeah, I know. Sorry, but I really didn't notice this before voting.
Unfortunately, I didn't have too much time to play in the last two
weeks :(

Joerg

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail.
--0-599719924-1011395046=:38249
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P> 
<P>&nbsp; <B><I>Jorg_Rathlev &lt;[email-masked]&gt;</I></B> wrote: 
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">&gt; &gt; NO<BR>&gt; &gt; (PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS ONE! It might stop the game by putting<BR>&gt; &gt; more than 2/3 of all players on leave, which will stop the clock,<BR>&gt; &gt; which in turn will prevent garbage collection from working!)<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; *Thanks* for mentioning that when there was something that could have <BR>&gt; been done about. (Note sarcasim)<BR><BR>Yeah, I know. Sorry, but I really didn't notice this before voting.<BR>Unfortunately, I didn't have too much time to play in the last two<BR>weeks :(<BR><BR><BR>Joerg<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Send FREE <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/">video</a> emails in <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://mail.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Mail</a>.
--0-599719924-1011395046=:38249--

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:37:41 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Revisions to my proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:17:46PM -0000, Doig, Gavin wrote:
[thome html]

You were doing well rethently. Your methages were actually coming as
plaintectht attachmenth, so that they were at least readable as plain
tectht (many clienttht include plaintectht attachmenth in the methage
body). Tho in whatever thircumstanthe it is that forthes you to thend
HTML, could you try attaching your methage as a .txt (pronounthed 'dot
tee ecth tee', of courthe) file? It means I won't have to kick you
again. :)

-- 
Rob Thpeer

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: N Heads are Better Than 1
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:57:42 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Still, if you're that concerned about giving any given team free rein, how 
about this:

"For a given *namelist* set of players, the number of Team Proposals that 
can be submitted is ((number of players in *namelist*) - 1)/nweek."

That way, the larger the number of people who get together to submit 
proposals is, the more proposals they can submit.

						Glotmorf

-No no no! With that rule in place, a player could create teams with
all possible combinations of other players, for a grand total of... well, I 
have no idea how to calculate it, as it happens. Thousands. Now, while 
that's not terribly likely... Well, not from MOST of you... It's still 
dangerous. Limit the number of teams a player may join and the problem goes 
away... mostly.-

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

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revisions to my proposals
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:09:02 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I was just thinking about this.... if no-one is going to vote for this (as
it has gotten a lot of flack, it is not an unfounded assumption), I'll
magically turn it into another completely different and more useful
proposal (such as giving me that ever-sought-after "Moron" title).  Is
anyone going to vote in favour?

Bean

-Would I vote for you wanting to be called "Moron?" *chuckles* Well, I'm 
always up for helping people in that regard... Go for it.-

                                      -Baron von Skippy-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:37:45 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re-:  Bandwidth Gremlin  
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Problem, or it thinks to the Gremlin. When to the bow which low-end scores
most zero charm or there is negation activity, it appears (to be doing first
all. The male who dies score) the gremlin anything absolutely, theyn the
place. When to the each gremlin be active and, there is a situation which it
hides, only there will be a fun and it manufactures good idea, one theyn
place thing and, I think the thing. Last, " one second why Oh ni multi
something to say " as soon as " in substitution with the enemy afterwords "?
It was satisfied e more swip and aesthetically.
-- 
Wonko 
Recruit today night it feels

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:42:04 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ruling: CFJ272
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:02:16PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> CFJ 272 (Judge: Baron von Skippy)
> CFJ by Bean
> 
> Non-player entities are allowed to vote.
> 
> Analysis: The ruling on CFJ 251 specifies that "No rule specifies how a
> non-player entity should vote." Thus there is no rule forbidding the voting 
> of non-player entities. Thus by Rule 18, they may.

I didn't even notithe thith ÞFJ.

The proponent could have quoted my whole analythith, as I had already
thtated why I believed Rule 18 didn't apply - voting is regulated by the
rules.

I really don't think Rule 18, or its equivalent in other rulethetth, was
meant to be a blanket "do whatever the heck you want unleth ith nailed
down really hard" clause. Thith is the firtht Nomic where I've theen
thuch a liberal interpretation.

Although ith not a proposal, I declare TheeEffJay 272 to be in Bad Thtyle.
-- 
Rob Thpeer

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:59:47 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Last shape of administration of justice reform
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It follows with solution this it is most simple in problem of the
administration of justice system together all, it is visible in in me,: One
triumph illegality which demands an activity excepts all and for a judgement
it shouts and and that the map which it will not publish it does not know
manufacture the rule in effect. When the activity is declaration grudge
illegal going straight judgement, it effect all it shouts with won condition
for a publication it excepts, it turns. This shouts ' control ' to eliminate
a possibility, for an illegal activity but in order convenience the
supressed it permits. This I believe it will repair the swallow of this
problem.
-- 
Wonko 
Recruit today night it feels

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: hmm...
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:56:07 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think, but I'm not sure, that Wonko tried to declare himself "off 
leave"... (korean does some nasty schtuff...)  I also think he was saying 
something about how it wouldn't work if you had the sushi and the scarf at 
the same time.  I can foresee how lisping through Babel Fish would cause 
problems...

-0-Thus Spake The Voice-0-
P.S.  When it is convienient, you can drop the article in my name and just 
call me Voice.

_________________________________________________________________
Discutez en ligne avec vos amis, essayez MSN Messenger : 
http://messenger.msn.fr

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:12:19 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: hmm...
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 In 1/18/02 11:56 PM, the Tyler Crosby wrote in the
[email-masked],: Wonko
> permission "... " It fell and it tried the declaration one thing,
>
> I think, I am not but positively, (a Korean el E for the schtuff which is
unpleasant... When do) to you in the sushi and the scarf will not work
> identical poem between are, theyn the place it peels and as him regarding
> silence under language I and think that it is. Me in Babel fish lisping
> problem...
> Will become the like that cause, theyn the place it peels and as it will be
able to foresee.

This hits. 

I agree. 

This is vivid. 

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:33:16 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Needs for Gritters 250/0 for saying ' provide the following
	directive ',
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

'The Gritter's 250/0 necessity which talks after creating, the rule which
comes'

-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:13:10 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: hmm...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/18/02 at 11:56 PM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>I think, but I'm not sure, that Wonko tried to declare himself "off 
>leave"... (korean does some nasty schtuff...)  I also think he was saying 
>something about how it wouldn't work if you had the sushi and the scarf at 
>the same time.  I can foresee how lisping through Babel Fish would cause 
>problems...
>
>-0-Thus Spake The Voice-0-
>P.S.  When it is convienient, you can drop the article in my name and just 
>call me Voice.

Actually, lisping might foil the babelfish, as it tends to relay words it can't understand.

Which of course doesn't mean we can understand them any better...

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:41:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: N Heads are
  Better Than 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:57 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>all possible combinations of other players, for a grand total of... well, 
>I have no idea how to calculate it, as it happens. Thousands. Now, while 
>that's not terribly likely... Well, not from MOST of you... It's still 
>dangerous. Limit the number of teams a player may join and the problem 
>goes away... mostly.-

Limit the number of proposals a team can submit and the problem goes away 
entirely.

I won't vote for a rule that circumvents bandwidth limitations.

--gritter

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:50:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Needs for Gritters 250/0 for saying '
  provide the following directive ',
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Boy, I wish I had a clue what he was saying about my proposal.

Can anybody translate this Sushi-speak? Something about the Immunity Idol 
in my proposal speaking, I think, but that's as much as I can get out of it.

--gritter

At 09:33 AM 1/19/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>'The Gritter's 250/0 necessity which talks after creating, the rule which
>comes'
>
>--
>Wonko

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:42:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 277/1 ("The dust you seldom see") passes and 
Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 279 ("Walk unafraid") fails in repealing Rule 10, 
Uncle Psychosis will have created a paradox because both Rule 10 and the 
rule resulting from Proposal 227 will declare that "This rule takes 
precedence over all other rules."

No two rules can simultaneously take precedence over each other.

--gritter

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:57:15 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: Generous Gremlins!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I like this proposal. This is so far the only attempt to circumvent 
bandwidth limitatoins that receives my Personal Stamp of Approval.

I would caution against having something occur "one second after" an 
action, though, as someone is likely to attempt to take advantage of that 
one second gap. You might get around it by using the term "automatically" 
or "immediately" and/or by putting a limitation on the transfer of the 
Token of Proposals, such as "The Token may only be transferred to a player 
or taken from a player by a means prescribed by this or another rule."

I'd also prefer to see the Token awarded for something other than just 
having the lowest score in order to make it something Players can compete 
for. For example, using the lowest score as the measurement for award means 
that the Token is almost always going to go to either the newest or least 
active Player. You might set a criteria like:

"At the beginning of each nweek, the Bandwidth Gremlin gives what is known 
as the 'Token of Proposals' to the player who received the most YES votes 
on all of eir proposals on the previous nweek's ballot."

That way the Token is being awarded to someone who has a proven ability to 
create proposals that the rest of the players think are good. You would 
also probably have to set some kind of tie-breaker so if two players 
received equivalent YES votes the previous nweek, you can break the tie. In 
that case, I think lowest score would be a good tiebreaker among that group 
of players, so as to give the successful Proposer who might be behind in 
points the ability to catch up.

--gritter

At 06:21 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>{{
>Proposal: _Generous Gremlins!_
>
>Create a new rule entitled _Bandwidth Gremlin_ with the following -0- 
>delimited text:
>
>-0-
>There exists a gremlin known as the Bandwidth Gremlin.  At the beginning 
>of each nweek, if the Bandwidth Gremlin is Active, the Bandwidth Gremlin 
>gives what is known as the "Token of Proposals" to the player who has the 
>lowest score.  The player who holds the Token of Proposals may make one 
>more proposal than is allowed under the current ruleset.  One second after 
>eir extra proposal is recognized by the Administrator, the Token of 
>Proposals is automatically returned to the Bandwidth Gremlin.  If, at the 
>beginning of an nweek, two players are tied for the lowest score, the 
>player to recieve the Token of Proposals is determined randomly.  A player 
>may not recieve the Token of Proposals if eir charm is equal to zero, or 
>if their activity is less than zero.
>-0-
>}}
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Discutez en ligne avec vos amis, essayez MSN Messenger : 
>http://messenger.msn.fr

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:25:18 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 02:42:06PM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> If Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 277/1 ("The dust you seldom see") passes and 
> Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 279 ("Walk unafraid") fails in repealing Rule 10, 
> Uncle Psychosis will have created a paradox because both Rule 10 and the 
> rule resulting from Proposal 227 will declare that "This rule takes 
> precedence over all other rules."
> 
> No two rules can simultaneously take precedence over each other.

Sure they can. The one with the lower number (rule 10) wins.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:49:21 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 03:25 PM 1/19/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 02:42:06PM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> > If Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 277/1 ("The dust you seldom see") passes and
> > Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 279 ("Walk unafraid") fails in repealing Rule 
> 10,
> > Uncle Psychosis will have created a paradox because both Rule 10 and the
> > rule resulting from Proposal 227 will declare that "This rule takes
> > precedence over all other rules."
> >
> > No two rules can simultaneously take precedence over each other.
>
>Sure they can. The one with the lower number (rule 10) wins.

(Note: typo in my previous statement -- 227 should be 277. Had to correct 
that.)

You can argue that Rule 10 takes precedence according to Rule 33, but that 
doesn't solve the paradox.

In that case the phrase "This rule takes precedence over all other rules" 
would be false, thus meaning that rule resulting from Proposal 277 would 
*not* take precedence over all other rules, which would be impossible since 
the rule says it takes precedence over all other rules. If it takes 
precedence over *all* other rules, then it cannot logically *also* cede 
precedence to Rule 10 (which is part of the set of "all other rules").

--gritter

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:53:06 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re-: The spoon toe lon do: ' It talks for for Gritters 250/0 the
	necessity provides the instruction which comes after ',
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In 1/19/02 1:50 year PM, the Greg Ritter wrote in the
[email-masked],: He talks and referred the inside me
>
> the troublesome army song sushi it will be able to translate this what he is
talked it goes out and clue kac ass
> smallness year, I wish the multi thing? The silence regarding an exemption
Idol inside inside me which talk thinks
>, me, it went out but and there is a possibility of getting at it
> 
> outside and when, as that wrote -- 09:33 AM 1/19/2002 -0500 where it is a vast
quantity spreads out the gritter
> >,: 
> > ' The Gritter's 250/0 necessity which talks from after creating
> > 
> > 
> > by -- 
> > Wonko 

B all rule as is same inside hoping will manufacture a method, in they one
triumph feeling with the L thing which will be possible is to talk
together,:

The Gritter's 250/0 inside being, but it is a bill.
Creates a rule the necessity 250/0.
which

250/0 does not create a rule.

250/0 anything. 
The rule does not create until 250/0.
It created a rule in 250/0.
Inside 250/0 use __ RULENAME __.
There is to 250/0, __ the NAMEOFARULE __ the TEXTOFARULE.

It can understand to troublesome army song me?
-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:37:05 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re-: The spoon toe lon do: ' It talks for
  for Gritters 250/0 the necessity provides the instruction which comes
  after ',
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 04:53 PM 1/19/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>B all rule as is same inside hoping will manufacture a method, in they one
>triumph feeling with the L thing which will be possible is to talk
>together,:
>
>The Gritter's 250/0 inside being, but it is a bill.
>Creates a rule the necessity 250/0.
>which
>
>250/0 does not create a rule.
>
>250/0 anything.
>The rule does not create until 250/0.
>It created a rule in 250/0.
>Inside 250/0 use __ RULENAME __.
>There is to 250/0, __ the NAMEOFARULE __ the TEXTOFARULE.
>
>It can understand to troublesome army song me?
>--
>Wonko

Oh, man, this is a riot! But I think I may be on to what Wonko is saying.

I think he is indicating that the when the Administrator recorded Proposal 
250/0, he made the text of the proposed rule the proposal, leaving out the 
phrase "I propose a new rule with the following text:" from my email. Here 
is the text of my email that resulted in proposal 250/0, delimited by *****:

*****
Since I still have one proposal left for nweek3 (using the zero-based 
calculation of the Clock), I propose a new rule with the following text:

{{
_The Immunity Idol_

There shall exist an object called the Immunity Idol.

The Player who holds the Immunity Idol is immune to any effect generated by 
Gremlins. No rule may create a Gremlin that can circumvent the Immunity 
Idol's protection.

At the beginning of an nweek, the Immunity Idol is awarded to the Player 
who scored the most points in the previous nweek. [[For example, at 
00:00:00 on nday 0 of nweek 7, the Immunity Idol would be awarded to the 
player who scored the most points in nweek 6. This example assumes a 
zero-based Clock.]]

In the event a group of Players are tied for scoring the most points in the 
previous nweek, the Immunity Idol is awarded to the Player in that group 
who has the most total points. In the event a group of Players are tied for 
scoring the most points in the previous nweek *and* there are two or more 
Players in that group that are also tied for the most total points in that 
group, then the Immunity Idol shall Speak, saying "Hell with that," and is 
awarded to the Player who joined the game most recently.

The Immunity Idol may not be transferred to another Player except by means 
explictly prescribed by the rules.
}}
*****

What the Administrator did was simply post the title and text of the 
proposed rule as the title and text of the proposal itself....which is not 
the way the Administrator posted the title and text of other proposals, 
c.f. Proposal 265/0.

Wonko, if I'm correct about interpreting your Sushified text, you may 
respond with "Napoleon" to indicate agreement. If I'm not on the right 
track, a response of "Darth Vader" will indicate I have (understandably) 
misunderstood you. ;-)

Mr. Administrator, is there a reason the standard procedure wasn't followed 
on 250/0? In any event, please amend  250 to reflect the following ARMYSONG 
delimited text:

ARMYSONG

Create a new rule with the following text:

{{
_The Immunity Idol_

There shall exist an object called the Immunity Idol.

The Player who holds the Immunity Idol is immune to any effect generated by 
Gremlins. No rule may create a Gremlin that can circumvent the Immunity 
Idol's protection.

At the beginning of an nweek, the Immunity Idol is awarded to the Player 
who scored the most points in the previous nweek. [[For example, at 
00:00:00 on nday 0 of nweek 7, the Immunity Idol would be awarded to the 
player who scored the most points in nweek 6. This example assumes a 
zero-based Clock.]]

In the event a group of Players are tied for scoring the most points in the 
previous nweek, the Immunity Idol is awarded to the Player in that group 
who has the most total points. In the event a group of Players are tied for 
scoring the most points in the previous nweek *and* there are two or more 
Players in that group that are also tied for the most total points in that 
group, then the Immunity Idol shall Speak, saying "Hell with that," and is 
awarded to the Player who joined the game most recently.

The Immunity Idol may not be transferred to another Player except by means 
explictly prescribed by the rules.
}}
ARMYSONG

I will also copy that request to Nomic-Business.

--gritter

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:03:57 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: N Heads are
  Better Than 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/19/02 at 1:41 PM Greg Ritter wrote:

>At 07:57 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>all possible combinations of other players, for a grand total of... well, 
>>I have no idea how to calculate it, as it happens. Thousands. Now, while 
>>that's not terribly likely... Well, not from MOST of you... It's still 
>>dangerous. Limit the number of teams a player may join and the problem 
>>goes away... mostly.-
>
>Limit the number of proposals a team can submit and the problem goes away 
>entirely.
>
>I won't vote for a rule that circumvents bandwidth limitations.
>
>--gritter

Amazing how that one rule o' mine has polarized the player base...:)

Personally, I saw the sense in letting larger teams submit more proposals because, let's face it, this is a majority-rule nomic game.  In theory, more than half the players could get together and vote the rest off the island, and keep that up until there's only two players left.  So if more than half the players joined in on proposals, those proposals would pass.  Still, no need for them to change the world in one turn on a mailing list I'm subscribed to...

All right, one more try:

"Team Proposals count toward a player's per-nweek proposal limit under bandwidth rationing; however, once that limit has been reached, a player may participate in up to two additional Team Proposals. [[As in, a player may submit three solo proposals and sign up for two team proposals, or submit two solo and join three team, or join five team.  Team Proposals can be made over and above the normal three, but also squeeze out solos from the bandwidth ration if they're done first.]]"

Whaddaya think?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:16:59 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Pronunciation?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Looking over the rules trying to decide what my other two proposals should be, I noticed  rule 15 which refers to "voting on a nweek's ballot."  I'd been thinking "nweek" was actually pronounced "en-week," but the "a" suggests it's actually pronounced "nweek"?  So "nday" is pronounced "n'day" as opposed to "en-day"?

I must say, "wweek" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue...

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re-: The spoon toe lon do: ' It talks for for
	Gritters 250/0 the necessity provides the instruction which comes after ',
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 In 1/19/02 5:37 PM, the Greg Ritter wrote in the [email-masked],:
> > 04:53 PM 1/19/2002 -0500 it spreads out it wrote,: With the fact that it is
the identical water will manufacture the easy hope room law together
> > they one thing 
> > will be possible in B all rule and inside and talking is
> > together in the L thing the improvement sense,:
> > 
> > It is a Gritter's 250/0 internal, the rule which the bill
> > it creates but 250/0. __
> > use of it 250/0 of 250/0 __ on RULENAME internal inside 250/0. rule
> > __. 
> > From that place one NAMEOFARULE __ }textofarule{.
> > Will create until
> > 
> > 250/0 hangs rule
> > 
> > anyone but 250/0
> > rules it does not create and the necessity 250/0.
> > Is 
> > it it will be able to understand to me in the army song which is
troublesome? 
> > -- 
> > Wonko 
> > the male of Ohio, are this warm winter,! When the executive official it will
hold 

> 250/0 recording but from, he inside did not manufacture in the original of the
rule which it presents, leaves the thing
> the phrase " or in the original which comes after new rule: " Presenting him
iss iss 
> 
> I thinking the multi thing is Wonko and map language it is doing to go out,
not knowing above I go out and for from my contract which it thinks the
Sushified your original i interpret, it referred, mac u cotton }email{.
> 
> The Wonko, it spreads out
> ", about Huaihe which reacts with Napoleon " the log it does not know. It went
out and when
> the lieutenant anh it was not on the right side, it went out and (it will be
able to understand iss)
> five it did to do, and " answer back of Darth Vader " is the thing,; -)
> 
It is like that,!

Napolean!

It goes out and I it will be able to add the white space and the line gap in
will am glad positively.

-- 
Wonko
newcomer sleeping today night it feel.

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:11:09 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: It adds the Whitespace?  
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

   Only small test, from here. The perhaps one wh
i
   ch does not have the value which it will read it reads and in order to
   create the message at the outside it adds the outside hundred color space
   and the gap inside the going out line, I think that it is the possibility
   being admirable the ability which is presented in in me.
F
   or this it is to work but it goes out the inside ordering and it isolates

   from the individual the fact that in necessit
y
   when, I, inside fact, the swall
o
   w, the swallow one thing am going with the necessity of the random
   original positively tr
u
   ly. This and ho

u
   r has the startli
n
   g total and it has a thin potential energy, I hope but to go out, by a
   sleep when it is a petty rain all one which is
d
e
   prived to go out, tomor
r
   ow it execute
s
   inside the show and i
t
   h
a
   tes flag it, they
n
   because of the place the thing. I am come and comfort early, el E for for
   the examination which is unpleasant is enormous it stu
d
   ie

s
   the f
a
   ct that. me for the reason of the cranium was excited from here the e
y
   e came down quite all, firstl

y
   that it is as cold as ic
e
   eagerly in neces
s
   ity
,
   so, that I in order to fill comfort

p
   ut an interval random
l
   y with secondth, it is babbling. Ohio and this
e
   lder brother the wh
a
   tsoever it mean
s
   plan, whol
e
   devoid south of what kind of formation of a cabinet kyess c
.
   Shyness. Truly. 
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:21:36 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: It adds the Whitespace?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/20/02 at 12:11 AM Wonko wrote:

>Only small test, from here. The perhaps one wh
>i
>   ch does not have the value which it will read it reads and in order to
>   create the message at the outside it adds the outside hundred color
>space
>   and the gap inside the going out line, I think that it is the
>possibility
>   being admirable the ability which is presented in in me.
>F
>   or this it is to work but it goes out the inside ordering and it
>isolates
>
>
>
>   from the individual the fact that in necessit
>y
>   when, I, inside fact, the swall
>o
>   w, the swallow one thing am going with the necessity of the random
>   original positively tr
>u
>   ly. This and ho
>
>
>
>u
>   r has the startli
>n
>   g total and it has a thin potential energy, I hope but to go out, by a
>   sleep when it is a petty rain all one which is
>d
>e
>   prived to go out, tomor
>r
>   ow it execute
>s
>   inside the show and i
>t
>   h
>a
>   tes flag it, they
>n
>   because of the place the thing. I am come and comfort early, el E for
>for
>   the examination which is unpleasant is enormous it stu
>d
>   ie
>
>
>s
>   the f
>a
>   ct that. me for the reason of the cranium was excited from here the e
>y
>   e came down quite all, firstl
>
>
>y
>   that it is as cold as ic
>e
>   eagerly in neces
>s
>   ity
>,
>   so, that I in order to fill comfort
>
>
>p
>   ut an interval random
>l
>   y with secondth, it is babbling. Ohio and this
>e
>   lder brother the wh
>a
>   tsoever it mean
>s
>   plan, whol
>e
>   devoid south of what kind of formation of a cabinet kyess c
>.
>   Shyness. Truly. 
>-- 
>Wonko

I like it.  It's like e.e.cummings on LSD.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:29:52 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: It adds the Whitespace?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 In 1/20/02 12:21 AM, the Donald Whytock wrote in the
[email-masked],:
> 
> I like it. It landing elects
> 
> the Glotmorf 
> is Darth Vader in the e.e.cummings.

It reads lower part.
-- 
Wonko 

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 02:17:00 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: It adds the Whitespace?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:29:52AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
>  In 1/20/02 12:21 AM, the Donald Whytock wrote in the
> [email-masked],:
> > 
> > I like it. It landing elects
> > 
> > the Glotmorf 
> > is Darth Vader in the e.e.cummings.
> 
> It reads lower part.
> -- 
> Wonko 

As immenthly amusing as this is, let me point out that you don't have to
thushify your text on the thpoon-dithcuth litht anymore. That'th what my
'Thushi' proposal did.

Tho, no need to resort to clever yet thpammy acrothtic methages to communicate,
anyway.
-- 
Rob Thpeer

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 02:45:56 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Double Standard
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:34:55AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Statement:
> 
> CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are not regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the following:
> 
> "Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of voting. Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player entities may only vote as specified by the rules. No rule specifies how a non-player entity should vote."
> 
> In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed under any other circumstances.
> 
> Yet, CFJ 249, that certain proposals that didn't use the Standard Delimiters from rule 217, was also judged false; the analysis included the following:
> 
> "Rule 217 merely defines the standard delimeters; nowhere does it require that they are used."
> 
> In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not prevented from being performed under any other circumstances.
> 
> These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be invalid.

I'm going to go against the 'encouragement' and lose the lithp for thith
methage.

Your CFJ is nearly convincing, but your analogy breaks down. The problem
is that you are paraphrasing the rules and making them say something
else in the process.

Rule 217 doesn't describe how any action is performed; it simply states
the meaning of certain character sequences.

I quote:
 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.

So the appropriate analogy is this:

Since voting is regulated, "Players may vote" implies "Non-players may
not vote".

Since standard delimiters are regulated, "'{{' and '}}' delimit
proposals and rules in Actions where they appear" implies "'{{' and '}}'
do not delimit proposals and rules in Actions where they do not appear".
Which should be patently obvious.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 07:01:29 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: It adds the Whitespace?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yeah, I'm not so sure of that, lisp-boy.

You just changed the word official Forum to public Forum. A Forum is 
defined in the rules as "the means by which players communicate" and 
subdivides it into two types, public and private.

I believe there remains a question as to whether spoon-discuss is a public 
forum or a private forum, but according to Rule 28, only the Administrator 
can designate a forum as public or private. So the Admin can clear that 
issue up easily by designating spoon-discuss as one or the other for the 
purposes of the game.

At 02:17 AM 1/20/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:29:52AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> >  In 1/20/02 12:21 AM, the Donald Whytock wrote in the
> > [email-masked],:
> > >
> > > I like it. It landing elects
> > >
> > > the Glotmorf
> > > is Darth Vader in the e.e.cummings.
> >
> > It reads lower part.
> > --
> > Wonko
>
>As immenthly amusing as this is, let me point out that you don't have to
>thushify your text on the thpoon-dithcuth litht anymore. That'th what my
>'Thushi' proposal did.
>
>Tho, no need to resort to clever yet thpammy acrothtic methages to 
>communicate,
>anyway.
>--
>Rob Thpeer

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:01:03 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Imprecation.  This fails the thing which works.  
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmmm... It is different and under designating the grudge all forum which is
not, in order to talk when as being an individual who modifies a forum rule,
this of it it is easy more and and I think that it manufactures. In order to
instruct still the fact that it is already is the individual in that method
and the Admin. When it is not like that, ' by the average ' admin of
delivery as the aerial individual with the same thing together, the bow and
' it talks to they, Goodbye ' this it happens and me must be instructed the
something to say which runs with trouble nine.

The spoon toe lon do to go out between the that, until the egg the aerial
personal opening to the public toe lon, or will continue the fact that it
talks the inside the unintelligible gibberish.

-- 
Wonko 
The Mama talked the fact that the there'd is this one. 

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:43:11 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Double Standard
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/20/02 at 2:45 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:34:55AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Statement:
>> 
>> CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are not
>regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the
>following:
>> 
>> "Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each
>proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of voting.
>Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player entities may only
>vote as specified by the rules. No rule specifies how a non-player entity
>should vote."
>> 
>> In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is
>performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed
>under any other circumstances.
>> 
>> Yet, CFJ 249, that certain proposals that didn't use the Standard
>Delimiters from rule 217, was also judged false; the analysis included the
>following:
>> 
>> "Rule 217 merely defines the standard delimeters; nowhere does it
>require that they are used."
>> 
>> In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given
>action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not
>prevented from being performed under any other circumstances.
>> 
>> These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>invalid.
>
>I'm going to go against the 'encouragement' and lose the lithp for thith
>methage.
>
>Your CFJ is nearly convincing, but your analogy breaks down. The problem
>is that you are paraphrasing the rules and making them say something
>else in the process.
>
>Rule 217 doesn't describe how any action is performed; it simply states
>the meaning of certain character sequences.
>
>I quote:
> 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.
>
>So the appropriate analogy is this:
>
>Since voting is regulated, "Players may vote" implies "Non-players may
>not vote".
>
>Since standard delimiters are regulated, "'{{' and '}}' delimit
>proposals and rules in Actions where they appear" implies "'{{' and '}}'
>do not delimit proposals and rules in Actions where they do not appear".
>Which should be patently obvious.
>
>-- 
>Rob Speer

Yes, but everything we do in the business forum is an Action.  And currently Actions are the only way to submit a proposal and/or rule change.  Therefore, if the standard delimiters describe the beginnings and endings of proposals and rules, lack of them suggests the absence of proposals and rules, in the same way that lack of status as a player suggests the absence of privilege to cast votes.

Basically, we've got two policies in active use at the moment: (1) the existence of a rule regulating a condition restricts actions to circumstances described in the rule; (2) the existence of a rule regulating a condition doesn't apply to circumstances not described in the rule.  I've seen multiple instances of arguments that go in the direction of each of these.  I'd like it to be established, officially, that one or the other is in fact the controlling policy.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:52:43 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: It adds the Whitespace?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/20/02 at 7:01 AM Greg Ritter wrote:

>Yeah, I'm not so sure of that, lisp-boy.
>
>You just changed the word official Forum to public Forum. A Forum is 
>defined in the rules as "the means by which players communicate" and 
>subdivides it into two types, public and private.
>
>I believe there remains a question as to whether spoon-discuss is a public 
>forum or a private forum, but according to Rule 28, only the Administrator 
>can designate a forum as public or private. So the Admin can clear that 
>issue up easily by designating spoon-discuss as one or the other for the 
>purposes of the game.
>
>At 02:17 AM 1/20/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:29:52AM -0500, Wonko wrote:
>> >  In 1/20/02 12:21 AM, the Donald Whytock wrote in the
>> > [email-masked],:
>> > >
>> > > I like it. It landing elects
>> > >
>> > > the Glotmorf
>> > > is Darth Vader in the e.e.cummings.
>> >
>> > It reads lower part.
>> > --
>> > Wonko
>>
>>As immenthly amusing as this is, let me point out that you don't have to
>>thushify your text on the thpoon-dithcuth litht anymore. That'th what my
>>'Thushi' proposal did.
>>
>>Tho, no need to resort to clever yet thpammy acrothtic methages to 
>>communicate,
>>anyway.
>>--
>>Rob Thpeer

That got cleared up in an earlier CFJ, amazingly by a sushi'd Plunder.  I'd CFJ'd that emailing the Administrator counts as posting to a public forum because the Administrator is publicly accessible to communication.  Plunder ruled that since the rules said the Administrator designated only spoon-business to be the public forum, that's the only public forum.

This is an instance of the fact that the rules describe one set of circumstances implies there can be no other circumstances.

						Glotmorf

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: Generous Gremlins!
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:43:14 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<html><div style='background-color:'><P>Gritter--</P>
<P>I like your idea... I think I will definately add those...</P>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, Serif"><STRONG>-0- </STRONG><FONT color=#000000>Thus Spake <STRONG>The Voice</STRONG></FONT><FONT color=#000000> <STRONG>-0-</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>*Ignore this signature if :</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>1) it doesn't make sense to you</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>2) it seems outdated</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>4) you didn't read to the end of this list.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Thank you, and have a nice day.*</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Reply-To: [email-masked] 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: [email-masked] 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: Generous Gremlins! 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:57:15 -0500 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;At 06:21 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;{{ 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;Proposal: _Generous Gremlins!_ 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;Create a new rule entitled _Bandwidth Gremlin_ with the following 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;-0- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;delimited text: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;-0- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;There exists a gremlin known as the Bandwidth Gremlin. At the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;beginning 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;of each nweek, if the Bandwidth Gremlin is Active, the Bandwidth 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;Gremlin 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;gives what is known as the "Token of Proposals" to the player who 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;has the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;lowest score. The player who holds the Token of Proposals may make 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;one 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;more proposal than is allowed under the current ruleset. One 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;second after 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;eir extra proposal is recognized by the Administrator, the Token of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;Proposals is automatically returned to the Bandwidth Gremlin. If, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;at the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;beginning of an nweek, two players are tied for the lowest score, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;player to recieve the Token of Proposals is determined randomly. A 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;player 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;may not recieve the Token of Proposals if eir charm is equal to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;zero, or 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;if their activity is less than zero. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;-0- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;}} 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;_________________________________________________________________ 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;Discutez en ligne avec vos amis, essayez MSN Messenger : 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;http://messenger.msn.fr 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag3_etl_EN.asp'>Click Here</a><br></html>

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Immunity Idol
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:58:01 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Maybe the immunity idol should only protect players from negative effects caused by gremlins... if it didn't, right now it has the possibility of doing more harm then good, really (re: scoring gremlin, bandwidth gremlin).&nbsp; I dunno, maybe that was your intent, gritter.&nbsp; Anyway, maybe that should be thought about... Actually, now that I think about it, the Bandwidth Gremlin's power stems from the Token, not the Gremlin emself.&nbsp; Would that get around the idol?&nbsp; Or do the two rules contradict, because the Idol says that no rule can create a gremlin which circumvents the idol's protection.&nbsp; That's kind of vague...&nbsp; We definately should look at this before the ballot comes out...<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, Serif"><STRONG>-0- </STRONG><FONT color=#000000>Thus Spake <STRONG>The Voice</STRONG></FONT><FONT color=#000000> <STRONG>-0-</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>*Ignore this signature if :</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>1) it doesn't make sense to you</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>2) it seems outdated</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>4) you didn't read to the end of this list.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Thank you, and have a nice day.*</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag1_etl_EN.asp'>Click Here</a><br></html>

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:53:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: This is not a proposal...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

... just an idea. Feel free to bandy it about, and I wouldn't complain if
someone were to propose it or something similar at some point.

<not-a-proposal>

Create a new rule as follows:

{{
__A Little Fun For Everyone__

The Administrator may make proposals as though e were a player. The
Administrator shall not be subject to Bandwidth Rationing, or any other
means of limiting the number or type of proposals which may be made.
Instead, the Administrator shall be limited to one proposal per nweek.
[[ Just so things don't get out of control... ]]

If the Administrator gains or loses points as a result of any change in
the game state, including but not limited to the passage or failure of
proposals, those points shall instead be awarded to the Scoring Gremlin.
}}

If proposal 268 [[ the Scoring Gremlin prop ]] passed, amend the rule
created by that proposal by appending the following text to that rule:

{{

If the Scoring Gremlin has no Points in eir possession, it shall go into
Hiding and remain there until such time as e has five or more Points in
eir possession. This paragraph takes precedence over the preceding
paragraph.

Players may give points to the Scoring Gremlin in the same manner as
giving points to other players. [[ It's like charity, only different. ]]

The Scoring Gremlin initially has 100 Points. This paragraph shall then be
deleted from the rules [[ for cleanliness ]] .

}}

If proposal 268 failed, amend the first rule created by THIS proposal by
removing the last paragraph, and insert the following text in its place:

{{
If the Administrator gains or loses points as a result of any change in
the game state, including but not limited to the passage or failure of
proposals, those points shall instead be awarded to the player with the
lowest score, unless that player's score is more than 23. In that event,
the points simply vanish into a Black Hole.
}}

</not-a-proposal>

The part with the Scoring Gremlin acting as a charity, complete with
finite funding, is highly negotiable. It's just something I came up with
whilst under the influence of entirely too much red wine.

...dave

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:51:37 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/20/02 at 6:32 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>"For Want of an Index, the Database was Lost" is 283/0. Once again, this
>is something I was going to do anyway, but if it's gonna be voted on, then
>I'll wait. :-)
>
>...dave

Hey, if nothing else, it's a good source of no-brainer proposals.  Like, if you've just burned yourself out on a pair of five-page judicial reform proposals (imagine that), it'd be real convenient to fill your quota with "Oh, and add keyword x to rule y."

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:53:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday
 morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Hey, if nothing else, it's a good source of no-brainer proposals.
> Like, if you've just burned yourself out on a pair of five-page
> judicial reform proposals (imagine that), it'd be real convenient to
> fill your quota with "Oh, and add keyword x to rule y."

And that's a good thing why? :-)

...dave

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:22:17 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ruling: CFJ272
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:42 PM 2002-01-18 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:02:16PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> > CFJ 272 (Judge: Baron von Skippy)
> > CFJ by Bean
> >
> > Non-player entities are allowed to vote.
> >
> > Analysis: The ruling on CFJ 251 specifies that "No rule specifies how a
> > non-player entity should vote." Thus there is no rule forbidding the 
> voting
> > of non-player entities. Thus by Rule 18, they may.
>
>I didn't even notithe thith ÞFJ.
>
>The proponent could have quoted my whole analythith, as I had already
>thtated why I believed Rule 18 didn't apply - voting is regulated by the
>rules.
>
>I really don't think Rule 18, or its equivalent in other rulethetth, was
>meant to be a blanket "do whatever the heck you want unleth ith nailed
>down really hard" clause. Thith is the firtht Nomic where I've theen
>thuch a liberal interpretation.
>
>Although ith not a proposal, I declare TheeEffJay 272 to be in Bad Thtyle.

Well, it kindof went hand in hand with the *other* CFJ I submitted.  Well, 
point is that I thought Rule 18 had a different interpretation, and lacking 
any other means of appeal, I went with the CFJ.  However, I appear to be in 
the minority on this issue.  Now, this isn't an excuse for my lack of 
style... but my lack of style has always been a given :)

Bean

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:58:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Immunity Idol
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:58 PM 1/20/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Maybe the immunity idol should only protect players from negative effects 
>caused by gremlins... if it didn't, right now it has the possibility of 
>doing more harm then good, really (re: scoring gremlin, bandwidth 
>gremlin).  I dunno, maybe that was your intent, gritter.  Anyway, maybe 
>that should be thought about... Actually, now that I think about it, the 
>Bandwidth Gremlin's power stems from the Token, not the Gremlin 
>emself.  Would that get around the idol?  Or do the two rules contradict, 
>because the Idol says that no rule can create a gremlin which circumvents 
>the idol's protection.  That's kind of vague...  We definately should look 
>at this before the ballot comes out...

I actually thought of that when I was writing the proposal and decided to 
leave it purposefully all-encompassing.

First, it would be hard to legislate what "negative" is, because some 
effects are a bit more ambiguous than that. Trying to make it more specific 
also would be fruitless because there's no limit to the number of gremlins 
people could propose in the future and they could just write the gremlin's 
actions around whatever I specifically identified.

Second, I like double-edged swords. :-) The Immunity Idol might protect you 
from the negative effects of a Gremlin, but it also might screw you (if for 
example you received the Bandwidth Gremlin).

The Token/Gremlin distinction is interesting, though....

--gritter

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 01:52:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Last minute revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Eric Gerlach wrote:

> Phew... made it back in time to sneak in a revision.  Dave, I'm going to
> interpret your:
>
> >And thanks for not making me re-type the whole darn
> >proosal. :)
>
> as a sign that you want me to make revisions with full-text so that they
> may be cut and pasted.

In fact, it was quite the opposite. When something is revised, the
original text is loaded up as the "default". I prefer lists of changes to
"here's the whole darn thing again," as long as the changes aren't bigger
than the whole darn thing. :)

...dave

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:03:29 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Last minute revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:52 AM 2002-01-21 +0000, you wrote:
>In fact, it was quite the opposite. When something is revised, the
>original text is loaded up as the "default". I prefer lists of changes to
>"here's the whole darn thing again," as long as the changes aren't bigger
>than the whole darn thing. :)

Damn, guessed wrong.  Noted for future reference.

Bean

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:03:43 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

*Bang!*  *Kapwing!*  The fastest vote in the west!

At 02:19 AM 2002-01-21 +0000, you wrote:
>The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 5:
>
>Proposal 245/0:Who the hell are you anyway? (gritter)
YES

>Proposal 246/1:Ass kicking is encouraged (gritter)
YES

>Proposal 247/0:The Clock was written in MATLAB (Bean)
YES

>Proposal 250/0:The Immunity Idol (gritter)
YES

>Proposal 252/0:Limitation of Voting (Iain)
YES

>Proposal 253/0:Power to the Gremlins! (Iain)
YES [[ This rule will self-destruct in 10 seconds ]]

>Proposal 265/0:No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal) (Scoff!)
YES

>Proposal 266/0:Verbosity Sux! (Scoff!)
NO

>Proposal 267/1:Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls...and Drones
>                (Congenital Optimist)
YES

>Proposal 268/0:The Scoring Gremlin (Wonko)
YES

>Proposal 269/0:The Witch Gremlin (Wonko)
YES [[ Sure, why not! ]]

>Proposal 270/0:Taking care of business (Wonko)
YES

>Proposal 271/1:N Heads are Better Than 1 (Glotmorf)
YES [[ I missed the latest revision on this... I like ]]

>Proposal 274/1:Once and for all... (The Voice)
YES [[ Crap... I just noticed my justice reform proposals would squash 
this... hrmm... If one of my proposals passes I'll have to rectify that 
next nweek ]]

>Proposal 275/1:You Break the Law, You Pay the Price (Bean)
NO

>Proposal 276/2:We Can Only See Shadows On the Wall (Bean)
YES

>Proposal 277/1:The dust you seldom see. (Uncle Psychosis)
YES

>Proposal 278/0:Ehh... What the hell... (The Voice)
YES [[ Yes, damnit!  Yes!!!! I shall be King!!! ]]

>Proposal 279/0:Walk unafraid. (Uncle Psychosis)
NO [[ Sorry Psychosis, I'm afraid. ]]

>Proposal 281/0:You can't even see. (Uncle Psychosis)
NO

>Proposal 282/2:Generous Gremlins! (The Voice)
YES

>Proposal 283/0:For Want of an Index, the Database was Lost (Glotmorf)
YES

>Proposal 285/0:Grammar Nitpick G1 (Glotmorf)
YES

>Proposal 286/0:The Grid (gritter)
YES

>Proposal 287/0:I've got more imaginary friends than you, nyah nyah
>                (gritter)
YES

>Proposal 288/0:You can't avoid the Sushi (gritter)
YES

>Proposal 289/0:... and I am my own king. (Bean)
YES

Bean

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:24:38 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Arg!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Arg! I've just noticed that my proposal to take away Gremlins' bank accounts
is about to be eaten by the Hungry Gremlin. I suppose it doesn't want to
lose its account.

In case you didn't notice, I've decided to abide by the CFJ which states
that I'm not sushied on Spoon-Discuss. Here are the things I'd like to have
already said, but failed:

First of all, yes, I was trying to point out that 250/0 didn't create
anything. I'm glad something got through.

Secondly, I wanted to point out that the Bandwidth Gremlin didn't have
Active/Hiding conditions, but that's all fixed.

Thirdly, I tried to suggest that we try something along the lines of
'Actions take effect when they are recognized by the admin. CFJs must state
that an action was illegal. If a judgment decides that an action was
illegal, it shall be treated as if it had never been recognized by the
admin.' Is anything wrong with that?

I also tried to convey my concern that the effects of the Pink Scarf and the
Cursed Sushi might cancel out, in that lisped words wouldn't be translated.

Finally, right now I'd like to point out that the Grid proposal states that
a Player may move once per week, not per nweek, which I don't think is what
was supposed to be there.

I think that's everything important. I'll get to the actual voting stuff a
little bit later. Night all!

-- 
Wonko 

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:07:38 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Rectification needed (was Re: spoon-discuss: Arg!)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:24 AM 1/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>Finally, right now I'd like to point out that the Grid proposal states that
>a Player may move once per week, not per nweek, which I don't think is what
>was supposed to be there.

Doh! That's what I get for eleventh hour submissions.

Mr. Administrator, per Rule 255 you could post a Rectification changing 
"week" to "nweek" in the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph of 
Prop 286. As Wonko points out, is is clear from the rest of the proposals 
that nweek was the unit of measurement; "week" was a typo on my part. There 
will be no objection to such a Rectification from the proponent (me).

Thanks.

--gritter

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:09:35 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A27C.DF834110
Content-Type: text/plain

> If Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 277/1 ("The dust you seldom see") passes and 
> Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 279 ("Walk unafraid") fails in repealing Rule
10, 
> Uncle Psychosis will have created a paradox because both Rule 10 and the 
> rule resulting from Proposal 227 will declare that "This rule takes 
> precedence over all other rules."
>
> No two rules can simultaneously take precedence over each other.
>
We'll have a situation where one rule claims one thing, and another rule
claims another. The fact that what they claim is to have precedence over
each other is irrelevant. If rule 10 said "X is false", and the new rule
(whatever number it gets) said "X is true", then, yes, the p227 rule would
state that something was true which was false. That's not a paradox, that's
the precedence system. Like Rob says, r10 wins. It's either that, or we have
a paradox every time any 2 rules conflict with each other about anything -
not really a sensible interpretation.

If we didn't have precedence, then it would be a paradox, because we'd have
no way of deciding which of them wins.

Although, even if it were a paradox... so what? That's only important if
they conflict with each other over something that'll cause the gamestate to
be undecidable, and I can't see how that would happen. Especially since rule
10 doesn't *do* anything.

Having said that, I guess this might be considered the asked-for example of
rule 10 being harmful. Repeal rule 10! ;-)

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 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A27C.DF834110
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 277/1 (&quot;The dust you seldom see&quot;) passes and </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Uncle Psychosis' Proposal 279 (&quot;Walk unafraid&quot;) fails in repealing Rule 10, </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Uncle Psychosis will have created a paradox because both Rule 10 and the </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">rule resulting from Proposal 227 will declare that &quot;This rule takes </FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">precedence over all other rules.&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">No two rules can simultaneously take precedence over each other.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">We'll have a situation where one rule claims one thing, and another rule claims another. The fact that what they claim is to have precedence over each other is irrelevant. If rule 10 said &quot;X is false&quot;, and the new rule (whatever number it gets) said &quot;X is true&quot;, then, yes, the p227 rule would state that something was true which was false. That's not a paradox, that's the precedence system. Like Rob says, r10 wins. It's either that, or we have a paradox every time any 2 rules conflict with each other about anything - not really a sensible interpretation.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">If we didn't have precedence, then it would be a paradox, because we'd have no way of deciding which of them wins.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Although, even if it were a paradox... so what? That's only important if they conflict with each other over something that'll cause the gamestate to be undecidable, and I can't see how that would happen. Especially since rule 10 doesn't *do* anything.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Having said that, I guess this might be considered the asked-for example of rule 10 being harmful. Repeal rule 10! ;-)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A27C.DF834110--

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: Numbering the monkeys
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:13:50 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A27D.77A50640
Content-Type: text/plain

> Since the numbering system factors into rule precedence, it's probably a
> bad idea to fiddle with it.

Actually, that's one of the reasons *for* renumbering stuff - it means we
can have the important rules (proosals, CFJs... the procedural parts of the
ruleset) take precedence over the rest (scoring, dimensions, sushi...). As
it stands, rule 152 is less important than rule 151, which is a little
silly.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A27D.77A50640
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A27D.77A50640--

Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:00:32 -0600
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A1FD.E18230DE
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Try this on, Platonist....
 
If, as you assert, only things permitted by the rules actually happen in our little nomic gameworld, then because this proposal would make submitting a kickback-laced CFJ against the rules, that would mean such a CFJ *was never submitted*.  Any judgement on it would be equally non-existent, since it's judging something that never happened.
 
How precisely is that doing nothing?  Seems like more than a "symbolic effect" to me.  Or at least, no more symbolic than the effect of *any* rule.
 
--Scoff!

-----Original Message-----
From: Doig, Gavin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)

> This is like saying that putting on mosquito repellent might encourage 
> mosquitos to bite me, because wearing the repellent is an admission that 
> a mosquito *might* bite me. 

The problem is that it's not mosquito repellent, it's just a bottle of water with "mosquito repellent" on the label. ;-)

I don't think there's anything actually *wrong* with your proosal. I mean, I won't vote for it, because I don't think any of it has anything other than a symbolic effect (well, it'll add some verbiage for people circumventing it), but I don't think it'll break the game if it passes.

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 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A1FD.E18230DE
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal)</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Try 
this on, Platonist....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If, as 
you assert, only things permitted by the rules actually happen in our little 
nomic gameworld, then because this proposal would make submitting a 
kickback-laced CFJ against the rules, that would mean such a CFJ *was never 
submitted*.&nbsp; Any judgement on it would be equally non-existent, since it's 
judging something that never happened.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>How 
precisely is that doing nothing?&nbsp; Seems like more than a "symbolic effect" 
to me.&nbsp; Or at least, no more symbolic than the effect of *any* 
rule.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=425595621-20012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>--Scoff!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Doig, Gavin 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:04 
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: spoon-discuss: 
  RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered 
  Piecemeal)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <P><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>&gt;</FONT> <FONT face=Arial 
  size=2>This is like saying that putting on mosquito repellent might 
  encourage</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>&gt;</FONT> <FONT 
  face=Arial size=2>mosquitos to bite me, because wearing the repellent is an 
  admission that</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>&gt;</FONT> 
  <FONT face=Arial size=2>a mosquito *might* bite me.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>The problem is that it's not mosquito 
  repellent, it's just a bottle of water with "mosquito repellent" on the label. 
  ;-)</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>I don't think there's anything 
  actually *wrong* with your proosal. I mean, I won't vote for it, because I 
  don't think any of it has anything other than a symbolic effect (well, it'll 
  add some verbiage for people circumventing it), but I don't think it'll break 
  the game if it passes.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>uin.</FONT> </P><BR>
  <P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B><BR><B><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2>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&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning 
  of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please 
  contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>
  <P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>The views or opinions expressed in this message 
  are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup 
  Limited </FONT></B></P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A1FD.E18230DE--

Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Moderation among the justice reform
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:06:06 -0600
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> ok now for the constructive criticism
> >
> >If the Administrator has been named as the Defendant in a 
> CFJ, e may not 
> >select a judge.  Instead, that duty falls to the player with 
> the highest Score.
> >}}
> >
> this is a abusable:
> suppose I am the player with the highest score and I submit a 
> CFJ naming
> the Administrator as Defendant.
> I'd get to judge my own CFJ
> -- 
> Antonio
> 

This is precisely why there was language in the rule governing CFJs of the administrator specifically prohibiting the player who selects the judge from *being* the judge.

If you're going to move around a perfectly good rule for better organization, great!  Just try to include important sentences like "That player will also be ineligible to judge the CFJ."

--Scoff!

Subject: spoon-discuss: Revision of 266
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:16:05 -0600
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In Proposal 266, replace the text:

"Repeal rule 212. "

with

the following:

"Replace the entire text of Rule 212 with the following:

{{Each player is limited to a maximum of five proposals on the ballot per nweek.}}"

[[Combined with the character limit, this should serve as a reasonable extension of the current bandwidth limit.  Will discourage insanely-long proposals, while closing the loophole that lets people submit proposals for next nweek, and extending the limit from 3 to 5 (since some people a re managing 6 due to the loophole anyway)]]

Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:21:14 -0600
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yarrgh!  I sent a revision and a proposal hours ago, but they haven't appeared on the list, and I guess you haven't seen them either.  I'll try forwarding them again....

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 8:19 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
> 
> 
> First off: official recognitions. The revision of 276 is recognized
> (276/2) and "... and I am my own king." is 289/0.
> 
> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 5:
> 
> Proposal 245/0:Who the hell are you anyway? (gritter)
> 
> Proposal 246/1:Ass kicking is encouraged (gritter)
> 
> Proposal 247/0:The Clock was written in MATLAB (Bean)
> 
> Proposal 250/0:The Immunity Idol (gritter)
> 
> Proposal 252/0:Limitation of Voting (Iain)
> 
> Proposal 253/0:Power to the Gremlins! (Iain)
> 
> Proposal 265/0:No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal) (Scoff!)
> 
> Proposal 266/0:Verbosity Sux! (Scoff!)
> 
> Proposal 267/1:Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls...and Drones
>                (Congenital Optimist)
> 
> Proposal 268/0:The Scoring Gremlin (Wonko)
> 
> Proposal 269/0:The Witch Gremlin (Wonko)
> 
> Proposal 270/0:Taking care of business (Wonko)
> 
> Proposal 271/1:N Heads are Better Than 1 (Glotmorf)
> 
> Proposal 274/1:Once and for all... (The Voice)
> 
> Proposal 275/1:You Break the Law, You Pay the Price (Bean)
> 
> Proposal 276/2:We Can Only See Shadows On the Wall (Bean)
> 
> Proposal 277/1:The dust you seldom see. (Uncle Psychosis)
> 
> Proposal 278/0:Ehh... What the hell... (The Voice)
> 
> Proposal 279/0:Walk unafraid. (Uncle Psychosis)
> 
> Proposal 281/0:You can't even see. (Uncle Psychosis)
> 
> Proposal 282/2:Generous Gremlins! (The Voice)
> 
> Proposal 283/0:For Want of an Index, the Database was Lost (Glotmorf)
> 
> Proposal 285/0:Grammar Nitpick G1 (Glotmorf)
> 
> Proposal 286/0:The Grid (gritter)
> 
> Proposal 287/0:I've got more imaginary friends than you, nyah nyah
>                (gritter)
> 
> Proposal 288/0:You can't avoid the Sushi (gritter)
> 
> Proposal 289/0:... and I am my own king. (Bean)
> 
> Votes are due by the end of the nweek, which is 4 PM on the 
> 23rd, Pacific
> time (7 PM Eastern, midnight Nomic time). Actually, one second before
> that.
> 
> ...dave
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:31:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Invoke rule 255?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Mr. Administrator, there appears to be a typo in proposal 276.  The following three actions occur, in sequence:
> 
> Revise rule 128 with text
> Revise rule 127 with text
> Revise rule 128 with text
> 
> Since proposal 276 is meant to be an antithesis to proposal 275, which modifies 126, 127 and 128 in sequence, I assume the first 128 in p276 should be 126 instead.

That was my intention, and I endorse this invocation of rule 255 as
specified by Glotmorf.

Bean

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: No Kickbacks (Ju
	stice, Administered Piecemeal)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:14:22 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A2A7.73CE1B90
Content-Type: text/plain

> Try this on, Platonist....
>
Ooh, a challenge. ;-)

> If, as you assert, only things permitted by the rules actually happen
> in our little nomic gameworld,
>
Fine...

> then because this proposal would make submitting a kickback-laced
> CFJ against the rules,
>
<yoda>Hear you nothing that I say?</yoda>

That was my whole point. It *doesn't* *work*. It doesn't make submitting a
kickback-laced CFJ against the rules; it *tries* to, but all it does is make
you have to word it slightly differently (see below). If we want to stop
scam CFJs, we need ensure that CFJs don't actually alter things. When that's
true, your restrictions are irrelevant, and therefore largely symbolic. When
that's *not* true, your restrictions are trivially circumventable, and
therefore... largely symbolic.

(below)
I was going to put in examples of how, but I don't want to get bogged down
in a discussion of whether those particular examples work or not. The point
is that it's breakable, not whether I've broken it.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A2A7.73CE1B90
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A2A7.73CE1B90--

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:44:39 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: Generous Gremlins!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:43:14PM -0500, Tyler Crosby wrote:
[-- text/html is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]

I think my foot is twitching.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:24:58 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Standard Optional Delimiters
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ This proposal is for the sake of clarity. It not only clears up
Glotmorf's objection, but the needless distinction between rules and
proposals, and the fact that it's not specified what they do in the text
of a proposal. Please don't CFJ that; it'll just be a pain in the ass. ]]

I propose: __ Standard Optional Delimiters __
{{

Replace all but the first six words
[[ which are "The standard delimiters (something) and (something)",
containing symbols which I can't reasonably use in this message ]]
of rule 217 with the following text, which is set apart by the standard
delimiters:

{{ (without the single quotes) may be used in the text of any Action,
Proposal, or Rule [[ yay recursion ]] to mark the beginning and end,
respectively, of text that should be set apart, such as the text of a
Proposal or Rule, or an amendment to either one. If it is not
explicitly specified that these character sequences mean something else,
they are considered to delimit text in that way.

However, these standard delimiters are not required to be used in any
circumstance; any method of delimiting text in which it is reasonably
clear where the text begins and ends is sufficient.

The character sequence '__' (again without the single quotes) delimits
the title of a Rule or Proposal; the title begins after the first '__'
and ends before the second one. The title is applied to whatever Rule or
Proposal has most recently been introduced in the text of the message.
If it appears after the opening delimiter for the Rule or Proposal it
should be applied to, it is removed from the text of that Rule or
Proposal and made to be its title.
}}

Then [[ since the underscores above have inadvertently changed the title
of this rule ]], change the title of rule 217 to 'Standard Delimiters'.
}}

[[ Phew! That felt remarkably like debugging C++ code. ]]

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:09:11 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: Numbering the monkeys
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In Suber's original ruleset (cf. 
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set), numbering 
is important because the ruleset is designed to mimic constitutional law, 
where some laws are easily changed (mutable) and some are not (immutable). 
The mutable and immutable laws are distinguished by their number.

Likewise the precedence issue is also tied into the numbering. In Suber's 
initial ruleset, the lower numbered rules take precedence not only because 
they were first, but because the lowest numbered rules are the most 
foundational. E.g. our Rule 10 is Rule #1 in Suber's initial ruleset. Any 
rule below 200 is immutable, while those 200 and above are mutable.

The problem with Suber's initial ruleset is that it really was designed for 
face-to-face, round-robin play and doesn't work well for asynchronous 
internet play. Many of the initial ruleset's that start internet Nomic 
games are not nearly as well thought out as Suber's initial ruleset, though.

--gritter

At 01:13 PM 1/21/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> > Since the numbering system factors into rule precedence, it's probably a
> > bad idea to fiddle with it.
>
>Actually, that's one of the reasons *for* renumbering stuff - it means we
>can have the important rules (proosals, CFJs... the procedural parts of the
>ruleset) take precedence over the rest (scoring, dimensions, sushi...). As
>it stands, rule 152 is less important than rule 151, which is a little
>silly.
>
>uin.

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: ballot precedence
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:51:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quick question-- what's the precedence issue with the ballot?  Do lower 
numbered proposals happen before higher-numbered ones?  Because if so, my 
CFJ recindment proposal will do nothing if either of the immediately 
following massive judgement reforms passes... if this could get cleared up, 
or at least explained, that would be great.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
*Ignore this signature if :
1) it doesn't make sense to you
2) it seems outdated
3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
Thank you, and have a nice day.*

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:06:21 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: ballot precedence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I should have revised my proposals to avoid that.  It was my 
oversight.  Yes, my proposals would clobber yours.  I don't think there's 
anything that can be done at this point.  However, I'm willing to use one 
of my proposals next nweek to rectify the problem (with point donation as 
I've done in the past)

Bean

At 07:51 PM 2002-01-21 -0500, you wrote:
>Quick question-- what's the precedence issue with the ballot?  Do lower 
>numbered proposals happen before higher-numbered ones?  Because if so, my 
>CFJ recindment proposal will do nothing if either of the immediately 
>following massive judgement reforms passes... if this could get cleared 
>up, or at least explained, that would be great.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>*Ignore this signature if :
>1) it doesn't make sense to you
>2) it seems outdated
>3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
>4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
>Thank you, and have a nice day.*
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:28:28 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My votth:

YETH > Proposal 245/0:Who the hell are you anyway? (gritter)
YETH > Proposal 246/1:Ass kicking is encouraged (gritter)
  NO > Proposal 247/0:The Clock was written in MATLAB (Bean)
YETH > Proposal 250/0:The Immunity Idol (gritter)
YETH > Proposal 252/0:Limitation of Voting (Iain)
  NO > Proposal 253/0:Power to the Gremlins! (Iain)
YETH > Proposal 265/0:No Kickbacks (Justice, Administered Piecemeal) (Scoff!)
  NO > Proposal 266/0:Verbosity Sux! (Scoff!)
YETH > Proposal 267/1:Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls...and Drones
                      (Congenital Optimist)
YETH > Proposal 268/0:The Scoring Gremlin (Wonko)
YETH > Proposal 269/0:The Witch Gremlin (Wonko)
YETH > Proposal 270/0:Taking care of business (Wonko)
  NO > Proposal 271/1:N Heads are Better Than 1 (Glotmorf)
YETH > Proposal 274/1:Once and for all... (The Voice)
  NO > Proposal 275/1:You Break the Law, You Pay the Price (Bean)
YETH > Proposal 276/2:We Can Only See Shadows On the Wall (Bean)
  NO > Proposal 277/1:The dust you seldom see. (Uncle Psychosis)
  NO > Proposal 278/0:Ehh... What the hell... (The Voice)
[[ I don't understand what that does, or what the Administrator is
supposed to decide. ]]
  NO > Proposal 279/0:Walk unafraid. (Uncle Psychosis)
YETH > Proposal 281/0:You can't even see. (Uncle Psychosis)
YETH > Proposal 282/2:Generous Gremlins! (The Voice)
YETH > Proposal 283/0:For Want of an Index, the Database was Lost (Glotmorf)
YETH > Proposal 285/0:Grammar Nitpick G1 (Glotmorf)
YETH > Proposal 286/0:The Grid (gritter)
YETH > Proposal 287/0:I've got more imaginary friends than you, nyah nyah
                      (gritter)
YETH > Proposal 288/0:You can't avoid the Sushi (gritter)
YETH > Proposal 289/0:... and I am my own king. (Bean)

-- 
Rob Thpeer

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: hmm...
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:43:29 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Actually, lisping might foil the babelfish, as it tends to relay words it 
can't understand.

Which of course doesn't mean we can understand them any better...

-No, translate first, then lisp the screwed up result. That'll be so much 
cooler.-

						Glotmorf

                                          -Baron von Skippy-

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

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:02:08 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You can argue that Rule 10 takes precedence according to Rule 33, but that
doesn't solve the paradox.

In that case the phrase "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
would be false, thus meaning that rule resulting from Proposal 277 would
*not* take precedence over all other rules, which would be impossible since
the rule says it takes precedence over all other rules. If it takes
precedence over *all* other rules, then it cannot logically *also* cede
precedence to Rule 10 (which is part of the set of "all other rules").

-So make a CFJ out of it already.-

--gritter

                                          -The Baron-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:57:02 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: The proposed gremlins
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ya know...looking at Wonko's proposed gremlins, the Scoring Gremlin and the Witch Gremlin, I see a situation...

Someone makes some proposals ahead of the nweek intended for them.  He gets a feel for public opinion regarding them, then, when the nweek begins, curses the two apparently strongest opponents to his proposals.

If this drops his points way down, no problem...he'll then get one point for every other proposal proposed that nweek.

On the upside, Wonko's got way too many points to benefit from the Scoring Gremlin for a while.  On the downside, Wonko's got way enough points to curse people...

Ah, what the hell. I've got a gremlin of my own to propose...

						Glotmorf

From: "ID Scott, Science 99" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes, nweek 5
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:02:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>  > Proposal 253/0:Power to the Gremlins! (Iain)
> NO
> [[Since the Plague of Gremlins does not exist, why pass this proposal which 
> does exactly nothing???]]
> 
Well, why not?

cheers,
Iain

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Votes, nweek 5
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:21:28 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A347.B2E5E1A0
Content-Type: text/plain

>  > Proposal 277/1:The dust you seldom see. (Uncle Psychosis)
> NO
> [[BAD, BAD, BAD. Does away with the statute of limitations and will allow 
> anyone to CFJ anything back until the beginning of the game. ]]
>
Does away with out current (largely broken) implementation of a statute of
limitations, certainly. As for CFJing back to the start of the game... I
don't think the point of the statute was to prevent that for the sake of
preventing it. It's certainly useful to prevent it for the sake of not
having to go back and rework all the gamestate since the start of the game
if we find out something is broken; I think that was the intention, and it's
preserved in this implementation. Yes, you could CFJ something from nweek 1,
but the answer will be whatever-the-admin-said, so there's not much point,
and such a CFJ won't do any harm. Our current system, which only applies to
player actions, is much more broken - if the admin makes a mistaek, it never
gets legalised, so potentially we could CFJ an action of the admin back in
nweek 2 (maybe even 1), and have to recalculate all the gamestate since. And
there's another problem with the current version, in that if someone awards
himself a win, we need to notice (and CFJ) it within 1 nweek - things the
admin does are much more likely to get noticed, and if he just ignores silly
things like "I award myself a win!" it never happens.

uin.
Repeal rule 10!

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A347.B2E5E1A0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A347.B2E5E1A0--

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: Numbering the monkeys
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:06:41 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A345.A29FB110
Content-Type: text/plain

> In Suber's original ruleset (cf. 
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set), numbering

> is important because the ruleset is designed to mimic constitutional law, 
> where some laws are easily changed (mutable) and some are not (immutable).

> The mutable and immutable laws are distinguished by their number.
>
Well, initially by number; you can transmute them afterwards.

> Likewise the precedence issue is also tied into the numbering. In Suber's 
> initial ruleset, the lower numbered rules take precedence not only because

> they were first, but because the lowest numbered rules are the most 
> foundational. E.g. our Rule 10 is Rule #1 in Suber's initial ruleset. Any 
> rule below 200 is immutable, while those 200 and above are mutable.
>
You can take out the immutability and still have precedence.

> The problem with Suber's initial ruleset is that it really was designed
for 
> face-to-face, round-robin play and doesn't work well for asynchronous 
> internet play. Many of the initial ruleset's that start internet Nomic 
> games are not nearly as well thought out as Suber's initial ruleset,
though.
>
There are certainly several features that need reworking for internet play.
The precedence system, and having the most important rules be first, work
just as well in internet or face to face play, though. You're right about
the ruleset being well thought out; it probably wouldn't hurt to borrow as
much as we can from them. ;-)

uin.
Repeal rule 10!

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A345.A29FB110
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A345.A29FB110--

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Imprecation. This fails the thing which works.
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:55:02 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmmm... It is different and under designating the grudge all forum which is 
not, in order to talk when as being an individual who modifies a forum rule, 
this of it it is easy more and and I think that it manufactures. In order to 
instruct still the fact that it is already is the individual in that method 
and the Admin. When it is not like that, ' by the average ' admin of 
delivery as the aerial individual with the same thing together, the bow and 
'it talks to they, Goodbye ' this it happens and me must be instructed the 
something to say which runs with trouble nine.

The spoon toe lon do to go out between the that, until the egg the aerial 
personal opening to the public toe lon, or will continue the fact that it 
talks the inside the unintelligible gibberish.

--
Wonko
The Mama talked the fact that the there'd is this one.

-Okay, this makes me feel sad. I can't understand a damn thing Wonko says. I 
forcefully remove the Cursed Sushi of Babel from your posession. It can't 
make me THAT much harder to understand. In fact, it manufactured and to go 
out it will can understand and as even this it of what it talks what kind 
of. We do it saw with, us? Excitation more inside one lifestyle of your 
actual place overproduction.

                                           -von Skippy..

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:46:54 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/22/02 at 6:38 AM Greg Ritter wrote:

> > Proposal 271/1:N Heads are Better Than 1 (Glotmorf)
>NO
>[[Still not comfortable with this. I'd prefer to see players be required
>to 
>actually form teams that have some meaning and persistence instead of just 
>getting together for one nweek to generate some extra proposals.]]

Do you really want that?  Do you really, really want players forming coalitions, exchanging proxies, and voting as a block?  Especially when those coalitions can include more than half the players?

I myself shy away from the idea of coalitions/parties/leagues/any group of people who agree to think as a unit.  Any time someone signs up with something like that, he is agreeing to not think for himself.  Better to have coalitions form for the sole purpose of presenting a single idea at a time.

Consider if Players A and B support Proposal 1, B and C support Proposal 2, and A and C support Proposal 3.  In order for these combinations to submit proposals as groups, they'd have to belong to multiple, overlapping teams, which would be exactly the same as (in the case of my proposal) belonging to proposal-dependent teams, except more complicated.  If teams can't overlap, then you've lost the potential bennie of members of different teams jointly presenting a very good idea.

Hmm...What if a Player who is involved in the creation of a given Proposal is then required to vote in favor of it?

						GLotmorf

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:30:09 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:02 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>-So make a CFJ out of it already.-

There's no potential paradox unless the proposal passes, so there's no 
point in making a CFJ at this time.

--gritter

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:24:41 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:02 PM 1/22/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >  > Proposal 253/0:Power to the Gremlins! (Iain)
> > NO
> > [[Since the Plague of Gremlins does not exist, why pass this proposal 
> which
> > does exactly nothing???]]
> >
>Well, why not?

Because that just gives the proposer points for doing nothing and that's a 
really poor strategy for winning the game. :-)

If I'm going to vote Yes on a proposal, it damn sure better provide me with 
some kind of opportunity (better game play, an opportunity to score points, 
etc.) to justify letting the proposer earn points off it.

That's why not.

:-)

--gritter

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:25:32 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: Numbering the monkeys
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 01:06 PM 1/22/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> > they were first, but because the lowest numbered rules are the most
> > foundational. E.g. our Rule 10 is Rule #1 in Suber's initial ruleset. Any
> > rule below 200 is immutable, while those 200 and above are mutable.
> >
>You can take out the immutability and still have precedence.

Of course. That wasn't the point.

In Suber's ruleset having precedence based on numbering made more sense 
because (at least initially) numbering also indicated mutability. It makes 
sense to have the immutable rules take precedence over the mutable rules. 
And since the immutable rules were intended to be more "foundational" they 
were the ones with the lowest number. E.g. our Rule 10 ("obey the rules") 
is more or less the equivalent of Rule 1 in Suber's ruleset.

Precedence by numbering only makes sense if the lowest numbered rules are 
designed to be the most foundational. As it is, in our game, it's more 
important (according to precedence) that the game be named B Nomic than 
that players obey the rules. :-/

--gritter

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:12:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I give the Sushi to Baron von Skippy.

Yes, he tried to take it already, but spoon-discuss is *not* a public forum.

I feel free.
--
Wonko

-Last. I was getting it will can understand sickly. Now anyone it will be 
able to understand me which it goes round to lastly! e The Babel it stammers 
and the language is not bad half!-

                      -It understood an overproduction and
                       von Skippy it had to be impossible-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: encouragement
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:55:21 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Woo!  Go Dave!

Just a friendly note of encouragement from your friendly neighborhood Voice.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
*Ignore this signature if :
1) it doesn't make sense to you
2) it seems outdated
3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
Thank you, and have a nice day.*

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Sushi
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:59:18 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A40D.C4AE4550
Content-Type: text/plain

> I give the Sushi to Baron von Skippy.
> 
> Yes, he tried to take it already, but spoon-discuss is *not* a public
forum.
>
> I feel free.
> -- 
> Wonko 
>
The CFJ is still pending, but I'm pretty sure this fails, as you had the
sushi when you posted it, and it's not translated.

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 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A40D.C4AE4550
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: spoon-business: Sushi</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I give the Sushi to Baron von Skippy.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Yes, he tried to take it already, but spoon-discuss is *not* a public forum.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I feel free.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">-- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT> <FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Wonko</FONT> 
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The CFJ is still pending, but I'm pretty sure this fails, as you had the sushi when you posted it, and it's not translated.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">uin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">DISCLAIMER: </FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (&quot;the intended recipients(s)&quot;) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is&nbsp; privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible. </FONT></B></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited </FONT></B></P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1A40D.C4AE4550--

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: Numbering the monkeys
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:07:52 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A40E.F75402A0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Precedence by numbering only makes sense if the lowest numbered rules are 
> designed to be the most foundational. As it is, in our game, it's more 
> important (according to precedence) that the game be named B Nomic than 
> that players obey the rules. :-/
>
We need *some* system of precedence. It's either a simple rule (lowest
number, highest number, alphabetically by last letter, whatever) or we need
to keep a list of every rule, stating what takes precedence over what. Since
we already have one list of all the rules (the ruleset), it'd be useful to
renumber them all to reflect some kind of sensible precedence order. But
apparently the admin's not put enough flexibility into his database. ;-)

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A40E.F75402A0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A40E.F75402A0--

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: Vote NO! on Prop 269!
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:57:14 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It only costs a maximum of 50 points to eliminate the 2 most vocal opponents of your proposal(s)?  Bugger that for a lark!

There's already some disincentive to openly discussing improvements to proposals because of the scoring...it's more profitable to get points for fixing the proposal with your own prop next nweek.  This will only make it much, much worse, because anyone who openly opposes any proposal can be prevented from voting on *any* proposals for a mere 25 points.

--Scoff!
  Voting emphatically NO!

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:55:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> NO > Proposal 275/1:You Break the Law, You Pay the Price (Bean)
> 
> Almost verbatim retread of my proposal last nweek.  Sadly, due to being *almost* verbatim, it omits some rather crucial anti-loophole phrases.  All the length problems that doomed my proposal last week, plus more to boot, just to be sure it's doomed this week, too.  Even *I* can't vote for it, and I originally proposed a lot of this stuff.

Well, you didn't take me up on my Call For Revisions, and so it sits as it
does.  Which is too bad, honestly, because you voted NO on the other one
as well.  Well, if you want to repropose Part II of last week's justice
reform proposal next week, go ahead, and I'll just repropose 276 (which I
think is in danger of failing, if only because of a typo).

I just thought I'd put my points on the line for the sake of justice
reform (I don't stand to gain much if anything out of the 275+276 combo,
even if one of them passes)

Bean

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:58:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
> >Proposal 276/2:We Can Only See Shadows On the Wall (Bean)
> No
> [[Sorry, Bean...no word from Mr. A. at this writing.  I liked 276 better than 275, but I can't vote for 276 with that typo in place.]]

No, it's a good call on your part.  Now, a question because we seem to be
in unusual times right now, would you change your vote to YES if the
correction is recognised?  I'm willing to take your proxy for the sole
purpose of changing your vote on 276 if the correction is recognised.

Bean

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:35:06 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Vote NO! on Prop 269!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

on 1/23/02 10:57 AM, Jonathan Van Matre at [email-masked] wrote:

> It only costs a maximum of 50 points to eliminate the 2 most vocal opponents
> of your proposal(s)?  Bugger that for a lark!
> 
> There's already some disincentive to openly discussing improvements to
> proposals because of the scoring...it's more profitable to get points for
> fixing the proposal with your own prop next nweek.  This will only make it
> much, much worse, because anyone who openly opposes any proposal can be
> prevented from voting on *any* proposals for a mere 25 points.
> 
> --Scoff!
> Voting emphatically NO!

Key phrase of Prop 259: "any player who has not done so already that nweek"

This means that you can only Curse one player each nweek. Once you've done
that, they're free to spend 15-25 points to Curse you back.

-- 
Wonko 
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life.

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:39:46 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Sushi
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There. I gave the Baron the Sushi. My last message was translated through
babel fish using the Eng-Ger-Fre-Eng option of the sushi clause.

-- 
Wonko 
Before speaking ill of someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you say it, they're a mile away and you have their shoes.

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Vote NO! on Prop 269!
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:39:58 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Even so, the price is too low for preventing someone from voting the entire ballot.  

If you could target them to be cursed only related to one proposal (or a reasonable limit like 3), or if the price were *much* higher, I might go for this.

The ability to be cursed back sounds on the surface like it might be a deterrent to cursing, but I doubt it would be difficult for 2 players to collude to curse 2 others at the same time, effectively disabling both of the cursed players' options to retaliate.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wonko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Vote NO! on Prop 269!
> 
> 
> on 1/23/02 10:57 AM, Jonathan Van Matre at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > It only costs a maximum of 50 points to eliminate the 2 
> most vocal opponents
> > of your proposal(s)?  Bugger that for a lark!
> > 
> > There's already some disincentive to openly discussing 
> improvements to
> > proposals because of the scoring...it's more profitable to 
> get points for
> > fixing the proposal with your own prop next nweek.  This 
> will only make it
> > much, much worse, because anyone who openly opposes any 
> proposal can be
> > prevented from voting on *any* proposals for a mere 25 points.
> > 
> > --Scoff!
> > Voting emphatically NO!
> 
> Key phrase of Prop 259: "any player who has not done so 
> already that nweek"
> 
> This means that you can only Curse one player each nweek. 
> Once you've done
> that, they're free to spend 15-25 points to Curse you back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wonko 
> Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on 
> fire and he'll be
> warm for the rest of his life.
> 
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:13:20 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/23/02 at 12:58 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> >Proposal 276/2:We Can Only See Shadows On the Wall (Bean)
>> No
>> [[Sorry, Bean...no word from Mr. A. at this writing.  I liked 276 better
>than 275, but I can't vote for 276 with that typo in place.]]
>
>No, it's a good call on your part.  Now, a question because we seem to be
>in unusual times right now, would you change your vote to YES if the
>correction is recognised?  I'm willing to take your proxy for the sole
>purpose of changing your vote on 276 if the correction is recognised.
>
>Bean

I'm sure I check my email at least as frequently as you do. :)  There's an interesting question embedded in there, though: could a conditional vote be submitted?  "If {condition set x} is true, then vote yes; else if {condition set y} is true, then vote no; else abstain"?

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:27:05 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> On 1/23/02 at 12:58 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>>>> Proposal 276/2:We Can Only See Shadows On the Wall (Bean)
>>> No
>>> [[Sorry, Bean...no word from Mr. A. at this writing.  I liked 276 better
>> than 275, but I can't vote for 276 with that typo in place.]]
>> 
>> No, it's a good call on your part.  Now, a question because we seem to be
>> in unusual times right now, would you change your vote to YES if the
>> correction is recognised?  I'm willing to take your proxy for the sole
>> purpose of changing your vote on 276 if the correction is recognised.
>> 
>> Bean
> 
> I'm sure I check my email at least as frequently as you do. :)  There's an
> interesting question embedded in there, though: could a conditional vote be
> submitted?  "If {condition set x} is true, then vote yes; else if {condition
> set y} is true, then vote no; else abstain"?
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
It's not forbidden, so I think it must be permitted. As long as Mr. A. knows
what you mean, it should work fine with simple things like 'If a correction
is recognized, vote YES'. What worries me, though, is what might happen if
someone does something like 'If at least 50% of all players vote yes on this
proposal, vote Yes.' If everyone submitted a statement like that, it would
be impossible to tell which way the masses voted.

-- 
Wonko
Recruit today night it feels.

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:39:21 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: An Offer You Can't Refuse
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> {{ _An Offer You Can't Refuse_
> 
> Create a new rule:
> 
> {{ _Luigi the Gremlin_
> 
> There exists a Gremlin known as Luigi.  Luigi begins existence with 100
> points.
> 
> Players can borrow points from Luigi, on a first-come-first-serve basis, up to
> the total number of points Luigi posesses.  The number of points a Player owes
> Luigi is recorded in an Attribute called Debt.  A Player cannot borrow from
> Luigi if e has a nonzero Debt.
> 
> At the beginning of each nweek after the nweek in which the Player borrowed
> from Luigi, eir Debt increases by 20% in interest, rounded up.
> 
> A Player with nonzero Debt can repay Luigi at any time as a game Action by
> transferring points to Luigi; eir Debt is reduced accordingly.
> 
> If a Player repays eir debt in the same nweek e borrowed the points, no
> interest is charged.
> 
> At the end of an nweek, if a Player has failed to repay at least the current
> nweek's Interest, Luigi takes eir points up to the Debt amount (or all if eir
> points are less than the Debt amount), applies these taken points to the Debt,
> and Breaks a Limb.  The number of Broken Limbs a Player has is recorded in an
> Attribute called Broken Limbs.  Each Broken Limb reduces the number of
> proposals a Player may participate in the creation of by one.
> 
> Broken Limbs Heal at the rate of one per nweek, starting with the second
> consecutive nweek in which the Player did not get an additional Limb Broken,
> until all Limbs are Healed or more Limbs are Broken.
> }}
> 
> [[Note that there is no limit to the number of Limbs that can be Broken;
> nothing in the Rules says that game object known as a Player has to be
> anatomically human.  Also, trying to win by borrowing from Luigi probably
> isn't a good idea...sure, you'd score the win, and then your points get set to
> zero, and then Luigi comes to collect...Though if you're stuck at zero points
> and zero proposals, the Scoring Gremlin should take pity on you.]]
> 
> }}
> 

Luigi shouldn't be a Gremlin for two reasons: 1) He doesn't have conditions
for becoming Active and Hiding, which is the only thing right now that
distinguishes Gremlins from other entities, and 2) He doesn't have a name of
the form "the **** Gremlin", where **** is a string of at least 1
alphanumeric character.

Also, I'm not entirely sure I understand what Luigi does. It looks like he
takes back however many points you borrowed at the end of each nweek, so why
is there interest? And if someone loses lots o' points and can't pay Luigi
back, and gets ten or eleven Limbs Broken, e won't be able to make proposals
and therefore won't be able to gain more points. This proposal, when used in
conjunction with anything that could decrease a player's score, could
eliminate someone from the proposal part of the game completely.

-- 
Wonko
Recruit today night it feels.

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:53:50 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: The King Gremlin
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is a proposal I'm considering making. It's not a full proposal yet
(note the single { } instead of the double), but I'm wondering if anyone
likes it and if it might convince people to vote for the Witch Gremlin,
since this allows someone to stop the Witch (though it zaps you for 5 as it
goes). I'm also annoyed that the Proposal Eating Gremlin, whose name I think
should be the Proposal Ingesting Gremlin so we can call it the PIG, is about
to eat one of my proposals, and I want to be able to Repress it too.

{
__Help! Help! I'm being repressed!__

Create a new rule:
{
__The violence inherent in the system__

There exists a Gremlin called the King Gremlin. If the King Gremlin is
Active, any player may pay 5+5*(the second Gremlin Number) points to Bribe
the King Gremlin. When the King Gremlin is Bribed, it Represses an Active
Gremlin of the Bribing player's choice. When a Gremlin is Repressed, it goes
into hiding and may not become Active again for at least 4 ndays unless it
is UnRepressed. This rule takes precedence over all rules which define when
Gremlins may become Active.

If the King Gremlin is Repressed, all other Gremlins are UnRepressed and the
player who Bribed the King Gremlin loses 8 points.

If at any time at least 2/3 of all Gremlins other than the King Gremlin are
Hiding, the King Gremlin goes into Hiding. If at any time at least 2/3 of
all Gremlins other than the King Gremlin are Active, the King Gremlin
becomes Active.
}

Amend the rule entitled "The Witch Gremlin" to add the following << >>
delimited text:
<< >>
If the Witch Gremlin is Repressed, all Cursed players cease to be Cursed,
and the player who Bribed the King Gremlin loses 5 points.
<< >>

Replace the text of rule 261 with the following HUNGRY delimited text:
HUNGRY
There is a Gremlin named the "Proposal Ingesting Gremlin", or PIG.

If the PIG is Active then one second before the votes of the ballot are
counted the PIG will eat the kth proposal on the ballot, as listed when sent
out by the Adminstrator, where k is equal to the nth Gremlin number, where n
is the number of proposals on the ballot.

Any proposal which is eaten by the PIG is immediately removed from the
ballot and has no effect.

If a Ballot is issued with fewer than 12 proposals on it, the PIG goes into
Hiding. At the beginning of each nweek, the PIG becomes Active.
HUNGRY
}

Rationale:
    The Proposal Eating Gremlin ate one of my proosals. I'm annoyed. So,
let's be able to Repress it. Then I'll be happy. I also thought that it
might make things easier if the PEG were called the PIG, for humor's sake,
and wouldn't eat off of small ballots. Finally, this limits the power of the
Witch Gremlin as any player can pay a moderate number of points to Repress
the Curse Gremlin.

-- 
Wonko 
There are no stupid questions; just stupid people.

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:47:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 1/23/02 at 12:58 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
> I'm sure I check my email at least as frequently as you do. :)

Apparantly. :)  The pace of the game seems to drop after 5 though, and I
was just just offering in case you weren't in contact with your email as
much after 5.  Of course, it's just a friendly offer.  No ulterior motive
here... :)

Bean

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:49:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:

> Quoth Donald Whytock,
> 
> It's not forbidden, so I think it must be permitted. 

A week ago I would have agreed with you.  However, I think I understand
the point that Plunder was getting to with regards to the interpretation
of Rule 18.  In addition, I think he may be more right than I initally
believed.  Since voting is regulated (any part of it), then this isn't
explicitly permitted by Rule 18.  Or at least that's what Rob would say...
I think....

Bean

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:52:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> NO > Proposal 289/0:... and I am my own king. (Bean)
> 
> There's nothing moronic about duping people into giving you 3 to 18 free points for taking on a completely harmless title.
> 

Nor is there anything moronic with trying to amass enough points to make
sure I can give 1/3 of those I gain from passages of 275/276 to you... I
certainly hope I have enough points come the end of the voting.

Come now, I think it's fitting, and 3 to 18 points isn't going to hurt
anyone, especially when I keep judging in favour of me losing points and
giving them away!  In fact, I hope to make it easier for me to give them
away soon!

Bean

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:40:42 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Granted, your personal example might qualify as a worthy exception.  But as a matter of principle, it seems silly to me that someone can make a truly excellent proposal and someone else puts in a niggly little grammar error or completely harmless nothing-rule, and they all get 3d6 points and +1 charm.  There's a difference between actually working/thinking/writing to produce something useful, and just tossing something off because you have spare proposals and no new ideas.  So, as a precedent, I think voting for your Moron proposal is bad.

That's also why I made the new "Style It Takes" proposal.  If you make awesome proposals, you'll get Style points.  You can then use Style points to call yourself King Of The Morons or Queen Of The Leather Bar or whatever.  You're still getting points, because if you make proposals good enough to win Style points you must be doing something right, but you're not getting points just for coming up with a self-deprecatory name for yourself.  Instead, you're earning the ability to label yourself however you want.

And if people are really amused by your choice, they're still always free to "tip" you for being clever/funny/apt by transferring points to you.

--Scoff! 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gerlach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> > NO > Proposal 289/0:... and I am my own king. (Bean)
> > 
> > There's nothing moronic about duping people into giving you 
> 3 to 18 free points for taking on a completely harmless title.
> > 
> 
> Nor is there anything moronic with trying to amass enough 
> points to make
> sure I can give 1/3 of those I gain from passages of 275/276 
> to you... I
> certainly hope I have enough points come the end of the voting.
> 
> Come now, I think it's fitting, and 3 to 18 points isn't going to hurt
> anyone, especially when I keep judging in favour of me losing 
> points and
> giving them away!  In fact, I hope to make it easier for me 
> to give them
> away soon!
> 
> Bean
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:03:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Granted, your personal example might qualify as a worthy exception.  But as
> a matter of principle, it seems silly to me that someone can make a
> truly excellent proposal and someone else puts in a niggly little
> grammar error or completely harmless nothing-rule, and they all get 3d6
> points and +1 charm.  There's a difference between actually
> working/thinking/writing to produce something useful, and just tossing
> something off because you have spare proposals and no new ideas.  So, as
> a precedent, I think voting for your Moron proposal is bad.

Okay, you win this round. *shakes fist* :)  I do have some other
ideas, but 1) I need to see how this week's voting turns out before I
propose, and 2) I wanted to gain "Moron" and "Nitpicking King of Morons"
at the same time for style's sake. ;)  Hmm, maybe I could make a
"Moron-land"...
 
> That's also why I made the new "Style It Takes" proposal.  If you make
> awesome proposals, you'll get Style points.  You can then use Style
> points to call yourself King Of The Morons or Queen Of The Leather Bar
> or whatever.  You're still getting points, because if you make proposals
> good enough to win Style points you must be doing something right, but
> you're not getting points just for coming up with a self-deprecatory
> name for yourself.  Instead, you're earning the ability to label
> yourself however you want.

And verily, it is a better idea.  But I want it now! :)

Impatiently,

Bean

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:23:44 EST
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

delete me from this list

To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:14:08 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake :
> delete me from this list

Done.

-- 
J.

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:01:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is an idea I have been working on for a proposal.  It isn't a full
proposal yet--it needs a name, among other things.  So please let me know
what you think of it.

There might be a clearer way to say some of this stuff, or an easier way
to keep track of it.  I welcome any suggestions.

Enact a new rule:
{{
__Dimensional Property__

Players may own Regions.  A Region is an area of multi-dimensional space
specified by listing its dimensional boundaries in the form
{(A,a)(B,b)(C,c)...} where A and a are the minimum and maximum values of
dimension 1, B and b are the minimum and maximum values of dimension 2, C
and c are the minumum and maximum values of dimension 3, and so on. Region
boundaries specified in this form are always inclusive.

No region or part of any region may ever be owned by more than one player 
or other entity at the same time.

Initially no region is owned.

A position is inside a region if and only if each dimension of the
position is within the boundaries of that dimension of the region.

No owned region may ever include the Origin {0,0,0...}.

[[Then include some way for player to purchase these regions]]

If at the beginning of an nweek player x is inside a region owned by
player y, 5 points are transfered from player x to player y.

}}

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:52:22 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>This is an idea I have been working on for a proposal.  It isn't a full
>proposal yet--it needs a name, among other things.  So please let me >know 
>what you think of it.
>
>There might be a clearer way to say some of this stuff, or an easier >way 
>to keep track of it.  I welcome any suggestions.
>
>Enact a new rule:
>{{
>__Dimensional Property__
>
>Players may own Regions.  A Region is an area of multi-dimensional >space 
>specified by listing its dimensional boundaries in the form
>{(A,a)(B,b)(C,c)...} where A and a are the minimum and maximum values >of 
>dimension 1, B and b are the minimum and maximum values of >dimension 2, C 
>and c are the minumum and maximum values of dimension >3, and so on. Region 
>boundaries specified in this form are always >inclusive.
>No region or part of any region may ever be owned by more than one >player 
>or other entity at the same time.
>
>Initially no region is owned.
>
>A position is inside a region if and only if each dimension of the
>position is within the boundaries of that dimension of the region.
>
>No owned region may ever include the Origin {0,0,0...}.
>
>[[Then include some way for player to purchase these regions]]
>
>If at the beginning of an nweek player x is inside a region owned by
>player y, 5 points are transfered from player x to player y.
>
>
>}}

Yes, but wouldn't everyone just stay in their own region the entire time?  
One thing I would say about this is that it would work better if it were 
tied into The Grid (if it passes).  That way, people would have a reason to 
go out and explore (shiny objects).  Interesting idea, but I would say it 
needs a little thinking through and nitpicking (bean?).

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

*Ignore this signature if :
1) it doesn't make sense to you
2) it seems outdated
3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
Thank you, and have a nice day.*

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 23:31:29 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:52:22PM -0500, Tyler Crosby wrote:
> Yes, but wouldn't everyone just stay in their own region the entire time?  
> One thing I would say about this is that it would work better if it were 
> tied into The Grid (if it passes).  That way, people would have a reason to 
> go out and explore (shiny objects).  Interesting idea, but I would say it 
> needs a little thinking through and nitpicking (bean?).

It seems to mean that you own parts of the Dimensions. People wouldn't
stay in their own reason because they would rather gain points and
stuff. So, it shouldn't have anything to do with The Grid.

Although, for consistency, I wouldn't mind making The Grid into two more
dimensions. I might propose that if The Grid passes.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 23:55:12 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: An
  Offer You Can't Refuse
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/23/02 at 2:39 PM Wonko wrote:
>
>Luigi shouldn't be a Gremlin for two reasons: 1) He doesn't have conditions
>for becoming Active and Hiding, which is the only thing right now that
>distinguishes Gremlins from other entities, and 2) He doesn't have a name
>of
>the form "the **** Gremlin", where **** is a string of at least 1
>alphanumeric character.

Yeah, I thought about the Active and Hiding part after I'd submitted the rule.  How about if he starts the game Active and goes into Hiding when no one owes him anything and he has no points to lend?

As for the name, I could have called him the Loan Shark Gremlin, but it seemed too simple, and I was trying to be cute.  But hey, you're right, that's the rule...

>Also, I'm not entirely sure I understand what Luigi does. It looks like he
>takes back however many points you borrowed at the end of each nweek, so
>why
>is there interest?

Luigi only takes back points if points haven't been repayed.  Repayment is a deliberate action on the part of the indebted player; if it's not done, Luigi collects his way.

>And if someone loses lots o' points and can't pay Luigi
>back, and gets ten or eleven Limbs Broken, e won't be able to make
>proposals
>and therefore won't be able to gain more points. This proposal, when used
>in
>conjunction with anything that could decrease a player's score, could
>eliminate someone from the proposal part of the game completely.

Yeah.  Bitch, ain't it?

Maybe something will come along to help out players who can't make proposals...like the Scoring Gremlin, or the Grid.  Or the Immunity Idol, to keep Luigi away.  Or said player can become a professional Kick in the Ass provider.  Etcetera.

It's sort of a "Let the player beware" thang.  There may be times when it'd be worth the risk to borrow points from Luigi.  But it shouldn't be done lightly, because the penalties can be severe.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:03:59 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The King Gremlin
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/23/02 at 2:53 PM Wonko wrote:

>This is a proposal I'm considering making. It's not a full proposal yet
>(note the single { } instead of the double), but I'm wondering if anyone
>likes it and if it might convince people to vote for the Witch Gremlin,
>since this allows someone to stop the Witch (though it zaps you for 5 as it
>goes). I'm also annoyed that the Proposal Eating Gremlin, whose name I
>think
>should be the Proposal Ingesting Gremlin so we can call it the PIG, is
>about
>to eat one of my proposals, and I want to be able to Repress it too.
>
>{
>__Help! Help! I'm being repressed!__
>
>Create a new rule:
>{
>__The violence inherent in the system__
>
>There exists a Gremlin called the King Gremlin. If the King Gremlin is
>Active, any player may pay 5+5*(the second Gremlin Number) points to Bribe
>the King Gremlin. When the King Gremlin is Bribed, it Represses an Active
>Gremlin of the Bribing player's choice. When a Gremlin is Repressed, it
>goes
>into hiding and may not become Active again for at least 4 ndays unless it
>is UnRepressed. This rule takes precedence over all rules which define when
>Gremlins may become Active.
>
>If the King Gremlin is Repressed, all other Gremlins are UnRepressed and
>the
>player who Bribed the King Gremlin loses 8 points.
>
>If at any time at least 2/3 of all Gremlins other than the King Gremlin are
>Hiding, the King Gremlin goes into Hiding. If at any time at least 2/3 of
>all Gremlins other than the King Gremlin are Active, the King Gremlin
>becomes Active.
>}
>
>
>
>Amend the rule entitled "The Witch Gremlin" to add the following << >>
>delimited text:
><< >>
>If the Witch Gremlin is Repressed, all Cursed players cease to be Cursed,
>and the player who Bribed the King Gremlin loses 5 points.
><< >>
>
>
>
>Replace the text of rule 261 with the following HUNGRY delimited text:
>HUNGRY
>There is a Gremlin named the "Proposal Ingesting Gremlin", or PIG.
>
>If the PIG is Active then one second before the votes of the ballot are
>counted the PIG will eat the kth proposal on the ballot, as listed when
>sent
>out by the Adminstrator, where k is equal to the nth Gremlin number, where
>n
>is the number of proposals on the ballot.
>
>Any proposal which is eaten by the PIG is immediately removed from the
>ballot and has no effect.
>
>If a Ballot is issued with fewer than 12 proposals on it, the PIG goes into
>Hiding. At the beginning of each nweek, the PIG becomes Active.
>HUNGRY
>}
>
>Rationale:
>    The Proposal Eating Gremlin ate one of my proosals. I'm annoyed. So,
>let's be able to Repress it. Then I'll be happy. I also thought that it
>might make things easier if the PEG were called the PIG, for humor's sake,
>and wouldn't eat off of small ballots. Finally, this limits the power of
>the
>Witch Gremlin as any player can pay a moderate number of points to Repress
>the Curse Gremlin.
>
>-- 
>Wonko 
>There are no stupid questions; just stupid people.

This could work with Luigi too.  But how does the king get unrepressed?  And should there be, say, a Revolt if too many gremlins are repressed?

Aside from that, I'm starting to worry about all these things I'm seeing that just take an expenditure of points to do.  One of your concerns about Luigi was that the poor get poorer.  My concern about the king is that the rich get richer.  Though I suppose repressing Luigi and the PIG would benefit more than just the bribing player...

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:07:05 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes for nweek 5
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/23/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>That's also why I made the new "Style It Takes" proposal.  If you make
>awesome proposals, you'll get Style points.  You can then use Style points
>to call yourself King Of The Morons or Queen Of The Leather Bar or
>whatever.  You're still getting points, because if you make proposals good
>enough to win Style points you must be doing something right, but you're
>not getting points just for coming up with a self-deprecatory name for
>yourself.  Instead, you're earning the ability to label yourself however
>you want.

Really?  Queen of the Leather Bar?

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:13:00 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/23/02 at 9:01 PM Dan wrote:

>This is an idea I have been working on for a proposal.  It isn't a full
>proposal yet--it needs a name, among other things.  So please let me know
>what you think of it.
>
>There might be a clearer way to say some of this stuff, or an easier way
>to keep track of it.  I welcome any suggestions.
>
>Enact a new rule:
>{{
>__Dimensional Property__
>
>Players may own Regions.  A Region is an area of multi-dimensional space
>specified by listing its dimensional boundaries in the form
>{(A,a)(B,b)(C,c)...} where A and a are the minimum and maximum values of
>dimension 1, B and b are the minimum and maximum values of dimension 2, C
>and c are the minumum and maximum values of dimension 3, and so on. Region
>boundaries specified in this form are always inclusive.
>
>No region or part of any region may ever be owned by more than one player 
>or other entity at the same time.
>
>Initially no region is owned.
>
>A position is inside a region if and only if each dimension of the
>position is within the boundaries of that dimension of the region.
>
>No owned region may ever include the Origin {0,0,0...}.
>
>[[Then include some way for player to purchase these regions]]
>
>If at the beginning of an nweek player x is inside a region owned by
>player y, 5 points are transfered from player x to player y.
>
>
>}}

Oh gawd...Nomopoly.

Wait...I won that one...

Sorry.  Narcissistic spasm.  Seriously, this gets into another "the poor get poorer" thang.  Getting past certain regions around the center would/could be a hellatiously uphill battle, since, if one didn't get enough points/style/charm/whatever to get past that region, one would slide backward toward the origin again.  Or at least the indices.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:42:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Oh gawd...Nomopoly.
> 
> Wait...I won that one...
> 
> Sorry.  Narcissistic spasm.  Seriously, this gets into another "the
> poor get poorer" thang.  Getting past certain regions around the
> center would/could be a hellatiously uphill battle, since, if one
> didn't get enough points/style/charm/whatever to get past that region,
> one would slide backward toward the origin again.  Or at least the
> indices.
> 
> 						Glotmorf

I think that could be overcome.  By protecting a larger area from
ownership.  We could, for example specify a free corridor at
{(0,100)(-1,1)(-1,1)(-1,1)}.

The main difference between this and the grid is that movement on the grid
is, so far as I can see, entirely unrelated to anything outside of the
grid.  Although my proposal is about property areas and a monopoly-like
game of rent paying and control of areas, it could easily be changed into
a grid-like hunt-the-treasure game.  Or the two could be combined.

I'll see if a way can be made to combine this with the Grid proposal, and
I'll also try to make it a little less dangerous for new people.

Dan

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:53:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/24/02 at 1:42 AM Dan wrote:

>> Oh gawd...Nomopoly.
>> 
>> Wait...I won that one...
>> 
>> Sorry.  Narcissistic spasm.  Seriously, this gets into another "the
>> poor get poorer" thang.  Getting past certain regions around the
>> center would/could be a hellatiously uphill battle, since, if one
>> didn't get enough points/style/charm/whatever to get past that region,
>> one would slide backward toward the origin again.  Or at least the
>> indices.
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>
>I think that could be overcome.  By protecting a larger area from
>ownership.  We could, for example specify a free corridor at
>{(0,100)(-1,1)(-1,1)(-1,1)}.
>
>The main difference between this and the grid is that movement on the grid
>is, so far as I can see, entirely unrelated to anything outside of the
>grid.  Although my proposal is about property areas and a monopoly-like
>game of rent paying and control of areas, it could easily be changed into
>a grid-like hunt-the-treasure game.  Or the two could be combined.
>
>I'll see if a way can be made to combine this with the Grid proposal, and
>I'll also try to make it a little less dangerous for new people.
>
>Dan

Another thing is that players have very little control over dimensions, except inasmuch as they can give various points to each other.  Aside from that, dimensions are manipulated by game events; deliberate dimensional travel would be difficult.

Something I'd thought of earlier, though, but wasn't sure how to implement, was dimension-specific rules...one goes from one "plane" to another, and the rules change.  Perhaps this could be combined with your private-property idea, to have "house rules" in owned territories.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:46:19 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: The Token of Proposals
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Bandwidth Gremlin's text states that the Token is given to the player
who received the most YEA votes, not the most affirmative votes. Since I was
the only one who voted YEA for anything, and I only voted YEA on my own
proposals, I think the Token actually should go to me. :)

That was why I sent my votes privately. ;)

-- 
Wonko 
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life.

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:50:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: The Proposal Eating Gremlin Eats Decimals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Statement:  The Proposal Eating Gremlin did not eat Proposal 270
> 
>  Analysis:  Per Rule 261, the Proposal Eating Gremlin eats the kth
> proposal on the ballot, "Where the kth proposal is equal to the nth
> Gremlin number, where n is the number of proposals on the ballot."
> Taking n = 27 (the number of proposals), the 27th Gremlin number is 53
> / (120/27) since 53 was the Gremlin number in effect 1 second before
> the counting of the votes.  53 / (120 / 27) = 11.925.  However, Rule
> 261 does not specify that the number should be rounded, or only the
> integer portion used.  Therefore the Proposal Eating Gremlin ate only
> the non-existent 11.925th proposal, and Proposal 270 (the 12th
proposal
> on the ballot) passes.  

Err... Rule 261 refers to the nth gremlin number. Rule 256 states "The
nth Gremlin number shall be defined to be the Gremlin number divided by
120/n, rounded up to the nearest integer", and so rule 261 dosent _need_
to specify how (Gremlin Number)/(120/n) is rounded, cause it dosent
refer to that, it refers to the _nth Gremlin number_ which  already is
an integer.

cheers,
Iain 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: The Proposal Eating Gremlin Eats Decimals
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:54:36 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Good point.  My bad.  I read 256 and passed right over that.  But no worries...I'm just getting warmed up.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ID Scott [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: The Proposal Eating
> Gremlin Eats Decimals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> > Statement:  The Proposal Eating Gremlin did not eat Proposal 270
> > 
> >  Analysis:  Per Rule 261, the Proposal Eating Gremlin eats the kth
> > proposal on the ballot, "Where the kth proposal is equal to the nth
> > Gremlin number, where n is the number of proposals on the ballot."
> > Taking n = 27 (the number of proposals), the 27th Gremlin 
> number is 53
> > / (120/27) since 53 was the Gremlin number in effect 1 second before
> > the counting of the votes.  53 / (120 / 27) = 11.925.  However, Rule
> > 261 does not specify that the number should be rounded, or only the
> > integer portion used.  Therefore the Proposal Eating 
> Gremlin ate only
> > the non-existent 11.925th proposal, and Proposal 270 (the 12th
> proposal
> > on the ballot) passes.  
> 
> Err... Rule 261 refers to the nth gremlin number. Rule 256 states "The
> nth Gremlin number shall be defined to be the Gremlin number 
> divided by
> 120/n, rounded up to the nearest integer", and so rule 261 
> dosent _need_
> to specify how (Gremlin Number)/(120/n) is rounded, cause it dosent
> refer to that, it refers to the _nth Gremlin number_ which  already is
> an integer.
> 
> cheers,
> Iain 
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "Doig, Gavin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: PROPOSAL self-repealers
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:03:53 -0000
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.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A501.7BED3CA0
Content-Type: text/plain

> This allows for temporary changes to the rules to allow us to do things we

> might have not been able to do before.
>
Uhh... how so? We can do this at the moment anyway, and if it passes, we'll
still be able to do it without making use of that rule

> This also allows for easy addition of keywords without clogging up the
ruleset
> with proposals like "rule such-and-such gains the keyword so-and-so". 
>
This bit I just don't understand. I mean, we'll need to create the rules via
proosal, so we're just going to end up with double the clutter if we decide
to add keywords this way rather than by proosal.

> If anyone has any 
> suggestions on the end part (trying to close up potential loopholes), send

> them out and I'd be glad to consider them.
>
Any self-repealing rule which contains "this takes precedence over rule xxx"
will overrule your attempts to close loopholes, and anyway you can still
just put "repeal this rule when X" at the end to achieve the same effect
while side-stepping this rule entirely.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see that this actually does
anything.

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 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A501.7BED3CA0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1A501.7BED3CA0--

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: PROPOSAL self-repealers
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:35:41 -0600
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The wind chill must be below zero in Hades, because I'm going to have to agree 100% with uin.  This proposal does nothing.  

We've already established that proposals can perform game actions other than rule changes, so by definition any proposal that doesn't perform any rule changes is effectively one of your "self-repealing" proposals, but without the mess of adding and subtracting a rule.  It does what it does and goes away.

Your way just adds administrative busy work creating and repealing the rule.

As for keywords, the Administrator believes (and I concur) that e has the power to add them without a proposal being required anyway.

> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see that this 
> actually does anything.
> 
> uin.

What e said.

--Scoff!

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:12:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The Token of Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I suspect that wonko proposed this rule, otherwise I would ask the
administrator to rectify the _obvious_ typo here under 255.

This is, I must admit, a very clever move :-)

cheers,
Iain

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:

> The Bandwidth Gremlin's text states that the Token is given to the player
> who received the most YEA votes, not the most affirmative votes. Since I was
> the only one who voted YEA for anything, and I only voted YEA on my own
> proposals, I think the Token actually should go to me. :)
> 
> That was why I sent my votes privately. ;)
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wonko 
> Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
> warm for the rest of his life.
> 
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:56:39 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The King Gremlin
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/24/02 at 5:59 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__Fixing the PEG__
>Replace the text of rule 261 with the following HUNGRY delimited text:
>HUNGRY
>There is a Gremlin named the "Proposal Ingesting Gremlin", or PIG.
>
>If the PIG is Active at the beginning of the 9th day of each nweek, it will
>eat the kth proposal on the ballot, as listed when sent out by the
>Adminstrator, where k is equal to the nth Gremlin number, where n is the
>number of proposals on the ballot.
>
>Any proposal which is eaten by the PIG is immediately removed from the
>ballot and has no effect.
>
>If a Ballot is issued with fewer than 12 proposals on it, the PIG goes into
>Hiding. At the beginning of each nweek, the PIG becomes Active.
>HUNGRY
>}}
>
>Rationale:
>    It's unclear exactly when things happen, and I think PIG is funnier
>than
>PEG. I also don't think the PIG should eat off small ballots.

What about small proposals?  It occurs to me that a PIG would want to gorge itself when it could...you could throw in either a minimum proposal size, or have the PIG eat more than one tiny proposal if needed in order to get its fill.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:07:09 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Precedence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/24/02 at 6:38 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__I'm Higher on the Food Chain!__
>
>Amend rule 33 to be:
>{{
>__Chutzpah__
>
>Each Rule has an attribute called Chutzpah, which is a positive integer. In
>the event of a conflict between two or more rules, the rule with the
>highest
>Chutzpah takes precedence.
>
>If two or more rules have equal Chutzpah, the rule with the lowest
>identification number takes precedence.
>
>If at least one of the rules in conflict explicity says of itself that it
>defers to another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall
>supersede the Chutzpah method for determining precedence.
>
>If two or more rules claim to take precedence over each other or to defer
>to
>one another, then the Chutzpah method again governs.
>
>Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with another section of the same
>rule, the section which appears later in the rule takes precedence over the
>earlier section.
>}}
>
>Give all rules a Chutzpah of 1.
>
>Amend rule 217 to add the text 'When these delimiters are used to delimit a
>rule, they must be followed by a string of the form <<keywordlist,
>Chutzpahvalue>>, where keywordlist is a list of words, and Chutzpahvalue is
>a number. A rule defined this way shall automatically be assigned all
>keywords in the keywordlist, if any, and has a Chutzpah of Chutzpahvalue.'
>}}
>
>Rationale:
>We need a better way of doing precedence, and I think this will work. The
>bit about the standard delimiters allows means that a rule followed by
><<(Gremlins, Pointsgained, Pointslost, Grid, FuzzyBunnies), 10>> has the
>keywords Gremlins, Pointsgained, Pointslost, Grid, and FuzzyBunnies, and
>has
>a Chutzpah of 10.
>
>
>-- 
>Wonko
>Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

What if rules' Chutzpah was adjustable/modifiable, depending on, say, time gone without modification, or number of CFJs they were applied in?  Such that rules have more Chutzpah if they demonstrate themselves to be bigger and badder than other rules? :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Precedence
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:11:06 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, the odd latin phrases... Let me see...

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam means... "I will either find a way or make 
one."

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit means... "A wise man does not urinate 
against the wind."

Oh, by the way: Vescere bracis meis.

Dixi.

                                     -Baron von Skippy-

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:18:12 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal 306/0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<nitpick>You can't *unsubmit* a proposal.  You can, however, revise it to 
something completely different, or revise it to "This proposal does 
nothing."  However, the admin I'm sure would prefer the former to the 
latter.</nitpick>

Hey, I gotta try to live up to the title!

Bean

At 10:15 PM 2002-01-24 -0500, you wrote:

>I hereby un-submit proposal 306/0 due to the overwhelming (well... scoff! 
>and uin) bad vibes I got after it was proposed.  I now see its 
>uselessness, and I will attempt to propose something a bit more useful.
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>*Ignore this signature if :
>1) it doesn't make sense to you
>2) it seems outdated
>3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
>4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
>Thank you, and have a nice day.*
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:54:26 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Precedence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yes, we all know that "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Bean

At 10:11 PM 2002-01-24 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay, the odd latin phrases... Let me see...
>
>Aut inveniam viam aut faciam means... "I will either find a way or make one."
>
>Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit means... "A wise man does not urinate 
>against the wind."
>
>Oh, by the way: Vescere bracis meis.
>
>Dixi.
>
>                                     -Baron von Skippy-

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:22:15 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal 306/0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Scuse me?  Coulda sworn people have unsubmitted (well, okay, rescinded) proposals in the past, and I don't think there's a rule preventing unsubmission.

Mind you, it's more *desirable* from the point of view of the proposer to replace it with something else, as every proposal submitted is a chance for point gain.

						Glotmorf

On 1/24/02 at 10:18 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

><nitpick>You can't *unsubmit* a proposal.  You can, however, revise it to 
>something completely different, or revise it to "This proposal does 
>nothing."  However, the admin I'm sure would prefer the former to the 
>latter.</nitpick>
>
>Hey, I gotta try to live up to the title!
>
>Bean
>
>At 10:15 PM 2002-01-24 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I hereby un-submit proposal 306/0 due to the overwhelming (well... scoff! 
>>and uin) bad vibes I got after it was proposed.  I now see its 
>>uselessness, and I will attempt to propose something a bit more useful.
>>
>>
>>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Pink Scarf
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 07:59:17 -0600
From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Plunder, you did a fine job as the first Style Police.  Bravo!

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 12:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: The Pink Scarf
> 
> 
> For eir ekthelent attention to detail in proposal 267, I 
> award the Pink
> Cashmere Thcarf of Impeccable Thtyle to Congenital Optimitht.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Thpeer
> 
> 

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:31:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Pink Scarf
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> For eir ekthelent attention to detail in proposal 267, I award the Pink
> Cashmere Thcarf of Impeccable Thtyle to Congenital Optimitht.

Thank you, Rob.  I thall attempt to wear it with ath much thtyle
ath you have thown.

-Congenital Optimitht.

(I wonder, do I have to lithp in my .thignature?)

-- 
[email-masked] | http://seishonagon.org
"don't you know there ain't no devil
 there's just god when he's drunk"
 (Tom Waits "Heartattack and Vine")

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:06:12 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: Gridwork 2
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> Now we make the walls start closing in...
> 
> {{ _Watch for Falling Rocks_
> 
> Create a new rule:
> 
> {{ _Big Rocks_
> 
> A Player can purchase a Big Rock to put on the Grid.  E may either specify the
> target location of the Big Rock at a cost of 10+5d3 points, or allow the Big
> Rock to be placed randomly at a cost of 5+5d3 points.
> 
> A Big Rock must be placed in a vacant location on the Grid, or in the same
> location as another Big Rock.  Once a Big Rock is placed, no other object --
> Players, Things, etc. -- can occupy that Grid location.  If a Big Rock is
> placed in the same location as another Big Rock, both Big Rocks are destroyed
> and the location becomes vacant.
> 
> A Big Rock cannot be placed in a vacant location on the Grid if the number of
> vacant locations is less than two.
> 
> If the calculated cost for the Big Rock is more points than the purchasing
> Player has, e loses all eir points and the Big Rock is not purchased.
> 
> }}
> 
> Add the keywords "Grid" and "Purchases" to this rule.
> 
> }}
> 
> 
> 

What happens if a player specifies a location for a Big Rock that is
occupied by a Shiny/Dark Thing? Yes, it's illegal, but nobody knows that
it's illegal except the admin, 'cause no one else knows where the Things
are.

-- 
Wonko
Recruit today night it feels.

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:52:56 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal:
  Gridwork 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/26/02 at 11:06 AM Wonko wrote:

>
>What happens if a player specifies a location for a Big Rock that is
>occupied by a Shiny/Dark Thing? Yes, it's illegal, but nobody knows that
>it's illegal except the admin, 'cause no one else knows where the Things
>are.

Thanks...meant to add that to the last paragraph of the rule..."If the calculated cost for the Big Rock is more points than the purchasing Player has, or if a Big Rock cannot be placed in the location the purchasing Player specified, the purchasing Player loses points up to and including the cost of the Big Rock (not to exceed all eir points) and the Big Rock is not purchased."

So.  This also covers the possibility that someone will move into a grid location before a Big Rock can be dropped there.  If anything is in the grid location, the points get spent and no Big Rock is placed.  Yes, this might show that there's either a Shiny or a Dark Thing on the grid, but it wouldn't say which it was...

I dunno.  Somehow, between the ricochet effect and the pinball gun effect, I don't think Things will stay in one place for too terribly long.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:00:51 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Jingle Bells!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/26/02 at 9:53 PM Wonko wrote:

>As for the Chef Gremlin, it was stupid anyway.

Then should I rethink my idea for the Cannibalistic Gremlin?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:03:33 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elbonian Airways
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/26/02 at 9:53 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__I'm Flying!__
>
>Create:
>{{
>__Elbonian Airways__
>
>Every square of the Grid which has x and y coordinates that are both
>integral multiples of 6 is said to contain an Elbonian Airways. Elbonian
>Airways are Passable SOs. If a player is in a square which contains an
>Elbonian Airways, e may pay 2+2n points to be Thrown at any other square
>which contains an Elbonian Airways, where n is the 5th Gremlin number. When
>a player is Thrown at a square, eir becomes (x+a-3,y+b-3), where x and y
>are
>the x and y coordinates of the square being Thrown at, and a and b are both
>1d5. If a player, after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied
>by an Impassable Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the
>landing]] and is Thrown at that square.
>}} <<(Grid, PointsLost), 2>>
>}}
>
>Rationale: Moving one square per nweek means we go really slow. This is a
>way to cover large distances in a short period of time. However, if you fly
>Elbonian, you can't specify exactly where you'll land, and if you hit a Big
>Rock or some similar object, you might bounce around repeatedly before
>hitting a vacant square.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Wonko 
>Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
>warm for the rest of his life.

Wanna add bouncing off walls to that, for when one goes off the edge of the grid?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:06:04 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Jingle Bells!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 09:53:18PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> I amend my proposal entitled 'The Chef Gremlin' to be:
> 
> {{
> __Jingle Bells!__
> 
> Create:
> {{
> __The Yeti__
> 
> There exists an entity called the Yeti. The Yeti is a Passable MO. At the
> beginning of the 1st and 6th days of each nweek, the Yeti will Move 8 times
> in random directions. Whenever the Yeti moves out of a square, that square
> becomes Frozen. Whenever a MO Moves into a Frozen square, it automatically
> Moves again in the same direction it came from. Any square which has been
> Frozen for at least 1 nweek immediately ceases to be Frozen.
> }}
> }}

Do the extra moves to back up from an already-frozen square count?
If not, what happens if the Yeti surrounds itself with Frozen squares?
There would be an infinite loop.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:20:45 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elbonian Airways
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/26/02 at 10:03 PM Donald Whytock wrote:

>On 1/26/02 at 9:53 PM Wonko wrote:
>
>>__I'm Flying!__
>
>Wanna add bouncing off walls to that, for when one goes off the edge of
>the grid?
>
>						Glotmorf

Never mind.  Sorry, I thought that said "+3" rather than "-3".

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:27:51 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Elbonian Airways
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/26/02 at 11:20 PM Donald Whytock wrote:

>On 1/26/02 at 10:03 PM Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>>On 1/26/02 at 9:53 PM Wonko wrote:
>>
>>>__I'm Flying!__
>>
>>Wanna add bouncing off walls to that, for when one goes off the edge of
>>the grid?
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>
>Never mind.  Sorry, I thought that said "+3" rather than "-3".

Never mind the never mind.  Big Rocks in just the right places can take someone to the edge.

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:14:10 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 10:25:43PM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> "But he did neither. He simply _created_ the points, **which was not regulated by the rules at all.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
> 
> In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not prevented from being performed under any other circumstances, because of the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.

Dear God, Glotmorf. I've never seen anyone try so desperately to break
that rule.

Your paraphrasing accomplishes nothing unless you can be much more
specific. Which action are you referring to there? The rules did not
mention *at all* how the action of creating points should be performed.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:44:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/27/02 at 12:14 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 10:25:43PM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> "But he did neither. He simply _created_ the points, **which was not
>regulated by the rules at all.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>> 
>> In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given
>action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not
>prevented from being performed under any other circumstances, because of
>the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.
>
>Dear God, Glotmorf. I've never seen anyone try so desperately to break
>that rule.
>
>Your paraphrasing accomplishes nothing unless you can be much more
>specific. Which action are you referring to there? The rules did not
>mention *at all* how the action of creating points should be performed.
>-- 
>Rob Speer

The rules mention how points are to be awarded, and how points are to be transferred.  In the case of votes, absence of a rule regarding non-players voting was taken as an indication that non-players couldn't vote; in the case of points, absence of a rule regarding creation of points was taken as an indication that points could be created.

What rule do you think I'm trying to break?  I'm actually trying to establish a precedent here, by determining whether absence of a rule indicates permission or prohibition.  IMO, there are CFJ rulings that indicate both.  That fact doesn't help me plan for the future.

Is the problem in the structuring of my statement?  That I'm arguing against CFJ rulings?  I don't know how else to point out this inconsistency.  Either CFJ in and of itself might be reasonable, but the two of them together don't fit in the same nomiverse.  To me, it's as if one is saying the world is round and the other is saying the world is flat, and, excuse me, but I'd like to know which is official before I go sailing.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:04:09 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/27/02 at 9:53 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Man, I've gotta work out SOME way to ease the workload. I've been
>cut'n'pasting for like half an hour. (Aside: please don't re-type your
>whole proposal if you're only changing a few things. Just "change
>paragraph X of this proposal to read 'foo'" is quite sufficient.)

Online proposal submitter and editor?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:12:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 1/27/02 at 9:53 AM David E. Smith wrote:
>
> >Rob delivers a Kick in the Ass to Uncle Psychosis. Ouch. Points and
> >Attributes assigned appropriately.
>
> Mr. A...I believe that Kick in the Ass was delivered by me, not Rob.

For some reason, I thought "Rob" but then I fixed it on the Web site but
then I forgot to mail a correction. Blame it on lack of sleep.

...dave

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:36:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: spoon-discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Please Rectify
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The 'as' in my proposal 308 should be 'has'.  Can you rectify it for me
please?

Dan

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:45:04 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Gridwork 1 is Unnecessary
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 04:06 AM 1/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>See...I see the potential for something Just Like That happening with the 
>current version of the grid rules, as it's possible for a player to move 
>into the same location as either a Shiny Thing or a Dark Thing, and for 
>that Thing to teleport into the same location as another player, and 
>ricochet and keep on going.
>
>It occurred to me that this warranted a change.  From my perspective I 
>figured I could either fix the situation or make it worse.

I considered the ricochet effect when proposing this, but realized the odds 
of a ricochet are extremely slim.

The Grid is 20 x 20 -- there are FOUR HUNDRED units on the Grid. Given our 
current roster of 13 players (+1 on Forced Leave), the odds of a Shiny or 
Scary Dark Thing teleporting to a second location occupied by a player is 
only 13 in 400 or 3.25% !!!

I believe the odds of that ricochet continuing on to a third location and 
hitting a player is a little over 0.10 percent or about 1 in 1000.

I hardly think that warrants giving you 3 to 18 points for setting up a 
Relocation Queue for Things Both Shiny and Scary Dark.

--gritter

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:02:09 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: New Rule Proposal: Gridwork 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I like the Big Rock idea, although it suffers from the same problem as your 
ricochet theory. The Grid is a Big Place. Effectively using Big Rocks, in 
such a Big Place will be *extremely* expensive.

What might make this more useful is if we could move faster on the Grid. 
That *is* a problem. I realized it prior to proposing the Grid, but didn't 
have time to come up with a solution.

I'm working on one now.

--gritter

At 04:06 AM 1/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>A Player can purchase a Big Rock to put on the Grid.  E may either specify 
>the target location of the Big Rock at a cost of 10+5d3 points, or allow 
>the Big Rock to be placed randomly at a cost of 5+5d3 points.
>
>A Big Rock must be placed in a vacant location on the Grid, or in the same 
>location as another Big Rock.  Once a Big Rock is placed, no other object 
>-- Players, Things, etc. -- can occupy that Grid location.  If a Big Rock 
>is placed in the same location as another Big Rock, both Big Rocks are 
>destroyed and the location becomes vacant.
>
>A Big Rock cannot be placed in a vacant location on the Grid if the number 
>of vacant locations is less than two.
>
>If the calculated cost for the Big Rock is more points than the purchasing 
>Player has, e loses all eir points and the Big Rock is not purchased.

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:04:01 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL self-repealers
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is already possible, as evidenced by the several self-repealing rules 
that have passed without CFJ, and thus is an unnecessary proposal.

No need to vote yest on this and give you 3 - 18 points for something that 
doesn't change anything.

--gritter

At 12:25 PM 1/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>{{
>_Self-Repealing Rules_
>
>Create a new rule, entitled _Self-Repealing Rules_, with the following
>-0- delimited text:
>
>-0-
>A rule is considered to be "self-repealing" if the proposal which created 
>it has its text delimited by the delimiter 'X-X-X' (without the single 
>quotes).  A self-repealing rule automatically repeals itself once certain 
>conditions are met.  The conditions must be outlined in the text of the 
>rule, and should be delimited using the delimiter
>'*-*-*' (without the single quotes).  Conditions may not consist, in any 
>part, of a player giving eir permission, or otherwise controlling when the 
>rule repeals itself.  [[Basically says that it has to be something like, 
>"one nweek from it's passing," or "a player has over 200 points," or other 
>things which place it out of a player's direct control.]]  Conditions may 
>not be changed once a self-repealing rule is enacted.  [[No defusing these 
>bombs.]]  No player may be awarded a win as the result of a self-repealing 
>rule except through gaining the points associated with its passing.
>-0-
>
>}}
>
>This allows for temporary changes to the rules to allow us to do things we 
>might have not been able to do before.  If you try to abuse this, people 
>won't vote for your SRP (self-repealing proposal).  This also allows for 
>easy addition of keywords without clogging up the ruleset with proposals 
>like "rule such-and-such gains the keyword so-and-so".  If anyone has any 
>suggestions on the end part (trying to close up potential loopholes), send 
>them out and I'd be glad to consider them.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>*Ignore this signature if :
>1) it doesn't make sense to you
>2) it seems outdated
>3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
>4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
>Thank you, and have a nice day.*
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:06:29 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PROPOSAL: damn you Wonko...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:35 PM 1/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:

Wonko's use of YEA was clever. I noticed it after I voted but kept my mouth 
shut because it was evident that I was going to get the most affirmative 
votes (since I had six proposals last nweek, three from proposed last nweek 
and three proposed during the voting period of the previous nweek).

Of course, even if Wonko hadn't noticed the poor phrasing, I also got the 
Immunity Idol (from my own proposal!) and screwed myself out of the Token 
of Proposals.

--gritter

>{{
>_More Bandwidth Gremlin Revisions_
>
>Amend rule 299/0 by replacing the string YEA with the string affirmative, 
>and by appending the following -0- delimited text to the first paragraph.
>
>-0-
>If, for any reason, the Token of Proposals may not be awarded to the 
>player to whom it would be awarded as specified elsewhere in this rule, it 
>is awarded to the player who recieved the second-highest number of 
>affirmative votes on eir proposals on the ballot for the previous nweek.
>-0-
>
>}}
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>*Ignore this signature if :
>1) it doesn't make sense to you
>2) it seems outdated
>3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
>4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
>Thank you, and have a nice day.*
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:18:53 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 12:44:46AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Is the problem in the structuring of my statement?  That I'm arguing against CFJ rulings?  I don't know how else to point out this inconsistency.  Either CFJ in and of itself might be reasonable, but the two of them together don't fit in the same nomiverse.  To me, it's as if one is saying the world is round and the other is saying the world is flat, and, excuse me, but I'd like to know which is official before I go sailing.

The CFJs fit in the same nomiverse as long as you're not deliberately
trying to prove that one doesn't work. It's your paraphrasings that
contradict each other, not the CFJs.

If you really want to do this, make a CFJ which does not use the words
"In other words", only facts expressed in the CFJs and the rules.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:21:25 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Precedence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Arghhhh. This is going to cause the game to devolve into an argument of 
what Chutzpah a rule is assigned. All rules start out with a Chutzpah of 1, 
but when someone proposes something and they propose it with a Chutzpah of 
45, then people are going to generate a lot of spam arguing whether its 
Chutzpah should be 1 or 10 or 45 or something else.

In other words, I think Chutzpah being not tied to anything else is going 
to generate a lot of nonsense arguments over Chutzpah.

This makes the precedence system worse, not better. Perhaps the current 
precedence system isn't logical, but at least it's simple.

At 06:38 PM 1/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>{{
>__I'm Higher on the Food Chain!__
>
>Amend rule 33 to be:
>{{
>__Chutzpah__
>
>Each Rule has an attribute called Chutzpah, which is a positive integer. In
>the event of a conflict between two or more rules, the rule with the highest
>Chutzpah takes precedence.
>
>If two or more rules have equal Chutzpah, the rule with the lowest
>identification number takes precedence.
>
>If at least one of the rules in conflict explicity says of itself that it
>defers to another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall
>supersede the Chutzpah method for determining precedence.
>
>If two or more rules claim to take precedence over each other or to defer to
>one another, then the Chutzpah method again governs.
>
>Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with another section of the same
>rule, the section which appears later in the rule takes precedence over the
>earlier section.
>}}
>
>Give all rules a Chutzpah of 1.
>
>Amend rule 217 to add the text 'When these delimiters are used to delimit a
>rule, they must be followed by a string of the form <<keywordlist,
>Chutzpahvalue>>, where keywordlist is a list of words, and Chutzpahvalue is
>a number. A rule defined this way shall automatically be assigned all
>keywords in the keywordlist, if any, and has a Chutzpah of Chutzpahvalue.'
>}}
>
>Rationale:
>We need a better way of doing precedence, and I think this will work. The
>bit about the standard delimiters allows means that a rule followed by
><<(Gremlins, Pointsgained, Pointslost, Grid, FuzzyBunnies), 10>> has the
>keywords Gremlins, Pointsgained, Pointslost, Grid, and FuzzyBunnies, and has
>a Chutzpah of 10.
>
>
>--
>Wonko
>Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:33:33 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:25 PM 1/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>invalid.

There's nothing in the rules that requires Judgments be consistent with 
each other. Given that each judgment is (potentially) the interpretation of 
a separate player, one would expect there to be inconsistencies. I'm 
certain that Uncle Psycho and I would frequently come up with differing 
interpretations given the fundamental differences in how we view the game 
and game-state.

>[[ I am still trying to determine the de facto policy for the 
>game.  People talk about things that are legal because the rules don't 
>forbid them, yet so many CFJs restrict action because there are rules that 
>talk about things done in a particular way.]]

All of which is really moot. Judgments are intepretations of the rules. In 
the case of the imaginary players, any reasonable judge is going to 
generate the necessary interpretation to strike down the use of imaginary 
players because it would totally unbalance the game.

You're assuming that the sole intent of a Judge is to accurately reflect 
the meaning of the rules. I would imagine that frequently -- especially in 
the cases of CFJs that would throw the game into chaos -- the Judge 
actually looks to a "higher authority" (Reason? Game Custom?) to make their 
Judgment and then bends their interpretation to that Judgment as necessary 
to display some form of consistency.

Welcome to the world of interpretation. :-)

--gritter

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:11:44 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Precedence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 05:21:25PM -0500, Greg Ritter wrote:
> Arghhhh. This is going to cause the game to devolve into an argument of 
> what Chutzpah a rule is assigned. All rules start out with a Chutzpah of 1, 
> but when someone proposes something and they propose it with a Chutzpah of 
> 45, then people are going to generate a lot of spam arguing whether its 
> Chutzpah should be 1 or 10 or 45 or something else.
> 
> In other words, I think Chutzpah being not tied to anything else is going 
> to generate a lot of nonsense arguments over Chutzpah.
> 
> This makes the precedence system worse, not better. Perhaps the current 
> precedence system isn't logical, but at least it's simple.

I don't think people will try to give their rules extremely high
Chutzpah - they will recognize that other rules are supposed to take
precedence.

I'd say that Rule 10 should have Chutzpah 10, but then if any other
proposal felt it necessary to give its rule a Chutzpah of anything
higher than 2, I'd vote against it unless there was a really good reason.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:36:14 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:10 AM 1/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>gritter is Male, and has entered The Grid.
>
>Note that the "at the end of an nweek" stipulation only covers moves *on*
>the Grid, not moves *into* the Grid (i.e. from a state of Limbo)...
>
>gritter sees a flash of shiny light, and mysteriously gains 25 points. You
>may infer from that what you wish.

Whoa! First time out of the gate!

:-)

--gritter

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: A judgement and a proposal for the price of one!
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:00:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Statement of CFJ 316:
>CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are not 
>regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the 
>following:
>
>"Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each 
>proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of voting.  
>Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player entities may only 
>vote as specified by the rules. **No rule specifies how a non-player entity 
>should vote.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>
>In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is 
>performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed 
>under any other circumstances, because of the absence of a rule that 
>controls those other circumstances.
>
>Yet CFJ 133, which stated that a player had been successful in setting eir 
>score to a certain amount, was judged true; the analysis included the 
>following:
>
>"If uin had only 'set his score' (as I did) the score would be overridden 
>as soon as score was defined to be the number of points. If he had 
>'transferred points' it would be regulated by the rules and thus illegal.
>
>"But he did neither. He simply _created_ the points, **which was not 
>regulated by the rules at all.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>
>In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given 
>action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not 
>prevented from being performed under any other circumstances, because of 
>the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.
>
>These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>invalid.

Unfortunately, I must render a Judgement of UNDECIDED, because of the clear 
fact that it's really confusing.  However, I would urge Glotmorf (or someone 
else)to either make a proposal which clears this whole mess up (I was about 
to, but I realized that I didn't know what the heck it needed to say), or 
for him to resubmit this CFJ and hope for a Judge who can make up eir mind a 
bit easier.

Now, some other business:

I declare my gender to be male, and I place myself on The Grid at (6,4).
And,

{{
Replace the entirety of the text of proposal 306/0, retitling it _Wait, can 
I take that back?_, with the following:

{{
Create a new rule entitled _I Call A Redo!_ with the following -0- delimited 
text:

-0-
At any point between it's recognition by the Administrator and the beginning 
of the voting period during which it is to be voted on, the proponent of a 
proposal may make an overhaul.  An overhaul is considered to be a change to 
the proposal which renders it to be an entirely new proposal for the 
purposes of the changes it will render to the game state and to the rules.  
If a change is found to be an overhaul by the proponent, the Administrator, 
or by a Judgement on a CFJ pertaining to the question, the proponent shall 
lose 5 points.  If the change is found to be an overhaul through any method 
other than by the Administrator, the Administrator may override the decision 
and declare it not to be an overhaul.
-0-
{*PointsLost Proposals, 2*}

Also, add "making an overhaul in each of two subsequent nweeks" to the 
LOGAS.
}}
[[This is to keep people from doing what I just did.  Of course, I did it so 
I could make it so I couldn't anymore, but I'm not going to think about that 
anymore as it is headache inducing.  Thinking things through the first time 
is actually a good thing, people... if we have to do that more often, 
perhaps we won't get into as much trouble.  I also plan to re-work recinding 
CFJ's to reflect this school of thought, look for that later.]]
}}

-0-Thus Spake The Voice-0- (at length)

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:31:55 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: A judgement and a proposal for the price of
	one!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Three things  First of all, this does nothing unless it goes to
spoon-business. Secondly, I like being able to overhaul! I don't want to
lose points for it! And thirdly, I think you mean to use 'or' instead of
'and' in the phrase 'the changes it will render to the game state and to the
rules' because I could completely change a proposal that doesn't change the
rules at all and it wouldn't be an overhaul because it's still the same in
terms of the changes it will make to the rules [[0 = 0]].

Quoth Tyler Crosby,

> 
> Statement of CFJ 316:
>> CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are not
>> regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the
>> following:
>> 
>> "Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each
>> proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of voting.
>> Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player entities may only
>> vote as specified by the rules. **No rule specifies how a non-player entity
>> should vote.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>> 
>> In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is
>> performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed
>> under any other circumstances, because of the absence of a rule that
>> controls those other circumstances.
>> 
>> Yet CFJ 133, which stated that a player had been successful in setting eir
>> score to a certain amount, was judged true; the analysis included the
>> following:
>> 
>> "If uin had only 'set his score' (as I did) the score would be overridden
>> as soon as score was defined to be the number of points. If he had
>> 'transferred points' it would be regulated by the rules and thus illegal.
>> 
>> "But he did neither. He simply _created_ the points, **which was not
>> regulated by the rules at all.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>> 
>> In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given
>> action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not
>> prevented from being performed under any other circumstances, because of
>> the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.
>> 
>> These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>> invalid.
> 
> Unfortunately, I must render a Judgement of UNDECIDED, because of the clear
> fact that it's really confusing.  However, I would urge Glotmorf (or someone
> else)to either make a proposal which clears this whole mess up (I was about
> to, but I realized that I didn't know what the heck it needed to say), or
> for him to resubmit this CFJ and hope for a Judge who can make up eir mind a
> bit easier.
> 
> Now, some other business:
> 
> I declare my gender to be male, and I place myself on The Grid at (6,4).
> And,
> 
> {{
> Replace the entirety of the text of proposal 306/0, retitling it _Wait, can
> I take that back?_, with the following:
> 
> {{
> Create a new rule entitled _I Call A Redo!_ with the following -0- delimited
> text:
> 
> -0-
> At any point between it's recognition by the Administrator and the beginning
> of the voting period during which it is to be voted on, the proponent of a
> proposal may make an overhaul.  An overhaul is considered to be a change to
> the proposal which renders it to be an entirely new proposal for the
> purposes of the changes it will render to the game state and to the rules.
> If a change is found to be an overhaul by the proponent, the Administrator,
> or by a Judgement on a CFJ pertaining to the question, the proponent shall
> lose 5 points.  If the change is found to be an overhaul through any method
> other than by the Administrator, the Administrator may override the decision
> and declare it not to be an overhaul.
> -0-
> {*PointsLost Proposals, 2*}
> 
> Also, add "making an overhaul in each of two subsequent nweeks" to the
> LOGAS.
> }}
> [[This is to keep people from doing what I just did.  Of course, I did it so
> I could make it so I couldn't anymore, but I'm not going to think about that
> anymore as it is headache inducing.  Thinking things through the first time
> is actually a good thing, people... if we have to do that more often,
> perhaps we won't get into as much trouble.  I also plan to re-work recinding
> CFJ's to reflect this school of thought, look for that later.]]
> }}
> 
> -0-Thus Spake The Voice-0- (at length)
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
> 

-- 
Wonko
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:09:24 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Gridwork 1 is Unnecessary
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/27/02 at 4:45 PM Greg Ritter wrote:

>I considered the ricochet effect when proposing this, but realized the
>odds 
>of a ricochet are extremely slim.
>
>The Grid is 20 x 20 -- there are FOUR HUNDRED units on the Grid. Given our 
>current roster of 13 players (+1 on Forced Leave), the odds of a Shiny or 
>Scary Dark Thing teleporting to a second location occupied by a player is 
>only 13 in 400 or 3.25% !!!
>
>I believe the odds of that ricochet continuing on to a third location and 
>hitting a player is a little over 0.10 percent or about 1 in 1000.
>
>I hardly think that warrants giving you 3 to 18 points for setting up a 
>Relocation Queue for Things Both Shiny and Scary Dark.
>
>
>--gritter

Ah, but you forget about Gridwork 2.  Drop enough Big Rocks on the grid, and there aren't four hundred empty locations any more.  And how long before someone invents the Avalanche Gremlin?

Besides, Gridwork 1 does add something material: what happens when two Things wind up in the same location.  Yes, we could have some poor unfortunate player first gain 25 points then lose them again, or gain 50, or lose 50, but I think this makes things a little more dynamic.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:15:18 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/27/02 at 5:33 PM Greg Ritter wrote:

>At 10:25 PM 1/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>>invalid.
>
>There's nothing in the rules that requires Judgments be consistent with 
>each other. Given that each judgment is (potentially) the interpretation
>of 
>a separate player, one would expect there to be inconsistencies. I'm 
>certain that Uncle Psycho and I would frequently come up with differing 
>interpretations given the fundamental differences in how we view the game 
>and game-state.
>
>>[[ I am still trying to determine the de facto policy for the 
>>game.  People talk about things that are legal because the rules don't 
>>forbid them, yet so many CFJs restrict action because there are rules
>that 
>>talk about things done in a particular way.]]
>
>All of which is really moot. Judgments are intepretations of the rules. In 
>the case of the imaginary players, any reasonable judge is going to 
>generate the necessary interpretation to strike down the use of imaginary 
>players because it would totally unbalance the game.
>
>You're assuming that the sole intent of a Judge is to accurately reflect 
>the meaning of the rules. I would imagine that frequently -- especially in 
>the cases of CFJs that would throw the game into chaos -- the Judge 
>actually looks to a "higher authority" (Reason? Game Custom?) to make
>their 
>Judgment and then bends their interpretation to that Judgment as necessary 
>to display some form of consistency.
>
>Welcome to the world of interpretation. :-)
>
>--gritter

So it is your opinion that the underlying logic of the nomiverse that allows two otherwise contradictory rulings to exist is that nowhere does it say that judgments have to agree, or have anything to do with one another?  Even though they both carry the Force of Law?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:31:08 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:15:18AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> So it is your opinion that the underlying logic of the nomiverse that allows two otherwise contradictory rulings to exist is that nowhere does it say that judgments have to agree, or have anything to do with one another?  Even though they both carry the Force of Law?
> 
> 						Glotmorf

I think it's more that the Nomic is too fuzzy for you to say with
absolute authority that two rulings are contradictory. Just like you can
paraphrase to make them appear contradictory, I can interpret them in a
way that they are not contradictory.

This happens because we are humans speaking an ambiguous language[1],
and because we don't want to define every word or concept we use, among
other things.

If you want the Nomic state to be consistent all the time with no
allowance for common sense, proposals would probably have to be
submitted as C code or something.

[1] If Robin's still around in the game, I'll mention that I don't think
holding a Nomic in the Lojban language would solve this. Though it would
be neat.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:32:44 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Administrative Abilities
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:25:08AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> According to The Voice's judgment on my CFJ, the Standard Delimiters are optional.  If someone delimits eir rule title with single underscores rather than double underscores, it means e has opted to not use the Standard Delimiters; it is NOT a typo.  Therefore I would object to the application of Rule 255 to any proposal, other than those submitted by Wonko, in order to render single underscores into double underscores.

Yes, but I assume that those were intended to be titles, not random
chunks of text delimited by underscores that are in the proposal for no
good reason.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:33:55 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:31 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
>If you want the Nomic state to be consistent all the time with no
>allowance for common sense, proposals would probably have to be
>submitted as C code or something.

Maybe we could do C Nomic after we're done with this.  *runs and hides*

Bean

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:37:54 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/28/02 at 12:33 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 12:31 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
>>If you want the Nomic state to be consistent all the time with no
>>allowance for common sense, proposals would probably have to be
>>submitted as C code or something.
>
>Maybe we could do C Nomic after we're done with this.  *runs and hides*
>
>Bean

Nah...we have Game Objects.  It'll have to be C++ Nomic.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:46:20 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Administrative
  Abilities
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/28/02 at 12:32 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:25:08AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> According to The Voice's judgment on my CFJ, the Standard Delimiters are
>optional.  If someone delimits eir rule title with single underscores
>rather than double underscores, it means e has opted to not use the
>Standard Delimiters; it is NOT a typo.  Therefore I would object to the
>application of Rule 255 to any proposal, other than those submitted by
>Wonko, in order to render single underscores into double underscores.
>
>Yes, but I assume that those were intended to be titles, not random
>chunks of text delimited by underscores that are in the proposal for no
>good reason.
>
>-- 
>Rob Speer

Yes, but the fact that you can assume that means the meaning of the structure of the proposal text is clear, despite the fact that the submitters didn't choose to use the Standard Delimiters.  Therefore, while the delimiting of the title doesn't conform to the Standard Delimiters, it is nevertheless not a situation requiring a correction.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:30:20 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: [OT] C++ Nomic
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:37 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
>On 1/28/02 at 12:33 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
> >At 12:31 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
> >>If you want the Nomic state to be consistent all the time with no
> >>allowance for common sense, proposals would probably have to be
> >>submitted as C code or something.
> >
> >Maybe we could do C Nomic after we're done with this.  *runs and hides*
>
>Nah...we have Game Objects.  It'll have to be C++ Nomic.

Woah, flash of genius here.... I think we may be onto something... Gotta go 
to work but here goes the basic idea:

- Game runs as a daemon on a server
- Clients connect, login, and perform actions (proposals, voting) via a 
well-defined XML interface
- Proposals are patches to the code of the Server
- At the end of every voting period (whatever that is), the daemon patches 
and recompiles itself then exec()s the new copy
- If you break the game so it doesn't compile, or you cause it to crash on 
a line of your code, you win!

That's about as far as I've gotten in planning (besides some details 
brainstorming).  This could be a neat pet project.  It might be easier to 
do it in Java but C++ would be cooler (multiple versions for different 
programming languages?).  Anyone else have thoughts on this? (it's 
off-topic so let's keep it brief - statements of interest and key ideas 
only for now).

Bean

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:19:39 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: [OT] C++ Nomic
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/28/02 at 8:30 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 12:37 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
>>On 1/28/02 at 12:33 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>>
>> >At 12:31 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>If you want the Nomic state to be consistent all the time with no
>> >>allowance for common sense, proposals would probably have to be
>> >>submitted as C code or something.
>> >
>> >Maybe we could do C Nomic after we're done with this.  *runs and hides*
>>
>>Nah...we have Game Objects.  It'll have to be C++ Nomic.
>
>Woah, flash of genius here.... I think we may be onto something... Gotta
>go 
>to work but here goes the basic idea:
>
>- Game runs as a daemon on a server
>- Clients connect, login, and perform actions (proposals, voting) via a 
>well-defined XML interface
>- Proposals are patches to the code of the Server
>- At the end of every voting period (whatever that is), the daemon patches 
>and recompiles itself then exec()s the new copy
>- If you break the game so it doesn't compile, or you cause it to crash on 
>a line of your code, you win!
>
>That's about as far as I've gotten in planning (besides some details 
>brainstorming).  This could be a neat pet project.  It might be easier to 
>do it in Java but C++ would be cooler (multiple versions for different 
>programming languages?).  Anyone else have thoughts on this? (it's 
>off-topic so let's keep it brief - statements of interest and key ideas 
>only for now).
>
>Bean

So basically we're talking Parliamentary Core Wars?  With players needing to work out exactly what a proposed piece of code does before they vote in favor of its implementation?

Gee, I'd think it would be harder to keep the thing running than to bring it to a halt...:)  And it'd be nice/fair to have a testbed server somewhere that people can test their proposals on...

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:51:49 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Since this player is currently known as "Uncle Psychosis",
>
True.

> and since "uin" is not eir real name (as suggested by the email header),
>
Also true.

> I must assume "uin" is a title e is bestowing upon emself.
>
Doesn't follow. There are numerous other possibilities; it could be some kind of customary salutation, or I could simply be incorrectly reporting my name (either accidentally, or as a deliberate falsehood). I claim that I am doing the second of these, and, since my name *used* to be (something which abbreviated to) uin, I think it seems pretty plausible.

Since neither making a mistake about your name nor claiming your name is something other than it is are regulated, and the rules make a quite clear distinction between names and titles, I can call myself what I please, as long as I don't claim it's a title. Which I don't.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;3840379;4478627;x?http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:18:41 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/28/02 at 12:33 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

 >At 12:31 AM 2002-01-28 -0500, you wrote:
 >>If you want the Nomic state to be consistent all the time with no
 >>allowance for common sense, proposals would probably have to be
 >>submitted as C code or something.
 >
 >Maybe we could do C Nomic after we're done with this.  *runs and hides*
 >
 >Bean

Nah...we have Game Objects.  It'll have to be C++ Nomic.

						Glotmorf

Negation negation! It is bad, it is bad, ik the flesh! Who is bad, it is 
bad, ik for the flesh in order to hit the target this guy it is satisfied! 
Or the capture style the that, from or silence aims far with the enemy.

                                   -von Skippy Overproduction

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:34:47 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> For the time being, I'm not un-recognizing 306, because I 
> don't think it's
> supposed to be done. I made an error of judgment the one time 
> I did it.
> Feel free to replace it with a wholly different proposal...
 
So you're saying you think proposals can't be withdrawn after being submitted?  The rules don't appear to explicitly prohibit that anywhere.  So by permissibility of the unprohibited, it should be allowed, no?

--Scoff!

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:49:33 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: Overhauls
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'd rather see a revised proposal, or not see a withdrawn proposal, than see a bad proposal that someone *knew* was bad, just because they were effectively prohibited or deterred from either revising or withdrawing it.

That seems to be precisely the situation we'll have, if the Administrator is correct in believing that proposals are un-rescindable, *and* your overhaul penalty proposal passes.  I'm sure the Admin would appreciate minimizing the revision activity, but we should balance that commendable goal against the overall quality of the measures on the ballot.

--Scoff!
> 
> {{
> Create a new rule entitled _I Call A Redo!_ with the 
> following -0- delimited 
> text:
> 
> -0-
> At any point between it's recognition by the Administrator 
> and the beginning 
> of the voting period during which it is to be voted on, the 
> proponent of a 
> proposal may make an overhaul.  An overhaul is considered to 
> be a change to 
> the proposal which renders it to be an entirely new proposal for the 
> purposes of the changes it will render to the game state and 
> to the rules.  
> If a change is found to be an overhaul by the proponent, the 
> Administrator, 
> or by a Judgement on a CFJ pertaining to the question, the 
> proponent shall 
> lose 5 points.  If the change is found to be an overhaul 
> through any method 
> other than by the Administrator, the Administrator may 
> override the decision 
> and declare it not to be an overhaul.
> -0-
> {*PointsLost Proposals, 2*}

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:31:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday
 morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> > For the time being, I'm not un-recognizing 306, because I
> > don't think it's
> > supposed to be done. I made an error of judgment the one time
> > I did it.
> > Feel free to replace it with a wholly different proposal...
>

> So you're saying you think proposals can't be withdrawn after being
> submitted?  The rules don't appear to explicitly prohibit that
> anywhere.  So by permissibility of the unprohibited, it should be
> allowed, no?

This is getting dangerously close to "Glotmorf's Wonderful World of
Bizarre/Irrational CFJs" territory here... :-)

First, I prefer, for at least limited scopes like this, a permissive
ruleset to a restrictive ruleset. It's not the sort of thing that would
work on a large scale (just try to imagine if the U.S. Code had to list
every single thing all people were permitted to do, instead of listing
things like murder and rape that people are prohibited from doing). On a
limited scope, it CAN work - the Missouri Wildlife Code is a permissive
system, and all the hunters/fishers/whatever are happy. (The poachers
aren't, obviously, but that's their own darn problem.)

Second, if proposals can be "un-recognized," it makes my life as the admin
harder. It means that, in the middle of the "current proposals" page,
there'll be an ugly "Proposal redacted"  note in the middle, and then I
have to remember to take it off the ballot, and it just ruins the whole
numbering system. Or that I have to come up with a good way to represent
it in the database that doesn't break everything else, and that doesn't
break my brain.

If there really is a substantial outcry for this sort of thing, I'll see
what I can do, but it shouldn't be a problem. There are plenty of things
that can be done that either need to be done, or are just really cool, so
as long as "I Want A Re-do!" doesn't pass, replacing lame proposal ideas
with not-so-lame ones should be an acceptable option for everyone.

I'll send out a batch of recognized stuff, including the aforementioned
do-over proposal, sometime this evening.

...dave

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:46:29 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/28/02 at 7:04 PM Doig, Gavin wrote:

><proosal>
><title>Why? Because I'm a cave man.</title>
><body>
>Amend rule 129 by replacing the current text with the following
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE-delimited text:
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE
>2 Nweeks after the Administrator, in a Public Forum, makes any statement
>about the rules or game state, the rules and gamestate shall be altered
>what
>they would be had that statement been true at the time it was made, unless
>in the intervening time any player objects to the statement in a Public
>Forum, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
>and
>game state shall apply.
>
>This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
>MONUMENTOFGRANITE
>[[Fitter, happier, not broken so much.]]
></body>
></proosal>
>
>uin.
>Oh, and I give 3 points to each of the other players who voted for P277.

I'm giving Uncle Psychosis a second kick for the second occurrence of the same offense.

						Glotmorf
					Go ahead.  Make my quota.

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:53:19 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/28/02 at 1:51 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Since this player is currently known as "Uncle Psychosis",
>>
>True.
>
>> and since "uin" is not eir real name (as suggested by the email header),
>>
>Also true.
>
>> I must assume "uin" is a title e is bestowing upon emself.
>>
>Doesn't follow. There are numerous other possibilities; it could be some
>kind of customary salutation, or I could simply be incorrectly reporting
>my name (either accidentally, or as a deliberate falsehood). I claim that
>I am doing the second of these, and, since my name *used* to be (something
>which abbreviated to) uin, I think it seems pretty plausible.
>
>Since neither making a mistake about your name nor claiming your name is
>something other than it is are regulated, and the rules make a quite clear
>distinction between names and titles, I can call myself what I please, as
>long as I don't claim it's a title. Which I don't.
>
>uin.

Well, the first kick was recognized, and I'll claim that as precedent for the second and third...

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:13:51 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Well, the first kick was recognized, and I'll claim that as precedent
> for the second and third...

The first kick was recognized because it was cool and funny. The second
and third kicks are just silly, and therefore not recognized.

...dave

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:52:03 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 304 judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/29/02 at 12:13 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> Well, the first kick was recognized, and I'll claim that as precedent
>> for the second and third...
>
>The first kick was recognized because it was cool and funny. The second
>and third kicks are just silly, and therefore not recognized.
>
>...dave

Aw.  And here I thought I'd made supreme. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:11:46 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:15 AM 1/28/2002 -0500, you wrote:

 > So it is your opinion that the underlying logic
 > of the nomiverse that allows two otherwise contradictory
 > rulings to exist is that nowhere does it say that
 > judgments have to agree, or have anything to do with
 > one another?  Even though they both carry the Force of
 > Law?

First, I don't accept the existence of a Nomiverse separate from our own 
universe, so it is my opinion that there is no separate "underlying logic 
of the Nomiverse." Nomic rules are not natural laws. I think I already went 
through this with Uncle P. I don't believe in a discrete, Platonic 
game-state either. It is all One, grasshopper; there are no shadows.

Second, "force of law" is itself fairly irrelevant. Since it's not defined 
or referred to anyplace else in the rules, the potential for either a 
strict or liberal interpretation exists. On the conservative side, one 
could argue that in the Nomiverse there are no "laws" anyway, only Rules; 
since no "laws" exist in the Nomiverse, the "force of law" has about as 
much meaning as the "force of cheese." (If I were one of the Nomic 
Platonists, I'd be taking that stance.) On the liberal, pragmatist side, 
even if they were two separate contradictory judgments on the same rule, I 
see absolutely no problem with two such judgments being in disagreement, 
any more than I see a problem with a 1998 Supreme Court ruling disagreeing 
with a 1932 Supreme Court ruling. Different courts interpret the same law 
differently all the time. I'd make the argument that (minus any rules 
otherwise regulating it) any Judgment can "overturn" a previous Judgment, 
by interpreting the previous Judgment to be a mistaken interpretation. That 
approach works whether you accept "force of law" as being meaningful or 
not, although actually it works even better if you interpret "force of law" 
as having some meaning because then a re-interpretation can implicitly take 
precedence over the original interpretation. E.g. any re-interpretation 
with the "force of law" can invalidate an earlier interpretation.

Third, the above example is irrelevant to this particular situation (but 
sort of interesting in the abstract) because it talks about different 
interpretations of the *same* rule. Even if you assume a strict, 
traditional interpretation of Force of Law (e.g. as somehow tied to Rule 
10), in this case the fact that both judgments carry the Force of Law is 
irrelevant, because they address *different* rules and situations. 
*Similar*, but still different. Nowhere is it even implied, never mind 
enforced by law (or Rules), that Rule XYZ has to be interpreted 
identically, or even in parallel, to Rule ABC. There is no contradiction. 
Rule XYZ does not have to be adjudicated by the same standard (Standard 
Alpha) that Rule ABC is judged (Standard Beta) because they are separate 
situations. When in a situation governed by Rule XYZ, judge it by Alpha. 
When in a situation governed by Rule ABC, judge it by Beta. Likewise, there 
is no requirement that they NOT be judged by the same standard, either. A 
different set of judges might have adjudicated both Rule ABC and Rule XYZ 
according to Standard Alpha (or Standard Gamma). Big deal. Not very 
interesting to me.

What *is* interesting to me is what's really going on here. I believe the 
Judgments are being rendered based on criteria entirely *outside* the 
pretend Nomiverse. Basically, imaginary players are a Bad Idea because it 
unbalances the game and makes everything less fun and more problematic. 
Note: that's not why imaginary players are invalid according to the rules; 
that's just why it's a bad idea to allow imaginary players in this game. 
But (according to some) you're not supposed to offer that up as 
justification for a judgment because it's outside the Nomiverse, so the 
Judge performs a little interpretive juggling to make the rules mean what e 
wants them to mean to make the Judgment consistent with the extra-Nomic 
desires. That's why we get similar situations adjudicated based on 
different standards. In fact, *all* Judgments are actually made this way, 
although in some Judgments it's just a lot more blatantly obvious because 
the extra-Nomic desires are not in align with the Rules.

This is why game-custom is more important than "game-state" of the 
"Nomiverse". The game doesn't exist outside of the player's reality, and 
when the going gets rough, when you get right down to the core values of 
Nomic Players -- e.g. let's enjoy playing a game together -- they'll toss 
the Grand Theory Of The Underlying Logic Of The Nomiverse out the 
window...and then try to put plastic wrap over the window and say, "No, no, 
of course I didn't break the glass. That's glass, not plastic wrap. 
Really!" :-) It happens all the time by Players and *especially* by the 
Administrator. E.g. "I'm tired of copying and pasting!" potentially has a 
lot more effect on the Nomiverse than the Rules do! :-)

There's nothing that prevents us from playing Nomic *as if* there's a 
separate Nomicverse governed by the Rules we create, but, in my opinion, 
that's simply a less enjoyable endeavor (although I'm beginning to 
deviously consider the potential of using some Players' Platonistic 
adherence to game-state as an effective strategy for messing with them, 
mwuhahahahaha!). "Force of law" is just a bit of rhetorical silliness that 
increases this kind of confusion. The only force that the Rules or 
Judgments truly have is our acceptance of them . . . or our lack of 
acceptance of those who disobey them. ;-)

--gritter

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:07:29 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> <proosal>
> <title>You can't even see.</title>
> <body>
> Amend rule 212, if it exists, by
> replacing "three" with "5".
> [[If 266 fails, at least we'll have an 
> alternative.]]
> </body>
> </proosal>
>
> uin.
> I repeal rule 10!
>
It's now been (over) an nweek since I performed the above actions. Therefore, they are considered to be legal (by rule 129), and rule 10 is no more (or possibly has been no more since then, but it doesn't matter at the moment which).

Possible reasons for this to fail:
CFJ136 - not relevant, as that CFJ was submitted and judged *before* the statute kicked in.
R152 - it *is* permitted by the rules (specifically, r129 permits it).
The fact that my action came after my signature - there's nothing to prohibit this, and we have the precedent of the admin recognising my point transfers of yesterday, which also came after my sig. What a convenient coincidence ;-)

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:29:15 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> First, I don't accept the existence of a 
> Nomiverse separate from our own 
> universe, so it is my opinion that there is 
> no separate "underlying logic 
> of the Nomiverse."
>
That's what the ruleset is...

> Nomic rules are not natural laws.
>
Well, quite. No one ever claimed they were. You can certainly draw a good analogy between the two, but analogy is (still) not identity. If that analogy is causing you confusion, try this one: nomic laws are like the code of Quake. You can hit fire as often as you like, or submit as many proosals as you like, but until the game says it's time to fire again, or it's the next nweek, your actions don't happen. And yes, nomic's unlike Quake in many ways; that's just a failure of the analogy, not of the Platonist view itself.

> Second, "force of law" is itself fairly 
> irrelevant. Since it's not defined 
> or referred to anyplace else in the rules, 
> the potential for either a 
> strict or liberal interpretation exists. On 
> the conservative side, one 
> could argue that in the Nomiverse there are 
> no "laws" anyway, only Rules; 
> since no "laws" exist in the Nomiverse, 
> the "force of law" has about as 
> much meaning as the "force of cheese."
>
That's one (perfectly valid) viewpoint, except that...

> (If I were one of the Nomic 
> Platonists, I'd be taking that stance.)
>
...it was absolutely no connection with this. The criteria of whether "force of law" means anything within the rules has nothing to do with the Platonism / Pragmatism debate. You can argue for either a narrow or a broad interpretation of language within either viewpoint.

I think it would also be good to draw a clear line between pragmatism in the sense of "doing things because they're convenient", and Pragmatism in the sense of "thinking there's something wrong with the Platonist view". Having a statute of limitation is pragmatic, and I'm all for that; thinking that rule 10 did anything is Pragmatic, and I'm not for that.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:37:21 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/29/02 at 8:07 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>The fact that my action came after my signature - there's nothing to
>prohibit this, and we have the precedent of the admin recognising my point
>transfers of yesterday, which also came after my sig. What a convenient
>coincidence ;-)

Yes, but it's also a convenient coincidence that the admin has ruled in my case that his recognizing one action doesn't set a precedent for his recognizing another. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:36:56 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Grid Stuff etc.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/29/02 at 1:34 PM Dan wrote:

>I declare myself to be a drone and I enter the Grid at 12,14.
>
>[[I should probably apologise in advance to the admin for this next
>bit but I really want to see what happens...]]
>
>I toss the following very real but entirely unregulated entities onto the
>Grid. I'm not particularly picky about their location:

Hey!  Leave space for the rest of the rules, the proposals and the CFJs!  Jeez!

Hm.  Then again, there isn't yet a rule that says there can't be more than one non-player object in a grid location...which means, among other things, all those Bob's *could* wind up in the same location...

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:41:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Grid Stuff etc.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >I toss the following very real but entirely unregulated entities onto the
> >Grid. I'm not particularly picky about their location:
> 
> Hey!  Leave space for the rest of the rules, the proposals and the
> CFJs!  Jeez!
> 
> Hm.  Then again, there isn't yet a rule that says there can't be more
> than one non-player object in a grid location...which means, among
> other things, all those Bob's *could* wind up in the same location...
> 

Hmm.  How odd.  I might have to make more.

And they won't block players either.

Dan

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:11:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Glotmorf's Wonderful World of Bizarre/Irrational
 CFJs
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Statement: It is legal for me to kill the Witch Gremlin.

So?  No one said the Witch Gremlin had to be alive to do it's dirty work!
It could already be dead!  *scary-like* Wooooo!  Beware the undead Witch
Gremlin!  Wooooo!

Bean

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:15:49 -0500
From: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > uin.
> > I repeal rule 10!
> >
> It's now been (over) an nweek since I performed the above actions. Therefore, they are
> considered to be legal (by rule 129), and rule 10 is no more (or possibly has been no more
> since then, but it doesn't matter at the moment which).
> 
> Possible reasons for this to fail:
> CFJ136 - not relevant, as that CFJ was submitted and judged *before* the statute kicked in.
> R152 - it *is* permitted by the rules (specifically, r129 permits it).
> The fact that my action came after my signature - there's nothing to prohibit this, and we have
> the precedent of the admin recognising my point transfers of yesterday, which also came after
> my sig. What a convenient coincidence ;-)
> 
> uin.
> 

Rule 129 is irrelevant in this. Rule 18 states "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of Rule Changes, which are permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits them. A Rule Change consists of the creation (enactment), modification (amendment), or deletion (repeal) of a rule."

Repealing a rule is explictly a Rule Change and explicly does NOT fall under the "permitted and unregulated" clause. 

Rule 129 just determines whether your action was "legal" -- it doesn't determine whether it was successful. Rule 129 makes no reference to the ability of legal actions to change the game state. In particular, Rule Changes -- a clearly defined subset of changes to the Game State -- are explicitly regulated by the Rules. Therefore no change to your Platonic game state ever took place and you've only been living under the hallucination that your action had any outcome. Rule 18 (and actually Rule 10 as well) takes precedence over all this, limiting your ability to repeal a rule by stating so in a sig.   

True enough that, at this point, no one can challenge you for attempting to repeal Rule 10 in your sig, but that doesn't mean Rule 10 is repealed. 

--gritter

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:02:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: NotKeywords
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, I spent about ten minutes hacking on a keyword system. (Right now,
they're listed as "NotKeywords" for clarity.)

It's ugly and not at all perfect yet, but it's there on the Web page.

I would ask that suggestions for keywords just be tossed around
informally, then someone can just make a big omnibus proposal that
includes a whole lot of keyword additions, so we don't have about five
trillion proposals that do nothing but add keywords to rules.

Once it gets ironed out a bit, and there's enough real keywords to make it
useful, I'll add the keywords to the Rules listing, so rules will look
like this:

Rule 352/1: The Flag Carrier (Keywords: Subgame, Flag)

Each Team on the Grid shall designate one member as the Flag Carrier.
Only Flag Carriers may carry Flags.

The Flag Carrier may transfer the title of Flag Carrier to any other
member of eir team by mutual agreement of the current and future Flag
Carriers, at a cost of one point. This one-point cost may be paid by any
member of the Team, or may come from the team's Stash.

If the Flag Carrier abdicates while carrying a Flag, that Flag is
immediately teleported to a random location in the Neutral Zone.

[[ The above rule is just random stuff I made up. Looks cool, though... ]]

That's in addition to the list of rules-by-keyword that will also exist.

...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, 29 Jan 2002 18:13:16 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ Bob's Clone Objects
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:33:40PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Statement: The Bob's Clone Objects are on the grid.
> 
> My reasoning:
> 1.  There are no rules regulating the position of Bob's Clones.  By
> permissibility of the unprohibited we players can do whatever we like with
> them.

Sure you can. But the Administrator doesn't have to care, because it
doesn't affect anything in the game state.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Glotmorf's Wonderful World of Bizarre/Irrational CFJs
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:47:39 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:11:39 -0500 (EST), Eric Gerlach
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> Statement: It is legal for me to kill the Witch Gremlin.
>
>So?  No one said the Witch Gremlin had to be alive to do it's dirty work!
>It could already be dead!  *scary-like* Wooooo!  Beware the undead Witch
>Gremlin!  Wooooo!
>
>Bean

You destroy the Witch Gremlin!  But wait...  The Witch Gremlin's medallion
begins to glow!--More--

-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:10:53 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: This seems an appropriate time.....
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/29/02 at 7:10 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>..... to do the following.
>
>I declare myself to be a Drone.
>
>The Admin wrote:
>>Under "Permissibility of the Unprohibited," Glotmorf gives the Scoring
>>Gremlin a good shove. It lands at (13,4). (Since e said e wasn't too picky
>>about where the Gremlin landed, I rolled randomly. Mind you, unless/until
>>someone writes rules or AI for the Gremlins, he'll probably just sit
>>there...)
>
>Not so fast.....
>
>I enter the Grid at (13, 4).
>
>I pick up the Scoring Gremlin.  (This ought to be fun :-)
>
>Bean

Hey Bean...fade back for a pass.  I'll throw you the ol' PEGskin.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:38:45 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: NotKeywords
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/29/02 at 9:02 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>Okay, I spent about ten minutes hacking on a keyword system. (Right now,
>they're listed as "NotKeywords" for clarity.)
>
>It's ugly and not at all perfect yet, but it's there on the Web page.
>
>I would ask that suggestions for keywords just be tossed around
>informally, then someone can just make a big omnibus proposal that
>includes a whole lot of keyword additions, so we don't have about five
>trillion proposals that do nothing but add keywords to rules.
>
>Once it gets ironed out a bit, and there's enough real keywords to make it
>useful, I'll add the keywords to the Rules listing, so rules will look
>like this:
>
>Rule 352/1: The Flag Carrier (Keywords: Subgame, Flag)
>
>Each Team on the Grid shall designate one member as the Flag Carrier.
>Only Flag Carriers may carry Flags.
>
>The Flag Carrier may transfer the title of Flag Carrier to any other
>member of eir team by mutual agreement of the current and future Flag
>Carriers, at a cost of one point. This one-point cost may be paid by any
>member of the Team, or may come from the team's Stash.
>
>If the Flag Carrier abdicates while carrying a Flag, that Flag is
>immediately teleported to a random location in the Neutral Zone.
>
>[[ The above rule is just random stuff I made up. Looks cool, though... ]]
>
>That's in addition to the list of rules-by-keyword that will also exist.
>
>...dave

I realize this is only a temporary listing, but could you perhaps put line breaks between the rule numbers and the titles of the rules next to them?  I mean, of course I remember what r18 is, and Uncle Psy has been kind enough to drill r10 into our heads, but...

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 01:55:55 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday
  afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/29/02 at 8:12 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>Rules aren't game objects in any direct sense of the word, so I'm also
>ruling that Rule 1 has not in fact been lobbed onto The Grid.

Mr. A., rules are described in r11 as "revisable objects".  If they're not game objects, then that means they're objects that aren't part of the game.  If the rules aren't part of the game, we just might have a problem...

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:28:02 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Giant Hamster Balls
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am almost as opposed to proposals that require me to do a lot of math to 
understand them as I am to repealing bandwidth restriction.

:-/

--gritter

At 06:12 PM 1/29/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>[[This proposal is not as demented as the subject line makes it sound.]]
>
>[[I realize that this proposal does a bunch of calculations, which I
>don't necessarily want to inflict on Dave - if necessary, I could write
>a script which would input each player's Dimensions and calculate the
>effects. And I think this is generally more fun than Property.]]
>
>I propose:
>
>__The Rat Race__
>{{
>1. Change all occurrences of the term 'Distance' in the current ruleset
>to 'Displacement'. [[This frees up a useful term and makes it more
>technically correct.]]
>
>2. Create a rule: __Distance__
>{{
>The Distance between one player and another is calculated as the square
>root of (the sum of (the square of each of (the difference between one
>player's value and the other's, in each Dimension))).
>}}
>
>3. Create a rule: __Hamster Balls__
>{{
>A Giant Hamster Ball is a game object. Any player (but not a non-Player)
>may state eir desire to equip emself with a Giant Hamster Ball by
>posting a message to a Public Forum.
>
>At the end of an nweek, after scores have been calculated, if a player
>has stated that e wants a Giant Hamster Ball, then eir score is lowered
>to the highest multiple of 20 Points which is less than the score.
>[[The places in the Dimensions where you can get Hamster Balls occur
>only every 20 points.]] Then that player is given the Giant Hamster Ball
>and is no longer considered to want one.
>
>The Giant Hamster Ball (GHB) surrounds the player who owns it at a
>radius of 5 units. If a player with a GHB has a Displacement [[from the
>Origin]] of less than 10, however, the ball is shattered by a mysterious
>force and ceases to exist before any effects of GHBs are calculated.
>
>At the end of an nweek, after Dimension changes have taken place, these
>effects are calculated for all Players, in order by increasing
>Displacement:
>
>1. If a player without a GHB has a distance of 5 or less from a player
>with a GHB, the former player has been Run Over by the Hamster Ball.
>This player has eir Dimensions recalculated, such that they have changed
>by only half as much as they otherwise would have. If there is another
>player with a GHB within a distance of 5 from that new location, this
>step is repeated. The player's Speed and Displacement are adjusted
>accordingly.
>
>[[ For example, a player who got +1 Activity, +18 Score, and -2 Charm
>but got Run Over would instead get +0.5 Activity, +9 Score, and -1
>Charm. The effect of this is that you didn't actually get to your
>destination, because you were Run Over on the way.]]
>
>2. If a player with a GHB has a distance of 10 or less from another
>player with a GHB, then both players have Collided. A Dimension and one
>of the two players are picked randomly, and the selected player gains 5
>in that Dimension while the other loses 5. Then, for each of the two
>GHBs, there is a 50% chance that it is destroyed in the collision.
>
>[[ When two GHBs run into each other, the players bounce off in a random
>direction, and the GHBs may be destroyed. ]]
>}}
>
>}}
>--
>Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:30:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: This seems an appropriate time.....
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:10 PM 1/29/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>..... to do the following.
>
>I declare myself to be a Drone.
>
>The Admin wrote:
>>Under "Permissibility of the Unprohibited," Glotmorf gives the Scoring
>>Gremlin a good shove. It lands at (13,4). (Since e said e wasn't too picky
>>about where the Gremlin landed, I rolled randomly. Mind you, unless/until
>>someone writes rules or AI for the Gremlins, he'll probably just sit
>>there...)
>
>Not so fast.....
>
>I enter the Grid at (13, 4).
>
>I pick up the Scoring Gremlin.  (This ought to be fun :-)

Big frickin' deal. Killing gremlins, picking them up, etc. has no effect on 
anything (other than your conscience or what's in your pocket) because none 
of those are legislated limitations to how the gremlins et al go about 
their business. A dead gremlin in your pocket can still function as would a 
live gremlin up your nose.

--gritter

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:32:17 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Greg Ritter <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: GremBall
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

....Unless of course someone proposes something like this....

At 02:39 AM 1/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Whoa!  I'm brain-dead.  I didn't see the bandwidth rationing went 
>up.  Good thing I'm now inspired...
>
>{{ _The Intercontinental Ballistic Gremlin_
>
>Create a new rule:
>
>{{ _GremBall_
>
>Gremlins can be in a grid location, in Limbo, or in the posession of a Player.
>
>If a Player is holding a Gremlin, e must throw it or drop it within two 
>ndays, or become Burned and drop it where e is standing.  A Player 
>recovers from being Burned at the end of the nweek.  Burned Players cannot 
>catch thrown Gremlins.
>
>If a Player and a Gremlin are in the same grid location, or a Player and a 
>Gremlin are both in Limbo, the Player may pick up the Gremlin.
>
>A Player in Limbo can throw a Gremlin at a grid location or a Player in a 
>grid location.  A Player in a grid location can throw a Gremlin into Limbo 
>or at a Player in Limbo.  Gremlins cannot be thrown at Players who are On 
>Leave.
>
>If a Gremlin is thrown at a Player, the Player must, as an action, catch 
>the Gremlin within two ndays of it being thrown.  If the Player does not 
>or cannot catch the Gremlin, the Gremlin hits the Player, who then loses 
>1d5 score points; the Gremlin then falls where the Player is standing.
>}}
>
>Place all Gremlins that are not already on the grid or in Players' 
>posession into Limbo.
>
>Replace the last sentence of Rule 256 with the following text:
>
>"When a Gremlin is first defined by the rules, it starts out Active and in 
>Limbo unless the defining rule specifies otherwise."
>
>}}

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:17:12 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Hopefully completely fathomable CFJ:
    spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Statement: (1)  This CFJ is permited by the rule 129, (2)  and
> Rule 10 is not repealed. 
> Analysis: As regard to point (2) ,Rule 18 states that deletion of a rule
> is not permited and unregulated, and hence is regulated (or arguably,
>  prohibited, but in this case, we couldnt delete any rules!).
> Rule 11 states that "the ruleset can only be changed as provided
> therein", and as the ruleset does not provide for
> rule changes by players using non-proposal actions (e.g. Uncle Psychosis
> post sig "action"), no change occoured, and hence no action actually
> happened, hence Rule 129 (the statute of limitations) did not kick in
> (it states that player actions which _happened_ become legal) hence this
> CFJ is permitted (which deals with point (1)) 
> Admitedly, that is a slightly circular argument, but the best I could do
> at this time of night.
>
That's an interesting argument. It leads to the conclusion that R129 doesn't do anything - legal actions are made legal, and illegal actions can still be CFJed after 1 nweek, as they never happened.

You know, it feels like you should be able to generate a paradox out of that. ;-)

It's not how I thought r129 was broken, but I'm not at all sure it's an improvement.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:15:29 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: D'oh!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 8:20 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>I amend proosal 320 by replacing its text with the following
>ROOTOFALLEVIL delimited text:
>ROOTOFALLEVIL
>Repeal rule 27.
>ROOTOFALLEVIL
>
>uin.

Um...why?

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:40:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Hopefully completely fathomable          CFJ: 
         spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> That's an interesting argument. It leads to the conclusion that R129 doesn't do anything - legal actions are made legal, and illegal actions can still be CFJed after 1 nweek, as they never happened.

Actually, I think it might require the assumption that it is true in
order to be true, which is perhaps a problem. Perhaps the judge can come
up with something better...

> You know, it feels like you should be able to generate a paradox out of that. ;-)
> 
> It's not how I thought r129 was broken, but I'm not at all sure it's an improvement.

Im sure its not.

cheers,
Iain 

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:08:37 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 129 is irrelevant in this.
>
Oh? Let's see, shall we?

> Rule 18 states "Whatever is not
> prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated,
> with the sole exception of Rule Changes, which are permitted only
> when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits them. A
> Rule Change consists of the creation (enactment), modification
> (amendment), or deletion (repeal) of a rule."
> 
It does.

> Repealing a rule is explictly a Rule Change and explicly does NOT
> fall under the "permitted and unregulated" clause. 
>
Well, no. That's not really relevant, though.

> Rule 129 just determines whether your action was "legal" -- it
> doesn't determine whether it was successful. Rule 129 makes no
> reference to the ability of legal actions to change the game state.
>
No, it doesn't. However, a swift glance at a dictionary reveals "In conformity with or permitted by law" as the most appropriate definition of "legal" for the way it's used in R129. Therefore, when rule 129 makes my action legal, it is permitting it. Thus, rule 18 allows me to change the rules, because I have been explicitly or implicitly permitted to do so by rule 129.

Granted, rule 129 is a rule, not a law, but given that it's *rule* 129 that's doing the legalising, that's an argument that's at best tenuous.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:40:17 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Gender Recognition
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is all good up to the last sentence.  While I've embraced Spivak as a matter of game custom, as far as the OED and the latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style are concerned, use of the singular "they" for gender-neutral references is appropriate.  *Chaucer* used the singular "they"  In addition, most manuals of style also approve of (but generally abhor and discourage) use of s/he or he/she.

As a matter of personal usage, I tend to use the singular "they", and regular switching from one gender to the other in some cases where I'm using fictional characters to illustrate non-fictional points.  When I'm writing something, for nomic or elsewhere, Spivak is the last thing that comes naturally.  With the exception of rabid net-nomic fans, I can't imagine it comes naturally to anyone.

I'm not a fan of anything that is going to penalize players for using a grammatically-correct, gender-neutral pronoun that just happens to differ from the ones prescribed in your list, especially when habits of usage outside the game make it almost certain that every one of us will eventually make this mistake unintentionally.

Spivak should be like standard delimiters--customary, but not required.

And you had better not be requiring the gender-specific pronouns when a player's gender is known--keeping track of everyone's gender all the time would be too much work, and probably kill whatever fun we're currently getting out of having gender in the first place.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Proposal: Gender Recognition
> 
> 
> Now that we officially have gender...
> 
> {{ _In the Valley of the Drones the One-Eyed Man is Queen_
> 
> Replace Rule 7 in its entirety with the following rule:
> 
> {{ _Pronouns_
> 
> The following table entries list the gender-specific pronouns 
> to be used in B Nomic.  Note that pronouns used in generic 
> cases where the gender is not known are the same as used for 
> a gender of Undeclared.
> 
>                Male      Female    Drone     Generic/Undeclared
> subject        he        she       it        e
> object         him       her       it        em
> possessive     his       her/hers  its       eir/eirs
> reflexive      himself   herself   itself    emself
> 
> }}
> 
> Add "using an inappropriate pronoun" to the LOGAS.
> 
> }}
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:52:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: GremBall
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>the Gremlin then falls where the Player is standing.

What if someone's in Limbo? Where are they 'standing'?

--
Wonko
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:25:35 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: D'oh!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >I amend proosal 320 by replacing its text with the following
> >ROOTOFALLEVIL delimited text:
> >ROOTOFALLEVIL
> >Repeal rule 27.
> >ROOTOFALLEVIL
> >
> >uin.
> 
> Um...why?
>
Well, there's a clue in the delimiters...

It's come to my attention that people are voting against stuff because they don't want the prooser to get points. That's silly - I mean, playing *nomic* for *points*?

I didn't have the time to go through and rip out *all* the points-related rules and sections of rules, so I picked this one, which should at least make points less meaningful to people.

uin
What's the point?
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:26:34 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 10 has NOT been repealed, unless you have a much more entertaining
> definition of rule 18/1 than I do. To the best of my knowledge, no rule
> explicitly or implicitly permits any player to single-handedly and
> unilaterally declare that a rule has been repealed. (I expect someone to
> CFJ it, rule 129 be damned, anyway. :)
>
Rule 129 (implicitly) permits it, as it legalises (i.e., permits) *all* player actions.

I note in passing that the admin failed to close his brackets at the end of the above paragraph. Bad admin, bad!

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:27:44 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Gender Recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Spivak should be like standard delimiters--customary, but not required.
>
What he said.

Also, where it says "to be used" it should be "which may optionally be used" to avoid sushi-style action failage, and similar unpleasantness.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:56:42 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: GremBall
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 8:52 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>>the Gremlin then falls where the Player is standing.
>
>What if someone's in Limbo? Where are they 'standing'?
>
>--
>Wonko

They're standing in Limbo.  Anyone in Limbo can pick up any gremlin in Limbo; it's "off the field".  But players on the grid have to be in the same grid location as a gremlin to pick it up.

I only let players in Limbo throw onto the grid so that players in Limbo don't just pummel each other with the same gremlins over and over again.  Amusing as that might be to watch.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:59:37 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: D'oh!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 1:25 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>Well, there's a clue in the delimiters...
>
>It's come to my attention that people are voting against stuff because
>they don't want the prooser to get points. That's silly - I mean, playing
>*nomic* for *points*?
>
>I didn't have the time to go through and rip out *all* the points-related
>rules and sections of rules, so I picked this one, which should at least
>make points less meaningful to people.
>
>uin

Yes...but it's the only thing remotely resembling a victory condition we have right now.  Couldn't you at least come up with something to replace it with?

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:29:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Haiku Bonus
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> __Bandwidth Limitation Of A Different Stripe__
> 
> [[This should encourage some creativity as we try to shoehorn meaningful proposals into the laconic haiku form.]]
> 
> Create a new rule:
> 
> __The Haiku Bonus__

Hrmm... as interesting as this is... I must oppose it.  For a few reasons:

1) I'm against it in principle: http://www.phenry.org/junkdrawer/haiku/
(this doesn't propose to allow joke haiku, but it's about the same...
limerick rules would be funny, or some well thought-out sonnets....)

2) I don't think this will make intelligeble, useful rules;

3) Excuse my lack of poetry terminology knowledge, but what the heck are
feet?

4) I'd like to save the title "Zen Master of Nomic" for something more
Zen-ish :)

5) This might fit somewhat better with something I'm going to propose next
nweek. :)

Bean

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:42:27 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Gender Recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:52:08AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Add "using an inappropriate pronoun" to the LOGAS.
> 
> }}

I don't like this at ALL.

To be perfectly honest, when I gave away the Scarf, I couldn't remember
whether Congenital Optimist was male or female, so I used the generic
pronoun 'eir' so that it wouldn't matter.

Under that proposal, it seems that referring to a single person with
'eir', unless e is Undeclared, would be worthy of a Kick. A player's
declared gender may not even be related to eir actual gender (see that
Congenital Optimist is now a Drone), making things even more confusing.

Spivak pronouns are great, especially on the Internet. Your proposal
would mandate that they are replaced with ordinary pronouns whenever
possible.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:49:40 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Haiku Bonus
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The article on joke haiku is interesting, but this proposal is actually born out of a deep respect for traditional haiku / senryu, nor is it proposing haiku because they would be funny.  

I think the spirit of concision and economy of expression that characterizes haiku is a worthy goal for our proposals.  The most plainly-stated laws/rules/proposals are often the most universal...e.g. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Chop Wood, Carry Water".

As someone who has admittedly written some of the wordiest proposals we've seen so far, I deliberately chose haiku as a challenge to myself and others to think of rules that can be so plainly and simply stated.

Will we see many successful ones?  Probably not.  But the attempts should prove interesting.

Limericks would also be interesting as deliberately jokey fare, though.

Sonnets would be too long to qualify as bandwidth restriction, but the time it takes to write one might well distract people from creating other proposals.

--Scoff!

p.s.  For an explanation of feet and meter, see http://www.stedwards.edu/hum/klawitter/poetics/scansion.html

p.p.s.  For one source that analyzes in depth *why* a foot-based stricture may be more appropriate for English-language haiku than the 5-7-5 syllable rule we have all been taught in elementary school, see The Japanese Haiku: Its Essential Nature, History, and Possibilities in English, with selected Examples; by Kenneth Yasuda; Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1957.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gerlach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Haiku Bonus
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> > __Bandwidth Limitation Of A Different Stripe__
> > 
> > [[This should encourage some creativity as we try to 
> shoehorn meaningful proposals into the laconic haiku form.]]
> > 
> > Create a new rule:
> > 
> > __The Haiku Bonus__
> 
> Hrmm... as interesting as this is... I must oppose it.  For a 
> few reasons:
> 
> 1) I'm against it in principle: 
> http://www.phenry.org/junkdrawer/haiku/
> (this doesn't propose to allow joke haiku, but it's about the same...
> limerick rules would be funny, or some well thought-out sonnets....)
> 
> 2) I don't think this will make intelligeble, useful rules;
> 
> 3) Excuse my lack of poetry terminology knowledge, but what 
> the heck are
> feet?
> 
> 4) I'd like to save the title "Zen Master of Nomic" for something more
> Zen-ish :)
> 
> 5) This might fit somewhat better with something I'm going to 
> propose next
> nweek. :)
> 
> Bean

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: This seems an appropriate time.....
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:03:21 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A dead gremlin in your pocket can still function as would a
live gremlin up your nose.

--gritter

I kill a marks obtained Gremlin and my nose I defend with the high piece. 
That time I let and the Gremlin which it does not eat non I put, the blap in 
the pan which crawls in that time ocean, and magic thwi witch Gremlin I hit 
the target.

                                   -von Skippy overproduction-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:08:17 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Are you ready for some football!!!!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:46:54PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> If a player is playing Football, instead of moving as specified in rule
> 301, e may move to any location within a circle of three units

In a non-continuous space like the Grid, you have to specify what you
mean by that, as "circles" don't actually exist.

. . . x . . .    @ = player's location
. o x x x o .    . = valid move only by chessboard metric
. x x x x x .    o = valid move by chessboard or Cartesian metric
x x x @ x x x    x = valid move by chessboard, Cartesian, or
. x x x x x .        Manhattan metric
. o x x x o .
. . . x . . .

You have to specify a "metric" for measuring distance.

The chessboard metric measures the number of moves a king would have to
make on a chessboard.

The Manhattan metric measures the number of moves one would have to make
if a move consists of going up, down, left, or right one square.

The Cartesian metric is where you pretend there is in fact a diagonal
line from the source to the destination, and measure it with the
Pythagorean formula.

So, you have to decide whether this 'circle' is a diamond, a lumpy
thing, or a square.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:20:12 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: The Haiku Bonus
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:25:07PM -0600, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> A player who submits a proposal in haiku form earns 10 Score points for submitting the proposal, regardless of whether the proposal is adopted or rejected.  If the player subsequently revises the proposal, it must remain in haiku form, or else the player will forfeit the 10 Score points previously awarded.

I'd say the proposal should have to be accepted. Otherwise I'd just use
up my extra proposals for the week with a haiku like this:

{{
Like the great eagle
Soaring high above the earth
Rob wins B Nomic
}}

It'd be rejected, but I'd get 10 points.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:16:35 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Are you ready for some football!!!!
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rob, if you're not out of proposals for the nweek, these definitions of metrics would be ideal stuff to introduce into the rules.  It would certainly streamline all future rules concerning the grid.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Are you ready for some
> football!!!!
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:46:54PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> > If a player is playing Football, instead of moving as 
> specified in rule
> > 301, e may move to any location within a circle of three units
> 
> In a non-continuous space like the Grid, you have to specify what you
> mean by that, as "circles" don't actually exist.
> 
>  . . x . . .    @ = player's location
>  o x x x o .    . = valid move only by chessboard metric
>  x x x x x .    o = valid move by chessboard or Cartesian metric
> x x x @ x x x    x = valid move by chessboard, Cartesian, or
>  x x x x x .        Manhattan metric
>  o x x x o .
>  . . x . . .
> 
> You have to specify a "metric" for measuring distance.
> 
> The chessboard metric measures the number of moves a king 
> would have to
> make on a chessboard.
> 
> The Manhattan metric measures the number of moves one would 
> have to make
> if a move consists of going up, down, left, or right one square.
> 
> The Cartesian metric is where you pretend there is in fact a diagonal
> line from the source to the destination, and measure it with the
> Pythagorean formula.
> 
> So, you have to decide whether this 'circle' is a diamond, a lumpy
> thing, or a square.
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer
> 
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:48:47 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

>> Rule 129 is irrelevant in this.
>> 
> Oh? Let's see, shall we?
> 
>> Rule 18 states "Whatever is not
>> prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated,
>> with the sole exception of Rule Changes, which are permitted only
>> when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits them. A
>> Rule Change consists of the creation (enactment), modification
>> (amendment), or deletion (repeal) of a rule."
>> 
> It does.
> 
>> Repealing a rule is explictly a Rule Change and explicly does NOT
>> fall under the "permitted and unregulated" clause.
>> 
> Well, no. That's not really relevant, though.
> 
>> Rule 129 just determines whether your action was "legal" -- it
>> doesn't determine whether it was successful. Rule 129 makes no
>> reference to the ability of legal actions to change the game state.
>> 
> No, it doesn't. However, a swift glance at a dictionary reveals "In conformity
> with or permitted by law" as the most appropriate definition of "legal" for
> the way it's used in R129. Therefore, when rule 129 makes my action legal, it
> is permitting it. Thus, rule 18 allows me to change the rules, because I have
> been explicitly or implicitly permitted to do so by rule 129.
> 
> Granted, rule 129 is a rule, not a law, but given that it's *rule* 129 that's
> doing the legalising, that's an argument that's at best tenuous.
> 
> uin.

If 128 says it's legal, and 18 says it's not, then it's not, under the
precedence laws of rule 33.

-- 
Wonko
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:06:10 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Re: spoon-business: I forfeit
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 3:28 PM [email-masked] wrote:

>You know what? Never mind. I got a new job last week; too much to do. I
>haven't proposed anything this nweek, keeping up with the volume of mail
>is impractical, and Platonists annoy me. ;-)
>
>First action: I give all of my points to Dan, only because he is the
>player who joined the game most recently. 
>
>Second action: I forfeit. 
>
>Thanks. It's been real, in a non-Platonic sense. :-)
>
>--gritter
>
>[email-masked] wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I currently don't have the time to keep up with the game :-(, so I
>> forfeit.
>> 
>> 
>> Joerg
> 
>Joerg is Judge for CFJ 318 (which I submitted). That CFJ needs to be re-assigned.

But...but...Great Giant Hamster Balls!  Gonna miss you guys.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:18:57 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Haiku and a new Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 4:01 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>First, a revision.  
>
>In the Haiku Bonus proposal, replace
>
>{{
>A player who submits a proposal in haiku form earns 10 Score points for
>submitting the proposal, regardless of whether the proposal is adopted or
>rejected.  If the player subsequently revises the proposal, it must remain
>in haiku form, or else the player will forfeit the 10 Score points
>previously awarded.
>}}
>
>with 
>
>{{
>A player who submits a proposal in haiku form earns 10 Score points if the
>proposal is adopted, in addition to any points received as a normal
>consequence of the adoption of a proposal.
>}}
>
>Next, here's a new proposal to cut down on the need for self-modifying "if
>this rule exists" stuff in proposals:
>
>__Dependent Proposals__
>
>{{
>A proposal may be specified as being "Dependent" on another proposal or
>rule.  This is specified by including the phrase "Dependent on [object
>type] [serial number]", where object type is either "Proposal" or "Rule".  
>
>If the serial number is given without the revision number, the proposal is
>dependent on the most current revision of that object at the moment the
>proposal is enacted.  If a revision number is specified, the proposal is
>dependent on that specific revision of the object being active.
>
>I. Dependent on Other Proposals
>
>If a proposal is dependent on another proposal, and the proposal it is
>dependent on passes, then the dependent proposal is enacted like a normal
>proposal. However, if the proposal it is dependent on does not pass, the
>dependent proposal becomes Inactive and is not enacted.
>
>II.  Dependent on Rules
>
>If a proposal is dependent on a rule, and the rule it is dependent on is 
>active at the time the dependent proposal is enacted, then the dependent
>proposal is enacted like a normal proposal. However, if the rule it is
>dependent on is not active, the dependent proposal becomes Inactive and is
>not enacted.
>
>III.  Multiple Dependencies
>
>A proposal may have multiple dependencies.  If a proposal has multiple
>dependencies, and any one of those dependencies will inactivate the
>proposal, the proposal is inactivated regardless of the status of its
>other dependencies.  [[i.e. if one is broken, the whole thing breaks]]
>
>IV.  Failed Dependency Clause
>
>Dependent Proposals may specify a Failed Dependency Clause.  The Failed Dependency Clause is a portion of the proposal that is only activated when the proposal has been inactivated by one or more dependencies.  Notwithstanding the "Inactive" status of the proposal, and if and only if the Dependent Proposal has been inactivated by a dependency, the Failed Dependency Clause is treated as an active proposal and adopted instead of the rest of the inactivated Dependent Proposal.

Daddy's confused.  Is the "new proposal" actually a new rule?  You didn't say.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:37:50 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Gender
  Recognition
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 3:42 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:52:08AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Add "using an inappropriate pronoun" to the LOGAS.
>> 
>> }}
>
>I don't like this at ALL.
>
>To be perfectly honest, when I gave away the Scarf, I couldn't remember
>whether Congenital Optimist was male or female, so I used the generic
>pronoun 'eir' so that it wouldn't matter.
>
>Under that proposal, it seems that referring to a single person with
>'eir', unless e is Undeclared, would be worthy of a Kick. A player's
>declared gender may not even be related to eir actual gender (see that
>Congenital Optimist is now a Drone), making things even more confusing.
>
>Spivak pronouns are great, especially on the Internet. Your proposal
>would mandate that they are replaced with ordinary pronouns whenever
>possible.
>-- 
>Rob Speer

First of all, to show my age, I'm gonna give my favorite Zork quote: "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"  Gender was introduced presumably to make some functional difference to things other than the Pink Scarf. If someone is going to pick a gender, it should have some consequence.  Otherwise it simply becomes another title.

Secondly, the point of Spivak pronouns, I thought, was to be able to deal with a player base that is inherently ungendered.  Just looking at the signatures and headers of messages, I'd guess that IRL all but one of us is male, and electronic transvestitism is too prevalent for me to make even that guess with confidence.  But now we're actually going to be *declaring* genders, regardless of their relevance to reality. (Or establishing reality within the nomiverse, whichever way you want to see it.)  The establishment of a gender-specific game state seems to counter the stated need for a gender-unspecific pronoun set.

As for the penalties...What can I say?  I like giving Kicks in the Ass. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:44:48 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Are you ready for some football!!!!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 12:46 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>Glotmorf:  I came up with this idea last night shortly after my HD started
>showing signs of death... would have gotten it proposed earlier
>otherwise, sorry.  The only reason I don't like GremBall as you have it
>defined is it could get really nasty with if there are a large number of
>gremlins.  Plus, I want a team sport  :)

Actually, GremBall was meant as more of a combination of Dodge Ball and Hot Potato, and simplistic in the extreme, meant to be a quick-turnaround-time thang.  I just liked the imagery of us bouncing gremlins off of each other...:)  Whereas yours is closer to rugby.

We *could* play both at the same time, since GremBall doesn't necessarily involve movement and isn't necessarily tied to the Scoring Gremlin.  One Player could be running by with the Scoring Gremlin, and in passing lob the Witch up someone's nose. (Whereupon we can determine whether it does in fact function there.)

But now that I think about it, perhaps GremBall should be closer to zero-sum, with the points lost by the targetee being gained by the targeter...Hour and a half, eh?

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:46:32 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 10:42 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>
>> Antonio forfeits B Nomic
>> Baron von Skippy forfeits B Nomic
>> Bean forfeits B Nomic
>> Congenital Optimist forfeits B Nomic
>> Dan  forfeits B Nomic
>> Glotmorf forfeits B Nomic
>> Iain forfeits B Nomic
>> Rob forfeits B Nomic
>> The Voice forfeits B Nomic
>> Turgul forfeits B Nomic
>> Uncle Psychosis forfeits B Nomic
>> Wonko forfeits B Nomic
>
>Like Hell they do. Consider your action ignored, unrecognized, and
>idiotic.
>
>...dave

Ooo...can I kick em in the ass?

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:00:24 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:11:13PM -0600, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> Well, I was only doing it to present a particularly engrossing case to CFJ what Glotmorf has been on about.  E has a point, however ill-chosen and/or misunderstood eir examples may have been.  Either permissibility of the unprohibited exists or it doesn't, and we've seen at least one major CFJ judgement that contradicts that principle.  Judgements can contradict each other, but they shouldn't be contradicting the rules just to prevent something we don't want to see happen.

Let me repeat that I've never seen such an utterly brain-dead
interpretation of that rule on any Nomic. I'm fairly sure it's part of
the Suber ruleset and that it generally works just fine.

You have to read more than just the title of rule 18. "Regulated" is the
key word. The line between what is regulated and what is not is drawn by
common sense, and I believe it cannot be done any other way.

I now believe that my CFJ from nweek 1, in which I stated that
arbitrarily giving oneself points was legal, and which has been held up
as a counterexample, was in error. Thankfully, none of the effects of it
have survived.

What do you propose should take rule 18's place? Should I CFJ you for
using adjectives? For being named "Jonathan"? For breathing while
posting to a public Forum?

Many of the problems we've had have come from my game-state proposal -
an essential part of the rules, from what I discovered in the
face-to-face Nomic I ran - being rejected. This causes things like
picking up a Gremlin and then defining a rule that involves it. But even
that wouldn't cover this toddler "I did it because you didn't tell me
not to" mentality.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> This whole ignoring-an-action thing sets up
> an unwelcome precedent.

Okay, fine, let's pretend that your action was both legal and recognized.

If everyone except you has forfeited, then you're the only player.

As the plaintiff, you're ineligible to judge your own CFJ.

Rule 127 says, [[ if that happens ]] all players are eligible...

but...

Rule 126 takes precedence over it, and it declares you ineligible because
you're also the player with the highest score (again, assuming everyone
else did in fact forfeit).

So, since nobody can actually judge your CFJ, there's no point in
assigning it a serial number.

You live by the sword...

...dave

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:06:45 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Last-minute proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 07:01:16PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
> I propose a rule:
> 
> {{
> Players may not change the game state.
> 
> This rule defers to all other rules.
> }}

One clock in my room said 6:59 when I sent that. Alas, my computer clock
said 7:01 and the mailing list timestamp was 7:03.

Recognize it or not, as you wish.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:18:27 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Last-minute proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Recognize it or not, as you wish.

I wish to recognize it, but I can't.

Sucks to be me...

...dave

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:39:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: CFJ page fixed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Though I doubt anyone will actually care at this point, I put in a
temporary hack so that the CFJ page isn't as broken as it once was.

Mind you, it now thinks that I'm the judge assigned to Scoff!'s CFJ, but
it's a start. (It was either that or temporarily assign the CFJ to the
Scoring Gremlin. :)

...dave

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Game Action
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:18:50 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Antonio forfeits B Nomic
Baron von Skippy forfeits B Nomic
Bean forfeits B Nomic
Congenital Optimist forfeits B Nomic
Dan  forfeits B Nomic
Glotmorf forfeits B Nomic
Iain forfeits B Nomic
Rob forfeits B Nomic
The Voice forfeits B Nomic
Turgul forfeits B Nomic
Uncle Psychosis forfeits B Nomic
Wonko forfeits B Nomic

[[Players *may* forfeit for themselves, but nothing in the rules to say I 
can't do it for them.  I think this is what Glotmorf's CFJs were getting 
at...the decision on the inevitable CFJ for this should be interesting.  
Especially since I am now the only available judge, and all of you who have 
just forfeited can't submit a CFJ.]]

--Scoff!

*claps hands together* /Well./ That was an interesting game. Anyone up for 
another? Or does anyone have an idea to repair the damage caused just now?

We are screwed over
Scoff! has just pulled a fast one
I can't write haiku

                                        -Baron von Skippy-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:11:18 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proposal 337 DNE
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> Proposal 290/0: I've Got The Style It Takes (Scoff!)
> Proposal 333/0: Sexy Sirens on the Rocks (Scoff!)
> Proposal 334/0: Justice Administered Piecemeal, Part 2 (Scoff!)
> Proposal 335/1: Bandwidth Limitation Of A Different Stripe (Scoff!)
> Proposal 336/0: Dependent Proposals (Scoff!)
> Proposal 337/0: nDaysed and nConfused (Scoff!)

I believe Proposal 337 is not actually on the Ballot, because it is Scoff!'s
sixth, pushing him over the limit.

-- 
Wonko 
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:36:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposal 337 DNE
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:

> > Proposal 290/0: I've Got The Style It Takes (Scoff!)
> > Proposal 333/0: Sexy Sirens on the Rocks (Scoff!)
> > Proposal 334/0: Justice Administered Piecemeal, Part 2 (Scoff!)
> > Proposal 335/1: Bandwidth Limitation Of A Different Stripe (Scoff!)
> > Proposal 336/0: Dependent Proposals (Scoff!)
> > Proposal 337/0: nDaysed and nConfused (Scoff!)
>
> I believe Proposal 337 is not actually on the Ballot, because it is Scoff!'s
> sixth, pushing him over the limit.

290 was actually submitted in the previous nweek.

...dave

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:51:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Wonko wrote:

> > Proposal 329/0: Think the CFJ's through, people! (The Voice)
> No. Not that I object, but according to my calculations, this will be eaten.

Hm. My calculations came up with:
31 proposals, so use the 31st gremlin number.
97/(120/31) is 25.058... rounded up to 26.
So, the PIG (or PEG or whatever) will eat:

332/1 (Are you ready for some football!)

Shame, that. I kinda liked that idea. Not quite up there with NomiQuake,
but a nice idea.

...dave

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:40:25 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:26:28PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> > Proposal 326/0: The Rat Race (Rob)
> No. I don't want to have to keep track of 6 or 7 dimensional spheres.

If we ever get 6 or 7 often-changing dimensions, it might be useful to
limit the scope of the rule - but right now we have 4, and it's pretty
hard to move quickly in 2 of them (Activity and Style).

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:41:00 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:51:40AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Hm. My calculations came up with:
> 31 proposals, so use the 31st gremlin number.
> 97/(120/31) is 25.058... rounded up to 26.

That quite definitely rounds to 25.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:04:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> > Hm. My calculations came up with:
> > 31 proposals, so use the 31st gremlin number.
> > 97/(120/31) is 25.058... rounded up to 26.
>
> That quite definitely rounds to 25.

Yes, but the rule defining the Gremlin numbers states that you round up.

...dave

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:08:15 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 5:11 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>Well, I was only doing it to present a particularly engrossing case to
>CFJ what Glotmorf has been on about.  E has a point, however ill-chosen
>and/or misunderstood eir examples may have been.  Either permissibility of
>the unprohibited exists or it doesn't, and we've seen at least one major
>CFJ judgement that contradicts that principle.  Judgements can contradict
>each other, but they shouldn't be contradicting the rules just to prevent
>something we don't want to see happen.
>
>Anyway, your unrecognizing ignore of my action raises another equally
>CFJ-worthy issue:  Can the Administrator legally ignore actions?  For
>example, if someone you intensely dislike posts eir intent to be a player,
>can you ignore it?  If I post a proposal you're not fond of, can you
>ignore that?  Starting to sound a lot like Imperial Nomic all of a
>sudden...
>
>Herewith, my CFJ, Administrator as Defendant:
>
>STATEMENT:  The Administrator can not refuse to recognize any action
>posted to a public forum, except where such non-recognition is explicitly
>permitted by the rules.
>
>ANALYSIS:  It's not a rule, but it certainly should be.  The alternative
>gives *way* too much power of discretion to the Administrator.  If eir
>least-favorite player posts a Grid move to a square that has a Shiny
>thing, can e ignore the move to prevent said player receiving points? 
>This whole ignoring-an-action thing sets up an unwelcome precedent.
>
>--Scoff!

I hate to say it, especially in terms of disagreeing with someone who actually has managed to see the sort of point I've been trying to make...but if I were judging this one I'd probably rule it false.

Logical rationale:

The rules talk a lot about recognizing.  Proposals are recognized, CFJs are recognized, kicks in the ass are recognized...but aside from assigning serial numbers to proposals, the actual recognition process isn't discussed.  All the abovediscussed things are results of recognition, not part of the act of recognition.  Meaning...recognition isn't regulated.  It's heavily depended-upon, but it isn't regulated.  So if the Administrator decides to recognize, say, CFJs by setting an incoming mail alert sound on his machine, sleeping at the keyboard, and, every time an email with a CFJ in it comes in, blinking his eyes and scratching his butt and pointing to the screen and saying, "Oh yeah...that's a CFJ" and going back to sleep...that's probably permitted.  There's nothing that says he absolutely has to recognize anything.  Therefore there's nothing that says he can't refuse to recognize something.

Touchy-feely (Rob's "common sense") rationale:

I didn't really buy into the whole "mass illusion" thang.  And I wasn't any too happy with Uncle Psy's idea that things didn't really happen until two weeks after they did.  Despite this, I do see the Administrator as a good prospect for a first-blow fuse that keeps things from getting too out of hand.  If the Administrator's action is against the overall wishes of the player base ("We really *do* want to see Wonko marry the Witch Gremlin!"), a CFJ protesting the Administrator's action is the most likely remedy.

Besides which, I assume the Administrator is in the job out of a sort of labor of love...he likes the game, he likes seeing it happen, it's his idea of fun and civic magnanimity.  Make the job sufficiently unpleasant for him, though, and he may well take his ball and bat and go home, which would pretty much end the game.  So, yes, he does vote in a sense in the game...he just uses his feet.

But hey, that's just me, and I don't count.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:21:27 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/30/02 at 10:26 PM Wonko wrote:

>> Proposal 302/0: Fixing It Would Be Too Easy (Glotmorf)
>No. This does nothing except keep Things from overlapping. Who cares?

Oh, it does a little more than that.  Not only does it keep Things from overlapping, it makes it that much more likely that Things, once they do bounce off each other, will hit players. (Yes, I know, 400 units, but still a few rocks will go a long way.  Especially if the football rule gets passed...What happens if one team chips in and buys enough big rocks to block the other team's endzone?)

It also keeps a Player's score from going into the negative, and makes a way for a Player to be ejected from the grid.  Which will become important as the grid fills, because the changes say the Player can't re-enter if the grid is too full.  There may well be a time in the future when one Player has to wait on entering the grid until another Player gets ejected from it.  That's gotta lead to some fun.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:59:19 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: D'oh!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -I give the Cursed Sushi of Babel to Uncle Psychosis.-
>
Not that we can be sure yet, but this still fails. ;-)

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:11:45 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[Players *may* forfeit for themselves, but nothing in the
> rules to say I can't do it for them.  I think this is what
> Glotmorf's CFJs were getting at...the decision on the
> inevitable CFJ for this should be interesting. 
>
Forfeiting is regulated; therefore, this fails. Of course, it will become legal in 1 nweek... apparently, that's the way people want it.

> Especially
> since I am now the only available judge, and all of you
> who have just forfeited can't submit a CFJ.]]
>
Ah, no. It doesn't work like that. You're only the only available judge if the CFJ is true (assuming the CFJ is wordes as "this works"). If it's false, then anyone can be selected.

The usual way nomics deal with this is by means of a "thread split" - keep 2 separate records (threads) of each potential game state. In the thread where this doesn't work, the admin can distribute the CFJ as normal, and he should do so, in case that thread is right. In the thread where this works, he's quite correctly pointed out that he cannot assign it to anyone. If the judge in the "doesn't work" thread thinks that it does work, then he's free to "judge" false, or ignore the CFJ, or whatever, since it was never really assigned to him.

This is where Platonism really shines - once we've decided which of our threads reflects the game state, we can just ignore anything which only happened in the other thread, and everything is fine. Well, unless you've broken the game, but... well, that's *your* fault. ;-)

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:22:27 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Anyway, your unrecognizing ignore of my action
> raises another equally CFJ-worthy issue:  Can
> the Administrator legally ignore actions?  For
> example, if someone you intensely dislike posts
> eir intent to be a player, can you ignore it?  If I
> post a proposal you're not fond of, can you ignore
> that?  Starting to sound a lot like Imperial Nomic all of a sudden...
>
There are two quite distinct ways the admin can refuse to recognise something. The first is by ignoring someone's proosal, or CFJ, or whatever. This is one of those "illegal, but happens anyway" situations, because those proosals etc. only become recognised when he says so, so if he never recognises them, they can never happen. This only applies in those specific cases where the rules say that, for example, "A proposal is not considered "recognized" until it has been assigned a serial number by the Administrator". Generally, we could have rules penalising players for not taking mandated actions like that reasonably promptly, but he's *still* not  a player...

The other way is by refusing to update his records to reflect someone's actions, such as making all the other players forfeit, or arbitrarily repealing a rule. In these cases, he, or anyone else, can refuse to recognise them all they want, but doing so has absolutely no effect on anything (in the game - his web pages can still be wrong, but those are merely a convenience for us, not the actual gamestate). Now, those actions may still not work, but that's governed by the rules, not the admin's whim.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:26:21 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> And I wasn't any too happy with Uncle Psy's idea that
> things didn't really happen until two weeks after they
> did.
>
That's not my idea, and never has been. That was someone's (Scoff!? Glotmorf? gritter?) misinterpretation of my idea (well, not really *mine*, but one I espouse).

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:29:27 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If 128 says it's legal, and 18 says it's not, then it's not, under the
> precedence laws of rule 33.
>
128->129.

You're quite correct. It would be illegal if that were the case. It's not the case, though. Rule 18 doesn't say it's not legal - it says it's not legal, *unless* another rule says it is. Rule 129 says it is, so rule 18 also permits it.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:09:57 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ok, here's what I'm getting at with this whole thing...the game action, and the CFJ: spirit of fair play.

If someone does something we don't like, and it's contravened by the rules, hooray!  They did something illegal, and depending on your platonist/pragmatist point of view it either never happened or is reversed.  An example would be Uncle Psychosis's "Join me, judge, and we will rule this nomic" CFJ, which simply on the face of it was a direct contradiction of the text of the rules.

On the other hand, if someone does something we don't like, and the rules don't prohibit it (e.g. the "YEA" vote loophole), I think the spirit of fair play dictates that we let it fly, even if it means awarding that player a win.  And we did let it fly, in that case.

Unfortunately, some of our interpretations of the rules have got a bit twisty in their efforts to avoid some undesirable state, and that's what was at the heart of Glotmorf's CFJs.  In particular, the non-player entities voting issue.  We had a ruling from Rob that since a rule says how players *may* vote, this constitutes a complete regulation of all voting practices, and non-players may not vote.  This seems to me to be completely against the letter of Rule 18, since it means that any rule specifying any way in which something *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being done any other way.  

It got even more twisty with Baron von Skippy's ruling that essentially boiled down to "this is false because I think it would ruin the game".  Pardon me if this is the naive raving of a wide-eyed nomic newbie, but I thought part of the game was trying to break the game, legally, in interesting ways.  

[It's interesting to note that there were ways to deal with the non-players that didn't require all of that--see the CFJs on whether they legally transferred their proxies.  Plus, one could have CFJed the non-player voting 4 ndays after it occurred, leaving the judge 7 ndays to rule, with voting occurring in 6 ndays.  Introduce an "Only players may vote" proposal and withhold ruling until after the end of the nweek.]

Anyway, here's the situation: I'm trying to do something highly unlikable but legal.  I'm with Glotmorf--let's once and for all decide what our policy is in this situation.  Either we embrace the spirit of fair play or we quash unwanted actions in any way possible.  And our interpretation of Rule 18 is going to be at the heart of that...  Either

1)  Any rule specifying any way in which something *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being done any other way.  

or

2)  Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited, with the exception of rule changes.

We've seen examples both ways thus far.  Let's make the call.

--Scoff!

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:49:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Rule 10 has NOT been repealed, unless you have a much more
> entertaining > definition of rule 18/1 than I do. To the best of my
> knowledge, no rule > explicitly or implicitly permits any player to
> single-handedly and > unilaterally declare that a rule has been
> repealed. (I expect someone to > CFJ it, rule 129 be damned, anyway.
> :) 

> Rule 129 (implicitly) permits it, as it legalises (i.e., permits)
> *all* player actions.
> 
> I note in passing that the admin failed to close his brackets at the
> end of the above paragraph. Bad admin, bad!
> 
> uin.
> -- 

But rule 18 takes precedence over rule 129.

PS.  Everyone vote for my proposal 308.  I know it looks like only a minor
cosmetic change, but it begins the process of making some much-needed
low-level changes to the ruleset.  Basically it makes the requirement that
players follow the rules part of the definition of a player, not some
extra thing tacked on to the ruleset.

 Dan

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:02:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: *sigh*
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm not explicitly replying to anything, though it has implicit replies to
a great many emails that have found their way into my inbox in the last
few days.

This seems to have actually started with my misinterpretation of Rule
18... wherein I interpreted it as "anything that isn't prohibited is
permitted"... which was erroneous.  I have since given up that path,
thanks to the guidance of Plunder, and see a better interpretation of that
rule.

Now, I semi-agreed with uin's proposal to get rid of winning by points...
I think it's playing the game that's fun, not winning or getting points.
I actually had some other ideas with regard to that.

So that brings us to now, where Scoff! has possibly caused us all to
resign.  It's an interesting question, and I have spent some time scouring
the rules in order to find some sort of resolution.  That I will take care
of in the business forum presently.

For now, however, I'd like to congradulate Scoff!'s creativity in thinking
of this loophole, and condemn him for how he expoited it.  He could have
just caused us to give all our points to him, and we would have all had a
good laugh and gone on with life.  However we seem to be in an impasse
right now, as it seems possible that none of us are in the game.  Of
course, the game seems to be about to break itself too, as we have a CFJ
which cannot be Judged, and it must be... so....

That's enough griping, it's time to get in and fix this mess.  I might
need some help from someone else though to prevent the game from being
demolished.  You'll see your cue in a few minutes... anyone is free to
jump in.

Bean

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:09:58 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If someone does something we don't like, and it's contravened
> by the rules, hooray!  They did something illegal, and
> depending on your platonist/pragmatist point of view it either
> never happened or is reversed.  An example would be Uncle
> Psychosis's "Join me, judge, and we will rule this nomic" CFJ,
> which simply on the face of it was a direct contradiction of the
> text of the rules.
>
The CFJ was perfectly legal. If you take the view that "force of law" is equivalent to "equal status with the rules", then it would even have worked had it been judged true. But anyway...

> On the other hand, if someone does something we don't like,
> and the rules don't prohibit it (e.g. the "YEA" vote loophole),
> I think the spirit of fair play dictates that we let it fly, even if it
> means awarding that player a win.  And we did let it fly, in that
> case.
>
Absolutely.

> Unfortunately, some of our interpretations of the rules have got
> a bit twisty in their efforts to avoid some undesirable state, and
> that's what was at the heart of Glotmorf's CFJs.  In particular,
> the non-player entities voting issue.  We had a ruling from Rob
> that since a rule says how players *may* vote, this constitutes
> a complete regulation of all voting practices, and non-players
> may not vote.  This seems to me to be completely against the
> letter of Rule 18, since it means that any rule specifying any
> way in which something *can* be done automatically prohibits
> it from being done any other way. 
>
OK, let's examine that for a bit. The letter of rule 18 says "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated". Note the "or regulated". To regulate means "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law". I fail to see how a rule specifying how something can be done is not controlling or directing it.

> It got even more twisty with Baron von Skippy's ruling
> that essentially boiled down to "this is false because
> I think it would ruin the game".  Pardon me if this is
> the naive raving of a wide-eyed nomic newbie, but I
> thought part of the game was trying to break the
> game, legally, in interesting ways.  
>
I'd agree that that's not the kind of reasoning we should be applying, and that that is indeed one of the main aims on nomic. His analysis being wrong doesn't, however, prevent his ruling from being correct. And I'd question whether this kind of attempted abuse of rule 18 is either legal or interesting...

> Anyway, here's the situation: I'm trying to do something
> highly unlikable but legal.  
>
Heh. :-) Argument by asssertion. You're trying to do something which is legal under one interpretation (which I'd agree with Rob is "utterly brain-dead") of rule 18.

> I'm with Glotmorf--let's once and for all decide what our
> policy is in this situation.  Either we embrace the spirit
> of fair play or we quash unwanted actions in any way
> possible.  And our interpretation of Rule 18 is going to
> be at the heart of that... 
>
What a fantastic use of false dichotomy. The issue isn't between fair play and the (sensible) more restrictive interpretation of rule 18, it's simply between the 2 interpretations of rule 18. Using the first definition isn't unfair simply because it would cause your scam not to work.

> Either
>
> 1)  Any rule specifying any way in which something
> *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being
> done any other way.  
>
> or
> 
> 2)  Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited,
> with the exception of rule changes.
>
Which is *not* what rule 18 says. It says "prohibited *or* *regulated*".

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:11:03 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If someone does something we don't like, and it's contravened
> by the rules, hooray!  They did something illegal, and
> depending on your platonist/pragmatist point of view it either
> never happened or is reversed.  An example would be Uncle
> Psychosis's "Join me, judge, and we will rule this nomic" CFJ,
> which simply on the face of it was a direct contradiction of the
> text of the rules.
>
The CFJ was perfectly legal. If you take the view that "force of law" is equivalent to "equal status with the rules", then it would even have worked had it been judged true. But anyway...

> On the other hand, if someone does something we don't like,
> and the rules don't prohibit it (e.g. the "YEA" vote loophole),
> I think the spirit of fair play dictates that we let it fly, even if it
> means awarding that player a win.  And we did let it fly, in that
> case.
>
Absolutely.

> Unfortunately, some of our interpretations of the rules have got
> a bit twisty in their efforts to avoid some undesirable state, and
> that's what was at the heart of Glotmorf's CFJs.  In particular,
> the non-player entities voting issue.  We had a ruling from Rob
> that since a rule says how players *may* vote, this constitutes
> a complete regulation of all voting practices, and non-players
> may not vote.  This seems to me to be completely against the
> letter of Rule 18, since it means that any rule specifying any
> way in which something *can* be done automatically prohibits
> it from being done any other way. 
>
OK, let's examine that for a bit. The letter of rule 18 says "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated". Note the "or regulated". To regulate means "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law". I fail to see how a rule specifying how something can be done is not controlling or directing it.

> It got even more twisty with Baron von Skippy's ruling
> that essentially boiled down to "this is false because
> I think it would ruin the game".  Pardon me if this is
> the naive raving of a wide-eyed nomic newbie, but I
> thought part of the game was trying to break the
> game, legally, in interesting ways.  
>
I'd agree that that's not the kind of reasoning we should be applying, and that that is indeed one of the main aims on nomic. His analysis being wrong doesn't, however, prevent his ruling from being correct. And I'd question whether this kind of attempted abuse of rule 18 is either legal or interesting...

> Anyway, here's the situation: I'm trying to do something
> highly unlikable but legal.  
>
Heh. :-) Argument by asssertion. You're trying to do something which is legal under one interpretation (which I'd agree with Rob is "utterly brain-dead") of rule 18.

> I'm with Glotmorf--let's once and for all decide what our
> policy is in this situation.  Either we embrace the spirit
> of fair play or we quash unwanted actions in any way
> possible.  And our interpretation of Rule 18 is going to
> be at the heart of that... 
>
What a fantastic use of false dichotomy. The issue isn't between fair play and the (sensible) more restrictive interpretation of rule 18, it's simply between the 2 interpretations of rule 18. Using the first definition isn't unfair simply because it would cause your scam not to work.

> Either
>
> 1)  Any rule specifying any way in which something
> *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being
> done any other way.  
>
> or
> 
> 2)  Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited,
> with the exception of rule changes.
>
Which is *not* what rule 18 says. It says "prohibited *or* *regulated*".

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:11:21 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If someone does something we don't like, and it's contravened
> by the rules, hooray!  They did something illegal, and
> depending on your platonist/pragmatist point of view it either
> never happened or is reversed.  An example would be Uncle
> Psychosis's "Join me, judge, and we will rule this nomic" CFJ,
> which simply on the face of it was a direct contradiction of the
> text of the rules.
>
The CFJ was perfectly legal. If you take the view that "force of law" is equivalent to "equal status with the rules", then it would even have worked had it been judged true. But anyway...

> On the other hand, if someone does something we don't like,
> and the rules don't prohibit it (e.g. the "YEA" vote loophole),
> I think the spirit of fair play dictates that we let it fly, even if it
> means awarding that player a win.  And we did let it fly, in that
> case.
>
Absolutely.

> Unfortunately, some of our interpretations of the rules have got
> a bit twisty in their efforts to avoid some undesirable state, and
> that's what was at the heart of Glotmorf's CFJs.  In particular,
> the non-player entities voting issue.  We had a ruling from Rob
> that since a rule says how players *may* vote, this constitutes
> a complete regulation of all voting practices, and non-players
> may not vote.  This seems to me to be completely against the
> letter of Rule 18, since it means that any rule specifying any
> way in which something *can* be done automatically prohibits
> it from being done any other way. 
>
OK, let's examine that for a bit. The letter of rule 18 says "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated". Note the "or regulated". To regulate means "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law". I fail to see how a rule specifying how something can be done is not controlling or directing it.

> It got even more twisty with Baron von Skippy's ruling
> that essentially boiled down to "this is false because
> I think it would ruin the game".  Pardon me if this is
> the naive raving of a wide-eyed nomic newbie, but I
> thought part of the game was trying to break the
> game, legally, in interesting ways.  
>
I'd agree that that's not the kind of reasoning we should be applying, and that that is indeed one of the main aims on nomic. His analysis being wrong doesn't, however, prevent his ruling from being correct. And I'd question whether this kind of attempted abuse of rule 18 is either legal or interesting...

> Anyway, here's the situation: I'm trying to do something
> highly unlikable but legal.  
>
Heh. :-) Argument by asssertion. You're trying to do something which is legal under one interpretation (which I'd agree with Rob is "utterly brain-dead") of rule 18.

> I'm with Glotmorf--let's once and for all decide what our
> policy is in this situation.  Either we embrace the spirit
> of fair play or we quash unwanted actions in any way
> possible.  And our interpretation of Rule 18 is going to
> be at the heart of that... 
>
What a fantastic use of false dichotomy. The issue isn't between fair play and the (sensible) more restrictive interpretation of rule 18, it's simply between the 2 interpretations of rule 18. Using the first definition isn't unfair simply because it would cause your scam not to work.

> Either
>
> 1)  Any rule specifying any way in which something
> *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being
> done any other way.  
>
> or
> 
> 2)  Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited,
> with the exception of rule changes.
>
Which is *not* what rule 18 says. It says "prohibited *or* *regulated*".

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:11:52 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> But rule 18 takes precedence over rule 129.
>
I've already addressed this - they're not in conflict, so precedence doesn't enter into it.

Can anyone give me a convincing reason why my repealing rule 10 doesn't work? Rule 129 permits it, so rule 18 permits it, so I can't see why it wouldn't happen.

The only vaguely plausible argument I've seen was Iain's "it wasn't made legal because it wasn't legal so it didn't happen, and only actions which happen are legalised", which, if true, means that rule 129 is merely completely useless, rather than horribly, game-breakingly broken as I feared. In many ways that would be preferrable, because it will prevent Scoff!'s forfeitures from being legalised in 1 nweek.

I'll just point out that, if Iain's CFJ is wrong, and my statute proosal fails, then not only will Scoff!'s forfeitures happen, but before that I'll get a win. Yes, someone CFJed those actions, but if you read rule 129, you'll notice that it doesn't say "actions which happened more than 1 nweek ago are made legal unless they've been CFJed "- it says "actions which happened more than one nweek ago are made legal, and may not be CFJed". You could argue that the CFJ has the "force of law", and therefore makes them illegal, but rules beat CFJs, and "force of law" is anyway a pretty poorly defined term.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:13:29 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> But rule 18 takes precedence over rule 129.
>
I've already addressed this - they're not in conflict, so precedence doesn't enter into it.

Can anyone give me a convincing reason why my repealing rule 10 doesn't work? Rule 129 permits it, so rule 18 permits it, so I can't see why it wouldn't happen.

The only vaguely plausible argument I've seen was Iain's "it wasn't made legal because it wasn't legal so it didn't happen, and only actions which happen are legalised", which, if true, means that rule 129 is merely completely useless, rather than horribly, game-breakingly broken as I feared. In many ways that would be preferrable, because it will prevent Scoff!'s forfeitures from being legalised in 1 nweek.

I'll just point out that, if Iain's CFJ is wrong, and my statute proosal fails, then not only will Scoff!'s forfeitures happen, but before that I'll get a win. Yes, someone CFJed those actions, but if you read rule 129, you'll notice that it doesn't say "actions which happened more than 1 nweek ago are made legal unless they've been CFJed "- it says "actions which happened more than one nweek ago are made legal, and may not be CFJed". You could argue that the CFJ has the "force of law", and therefore makes them illegal, but rules beat CFJs, and "force of law" is anyway a pretty poorly defined term.

uin.
-- 

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

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Game Action
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:31:41 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:21:35 -0600, "Jonathan Van Matre"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>[[Players *may* forfeit for themselves, but nothing in the rules to say I can't do it for them.  I think this is what Glotmorf's CFJs were getting at...the decision on the inevitable CFJ for this should be interesting.  Especially since I am now the only available judge, and all of you who have just forfeited can't submit a CFJ.]]
>
>--Scoff!

This is stupid, what happens if I rejoin the game (1) and declare " Scoff
forfeits BNomic" (2)?
Would you rejoin too ? Would you try to declare me out again? In an
infinite test of who-gets-bored-more-easily ?
Was the intent simply to make us all rejoin and lose our points ? (3)
 
This kind of thing really makes me want to stop playing

(1) assuming of course that you did manage to forfeit me
(2) instead of politley submitting a CFJ to appease your curiosity
(3) as if they really had an effect on the game
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:44:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ assignment - no, really
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, David E. Smith wrote:

> Y'know, I rather like UIN's idea of a "thread split" - so, in one
> alternate reality, Scoff!'s CFJ, number 338, is assigned to Congenital
> Optimist. (In the other, of course, there aren't any players left,
> rendering the question pretty well moot.)

Optimist (Hey, can I call you Optimus?  That'd be cool.), I encourage you
to rule TRUE on CFJ 338, because it has farther reaching effects than just
Scoff!'s action, which I am trying to rectify without hurting too much
else.

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:45:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing the mess
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> Statement:  The players Antonio, Baron von Skippy, Bean, Congenital
> Optimist, Dan, Glotmorf, Iain, Rob, The Voice, Uncle Psychosis, Wonko did
> not resign.

Oh yeah.... by the way, I hope I got everyone who's still active and
stuff.... If I missed anyone let me know, I'll make YACFJ.

Bean

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:59:33 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> What a fantastic use of false dichotomy. The issue isn't 
> between fair play and the (sensible) more restrictive 
> interpretation of rule 18, it's simply between the 2 
> interpretations of rule 18. Using the first definition isn't 
> unfair simply because it would cause your scam not to work.

You misunderstand me.  I'm not saying one interpretation of Rule 18 is fair and the other unfair.  I'm saying inconsistently applying both of them as it suits our wish for certain things to occur in the game is unfair.  I agree 100% with your last sentence.  But use of definition 1 to quash my scam within mere ndays of using definition 2 to let a Gremlin be thrown on the Grid *is*, in my opinion, unfair.

> > Either
> >
> > 1)  Any rule specifying any way in which something
> > *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being
> > done any other way.  
> >
> > or
> > 
> > 2)  Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited,
> > with the exception of rule changes.
> >
> Which is *not* what rule 18 says. It says "prohibited *or* 
> *regulated*".

OK, let's define regulated.  Is any passing reference to something in the rules sufficient to qualify as regulating?  If not, what criteria must be satisfied?

--Scoff!

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:24:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ assignment - no, really
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Eric Gerlach wrote:

> Optimist (Hey, can I call you Optimus?  That'd be cool.), I encourage you
> to rule TRUE on CFJ 338, because it has farther reaching effects than just
> Scoff!'s action, which I am trying to rectify without hurting too much
> else.

well *crackle* give me a *crackle* day to *buzz* sort this out,
since *buzz**crackle* I've got a bit of *buzz* archive review to
*buzz* do before I can rule.  As my absence of *buzz* sarky
comments on the style anyone's *buzz* proposals has indicated,
I've been *crackle* busy.

Still, a judgement *buzz* is forthcoming.

-Congenital *crackle* Optimist
(not *buzz* Optimus, sorry...)

-- 
[email-masked] | http://seishonagon.org
"don't you know there ain't no devil
 there's just god when he's drunk"
 (Tom Waits "Heartattack and Vine")

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:01:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing the mess
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

We don't need to do this.  We can just all sit in the other thread and let
the playerless one die out.  A thread with only one player isn't a thread
anymore.  It's the ultimate passive resistance strategy--if enough of the
players of the game want something to be done to the game they can just
make the change and refuse to play in any thread in which it is not done.

Dan

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Eric Gerlach wrote:

> Okay Scoff!, let's see if I can't set the wheels in motion to rectify this
> problem.
> 
> Point 1: I'm going by uin's idea that we have 2 threads of game state, and
> I'm going to play my actions into both.  If you don't like it, well, I'm
> just playing CYA.  (Well, the admin just mandated the multiple threads
> thing, so I'm cool)
> 
> Action 1
> --------
> If there is no player named Bean in this game, I join the game under the
> name "Bean".
> 
> ... now that I'm in the game for sure ...
> 
> Action 2
> --------
> 
> I submit the following CFJ:
> 
> Statement:  The players Antonio, Baron von Skippy, Bean, Congenital
> Optimist, Dan, Glotmorf, Iain, Rob, The Voice, Uncle Psychosis, Wonko did
> not resign.
> 
> I name Scoff! as defendant for this CFJ.
> 
> Analysis:  Rule 18 reads: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the
> Ruleset is permitted and unregulated", and in CFJ 251 was interpreted to
> mean that if there was *any* regulation of an action that was considered
> to be sufficient to detatch Rule 18 from that action.  Rule 14 reads "A
> Player may forfeit at any time by declaring publicly eir intention to do
> so."  The key word here is "eir" which implies that a player must make
> their OWN forfeit.  This word also regulates who may declare the player's
> intention to forfeit.  Therefore Rule 18 does not apply to the action
> that Scoff! took in attempting to get players to forfeit, and so it is
> prohibited.  Therefore we're all still in the game.
> 
> Action 3
> --------
> 
> I rule on CFJ 321:
> 
> I judge this statement to be TRUE.
> 
> Analysis: *This* is an instance where Rule 18 applies.  Go for it.  Kill
> all the Gremlins you like...
> 
> ---Actions Complete---
> 
> Now, if someone could chime in to judge the CFJ by declaring their
> conditional joining the game, we can clear up this mess.
> 
> Bean - Your Friendly Neighbourhood Rules Lawyer
> 

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:25:58 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: CFJ 325
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Iain submitted:  "Statement: (1) This CFJ is permited by the rule 129, (2) and Rule 10 is not repealed."

OK, we have a real problem here, and I'm throwing my thinking so far on this CFJ out for comment by the group before issuing a final ruling.

The heart of the problem is this:  Rule 17 says "Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora."  This would seem to suggest that anything happens as soon as it reaches the forum, and therefore UP repealed rule 10 at the time eir message arrived.

However, there's precedent for this not being the case.  E.g. "A proposal is not considered 'recognized'until it has been assigned a serial number by the Administrator."  This, even though the proposal is created by posting an action to the public forum.

This leads me to suspect that the spirit and intent of Rule 17 is that the timing of any events caused by a successful, legal action is considered to be at the moment the action arrived in the forum, even though the action does not "happen" until recognized.  The title of Rule 17,"Timing Of Events", and the remainder of Rule 17's text seem to support this interpretation.

So, one can sort of make the case that UP's repealing action never happened because it was a) illegal, and b) never recognized.  

Furthermore, Iain's CFJ can be taken to be in reference *not* to UP's original action (which hasn't happened yet, but if the Administrator recognized it right now and repealed rule 10, rule 10 would have been repealed as of the moment UP's action arrived in the forum), but to eir assertion on 1/29 that the repeal action was made legal by the statute of limitations.  This makes part (1) of Iain's CFJ true.

Then, by rule 18, part (2) is true because the rule change action was not permitted in the manner employed by UP.

But the problem is that all of this turns on reading into the presumed spirit and intent of Rule 17, because if one takes it at face value, I can't really see any way that UP didn't repeal Rule 10.

The interaction between 129 and 17 makes for a really wretched situation.  UP's revision of the statute of limitations suddenly makes a whole lot of sense to me, because it in effect renders the statute of limitations in a way that concurs with my preferred interpretation of rule 17 -- his repeal of rule 10 wouldn't be considered legal until 2 weeks after the Admin had recognized it and implemented it.  Which he probably wouldn't have done anyway, since it was illegal according to the rules in effect at the time.

Thoughts?  Suggestions?

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Doig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
> 
> 
> > <proosal>
> > <title>You can't even see.</title>
> > <body>
> > Amend rule 212, if it exists, by
> > replacing "three" with "5".
> > [[If 266 fails, at least we'll have an 
> > alternative.]]
> > </body>
> > </proosal>
> >
> > uin.
> > I repeal rule 10!
> >
> It's now been (over) an nweek since I performed the above 
> actions. Therefore, they are considered to be legal (by rule 
> 129), and rule 10 is no more (or possibly has been no more 
> since then, but it doesn't matter at the moment which).
> 
> Possible reasons for this to fail:
> CFJ136 - not relevant, as that CFJ was submitted and judged 
> *before* the statute kicked in.
> R152 - it *is* permitted by the rules (specifically, r129 permits it).
> The fact that my action came after my signature - there's 
> nothing to prohibit this, and we have the precedent of the 
> admin recognising my point transfers of yesterday, which also 
> came after my sig. What a convenient coincidence ;-)
> 
> uin.
> -- 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> 
> Win a ski trip!
> http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: D'oh!
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:05:35 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>-I give the Cursed Sushi of Babel to Uncle Psychosis.-
 >
Not that we can be sure yet, but this still fails. ;-)

--How do you figure?  It was recognized officially. And you're ignoring 
that... hey... I Call for Judgement! See my next message for details.--

                                       --Baron von Skippy--

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:11:30 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/31/02 at 1:13 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> But rule 18 takes precedence over rule 129.
>>
>I've already addressed this - they're not in conflict, so precedence
>doesn't enter into it.
>
>Can anyone give me a convincing reason why my repealing rule 10 doesn't
>work? Rule 129 permits it, so rule 18 permits it, so I can't see why it
>wouldn't happen.
>
>The only vaguely plausible argument I've seen was Iain's "it wasn't made
>legal because it wasn't legal so it didn't happen, and only actions which
>happen are legalised", which, if true, means that rule 129 is merely
>completely useless, rather than horribly, game-breakingly broken as I
>feared. In many ways that would be preferrable, because it will prevent
>Scoff!'s forfeitures from being legalised in 1 nweek.
>
>I'll just point out that, if Iain's CFJ is wrong, and my statute proosal
>fails, then not only will Scoff!'s forfeitures happen, but before that
>I'll get a win. Yes, someone CFJed those actions, but if you read rule
>129, you'll notice that it doesn't say "actions which happened more than 1
>nweek ago are made legal unless they've been CFJed "- it says "actions
>which happened more than one nweek ago are made legal, and may not be
>CFJed". You could argue that the CFJ has the "force of law", and therefore
>makes them illegal, but rules beat CFJs, and "force of law" is anyway a
>pretty poorly defined term.
>
>uin.

Rule 11 says, "The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may be altered only as provided therein." And since there's no provision for altering the ruleset as a player action, declaring Rule 10 repealed doesn't count.  Rule 11 takes precedence over Rule 129.  And, interestingly, over Rule 18.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:22:21 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
>
>Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like "If a player,
>after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by an Impassable
>Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the landing]] and is
>Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.  Fly  Elbonian
>Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
>
>--Scoff!

No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:26:57 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Uh...dude?  You're up to triply posting now.

						Glotmorf

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

On 1/31/02 at 1:11 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> If someone does something we don't like, and it's contravened
>> by the rules, hooray!  They did something illegal, and
>> depending on your platonist/pragmatist point of view it either
>> never happened or is reversed.  An example would be Uncle
>> Psychosis's "Join me, judge, and we will rule this nomic" CFJ,
>> which simply on the face of it was a direct contradiction of the
>> text of the rules.
>>
>The CFJ was perfectly legal. If you take the view that "force of law" is
>equivalent to "equal status with the rules", then it would even have
>worked had it been judged true. But anyway...
>
>> On the other hand, if someone does something we don't like,
>> and the rules don't prohibit it (e.g. the "YEA" vote loophole),
>> I think the spirit of fair play dictates that we let it fly, even if it
>> means awarding that player a win.  And we did let it fly, in that
>> case.
>>
>Absolutely.
>
>> Unfortunately, some of our interpretations of the rules have got
>> a bit twisty in their efforts to avoid some undesirable state, and
>> that's what was at the heart of Glotmorf's CFJs.  In particular,
>> the non-player entities voting issue.  We had a ruling from Rob
>> that since a rule says how players *may* vote, this constitutes
>> a complete regulation of all voting practices, and non-players
>> may not vote.  This seems to me to be completely against the
>> letter of Rule 18, since it means that any rule specifying any
>> way in which something *can* be done automatically prohibits
>> it from being done any other way. 
>>
>OK, let's examine that for a bit. The letter of rule 18 says "Whatever is
>not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated".
>Note the "or regulated". To regulate means "To control or direct according
>to rule, principle, or law". I fail to see how a rule specifying how
>something can be done is not controlling or directing it.
>
>> It got even more twisty with Baron von Skippy's ruling
>> that essentially boiled down to "this is false because
>> I think it would ruin the game".  Pardon me if this is
>> the naive raving of a wide-eyed nomic newbie, but I
>> thought part of the game was trying to break the
>> game, legally, in interesting ways.  
>>
>I'd agree that that's not the kind of reasoning we should be applying, and
>that that is indeed one of the main aims on nomic. His analysis being
>wrong doesn't, however, prevent his ruling from being correct. And I'd
>question whether this kind of attempted abuse of rule 18 is either legal
>or interesting...
>
>> Anyway, here's the situation: I'm trying to do something
>> highly unlikable but legal.  
>>
>Heh. :-) Argument by asssertion. You're trying to do something which is
>legal under one interpretation (which I'd agree with Rob is "utterly
>brain-dead") of rule 18.
>
>> I'm with Glotmorf--let's once and for all decide what our
>> policy is in this situation.  Either we embrace the spirit
>> of fair play or we quash unwanted actions in any way
>> possible.  And our interpretation of Rule 18 is going to
>> be at the heart of that... 
>>
>What a fantastic use of false dichotomy. The issue isn't between fair play
>and the (sensible) more restrictive interpretation of rule 18, it's simply
>between the 2 interpretations of rule 18. Using the first definition isn't
>unfair simply because it would cause your scam not to work.
>
>
>> Either
>>
>> 1)  Any rule specifying any way in which something
>> *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being
>> done any other way.  
>>
>> or
>> 
>> 2)  Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited,
>> with the exception of rule changes.
>>
>Which is *not* what rule 18 says. It says "prohibited *or* *regulated*".
>
>uin.
>-- 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
>http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
>Win a ski trip!
>http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:40:04 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 1/31/02 at 2:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>The fact that I may be the only active player: There are multiple ways
>around this, including me CFJing myself, and then judging my own CFJ in
>For your suggestion that this could have more easily been accomplished by
>having everyone give all their points to me...no dice.  The rules prohibit
>changes to my score except as explicitly permitted by the rules.  
>
>I did notice (too late, alas) that I could have put everyone On Leave
>instead by the same method.  In retrospect, I would have done that
>instead.  I only spotted the (possible) forefeiture loophole first because
>the recent rash of forfeitures drew my attention to that section of the
>rule set.
>
>--Scoff!

Dude...Rule 14 regulates how a Player forfeits, and it takes precedence over Rule 18.  That means your action wasn't legal in the first place. So the question wasn't really the legality of your action...the question was whether the game state could be sufficiently altered in the short run by an illegal move that it couldn't be quashed by legal means.

Though I still think the Administrator has a tofuload of unregulated power available...

						Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:40:04 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the player landed on, not the one e aimed at.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
> 
> 
> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> >NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
> >
> >Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like "If a player,
> >after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by 
> an Impassable
> >Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the landing]] and is
> >Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.  Fly  Elbonian
> >Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
> >
> >--Scoff!
> 
> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways 
> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But 
> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:58:36 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Right.  So since it's highly unlikely e'll hit the square e was thrown at the first time, it's also highly unlikely e'll hit the square e's thrown at the next time.  So e won't be perpetually bouncing up and down on the same Impassable Object.  Much more likely e'll go bouncing off lots of different Impassable Objects in succession.

						Glotmorf

On 1/31/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e
>requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest
>antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is
>occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the player landed on,
>not the one e aimed at.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>> 
>> >NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
>> >
>> >Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like "If a player,
>> >after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by 
>> an Impassable
>> >Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the landing]] and is
>> >Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.  Fly  Elbonian
>> >Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
>> >
>> >--Scoff!
>> 
>> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways 
>> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But 
>> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>> 

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:07:34 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

OK, that makes sense to a point, but it's also not clear that the second  Throw is of the same type as the first (i.e. randomized, Elbonian style).  We've seen other kinds of Throws defined by action (e.g. throwing a Gremlin on the Grid) and proposals on the current ballot (e.g. ballistic Gremlins).  These Throws are accurate and non-Elbonian.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
> 
> 
> Right.  So since it's highly unlikely e'll hit the square e 
> was thrown at the first time, it's also highly unlikely e'll 
> hit the square e's thrown at the next time.  So e won't be 
> perpetually bouncing up and down on the same Impassable 
> Object.  Much more likely e'll go bouncing off lots of 
> different Impassable Objects in succession.
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> On 1/31/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> >Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e
> >requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest
> >antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is
> >occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the 
> player landed on,
> >not the one e aimed at.
> >
> >--Scoff!
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
> >> To: [email-masked]
> >> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> >> 
> >> >NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
> >> >
> >> >Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like 
> "If a player,
> >> >after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by 
> >> an Impassable
> >> >Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the 
> landing]] and is
> >> >Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.  
> Fly  Elbonian
> >> >Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
> >> >
> >> >--Scoff!
> >> 
> >> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways 
> >> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But 
> >> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
> >> 
> >> 						Glotmorf
> >> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:11:28 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Game Action
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's not at all clear, especially considering game precedent, whether the forfeiture action was legal or illegal.  Again, Rule 14 specifies how a player *may* forfeit.  It doesn't limit forfeiture to that method, except if one interprets rule 18 in a manner that qualifies what rule 14 does as prohibition of any other method of forfeiture.  That was the point *I* was getting at, though you're right about the game-state-shutdown issue being raised, too.

--Scoff!

> Dude...Rule 14 regulates how a Player forfeits, and it takes 
> precedence over Rule 18.  That means your action wasn't legal 
> in the first place. So the question wasn't really the 
> legality of your action...the question was whether the game 
> state could be sufficiently altered in the short run by an 
> illegal move that it couldn't be quashed by legal means.
> 
> Though I still think the Administrator has a tofuload of 
> unregulated power available...
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:31:35 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Contextual thang.  "Thrown" was defined explicitly in the context of that rule, and capitalized to make it significant.  Since all uses of "Thrown" are capitalized in the rule in the same way as the defined "Thrown" was, I'd rule (should it come to that) that it was the same kind of Throwing used throughout.

Which means it's a good thing I used an uncapitalized "thrown" in my rule. :)

						Glotmorf

On 1/31/02 at 4:07 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>OK, that makes sense to a point, but it's also not clear that the second 
>Throw is of the same type as the first (i.e. randomized, Elbonian style). 
>We've seen other kinds of Throws defined by action (e.g. throwing a
>Gremlin on the Grid) and proposals on the current ballot (e.g. ballistic
>Gremlins).  These Throws are accurate and non-Elbonian.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:59 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>> 
>> 
>> Right.  So since it's highly unlikely e'll hit the square e 
>> was thrown at the first time, it's also highly unlikely e'll 
>> hit the square e's thrown at the next time.  So e won't be 
>> perpetually bouncing up and down on the same Impassable 
>> Object.  Much more likely e'll go bouncing off lots of 
>> different Impassable Objects in succession.
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>> 
>> On 1/31/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>> 
>> >Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e
>> >requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest
>> >antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is
>> >occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the 
>> player landed on,
>> >not the one e aimed at.
>> >
>> >--Scoff!
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
>> >> To: [email-masked]
>> >> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
>> >> >
>> >> >Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like 
>> "If a player,
>> >> >after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by 
>> >> an Impassable
>> >> >Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the 
>> landing]] and is
>> >> >Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.  
>> Fly  Elbonian
>> >> >Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
>> >> >
>> >> >--Scoff!
>> >> 
>> >> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways 
>> >> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But 
>> >> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
>> >> 
>> >> 						Glotmorf
>> >> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:47:48 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan Van Matre,

> Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e requested
> to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest antecedent for the
> last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is occupied by an Impassable
> Object".  i.e. the square the player landed on, not the one e aimed at.
> 
> --Scoff!
> 

Yes, that's how it works. You land in a random square around your target. If
that square is occupied, you bounce up again, and land in a random square
around where you bounced. There is a 1/25 chance of hitting the same thing
twice, but it won't happen often.

-- 
Wonko
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:49:22 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Anyhow, the rule specifies what happens when a Player is Thrown. When other
stuff gets chucked around, this rule cares not.

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> Contextual thang.  "Thrown" was defined explicitly in the context of that
> rule, and capitalized to make it significant.  Since all uses of "Thrown" are
> capitalized in the rule in the same way as the defined "Thrown" was, I'd rule
> (should it come to that) that it was the same kind of Throwing used
> throughout.
> 
> Which means it's a good thing I used an uncapitalized "thrown" in my rule. :)
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> On 1/31/02 at 4:07 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
>> OK, that makes sense to a point, but it's also not clear that the second
>> Throw is of the same type as the first (i.e. randomized, Elbonian style).
>> We've seen other kinds of Throws defined by action (e.g. throwing a
>> Gremlin on the Grid) and proposals on the current ballot (e.g. ballistic
>> Gremlins).  These Throws are accurate and non-Elbonian.
>> 
>> --Scoff!
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:59 PM
>>> To: [email-masked]
>>> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Right.  So since it's highly unlikely e'll hit the square e
>>> was thrown at the first time, it's also highly unlikely e'll
>>> hit the square e's thrown at the next time.  So e won't be
>>> perpetually bouncing up and down on the same Impassable
>>> Object.  Much more likely e'll go bouncing off lots of
>>> different Impassable Objects in succession.
>>> 
>>> Glotmorf
>>> 
>>> On 1/31/02 at 3:40 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hmm...it's not entirely clear that e is thrown at the same square e
>>>> requested to be thrown at.  Judging by the text I quoted, the nearest
>>>> antecedent for the last 2 words "that square" is "a square which is
>>>> occupied by an Impassable Object".  i.e. the square the
>>> player landed on,
>>>> not the one e aimed at.
>>>> 
>>>> --Scoff!
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:22 PM
>>>>> To: [email-masked]
>>>>> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/31/02 at 11:42 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> NO > Proposal 315/2: I'm Flying! (Wonko)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Again with the excessive Chutzpah.  Also, it looks like
>>> "If a player,
>>>>>> after being Thrown, ends up on a square which is occupied by
>>>>> an Impassable
>>>>>> Object, e loses 5 points [[for being injured in the
>>> landing]] and is
>>>>>> Thrown at that square." is an infinite recursion loop.
>>> Fly  Elbonian
>>>>>> Airways!  Again and again and again and again and....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --Scoff!
>>>>> 
>>>>> No it's not, because the formula for Elbonian Airways
>>>>> virtually guarantees you won't land where you're thrown.  But
>>>>> you can bounce a godawful amount first...:)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Glotmorf
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Wonko
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:53:54 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There's the good ol' "regulated" argument.  Being too lazy to get up and look at a dictionary, I'm gonna guess that "regulate" has its roots in "regular", which among other things means patterned -- regular meals, regular bowel movements, etc.  It can be argued that Rule 14, in stating that forfeitures can be done in a particular way, is regulating forfeiture, in that it's establishing the pattern by which forfeiture can be done.  It's not prohibiting forfeitures from being done some other way; it's regulating how they're done.  Which means Rule 18 is actually doing the prohibiting rather than the permitting, by failing to say that it is permitted and unregulated to do forfeiture in a way other than how Rule 14 patterns it to be done.  And since forfeiting in some way other than how Rule 14 isn't permitted or unregulated, it actually falls under (God help us) Rule 10, which says we have to follow the rules in effect.  Which don't include an explicit means to forfeit other than by Rule 14.

I think this one is fairly straightforward.  Less straightforward would be:

-	asking all the players to forfeit
-	demanding all other players to forfeit
-	forging the names of all other players on a letter that says they forfeit (note that this would have to be an explicit action on the public forum, i.e. "I forge Fred's name on a letter that says e forfeits, and make it real convincing-looking")

A stronger example of an unregulated action would be if I were to paint you blue.  There's all sorts of rules that talk about your existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can't alter your existence slightly by painting you blue.  I think.

						Glotmorf

On 1/31/02 at 4:11 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>It's not at all clear, especially considering game precedent, whether the
>forfeiture action was legal or illegal.  Again, Rule 14 specifies how a
>player *may* forfeit.  It doesn't limit forfeiture to that method, except
>if one interprets rule 18 in a manner that qualifies what rule 14 does as
>prohibition of any other method of forfeiture.  That was the point *I* was
>getting at, though you're right about the game-state-shutdown issue being
>raised, too.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> Dude...Rule 14 regulates how a Player forfeits, and it takes 
>> precedence over Rule 18.  That means your action wasn't legal 
>> in the first place. So the question wasn't really the 
>> legality of your action...the question was whether the game 
>> state could be sufficiently altered in the short run by an 
>> illegal move that it couldn't be quashed by legal means.
>> 
>> Though I still think the Administrator has a tofuload of 
>> unregulated power available...
>> 
>> 						Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:05:16 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yay!  I always wanted to be a Smurf.

OK, not really.  I clean myself off with paint remover.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:54 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Game Action
> 
> 
> I paint Scoff! blue.
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:26:31 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rule 17
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I can't propose this yet, but how would people feel about it?

{{
__Only You can Save the Nomiverse__

Amend rule 17 by replacing the sentence,
'Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora.'
with,
'Actions caused by players occur when they are recognized by the
Administrator. The Administrator must recognize all actions unless e
believes an action is either illegal or destructive of play. The Admin must
recongnize all CFJ's. If the Admin refuses to recognize an Action, e must
declare so in a Public Forum. All recognitions and refusals of recognition
must happen in the same chronological order as the Actions they respond to
arrived in a Public Forum.'

[[Thus, really bad ideas can be culled by the Admin, but e must recognize it
if a CFJ challenges eir lack of Recognition]]

Amend rule 28 to add the sentence 'All fora which have not been designated
as Public are Private.'

[[So now, if two players have a spoken conversation, we know that that's not
a Public Forum.]]

Amend rule 128 to replace the text,
'A Judge's decision shall have the force of law.'
with
'If an Action is found to be illegal by a CFJ, it may not be recognized by
the Admin or, if it already was, it is treated as if it was not recognized.
If an Action which the Admin refused to recognize is found to be legal by a
CFJ, e must recognize it.'

[Much better than that 'Force of Law' garbage.]]

Remove the last paragraph of rule 129, then remove the last sentence of rule
129.

[[Just some cleanup. Actions don't happen until they're recognized, so no
changes are needed to prevent future "I repeal Rule 10" scams.]]

If there is a rule 10, repeal it.
Create a new Rule:
{{
__Follow The Rules__

All game entities and the Administrator must always abide by all the Rules
then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.
}}{*(uncategorized),10*}
Change the aforementioned rule's serial number to 10/1.

[[Rule 10 may look useless, but the important word there is 'all'. Without
it, what rules people are compelled to follow are unregulated, so I could
say "I declare myself immune to Bandwidth Rationing" and hey!, it's
permitted!]]
}}

Think this'll work?

-- 
Wonko 
Before speaking ill of someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you say it, they're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:26:41 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rule 18
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Remind me again, why do we have Rule 18? Has anyone ever taken an action
which was legalised by Rule 18 and didn't cause all sorts of trouble?

Oh, incidentally, the rules prohibit making other people forfeit because
rule 150, aptly entitle Screw That!, says

"No player's information (name, score, etc) may be changed except as the
rules explicitly allow."

Whether or not one is still a player is definitly part of one's information.

-- 
Wonko 
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life.

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:31:25 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rule 18
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> Remind me again, why do we have Rule 18? Has anyone ever taken an action
> which was legalised by Rule 18 and didn't cause all sorts of trouble?

Yes.

For example, you have just questioned Rule 18.

The rules don't allow you to question Rule 18.

Without Rule 18 that would be illegal.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:39:51 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 05:05 PM 2002-01-31 -0600, you wrote:
>Yay!  I always wanted to be a Smurf.
>
>OK, not really.  I clean myself off with paint remover.

Ow!  That's gotta hurt, man!

Bean

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:42:49 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing the mess
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 03:01 PM 2002-01-31 -0500, you wrote:
>We don't need to do this.  We can just all sit in the other thread and let
>the playerless one die out.  A thread with only one player isn't a thread
>anymore.  It's the ultimate passive resistance strategy--if enough of the
>players of the game want something to be done to the game they can just
>make the change and refuse to play in any thread in which it is not done.

No, we don't *need* to do this, but it merges the two threads back into one 
by providing a precedent in both of them.  Otherwise, we could keep having 
similar divisions... which wouldn't be fun.  This does exactly what the 
title says:  It fixes the mess.

Bean

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:35:45 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Apologies, Explanations, and Fixes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 02:38 PM 2002-01-31 -0600, you wrote:
>First, my apologies to anyone who regards my mass-forfeiture action as 
>malicious, mean, or unsportsmanlike.  I had no intention of breaking the 
>game, and even less of making people want to stop playing.  But the latter 
>has unfortunately begun to occur, and there seems to be a general 
>consensus that I am in the process of destroying the game as well.  I'm sorry.

Scoff!, I must admit, I was initally very distraught by your actions 
(mainly because I didn't want the game to be over).  However, the more I 
look at it, the less distraught I am (partly because I think I've offered a 
remedy, and partly because hey, that's part of the game so suck it up and 
move on, Bean!)

I take back my initial comdemnation.  Though it was sneaky and underhanded, 
your move was well-played, in the eyes of nomic.  Good show.

(Not to mention, it enabled me to show of my Nitpicking prowess in crafting 
that CFJ... thus further proving that I AM THE NITPICKING KING!  Woot!)

>All I wanted to do is draw attention to the issue previously raised by 
>Glotmorf, which was treated rather dismissively  by some and ultimately 
>left still unresolved.  I took up the grand tradition of lawyers hoping to 
>bring an issue before our Supreme Court and crafted a whopper of a test 
>case, designed to draw public interest and judicial attention all at once.

*sigh* You'll note, alas, that I have only made one proposal this nweek, 
and that's because I couldn't resist the lure of Football.  'Twas a pity it 
was eaten.... I'll just submit it again here....

One of the proposals I'm thinking of making would provide an alternative to 
Rule 18... but between me being sick and my hard drive being in it's death 
throws I've been busy..... *another sigh*

>It has clearly backfired, so **I herewith rescind my action which 
>forfeited on behalf of all other active players**.  Which is either legal 
>by the same mechanism that made the action legal in the first place, or 
>unnecessary because forfeiting on behalf of others was illegal to begin 
>with.  This should get us back to one thread, and leave a scenario where 
>my CFJ can be judged and life can proceed as normal.

Well, either way I think it's been solved.... either via your recindment or 
my CFJ + The Voice's Judgement.  No harm, no foul. :)

>But please, let's get some clarity on what is the standard for 
>regulation/non-regulation by the rules, and be consistent in applying it 
>henceforth.  Or if someone can provide a comprehensive explanation showing 
>it has been completely consistent to this point anyway, I'd accept that.

Indeed.  I'll push for this next nweek when I have time (assuming I can 
bring my computer into the "healthy" category by then....)

>But you can't deny it definitely got your attention.

Sorry what was that?  (hee hee) But seriously.  It was well-noticed on your 
part.

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:49:26 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rule 18
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 06:26 PM 2002-01-31 -0500, you wrote:
>Remind me again, why do we have Rule 18? Has anyone ever taken an action
>which was legalised by Rule 18 and didn't cause all sorts of trouble?
>
>Oh, incidentally, the rules prohibit making other people forfeit because
>rule 150, aptly entitle Screw That!, says
>
>"No player's information (name, score, etc) may be changed except as the
>rules explicitly allow."
>
>Whether or not one is still a player is definitly part of one's information.

Hey, I've got the Scoring Gremlin, and I plan on having fun with it.  Now, 
if that isn't a *postive* application of Rule 18, nothing is.

Bean