Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rule 17
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 06:00:39 -0500

On 1/31/02 at 6:26 PM Wonko wrote:

>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?

I think the current version of Rule 10 is fine.  To say "all game entities and the Administrator" is to imply the Administrator is not a game entity, and I think he in fact is one.

Other than that, looks promising.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:31:31 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 17
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 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.
>
As with (the repealed) rule 10, this does nothing. Players can only change affect the game as per rule 152, and anyway be being players are bound to follow the rules. Rule defined entities can, by definition, never break the rules.

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:32:42 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 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.
>
Under Platonism, that's not a problem, because illegal actions don't happen (until 1 nweek later, but that's because the statute is broken, not because Platonism is).

See the advantages of Platonism?

Well, I didn't really expect you to. ;-)

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:34:17 -0500
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.
>
Well, it *was* important...

;-)

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:35:27 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 11 says, "The Ruleset is the collective body of
> current Rule versions. The Ruleset may be altered
> only as provided therein."
>
Right...

> And since there's no provision for altering the ruleset
> as a player action,
>
Wrong.

> declaring Rule 10 repealed doesn't
> count.  Rule 11 takes precedence over Rule 129. 
> And, interestingly, over Rule 18.
>
There's provision for something if the rules permit it. Rule 129 permits me to repeal rule 10. Rule 18 allows it because rule 129 does, and rule 11 does too, for the same reason.

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:36:34 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: CFJ 325
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 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.
>
"Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora.". They happen when they occur. Recognition is only relevant for proosals and such, where the rules explicitly say that that's when they happen.

uin,
still Platonist.
-- 

_______________________________________________
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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:37:40 -0500
Subject: RE: 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.
>
That's... cheating. ;-)

If you're going to play nomic, you *have* to stick within the rules. You can, maybe even *should*, attempt to twist the intent of the rules as much as possible, but what you're suggesting above is that we ignore the rules and (effectively) start a new copy of the game with a gamestate that we like more. That's not fun, it's not elegant, and it's *not* nomic.

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:38:20 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 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.
>
Oh, I see. Well, that would be unfair. But...

> > > 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?
>
Something is regulated iff changing it would result in any change to the game state. Thus, painting players pink or throwing gremlins about is unregulated, as it doesn't do anything, but forfeiting players is regulated, as that would have an impact.

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:38:48 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> NO> Proposal 319/0: Why? Because I'm a cave man. (Uncle Psychosis)
> (I'd be all for this if it wasn't for the 2 week wait.  That's silly.
> The nothing-happens-until-the-admin-says-so bit is fine.)
>
Uh... what?

That's not what the proosal does. Things still happen when they reach a public forum, by rule 17. They don't happen when the admin says so, except for proosal recognition and such. The 2 week wait doesn't apply to actions. It quite explicitly only applies to statements the admin makes about the game. That's so that, if someone makes 6 proosal in 1 nweek, rather than our current system where they become legal 1 nweek later, they only get made legal if the admin recognises them, and then only if nobody points out his mistake.

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: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:40:09 -0500
Subject: RE: 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. ;-)
> 
> --How do you figure?
>
You didn't translate that message. See my most recent CFJ.

> It was recognized officially.
>
It was "recognized", sure. But so what? That's completely irrelevant for the purposes of the sushi. The admin recognising something is only important for proosal, kicks in the ass, and suchlike. For anything else, it's just his polite way of telling us that he's updated his records. Which are *not* the game.

> And you're ignoring that... hey... I Call for Judgement!
> See my next message for details.--
>
*sigh*
Quite appart from the fact that you (probably, subject to that CFJ) didn't manage to give me the sushi, I haven't posted any messages to a public forum. Spoon-discuss is not a public forum.

Someone who isn't completely bored of the sushi can go ahead and CFJ the good Baron; he's denied the sushi by posting at least one message without first translating 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: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:41:52 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Much to my initial surprise, I change my vote on Proposal 319 to YES.
>
You're agreeing with me more and more often. ;-)

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: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:07:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Distance
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I don't think whatever's calculating our distances is
working right. Some players have distances which are
actually less than eir scores, which should be
impossible, assuming distances is the square root of
the sum of the squares of all dimensions. So unless
I'm reading the rule wrong, something is amiss.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:30:25 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Last-minute proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I propose a rule:
> 
> {{
> Players may not change the game state.
>
> This rule defers to all other rules.
> }}
>
*applause*

That's beautiful. It shouldn't be necessary, but it's still beautiful.

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: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:27:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Distance
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Daniel Lepage wrote:

> I don't think whatever's calculating our distances is
> working right. Some players have distances which are
> actually less than eir scores, which should be
> impossible, assuming distances is the square root of
> the sum of the squares of all dimensions. So unless
> I'm reading the rule wrong, something is amiss.

Distance is only calculated once per nweek, per rule 153. There are a few
things that can cause the relevant dimensions to change in the middle of
an nweek, but I only recalculate distance at the start of each week, after
voting (since that's when the biggest changes occur).

...dave

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 18:54:36 -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 2/1/02 at 10:35 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Rule 11 says, "The Ruleset is the collective body of
>> current Rule versions. The Ruleset may be altered
>> only as provided therein."
>>
>Right...
>
>> And since there's no provision for altering the ruleset
>> as a player action,
>>
>Wrong.
>
>> declaring Rule 10 repealed doesn't
>> count.  Rule 11 takes precedence over Rule 129. 
>> And, interestingly, over Rule 18.
>>
>There's provision for something if the rules permit it. Rule 129 permits
>me to repeal rule 10. Rule 18 allows it because rule 129 does, and rule 11
>does too, for the same reason.
>
>uin.

Okay...so from what I understand, two nweeks ago you posted an Action to the public forum that you were repealing r10?  And it is your opinion that, since there was no CFJ to argue this Action, r129 makes this Action legal, and therefore r10 is now repealed?

Okay...Well, since r10 is still in the rules list, that means the Administrator didn't see, or ignored, your Action and didn't update the rule set to match your Action.  Since his Action, which was failing to act upon your Action, was also two nweeks ago, r129 says his Action can't be CFJ'd either, and therefore his Action is legal too.  And therefore, the current rule set listed on the website, which includes the not-repealed r10, is a reflection of his legal action, and consequently the legal state of the rule set.

Don't know why I didn't see that earlier...

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:04:16 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Distance
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 
>> I don't think whatever's calculating our distances is
>> working right. Some players have distances which are
>> actually less than eir scores, which should be
>> impossible, assuming distances is the square root of
>> the sum of the squares of all dimensions. So unless
>> I'm reading the rule wrong, something is amiss.
> 
> Distance is only calculated once per nweek, per rule 153. There are a few
> things that can cause the relevant dimensions to change in the middle of
> an nweek, but I only recalculate distance at the start of each week, after
> voting (since that's when the biggest changes occur).
> 
> ...dave
> 
Ah, I understand. My mistake.

-- 
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.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Big Rocks
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:44:38 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wonko,

 > Quoth Dan,
 >
 >>
 >> I create 399 Big Rocks and toss them onto the Grid.  I will place one 
Big
 >> Rock on every unit except for the one I occupy.
 >>
 >> Dan
 >>
 > I remove all Big Rocks from the Grid. I give Dan the attribute "Wierd".
 >
 >
 >
For that matter, I also remove all Bob's Clones from the Grid.

-I set fire to all Gremlins and Rocks on the Grid, and enter at (3,12), 
declaring my gender to be Male. Then I spin in a circle 3 times and fall 
down.-

                                         -Baron von Skippy-

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.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:57:13 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/2/02 at 2:00 AM David E. Smith wrote:
>
>(Aside: What if someone drops a Big Rock on a location that contains a
>Shiny or Scary? Does the Rock score 25 points and teleport randomly?)
>
>...dave

If you're going by my proposal, a Big Rock can't be dropped on a location that contains a Shiny or a Scary.  Course, you're the only one who knows whether that's the case, so I'd guess the Player who bought the Big Rock gets told it doesn't happen, and eir points get spent anyway.

Les'n you really want to keep track of the points Big Rocks possess...

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:03:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Fixing the mess
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Gavin Doig 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.
> >
> That's... cheating. ;-)
> 
> If you're going to play nomic, you *have* to stick within the rules.
> You can, maybe even *should*, attempt to twist the intent of the rules
> as much as possible, but what you're suggesting above is that we
> ignore the rules and (effectively) start a new copy of the game with a
> gamestate that we like more. That's not fun, it's not elegant, and
> it's *not* nomic.

Why not?  People have revolutions all the time in real life.  We can have
a game with players but no rules, although eventually we will probably
decide on some rules.  But we cannot have a game with rules but no
players.

The rules are supposed to be a means to entertainment.  They provide us
with an organized way to get together and have fun tinkering with legal
and legislative problems and general silliness.  The rules are only useful
so long as we are enjoying the game.  And if ever a significant number of
players stop enjoying the game I hope we will change the rules to
accomodate them, by whatever means are available.

Dan

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:29:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> That's not what the proosal does. Things still happen when they reach
> a public forum, by rule 17. They don't happen when the admin says so,
> except for proosal recognition and such. The 2 week wait doesn't apply
> to actions. It quite explicitly only applies to statements the admin
> makes about the game. That's so that, if someone makes 6 proosal in 1
> nweek, rather than our current system where they become legal 1 nweek
> later, they only get made legal if the admin recognises them, and then
> only if nobody points out his mistake.
> 
^> uin.
> -- 

Then it's a good thing I voted against it.  We need to fix rule 17.
That's where the problem is.  The silly delay thing is _going_ to get
scammed.  I can feel it.

Dan

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday evening)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 01:01:13 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Mr Admin Says,
>The Voice's "Precedents, Schmrecedents" is not recognized - it's still
>nweek 6, and you're out of proposals.

I know this and I was proposing it for next nweek... people do that all the 
time, don't they?  Maybe I'm misreading and I just proposed it a bit too 
early.  In any case, if it could be recognized for next nweek, 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.*

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 02:17:34 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Big Rocks
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 06:27:47PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
> I remove all Big Rocks from the Grid. I give Dan the attribute "Wierd".

Removing the rocks is a good idea, but Attributes are already sorted out
because they're regulated. I got away with making myself Concertmaster
in nweek 1, before Attributes were mentioned anywhere in the rules.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:03:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday
 evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Tyler Crosby wrote:

> >The Voice's "Precedents, Schmrecedents" is not recognized - it's still
> >nweek 6, and you're out of proposals.
>
> I know this and I was proposing it for next nweek... people do that all the
> time, don't they?  Maybe I'm misreading and I just proposed it a bit too
> early.  In any case, if it could be recognized for next nweek, that would be
> great.

I can't legally recognize it for next nweek, until next nweek, if you've
already hit your bandwidth limit. While I'll be the first to admit that I
have, of late, taken a few liberties with the rules, I believe most of my
actions were in the best interest of maintaining some sort of consistency
and sanity within the game, or at least trying to keep the game fun.

Example: The whole "everyone but me forfeits" events seemed to do little
more than piss everyone off. Whether that was because, or in spite of, my
utter refusal to acknowledge that action, is a question of some debate...
But having a one-player game isn't fun for anyone, not even me. And if I
accepted that action, then there'd likely have been a whole chain of "I
rejoin, e forfeits" going on for the next week, and it would be downhill
from there...

Bending and twisting the rules is one thing - specifically, the whole darn
point of Nomic. Flat-out breaking them is another - specifically, "no
fun."

Sorry, I think I got a bit off the original subject there.

Anyway.

To the best of my recall, since Bandwidth Rationing took effect, I haven't
recognized any proposals early. People that made proposals during voting,
did so because they had proposals left over from that nweek's quota.
(Whether this is a loophole of some sort is another debate entirely.)

Unless someone decides to turn this into Imperial Nomic (which I think
would be fun in its own right, but maybe I'm just sick and twisted), I'm
still arguably bound by the rules. I prefer to think of myself as
an enabler/facilitator than a game entity, but what the hell.

...dave

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:55:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It looks pretty thorough to me.  The problem with this kind of rule is
that the game-breaking paradox all too often involves the rule which is
supposed to sort out the game-breaking paradox.

My only other comment is that it might be a good idea to specify what sort
of paradox you mean.  If I decide that my shell is green and I decide that
my shell is not green it hardly matters to the game.

Dan

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 03:02:13 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/3/02 at 2:55 AM Dan wrote:

>It looks pretty thorough to me.  The problem with this kind of rule is
>that the game-breaking paradox all too often involves the rule which is
>supposed to sort out the game-breaking paradox.
>
>
>My only other comment is that it might be a good idea to specify what sort
>of paradox you mean.  If I decide that my shell is green and I decide that
>my shell is not green it hardly matters to the game.
>
>Dan

Then I suppose that would be the ruling. :)  But that is a good point...I didn't try to define paradox in this initial typing because I was hoping for feedback.  We've got seven days.

So now we've got...what?  That the paradox in question must be one that interferes with the progress of the game (which colorizing your shell would fail to do)?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 08:09:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> 5. When the Pause reaches 5, the Refresh Proposals are gathered into a
> Ballot.  Each Player, along with the Administrator, casts a single
> vote in favor of one of the Refresh Proposals on the Ballot.

What about players that don't vote? (Or that can't vote for whatever
reason, from some game mechanic that prevents voting to players on leave?)

Otherwise, nice proposal. It'll get a serial number as soon as I finish up
all the vote-counting/scoring stuff.

...dave

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 03:18:22 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/3/02 at 8:09 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> 5. When the Pause reaches 5, the Refresh Proposals are gathered into a
>> Ballot.  Each Player, along with the Administrator, casts a single
>> vote in favor of one of the Refresh Proposals on the Ballot.
>
>What about players that don't vote? (Or that can't vote for whatever
>reason, from some game mechanic that prevents voting to players on leave?)
>
>Otherwise, nice proposal. It'll get a serial number as soon as I finish up
>all the vote-counting/scoring stuff.
>
>...dave

Well, I thought about "may cast" instead of "casts", but that interferes with the...tense? of the process-oriented verbiage.  How about "is entitled to cast"?  Along with "are each entitled to submit" in step 4?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 09:45:35 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> On 2/3/02 at 2:55 AM Dan wrote:
> 
>> It looks pretty thorough to me.  The problem with this kind of rule is
>> that the game-breaking paradox all too often involves the rule which is
>> supposed to sort out the game-breaking paradox.
>> 
>> 
>> My only other comment is that it might be a good idea to specify what sort
>> of paradox you mean.  If I decide that my shell is green and I decide that
>> my shell is not green it hardly matters to the game.
>> 
>> Dan
> 
> Then I suppose that would be the ruling. :)  But that is a good point...I
> didn't try to define paradox in this initial typing because I was hoping for
> feedback.  We've got seven days.
> 
> So now we've got...what?  That the paradox in question must be one that
> interferes with the progress of the game (which colorizing your shell would
> fail to do)?
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 

If it's a worthless statement, the Judge will judge REFUSED.
Also, how can two proposals tie for a majority of the votes? It seems like
the way its written now, if no proposal has a majority, nothing could
happen, since the rule requires that one be selected (can we CFJ that that's
a paradox? :)

-- 
Wonko
Magister Mundi sum!

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Is Nomic one syllable?
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:20:41 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Now that we have the haiku bonus I need to know this:
how do you pronounce nomic?
is it nomic as in echo-NOMIC
or nomic like in NO-MIC-rophone?

in other words does tha accent fall on the o or on th i ?
and is it a one or two syllable word?
-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:22:47 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:32 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>If Wonko moved onto the grid before the Yeti was created, would the Yeti 
>have been in a place where Wonko could reach it and throw it 
>somewhere?  I'd'a thought it'd be in Limbo, since everything else has 
>started out in Limbo.

Here's the problem Glotmorf, there is no sense of "reach" on The Grid as 
defined by the rules.  *sigh*

Rob's "default case" proposal fixes that though...... but we have to wait 
for a ballot on that.

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:24:35 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 06:56 PM 2002-02-01 -0500, you wrote:
>I take the following Actions:
>
>1) I throw all Gremlins which are not on the Grid onto the Grid at (1,1).
>2) I move all Gremlins to the square (15,9).

Wonko, I think we're going to have to come to an understanding about 
physical limitations of The Grid, because although this seems to be 
permitted by Rule 18 (which bugs me), this is what it leads to:

(Not real actions, simulation only)

Step 1) I move the Scoring Gremlin to (13, 4)
Step 2) I throw the Scoring Gremlin at Wonko
Step 3) Lather, rinse, repeat.

That REALLY takes away from the fun of The Grid.  Until Rob's proposal 
passes, let's refrain from this, okay?  It'll just create confusion, and 
people who can't keep up with email as fast as other will just get annoyed.

>7) I give Dan, Rob, Uncle Psychosis, and Scoff! the attribute 'Burned'.

Oh, and you can't do that, that's regulated.

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:54:42 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: First Proposals of the Nweek!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:16 PM 2002-02-01 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay, I submit the follwoing three proposals:
>
>****************************************************************************
>
>First of all, a faster means of movement:
>{{
>__Run, Run, As Fast As You Can!__

I don't think grid movement has to happen more often... This isn't meant to 
be a fast-paced game... Moving farther is okay though.  I'm cool with 
that.  I'll prolly circumvent vehicles if you're playing football 
though.  (Because running to the endzone is easy if you can move seven 
units at a time :)

You should also specify *how* your movement should be allowed to 
occur.  Refer to Rob's reply to my original Football proposal.

>****************************************************************************
>
>Secondly, something to do with the masses of Gremlins on the Grid:
>{{
>__Let's Get Ready To GREMBALL!!!!__

The more I read it, the less I like GremBall and this proposal.  My 
football proposal was created as a *reasonable* diversion... I don't want 
it to take up more emails than the main part of the game.  The Grid is cool 
and all, but we're here to play Nomic.  We shouldn't be *trying* to make 
the volume of emails and the work for the admin greater...

>Append to rule 301 the sentence 'The distance between two squares is the
>square root of (the difference in x-values of the squares squared plus the
>difference in y-values of the squares squared)'

You should put this in a proposal on it's own.  It's a good part of this 
proposal, and I'd like to see it in the rules.

>__Hungry Hungry Hippos__
>__The Game__
>
>If a player who is holding a Gremlin is Eaten by a Hippo, e and all players
>on eir team gain 2 points, and e loses possession of that Gremlin before
>being teleported by the Hippo.

So the point of the game is to get eaten by hippos?

You should do something to make sure that players on the roster don't have 
to play the game.  Currently everyone is playing GremBall.  What if I don't 
want to?

>{{
>__Magnets__

Don't we have enough of these sorts of things???? Really now....

>****************************************************************************
>
>And finally, back from the Grave, Administrative Abilities!
>{{
>__Broadening Horizons__

This sounds good to me.

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:03:11 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: nweek 6 results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:47 AM 2002-02-03 +0000, you wrote:
>(Anyone who can think of a clever way to pre-cache this sort of thing is
>heartily encouraged to speak up.)

What DB back end are you using??  If it's MySQL (recent version) you could 
use pconnects, then create a temp table and dump the data into there on the 
first query of each nweek.  (Or heck, just do it on a per day basis.)  That 
should cover you.

Eric

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:08:56 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/3/02 at 8:22 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 07:32 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>>If Wonko moved onto the grid before the Yeti was created, would the Yeti 
>>have been in a place where Wonko could reach it and throw it 
>>somewhere?  I'd'a thought it'd be in Limbo, since everything else has 
>>started out in Limbo.
>
>Here's the problem Glotmorf, there is no sense of "reach" on The Grid as 
>defined by the rules.  *sigh*
>
>Rob's "default case" proposal fixes that though...... but we have to wait 
>for a ballot on that.
>
>Bean

Distances on the grid ain't the point if the Yeti isn't even on the grid.  Since the grid and Limbo have been defined as two separate places, if one is in one place, presumably things in another place aren't within reach.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:14:16 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:08 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>On 2/3/02 at 8:22 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
> >At 07:32 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
> >>If Wonko moved onto the grid before the Yeti was created, would the Yeti
> >>have been in a place where Wonko could reach it and throw it
> >>somewhere?  I'd'a thought it'd be in Limbo, since everything else has
> >>started out in Limbo.
> >
> >Here's the problem Glotmorf, there is no sense of "reach" on The Grid as
> >defined by the rules.  *sigh*
> >
> >Rob's "default case" proposal fixes that though...... but we have to wait
> >for a ballot on that.
> >
> >Bean
>
>Distances on the grid ain't the point if the Yeti isn't even on the 
>grid.  Since the grid and Limbo have been defined as two separate places, 
>if one is in one place, presumably things in another place aren't within reach.

There's no such thing as reach because uit hasn't been defined.  We can 
grab anything anywhere.

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:27:48 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

On 2/3/02 at 9:45 AM Wonko wrote:

>If it's a worthless statement, the Judge will judge REFUSED.
>Also, how can two proposals tie for a majority of the votes? It seems like
>the way its written now, if no proposal has a majority, nothing could
>happen, since the rule requires that one be selected (can we CFJ that
>that's
>a paradox? :)
>
>-- 
>Wonko

The way my proposal is written now, each player casts a single vote for one of the proposals on the ballot.  They don't cast yes-or-no votes on each proposal.  So how can two proposals be tied for the majority?  Easy: three players vote for Bean's refresh proposal, three others vote for Scoff!'s, and any other proposals voted for each get one.

So then Bean's and Scoff!'s proposals are the entire second ballot.  Players each cast a vote on one of those proposals.  If those proposals tie, the Administrator picks one.

That part is fairly straightforward, I think.  I'm more concerned at this point about defining paradox. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:41:44 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> 
> The way my proposal is written now, each player casts a single vote for one of
> the proposals on the ballot.  They don't cast yes-or-no votes on each
> proposal.  So how can two proposals be tied for the majority?  Easy: three
> players vote for Bean's refresh proposal, three others vote for Scoff!'s, and
> any other proposals voted for each get one.
> 
But then if there's even only one other proposal that got one, neither
Bean's nor Scoff!'s proposals have a majority, 'cause Bean got 3 votes out
of 7 votes sent out, and Scoff! got 3 votes out of 7. 3/7 isn't a majority.

-- 
Wonko
Fac ut vivas.

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:43:38 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:41 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>Quoth Donald Whytock,
>
> >
> > The way my proposal is written now, each player casts a single vote for 
> one of
> > the proposals on the ballot.  They don't cast yes-or-no votes on each
> > proposal.  So how can two proposals be tied for the majority?  Easy: three
> > players vote for Bean's refresh proposal, three others vote for 
> Scoff!'s, and
> > any other proposals voted for each get one.
> >
>But then if there's even only one other proposal that got one, neither
>Bean's nor Scoff!'s proposals have a majority, 'cause Bean got 3 votes out
>of 7 votes sent out, and Scoff! got 3 votes out of 7. 3/7 isn't a majority.

Good point, perhaps we should do multiple ballots, where the one with the 
least votes gets dropped, then we vote again on the remainder?  Takes 
longer, but gets better representation...

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:44:44 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,

> At 06:56 PM 2002-02-01 -0500, you wrote:
>> I take the following Actions:
>> 
>> 1) I throw all Gremlins which are not on the Grid onto the Grid at (1,1).
>> 2) I move all Gremlins to the square (15,9).
> 
> Wonko, I think we're going to have to come to an understanding about
> physical limitations of The Grid, because although this seems to be
> permitted by Rule 18 (which bugs me), this is what it leads to:
> 
> (Not real actions, simulation only)
> 
> Step 1) I move the Scoring Gremlin to (13, 4)
> Step 2) I throw the Scoring Gremlin at Wonko
> Step 3) Lather, rinse, repeat.
> 
> That REALLY takes away from the fun of The Grid.  Until Rob's proposal
> passes, let's refrain from this, okay?  It'll just create confusion, and
> people who can't keep up with email as fast as other will just get annoyed.

You can't do it now, 'cause there are rules governing where Gremlins are and
how people can move them around. When I took the action, however, there were
no such regulations, so it was just as legal for me to move all Gremlins to
myself as it was for the Scoring Gremlin to be thrown onto the Grid and
picked up in the first place.

-- 
Wonko
Semper ubi sub ubi.

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:46:05 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,

> At 09:41 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>> Quoth Donald Whytock,
>> 
>>> 
>>> The way my proposal is written now, each player casts a single vote for
>> one of
>>> the proposals on the ballot.  They don't cast yes-or-no votes on each
>>> proposal.  So how can two proposals be tied for the majority?  Easy: three
>>> players vote for Bean's refresh proposal, three others vote for
>> Scoff!'s, and
>>> any other proposals voted for each get one.
>>> 
>> But then if there's even only one other proposal that got one, neither
>> Bean's nor Scoff!'s proposals have a majority, 'cause Bean got 3 votes out
>> of 7 votes sent out, and Scoff! got 3 votes out of 7. 3/7 isn't a majority.
> 
> Good point, perhaps we should do multiple ballots, where the one with the
> least votes gets dropped, then we vote again on the remainder?  Takes
> longer, but gets better representation...
> 
> Bean
> 
Maybe just say 'whichever gets the most votes', so that you don't need 9/16
if the closest competitor is 4, you just need 5.

-- 
Wonko
Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:45:41 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/3/02 at 9:02 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>- Replace all references to "the Scoring Gremlin" with "The Football".  (I 
>count 11...)
>
>Bean

Sorry, guy.  This would make r296 conflict with r256, which means that entity known now as The Scoring Gremlin would cease to exist.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:48:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/3/02 at 9:41 PM Wonko wrote:

>But then if there's even only one other proposal that got one, neither
>Bean's nor Scoff!'s proposals have a majority, 'cause Bean got 3 votes out
>of 7 votes sent out, and Scoff! got 3 votes out of 7. 3/7 isn't a majority.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Yer nitpicking, guy. :)  Okay, instead of "majority", how about "the largest number of votes"?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:50:09 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:44 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>Quoth Eric Gerlach,
>
> > At 06:56 PM 2002-02-01 -0500, you wrote:
> >> I take the following Actions:
> >>
> >> 1) I throw all Gremlins which are not on the Grid onto the Grid at (1,1).
> >> 2) I move all Gremlins to the square (15,9).
> >
> > Wonko, I think we're going to have to come to an understanding about
> > physical limitations of The Grid, because although this seems to be
> > permitted by Rule 18 (which bugs me), this is what it leads to:
> >
> > (Not real actions, simulation only)
> >
> > Step 1) I move the Scoring Gremlin to (13, 4)
> > Step 2) I throw the Scoring Gremlin at Wonko
> > Step 3) Lather, rinse, repeat.
> >
> > That REALLY takes away from the fun of The Grid.  Until Rob's proposal
> > passes, let's refrain from this, okay?  It'll just create confusion, and
> > people who can't keep up with email as fast as other will just get annoyed.
>
>You can't do it now, 'cause there are rules governing where Gremlins are and
>how people can move them around. When I took the action, however, there were
>no such regulations, so it was just as legal for me to move all Gremlins to
>myself as it was for the Scoring Gremlin to be thrown onto the Grid and
>picked up in the first place.

Of course... we are at the beginning of the new nweek now.  Good call.

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:52:15 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Friday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:45 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>On 2/3/02 at 9:02 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
> >- Replace all references to "the Scoring Gremlin" with "The Football".  (I
> >count 11...)
> >
> >Bean
>
>Sorry, guy.  This would make r296 conflict with r256, which means that 
>entity known now as The Scoring Gremlin would cease to exist.

What?  This is *within* *my* *proposal*, not the ruleset.  Since my 
football proposal hasn't been adopted yet, I can revise it however I 
want.  And it won't make it cease to exist.......

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:52:29 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: First Proposals of the
	Nweek!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,

> I don't think grid movement has to happen more often... This isn't meant to
> be a fast-paced game... Moving farther is okay though.  I'm cool with
> that.  I'll prolly circumvent vehicles if you're playing football
> though.  (Because running to the endzone is easy if you can move seven
> units at a time :)
> 
> You should also specify *how* your movement should be allowed to
> occur.  Refer to Rob's reply to my original Football proposal.

Movement occurs by players taking Moves, which are defined under the Grid
rule.
-- 
Wonko
Fac ut vivas.

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:56:34 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Friday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/3/02 at 9:52 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 09:45 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>>On 2/3/02 at 9:02 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>>
>> >- Replace all references to "the Scoring Gremlin" with "The Football". 
>(I
>> >count 11...)
>> >
>> >Bean
>>
>>Sorry, guy.  This would make r296 conflict with r256, which means that 
>>entity known now as The Scoring Gremlin would cease to exist.
>
>What?  This is *within* *my* *proposal*, not the ruleset.  Since my 
>football proposal hasn't been adopted yet, I can revise it however I 
>want.  And it won't make it cease to exist.......
>
>Bean

*koff* Um...sorry.  Perhaps I shouldn't try to respond to proposals and watch the super bowl at the same time...

I thought replacing all instances of The Scoring Gremlin with The Football was part of a proposal you were making.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:05:48 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: First Proposals of the
	Nweek!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,

> 
> You should do something to make sure that players on the roster don't have
> to play the game.  Currently everyone is playing GremBall.  What if I don't
> want to?
> 
This version is from before I could legally make proposals. The real one,
which can legally be recognized, allows people to put themselves on teams,
although they still get assigned randomly. I think it's better to make teams
random, 'cause otherwise if everyone decides to join the game you end up
with a majority of the players on one team. Giving a team the power to pass
any proposal could get ugly. This way, nobody can reasonably make proposals
that benefit a certain team 'cause the teams change each nweek.

-- 
Fac ut gaudeam.

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:14:04 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: The PIG
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to my calculations,
we need to make at least 27 proposals or the PIG is gonna eat the football
proposal again (unless someone represses it less than 4 ndays before the end
of the week).

-- 
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: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:21:26 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Another revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Two comments:

On 2/3/02 at 10:11 PM Wonko wrote:

>__The Game__
>
>There exists a list called the Gremball Roster, or just the Roster. Any
>player may put emself on the Roster by declaring so in a Public Forum, in
>which case e shall be added to the Roster at the end of that nweek. There
>exist two groups of players, called Teams, known as the Red Team and the
>Yellow Team. No player on the Roster can be on more than 1 Team. At the
>beginning of each nweek, each player on the Roster shall be randomly
>assigned to a Team, in such a way so that neither Team outnumbers the other
>by more than 1 player.
>
>If a player who is holding a Gremlin is Eaten by a Hippo, e and all players
>on eir team gain 2 points, and e loses possession of that Gremlin before
>being teleported by the Hippo.
>}}

"The Roster" is a non-unique name; it's already used in r24.

>{{
>__Magnets__
>
>There exist objects called Magnets. All players have magnets. If a player
>with a Magnet is within 3 squares of a player who holds a Gremlin, the
>player with a Magnet may Seize the other player's Gremlin, in which case
>the
>Gremlin moves to the location and into the possession of the Seizing
>player.
>}}
>
>-- 
>Wonko
>Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

How many magnets do players initially have?  And how many does a player start with when e enters the game?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:22:49 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The PIG
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:14 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to my calculations,
>we need to make at least 27 proposals or the PIG is gonna eat the football
>proposal again (unless someone represses it less than 4 ndays before the end
>of the week).

Don't worry about that.... I've got an ace up my sleeve :)

I'll give you a hint: I don't lose points for eaten proposals :)

Bean

Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:27:25 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: First Proposals of the
  Nweek!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:05 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>Quoth Eric Gerlach,
>
> >
> > You should do something to make sure that players on the roster don't have
> > to play the game.  Currently everyone is playing GremBall.  What if I don't
> > want to?
> >
>This version is from before I could legally make proposals. The real one,
>which can legally be recognized, allows people to put themselves on teams,
>although they still get assigned randomly. I think it's better to make teams
>random, 'cause otherwise if everyone decides to join the game you end up
>with a majority of the players on one team. Giving a team the power to pass
>any proposal could get ugly. This way, nobody can reasonably make proposals
>that benefit a certain team 'cause the teams change each nweek.

Hrmm.... this *is* a good point... I never thought of that.  OTOH, that's 
kindof hard to do with Football.  "Okay, running this way now... Oop!  I'm 
on the other team!  Run the other way...."  :)

I'll have to think up some device to deter that...

Bean

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:52:41 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Is Nomic one syllable?
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Any way you slice it, it's a two syllable word.  The stress also falls on the first syllable, whether you pronounce it with a short 'o' or a long 'o'.  So, as far as the haiku bonus is concerned, the pronunciation doesn't matter, unless you're planning to read your haiku rule proposal aloud at a coffeehouse open mike night.  :)

As for the pronunciation of the word, see http://www.nomic.net/FAQ.html#a3 for discussion of the debated pronunciations, and Suber's own take on the matter.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Is Nomic one syllable?
> 
> 
> Now that we have the haiku bonus I need to know this:
> how do you pronounce nomic?
> is it nomic as in echo-NOMIC
> or nomic like in NO-MIC-rophone?
> 
> in other words does tha accent fall on the o or on th i ?
> and is it a one or two syllable word?
> -- 
> Antonio
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> 
> Do You Yahoo!?
> 
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:08:32 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal, and it ain't pretty
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:44 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>  I'm looking forward to beaning Bean with Beano. "What if I don't want to 
> play" indeed.

Geez, you play a little Devil's Advocate and people start planning to hit 
you with flatulent things!  What is this world coming to? :)

Also, there are going to be times where I can't keep up with the game for 
3-4 days at a time (next term as CS 354 assignments come due).... I don't 
want to get "beaned" with 500 Gremlins when that happens.... I think being 
in Limbo, or at least On Leave should exempt you from GremBall.

Bean

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:01:45 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal, and it
  ain't pretty
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/4/02 at 10:08 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 11:44 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>>  I'm looking forward to beaning Bean with Beano. "What if I don't want
>to 
>> play" indeed.
>
>Geez, you play a little Devil's Advocate and people start planning to hit 
>you with flatulent things!  What is this world coming to? :)
>
>Also, there are going to be times where I can't keep up with the game for 
>3-4 days at a time (next term as CS 354 assignments come due).... I don't 
>want to get "beaned" with 500 Gremlins when that happens.... I think being 
>in Limbo, or at least On Leave should exempt you from GremBall.
>
>Bean

Status quo, guy.  Fourth paragraph of r355: "Gremlins cannot be thrown at Players who are On Leave."  If you're really serious in it, you can conceivably be On Leave most of the time, coming Off Leave long enough to submit proposals, vote and get scored; that should keep you mostly free for your classes.

What, do you think you'll be that impacted by a little fart? :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:05:52 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Okay...so from what I understand, two nweeks ago
> you posted an Action to the public forum that you
> were repealing r10?  And it is your opinion that,
> since there was no CFJ to argue this Action, r129
> makes this Action legal, and therefore r10 is now
> repealed?
>
More or less (it wouldn't make any difference if there had been a CFJ, as the action would still be made legal by r129, but close enough).

> Okay...Well, since r10 is still in the rules list, that
> means the Administrator didn't see, or ignored,
> your Action
>
Yes.

> and didn't update the rule set to match your Action.
>
No. He failed to update *his* *records* to match my action. The *actual* rule set doesn't depend on him to update it. It's quite possible for his records to be in error. Of course, my revision of r129 would have made it work as you describe...

> Since his Action, which was failing to act upon your
> Action, was also two nweeks ago, r129 says his
> Action can't be CFJ'd either, and therefore his Action
> is legal too.
>
No. Rule 129 refers only to player actions, and the admin is (quite definite that he's) not a player. His actions are not made legal, and can still be CFJed.

> And therefore, the current rule set listed on the website,
> which includes the not-repealed r10, is a reflection of his
> legal action, and consequently the legal state of the rule set.
>
No. It's a reflection of how the admin claims the rule set is - nothing more. If he changed all the rules in his records to say "monkey", would that mean that that was what the rules actually said? Well, perhaps you'd say so, but I certainly wouldn't.

> Don't know why I didn't see that earlier...
>
Because it's flawed on so many levels? ;-)

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: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:12:45 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >Proposal 319/0: Why? Because I'm a
> >cave man. (Uncle Psychosis)
> No.  I'm still not clear why an administrative
> action shouldn't be effective immediately.
>
And I'm still not clear what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with actions, which are still timed according to rule 17. If the admin makes a mistake with one of his actions, or with one of his unofficial recognition things (like when he says "uin transfers 3 points to Rob" in his daily recogniser mail, for example), and accidentally reports something illegal as having happened, then my proosal would have made it so that, after 2 nweeks, his incorrect recognition became correct - pretty much like the current statute, but without all the huge broken flaws...

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: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:25:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal, and it  ain't
 pretty
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Status quo, guy.  Fourth paragraph of r355: "Gremlins cannot be thrown at Players who are On Leave."  If you're really serious in it, you can conceivably be On Leave most of the time, coming Off Leave long enough to submit proposals, vote and get scored; that should keep you mostly free for your classes.

Oops, you're right.  Missed that... So we're even now on misreading each
other's work.  Bet I'll take the lead before you do. :)

> What, do you think you'll be that impacted by a little fart? :)

No... I *was* just being a devil's advocate, you know.  After all, if I
end up with it, I'll just throw it back at you. :P

One thing I am beginning to get worried about is the increasing difficulty
in maneuvering The Grid... but if that trend begins to taper off it won't
be too much trouble.

Bean

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:25:07 -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 2/4/02 at 12:05 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Okay...so from what I understand, two nweeks ago
>> you posted an Action to the public forum that you
>> were repealing r10?  And it is your opinion that,
>> since there was no CFJ to argue this Action, r129
>> makes this Action legal, and therefore r10 is now
>> repealed?
>>
>More or less (it wouldn't make any difference if there had been a CFJ, as
>the action would still be made legal by r129, but close enough).
>
>> Okay...Well, since r10 is still in the rules list, that
>> means the Administrator didn't see, or ignored,
>> your Action
>>
>Yes.
>
>> and didn't update the rule set to match your Action.
>>
>No. He failed to update *his* *records* to match my action. The *actual*
>rule set doesn't depend on him to update it. It's quite possible for his
>records to be in error. Of course, my revision of r129 would have made it
>work as you describe...

Actually, the actual rule set depends on him to update it, as it's not marked that it's dependent on anyone else to update it, and r25 says all game duties not assigned by the Rules to other players are his responsibility.  While it is not his responsibility to determine what the rules mean, or what they "say", he is responsible for determining what text the rule set is composed of.  In theory, he could ignore the changes the proposals make, and as long as he's not CFJ'd, the text of the rule set that exists as a result is in fact the legal rule set.

You could, of course, CFJ the Administrator now, since, as you pointed out, there's no Statute of Limitations on Administrator actions.  Whereupon he'd probably argue that, even though your action then may be legal now, it wasn't legal then, and therefore he was taking the correct course of action by ignoring you.  And while it's possible that no one can CFJ you now for your action then, if the Judge rules that the Administrator was correct in ignoring you then, the rule set that resulted from the Administrator's action has the force of law now.

I'd certainly be willing to rule that way...:)

>
>> Since his Action, which was failing to act upon your
>> Action, was also two nweeks ago, r129 says his
>> Action can't be CFJ'd either, and therefore his Action
>> is legal too.
>>
>No. Rule 129 refers only to player actions, and the admin is (quite
>definite that he's) not a player. His actions are not made legal, and can
>still be CFJed.
>
>> And therefore, the current rule set listed on the website,
>> which includes the not-repealed r10, is a reflection of his
>> legal action, and consequently the legal state of the rule set.
>>
>No. It's a reflection of how the admin claims the rule set is - nothing
>more. If he changed all the rules in his records to say "monkey", would
>that mean that that was what the rules actually said? Well, perhaps you'd
>say so, but I certainly wouldn't.

Gee...if he did that, someone would have to CFJ him.  Wouldn't it be something if someone ruled in his favor? :)

>
>> Don't know why I didn't see that earlier...
>>
>Because it's flawed on so many levels? ;-)

Must be because our hallucinations are incompatible. :)

>
>uin.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:28:39 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 277/1 fails (3-8).
> >
> I award myself a win. I award a win to each player
> (other than myself) who voted for proosal 277/1,
> in alphabetical order by name. I alter the text of
> rule 129 to what it would be had proosal 277/1
> passed.
>
It's now been over an nweek since I performed the above actions. Therefore they are considered legal, by rule 129.

Yes, they were CFJed. As far as I can tell, that doesn't make any difference - rule 129 certainly doesn't say so.

(Apologies if this comes through more than once - "Try again later"...)

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: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:30:40 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJs
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> CFJ 280 (Judge: Wonko)
...
> Judgement: TRUE
>
I therefore do not have the sushi.

And CFJ 341 was never submitted... silly sushi rule. ;-)

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: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:43:57 -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]

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

On 2/4/02 at 12:12 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> >Proposal 319/0: Why? Because I'm a
>> >cave man. (Uncle Psychosis)
>> No.  I'm still not clear why an administrative
>> action shouldn't be effective immediately.
>>
>And I'm still not clear what you're talking about. This has nothing to do
>with actions, which are still timed according to rule 17. If the admin
>makes a mistake with one of his actions, or with one of his unofficial
>recognition things (like when he says "uin transfers 3 points to Rob" in
>his daily recogniser mail, for example), and accidentally reports
>something illegal as having happened, then my proosal would have made it
>so that, after 2 nweeks, his incorrect recognition became correct - pretty
>much like the current statute, but without all the huge broken flaws...
>
>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

Text of p319, the text you wanted to replace r129 with:

"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. "

Okay.  So far we don't have a definition of "game state", so one could reasonably interpret "game state" to mean the collective set of conditions as established in the context of the game.  That would include, let's see...rules, proposals, CFJs, the player list, the players' dimensions and attributes and titles, the gremlins in existence, the locations and statuses of said gremlins, the grid and its contents...If that isn't all of it, it's certainly enough to work with.

So it's nweek x.  The following events occur:
- I bean Bean with Beano.
- Scoff proposes five proposals.
- Wonko moves one unit to the left on the grid.
- Dan pays off his 100-point debt to Luigi.

The Administrator recognizes all of these actions and says that Bean gets beaned, that Scoff's proposals have such-and-such numbers at revision 0, Wonko is now at grid location (a-1,b) and Dan is debt-free.

By the text you proposed, one of three things happen:

- Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid location and Dan's now-zero debt all come into existence, but two nweeks later they happen again: Bean is beaned again, Scoff's proposals are resubmitted or are at revision 0, Wonko is returned to (a-1,b) and Dan's debt is zeroed out; or

- Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid location and Dan's zero debt don't happen for another two nweeks, in which case Scoff's proposals don't appear on the ballot, Wonko stays in place, and Luigi breaks two of Dan's limbs because his debt isn't paid.

- Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid location and Dan's zero debt all happen, but they're not reflected in the game state in nweek x because the game state is still being altered by events reported by the Administrator in nweek x-2.  Which means someone looking at just the game state while planning actions is working with flawed data.

If you want there to be a Statute of Limitations on Administrator actions, why not just say so, rather than saying the game state is altered?  Or are you insisting the game state is something totally separate from what the Administrator says it is?  If that's the case, there's no authority on what the game state is, and every single action needs a CFJ performed to establish its legitimacy.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:51:15 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/4/02 at 12:28 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> > 277/1 fails (3-8).
>> >
>> I award myself a win. I award a win to each player
>> (other than myself) who voted for proosal 277/1,
>> in alphabetical order by name. I alter the text of
>> rule 129 to what it would be had proosal 277/1
>> passed.
>>
>It's now been over an nweek since I performed the above actions. Therefore
>they are considered legal, by rule 129.
>
>Yes, they were CFJed. As far as I can tell, that doesn't make any
>difference - rule 129 certainly doesn't say so.
>
>(Apologies if this comes through more than once - "Try again later"...)
>
>uin.

So...next week when your resignation as submitted by Scoff! becomes legal, even though it was CFJ'd too, you're outa here?

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:57:02 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> So...next week when your resignation as submitted
> by Scoff! becomes legal, even though it was CFJ'd
> too, you're outa here?
>
That's what rule 129 said. It didn't say "treated as if they were legal unless they've been CFJed", it just said "treated as if they were legal" (or some very similar wording). 

Of course, I've fixed that now, by amending rule 129.

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: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 13:06:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/4/02 at 12:57 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> So...next week when your resignation as submitted
>> by Scoff! becomes legal, even though it was CFJ'd
>> too, you're outa here?
>>
>That's what rule 129 said. It didn't say "treated as if they were legal
>unless they've been CFJed", it just said "treated as if they were legal"
>(or some very similar wording). 
>
>Of course, I've fixed that now, by amending rule 129.
>
>uin.

Okay, I'll bite.  Your proposal to amend rule 129 failed, and I can't find any public forum actions with your name on them that amend rule 129, so whenabouts did you amend rule 129?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:16:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> It's now been over an nweek since I performed the above actions.
> Therefore they are considered legal, by rule 129.
> 
> Yes, they were CFJed. As far as I can tell, that doesn't make any
> difference - rule 129 certainly doesn't say so.
> 
> (Apologies if this comes through more than once - "Try again later"...)
> 
> uin.

You are assuming that an action can be illegal.  I beg to differ.
Anything found to be illegal is not an action.

Anyway you can't make claims about the game state except by CFJ.  And then
you'll have to wait and see what the judge has to say.

Dan

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:59:54 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 02:06:52AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that we still don't have a paradox resolution rule?  Or maybe it's just me...

There isn't anything to notice. A paradox resolution rule is impossible.
Paradoxes arise from the effects of rules coming into conflict. If there
is a rule about paradoxes, either:

* It has no effects (i.e. it is useless).
* It has effects (specifically, effects based on the effects of other
  rules). This will only serve to move paradoxes to a higher level.

A paradox rule cannot eliminate all of its own potential paradoxical
effects, either; I believe this follows from Godel's Incompleteness
Theorem, or at least a similar argument.

To illustrate this, I will present Douglas Hofstadter's wonderful
analogy. In his analogy, the records and the record player were
mathematical theorems and mathematical systems, but here consider them
to be game effects and rules about paradoxes.

Mr. Crab buys a record player, "Record Player 1", which the salesman
claims can reproduce any sound. Mr. Tortoise hears Crab bragging about
this, and gives Crab a record named "I Cannot Be Played On Record Player
1", which contains precisely the sound which will cause Record Player
1's machinery to break. Crab plays it. It does.

Crab is undaunted, and buys Record Player 2, which he is assured will
not break when it makes that sound. Tortoise produces "I Cannot Be
Played On Record Player 2" which breaks Record Player 2.

Eventually, Crab catches on and comes up with Record Player Omega, which
optically scans a record for the sound it will produce, and if it
determines that the sound will cause it to break, a special part of the
record player disassembles the record player and rebuilds it into a
record player that will not break when it plays that sound. Feeling
invincible, Crab plays the next record Tortoise gives him, "I Cannot Be
Played On Record Player Omega", which happens to be one that breaks the
disassembling machinery.

The only way Crab could escape this loop would be to get an imperfect
record player, a record player which cannot play its own breaking-sound.
This would be the equivalent of a paradox rule that does not actually
prevent any paradoxes.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:31:58 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:01:44PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
> __Game State Reigns Supreme__
> {{Changes to the Game state may only be made as permitted by the rules}}
> 
> [[Short enough to be made into a Haiku but clarity (and precise wording)
> are important here.
> The game state is loose enough a term to permit maneuvering space, while
> this rule places the whole Game state under the regulation of the rules.]]

How is this any different from my proposal?

And we've seen from things like 18 that you shouldn't have rules refer
to what other Rules allow unless you have to, because it screws with
overriding and deferring. That's why I phrased my proposal the way I
did.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:34:19 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:59 PM 2002-02-04 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 02:06:52AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> > Has anyone noticed that we still don't have a paradox resolution 
> rule?  Or maybe it's just me...
>
>There isn't anything to notice. A paradox resolution rule is impossible.

You're almost right.  A *perfect* paradix reolution rule is impossible.  We 
*can* however make a rule which allows paradox resolution in any situation 
that does not involve the paradox resolution rule itself.  You're right, a 
perfect system is a Godel set, and therefore is incomplete or 
inconsistent.  I'd rather know my system was incomplete than not know where 
the inconsistancy was.

Bean

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:44:45 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Monday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 12:18 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Wonko's "Run, Run, As Fast As You Can!" is 359/0.
>"Let's Get Ready To GREMBALL!!!!!" is 360/0.
>"Broadening Horizons" is 361/0.
>
>Wonko did, in fact, move to (15,9) and I'd forgotten to update The Grid to
>reflect that. That action counts against last week's move quota, not this
>week's. Whee!
>
>All Gremlins are currently airborne - the Bandwidth Gremlin is en route to
>Scoff! at (16,13); the PIG is enroute to Dan (in Limbo); the Witch Gremlin
>is enroute to Rob at (4,2); the Scoring Gremlin is en route to Uncle
>Psychosis (in Limbo).
>
>The Yeti gets lobbed onto The Grid at (15,7). (This action is deemed to
>have occurred during the first day of the nweek; The Yeti will move later
>on in this post.)
>
>342 is revised (342/1). If I accidentally left something out of the
>original, I apologize.
>
>Bean's "Let at least slow GremBall down..." is 362/0.
>
>"Run, Run, As Fast As You Can" is revised (359/1).
>
>"You can only throw so far..." is 363/0.
>
>"Let's Get Ready To GREMBALL!!!!!" is revised (360/1).
>
>"Not to be Confused with Sylvester Stallone" is 364/0.
>
>"Get AWAY From That!" is 365/0.
>
>Dan (in Limbo) catches the PIG.
>
>Dan has ruled on CFJ 340. Twisty, ain't it?
>
>Once again, I'm disregarding Uncle Psychosis' blatantly illegal actions,
>until CFJd otherwise.
>
>The Pink Scarf is given to Scoff!.
>
>"My Recipe for Siren Pate" is 366/0.
>
>Antonio has ruled on CFJ 322.
>
>Antonio's "Game State Reigns Supreme" is rectified (add standard "Create a
>new rule:" verbiage) and recognized (367/0).
>
>I have to move the Yeti around a lot - the Grid web page will reflect eir
>movements. (Since the definition of Movement includes diagonal moves,
>this'll be fun.) Here's where e moved:
>
>16,8
>16,7
>15,6
>15,5
>15,4
>16,3
>14,5 (moved through a Frozen square)
>13,6
>
>
>
>...dave

Uh, dude?  Where's my paradox proposal?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 08:30:25 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Monday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 8:01 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> Uh, dude?  Where's my paradox proposal?
>
>Uh, dude? Why'd you quote the whole message?

Uh, dude?  I deleted the last three lines...:)

Sorry.  I plead incompetence.

						Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 08:53:37 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: siren pate
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My dear Glotmorf, as I am sure you are well aware, no person of good manners would even consider having siren pate before the first of May.

I also feel duty-bound to report to you that your proposal fails to qualify for the haiku bonus because the haiku is in the comments.  Your prospects for marriage will *never* improve if you insist on continuing in this manner.

Respectfully Yours,

Miss Emma Stanton Scoff,
Hadleydale Manor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:36 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: new proposal: siren pate
> 
> 
> {{ _My Recipe for Siren Pate_
> 
> [[
> 
> Take a nice Big Rock
> Drop onto a Siren's Rock
> Makes Siren Pate
> 
> ]]
> 
> Amend the fourth paragraph of Rule 346, replacing the text 
> "both Big Rocks" with "both Big Rocks, as well as anything 
> sitting on the original Big Rock,".
> 
> }}
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 11:55:27 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Actually, the actual rule set depends on him to
> update it, as it's not marked that it's dependent
> on anyone else to update it, and r25 says all
> game duties not assigned by the Rules to other
> players are his responsibility. 
>
That's not a "game duty". The game duty (if it even exists - the rules are unclear on this) is simply to update our version of the rules. The actual rules modify themselves.

> While it is not
> his responsibility to determine what the rules
> mean, or what they "say", he is responsible for
> determining what text the rule set is composed
> of.  In theory, he could ignore the changes the
> proposals make, and as long as he's not CFJ'd,
> the text of the rule set that exists as a result is
> in fact the legal rule set.
>
If he doesn't update the rules in accordance with proosals, it just means he hasn't updated his copy of the rules. He could refuse to *recognise* a proosal, and then it wouldn't happen, but that's because the rules say it only happens when he does it. Nowhere do the rules say that the records he keeps are the actual rules, and nowhere do they say that maintaining the rules is a game duty for anyone.

Regardless of which...

> You could, of course, CFJ the Administrator now,
> since, as you pointed out, there's no Statute of
> Limitations on Administrator actions. 
>
Yes.

>Whereupon he'd probably argue that, even though
> your action then may be legal now, it wasn't legal
> then, and therefore he was taking the correct
> course of action by ignoring you. 
>
Well, yes. I'd agree with that. He *was* taking the correct action by ignoring me, when my action was illegal. My action is now legal, however, so he is no longer correct in doing so.

> And while it's possible that no one can CFJ you
> now for your action then, if the Judge rules that
> the Administrator was correct in ignoring you
> then, the rule set that resulted from the
> Administrator's action has the force of law now.
>
Well, any judge's verdict has the force of law (no matter how poor their reasoning. ;-)). But I don't think it makes any difference. If the CFJ said the admin was correct to ignore me at the time, then that's true, and was supported by the rules at the time regardless of whether it had the "force of law". If the CFJ says that the admin was correct in ignoring me *now*, though, then it would be false, as my action is legal (and even if the judge found it true, we know from a previous CFJ that "force of law" can't overrule the rules - thanks, Scoff! ;-)).

> I'd certainly be willing to rule that way...:)
>
No comment. ;-)

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, 05 Feb 2002 11:58:31 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 6
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Text of p319, the text you wanted to replace r129 with:

> "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. "
>
> Okay.  So far we don't have a definition of "game state",
> so one could reasonably interpret "game state" to
> mean the collective set of conditions as established in
> the context of the game.  That would include, let's see...
> rules, proposals, CFJs, the player list, the players'
> dimensions and attributes and titles, the gremlins in
> existence, the locations and statuses of said gremlins,
> the grid and its contents...If that isn't all of it, it's
> certainly enough to work with.

Fine.

> So it's nweek x.  The following events occur:
> - I bean Bean with Beano.
> - Scoff proposes five proposals.
> - Wonko moves one unit to the left on the grid.
> - Dan pays off his 100-point debt to Luigi.
>
> The Administrator recognizes all of these actions and
> says that Bean gets beaned, that Scoff's proposals
> have such-and-such numbers at revision 0, Wonko
> is now at grid location (a-1,b) and Dan is debt-free.
>
Right.

> By the text you proposed, one of three things happen:
>
> - Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid
> location and Dan's now-zero debt all come into existence,
>
Yes. Not because the *admin* says so (well, except the proosals, which *the* *rules* *say* need to be recognized), but because the *rules* say they do.

> but two nweeks later they happen again: Bean is beaned
> again, Scoff's proposals are resubmitted or are at revision
> 0, Wonko is returned to (a-1,b) and Dan's debt is zeroed
> out; or
>
Why would this happen? What part of my proosal says that? It doesn't say "what they would be if the statement were now true", it says "what they would be had that statement been true at the time it was made". Would it be clearer if I made it "what they *now* would be had that statement been true at the time it was made"?

> - Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid
> location and Dan's zero debt don't happen for another two
> nweeks, in which case Scoff's proposals don't appear on
> the ballot, Wonko stays in place, and Luigi breaks two of
> Dan's limbs because his debt isn't paid.
>
Why would this happen? Rule 17 defines when things happen - when they reach a public forum.

> - Bean's beaning, Scoff's proposals, Wonko's new grid
> location and Dan's zero debt all happen, but they're not
> reflected in the game state in nweek x because the
> game state is still being altered by events reported by
> the Administrator in nweek x-2.  Which means someone
> looking at just the game state while planning actions is
> working with flawed data.
>
This doesn't even makes sense. The game state *is* the things that have happened (or the results thereof, if you prefer). Something happenning is equivalent to it being reflected in the game state.

d) None of the above.
Bean's beaning, Scoff's proosals, Wonko's new grid location, and Dan's zero debt all happen (assuming they are all legal) when they reach a public forum. The admin reports this to a public forum. Two nweeks after the admin's report, the game state is changed to what it would be, had the things he said been true when he said them. But they *were* true when he said them. So *nothing* *changes*. But say that Rob accidentally made 23 proosals, and the admin then recognised them all. For the next 2 nweeks, no one notices. After the 2 nweeks are up, the game state changes to what it would be had the admin's statement that he'd recognised them all been valid. So what changes? Well, the true / actual game state comes into line with our version of it. As far as we're concerned, nothing changes, because we never noticed the problem.

> If you want there to be a Statute of Limitations on
> Administrator actions, why not just say so, rather
> than saying the game state is altered? 
>
Our current statute says that actions become "legal", which isn't even a rule defined term, and is broken in other ways anyway. This *is* a statute. A statute, by definition, changes the game state - it makes illegal things, legal. This does the same thing, except it only applies to actions that the admin recognises (which recognition currently has no rule-based standing). That means that things like my "I repeal rule 10" don't even get a look in, and if the admin says "I repeal all the rules" we can call him on it, and stop it.

> Or are you insisting the game state is something
> totally separate from what the Administrator says
> it is? 
>
Well, yes.

> If that's the case, there's no authority on what the
> game state is, and every single action needs a CFJ
> performed to establish its legitimacy.
>
Well... no. For the most part, we can know if actions are legal or not just by looking at them. We only need to CFJ if we're not sure whether our records match the game state, or we're not sure what the true game state is.

In your (twisted, wrong) Pragmatist view, this proosal only eliminates our current, broken statute rule, because you'd argue that things the admin says become true anyway. In the (vastly superior) Platonist view, this (effectively) makes you right (in as much as things the admin says become true, anyway).

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, 05 Feb 2002 11:59:17 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Okay, I'll bite.  Your proposal to amend
> rule 129 failed, and I can't find any
> public forum actions with your name
> on them that amend rule 129, so
> whenabouts did you amend rule 129?
>
Uh... when I replied to the nweek 5 results? The message that I then replied to to start this thread?

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, 05 Feb 2002 12:01:53 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> You are assuming that an action can be
> illegal.  I beg to differ.
> Anything found to be illegal is not an action.
>
Well, that's one interpretation. But it leads to paradox, or at least unpleasantness. We won't know if something's a legal target for a CFJ unless we CFJ, which we can't do if it's legal... And besides that, it means the statute won't actually make anything legal which wasn't anyway. So I don't think it's a particularly plausible reading.

> Anyway you can't make claims about the
> game state except by CFJ.
>
Can't I? All rules consist of the quoted string "Monkey".

It appears I can.

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, 05 Feb 2002 12:05:21 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Monday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Once again, I'm disregarding Uncle Psychosis'
> blatantly illegal actions, until CFJd otherwise.
>
"Illegal actions"? I think not. ;-)

My actions were either legal, or not actions at all. And yet I notice you continue to record Baron von Skippy's *actually* illegal transfer of the sushi to me, *despite* Scoff!'s verdict on that CFJ...

uin,
prodding, not complaining.
-- 

_______________________________________________
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, 5 Feb 2002 15:03:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: siren  pate
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/5/02 at 8:53 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> >Miss Emma Stanton Scoff,
> >Hadleydale Manor
> 
> I am *so* giving her a Kick in the Ass.
> 
> Oh, right, a reason...um...titles.  "Miss Emma Stanton Scoff, Hadleydale Manor".  She hasn't formally changed her name, so this must be a title.

Come now, it's not a title, we've just been referring to Scoff! by a name
which isn't quite her full name.  Not to mention, Scoff! is just doing her
job as the Style Police (and she's got the Jane Austin speak down pat!
Woo!  There's a reason I'm a drone :)

Bean

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:13:29 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: siren pate
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My Ever-Contentious Glotmorf,

It's not a title, it's creative license.  I am, after all, bound by the rules to do my best imitation of Jane Austen while in possession of the scarf.

It must be very trying, when one has been got the better of, to be compelled to grasp vainly for justification for one's desired retribution.  It places a heavy burden on my soul, to think of such woeful people.

With a wistful sigh in her heart,
Miss Emma Stanton Scoff,
en route to London via train from Hadleydale Downs

p.s. Persons of good character are generally observed to refrain from the use of such words as (I disdain to write it, but I must...) "Ass".

> I am *so* giving her a Kick in the Ass.
> 
> Oh, right, a reason...um...titles.  "Miss Emma Stanton Scoff, 
> Hadleydale Manor".  She hasn't formally changed her name, so 
> this must be a title.
> 
> BTW, I do realize the proposal didn't count for a haiku 
> bonus.  Thanks to Scoff! for the concern.
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:13:20 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: siren
   pate
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 3:03 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/02 at 8:53 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>> 
>> >Miss Emma Stanton Scoff,
>> >Hadleydale Manor
>> 
>> I am *so* giving her a Kick in the Ass.
>> 
>> Oh, right, a reason...um...titles.  "Miss Emma Stanton Scoff, Hadleydale
>Manor".  She hasn't formally changed her name, so this must be a title.
>
>Come now, it's not a title, we've just been referring to Scoff! by a name
>which isn't quite her full name.  Not to mention, Scoff! is just doing her
>job as the Style Police (and she's got the Jane Austin speak down pat!
>Woo!  There's a reason I'm a drone :)
>
>Bean

I could argue that the player roster was supposed to reflect the game state, but okay, I'll allow the "Emma Stanton" part.  But still, she's calling herself a "Hadleydale Manor."  What if I wanna be a Hadleydale Manor too? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:15:24 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 11:59 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Okay, I'll bite.  Your proposal to amend
>> rule 129 failed, and I can't find any
>> public forum actions with your name
>> on them that amend rule 129, so
>> whenabouts did you amend rule 129?
>>
>Uh... when I replied to the nweek 5 results? The message that I then
>replied to to start this thread?
>
>uin.

Right, found it.  It was ruled illegal by CFJ 305, so the Admin was not at the time obligated to do anything in response to it, and the game state wasn't affected then.

So if your action was an illegal action then, but by r129 is a legal action now, then r129 is changing the nature of the action.  Since the action was in the past, r129 making it legal would change the past, which is illegal by r17, which takes precedence over r129.

						Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:22:54 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: siren  pate
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Persons of good breeding will of course need no reminder that Hadleydale Manor is not a title, but a place, and more specifically, my accustomed abode when I am not in London.

Respectfully,
Miss Emma Stanton Scoff

> 
> I could argue that the player roster was supposed to reflect 
> the game state, but okay, I'll allow the "Emma Stanton" part. 
>  But still, she's calling herself a "Hadleydale Manor."  What 
> if I wanna be a Hadleydale Manor too? :)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:23:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/5/02 at 11:59 AM Gavin Doig wrote:
> 
> >> Okay, I'll bite.  Your proposal to amend
> >> rule 129 failed, and I can't find any
> >> public forum actions with your name
> >> on them that amend rule 129, so
> >> whenabouts did you amend rule 129?
> >>
> >Uh... when I replied to the nweek 5 results? The message that I then
> >replied to to start this thread?
> >
> >uin.
> 
> Right, found it.  It was ruled illegal by CFJ 305, so the Admin was not at the time obligated to do anything in response to it, and the game state wasn't affected then.
> 
> So if your action was an illegal action then, but by r129 is a legal action now, then r129 is changing the nature of the action.  Since the action was in the past, r129 making it legal would change the past, which is illegal by r17, which takes precedence over r129.

And therefore, Rule 129 is useless, and Uncle Psychosis's campaign to
correct it is quite justified.  So how much longer does he have to keep
shoving it in our faces before we vote in one of his proposals to fix it,
eh?

Bean

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:52:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Tyler Crosby wrote:
> 
> {{
> __Precedents, Schmrecedents__
> 
> Amend rule 17 by replacing the following THEN delimited text,
> 
> THEN
> reaching the appropriate Fora.
> THEN
> 
> with the following NOW delimited text:
> 
> NOW
> their being recognized by the Administrator.  If an action is not recognized
> which is arguably deserviving of recognition, or vice versa, or if a player
> believes the Administrator has acted out of spite, e may make a CFJ on the
> subject, with the Administrator as Defendant.
> NOW
> 
> There, that should work.  Problems?  Talk to me.

Problem:  Until we get a CFJ system that works (our current one is only
symbolic at best), we shouldn't give that much power to the admin.  Once
we have a CFJ system that works properly, this might be acceptable.
However, I'd like to think that an Appealate system of Admin decisions by
popular vote would work better.

Hrmmm.... Scoff!, you still looking to fix the justice system?  I may
think about raising that banner again next week...

Bean

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:06:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>However, I'd like to think that an Appealate system of Admin decisions >by 
>popular vote would work better.
>Bean

Explanation?  I'm interested, but I'm not entirely sure what that means.  It 
definately sounds interesting...

-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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:29:46 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:34:19PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> At 09:59 PM 2002-02-04 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 02:06:52AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> >> Has anyone noticed that we still don't have a paradox resolution 
> >rule?  Or maybe it's just me...
> >
> >There isn't anything to notice. A paradox resolution rule is impossible.
> 
> You're almost right.  A *perfect* paradix reolution rule is impossible.  We 
> *can* however make a rule which allows paradox resolution in any situation 
> that does not involve the paradox resolution rule itself.

But it would take a very skillfully designed rule to actually prevent
more paradoxes than it creates. I don't think the proposed one is that
rule.

Look at all the assumptions the rule makes in order to resolve a paradox
- you can't rely on any of these facts in an actual paradox situation:

* The Clock exists and is functioning correctly.
* It is possible to determine which players are in the game.
* It is possible to submit a CFJ.
* It is possible to collect votes on a Ballot.

And although runoff voting would be a neat way to choose a proposal, it
would only serve to make the situation even more complicated. What if
you can't deterministically tell which proposal should be eliminated?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 19:41:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Would anyonebeinterested in a
(arrg_the_spacebar_isn't_working_on_this_school_computer)

Would anyone be interested in a proposal that amalgamates the justice and
proposal systems.  That is, that anyone can submit a judgement on any
topic and judgements are subject to approval by popular vote?

It might also solve our current problem of biased judges.

Dan

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Tyler Crosby wrote:

> 
> >However, I'd like to think that an Appealate system of Admin decisions >by 
> >popular vote would work better.
> >Bean
> 
> Explanation?  I'm interested, but I'm not entirely sure what that means.  It 
> definately sounds interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> -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: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:16:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > Right, found it.  It was ruled illegal by CFJ 305, so the Admin
> was not at the time obligated to do anything in response to it, and
> the game state wasn't affected then. > > So if your action was an
> illegal action then, but by r129 is a legal action now, then r129 is
> changing the nature of the action.  Since the action was in the past,
> r129 making it legal would change the past, which is illegal by r17,
> which takes precedence over r129.
> 
> And therefore, Rule 129 is useless, and Uncle Psychosis's campaign to
> correct it is quite justified.  So how much longer does he have to keep
> shoving it in our faces before we vote in one of his proposals to fix it,
> eh?

I agree.  Rule 129 needs to be fixed.  I just don't like the ways in which
Uncle Psychosis has tried to fix it. 

Dan

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:57:55 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Scoff! Gets his Kicks
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Tyler Crosby,

> 
> I call for Judgement!
> 
> STATEMENT:  Glotmorf did not succeed at giving Scoff! a Kick in the Ass for
> having a title which is not on the LON, as she was acting within her
> capacity as the female Style Police by calling herself Miss Emma Stanton
> Scoff of Hadleydale Manor.
> 
> I name Glotmorf as defendant.
> 

Ironically enough, I think any judge would have to rule this FALSE because
although Glotmorf did not succeed in giving Scoff! a Kick, it had nothing to
do with Scoff!'s acting as female Style Police. In fact, the reason why
Glotmorf failed to give Miss Scoff! a Kick was because he said "I am *so*
giving her a Kick in the Ass." instead of "Scoff! gets a Kick in the Ass.".
Since the Kick rule specifically requires the latter, the Kick fails not
because it was unjustified but because it never happened in the first place.

-- 
Wonko
Cum catapultae proscriptae erat, tum soli proscript catapultas habeunt.

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:59:35 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  This ruleset isn't big enough for
	the both of us!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan,

> 
> {{
> __This Ruleset isn't big enough for the both of us!__
> 
> Enact the following new rule:
> {{
> __Opposed Proposals__
> 
> A proposal may be specified as being "opposed to" another proposal
> or rule.  This may be specified by including the phrase "In Opposition to
> Proposal xxx" where xxx is the serial number or title of a proposal.
> 
> If proposal b is opposed to proposal a then proposal a is considered to be
> in opposition to proposal b.
> 
> Of any pair of mutually opposed proposals at most one can be enacted.  If
> more than one proposal of any opposed pair passes the proposal that
> recieved the fewest affirmitave votes of the pair becomes inactive and is
> not enacted.
> 
> [[ 
> If opposed proposals a and b pass with 5 and 4 votes in favor,
> respectively, then a is enacted and b is not.
> 
> If mutually opposed proposals a, b, and c pass with 5, 3, and 4 votes
> in favor, respectively, then a is enacted and b and c are not.
> 
> if a is opposed to b and b is opposed to c then a is not nescessarily
> opposed to c.
> 
> if a and b are opposed and a passes with 5 votes in favor but b does not
> pass even with 7 votes in favor then a is enacted and b is not.
> 
> if a is opposed to b and c, but b and c are not mutually opposed, and b
> and c both pass but a does not then b and c are both enacted.
> 
> }}
> 
> Dan
> 
What if a and b both have 5 votes? And where's the ]]?
-- 
Fac ut gaudeam.

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:05:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  This ruleset isn't
 big enough for the both of us!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> What if a and b both have 5 votes? And where's the ]]?

Oops.  I'll fix that.

Dan

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:45:32 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 06:29 PM 2002-02-05 -0500, you wrote:
>Look at all the assumptions the rule makes in order to resolve a paradox
>- you can't rely on any of these facts in an actual paradox situation:
>
>* The Clock exists and is functioning correctly.
>* It is possible to determine which players are in the game.
>* It is possible to submit a CFJ.
>* It is possible to collect votes on a Ballot.

You speak the truth, Plunder.

Perhaps what's needed is a "wayback machine" sort of deal where we reset 
the game to before the paradox began in terms of players eligible to vote 
and stuff... I donno... just tossing out ideas here.

Bean

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:43:47 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 08:16 PM 2002-02-05 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree.  Rule 129 needs to be fixed.  I just don't like the ways in which
>Uncle Psychosis has tried to fix it.

I think it's almost perfect.  Using the terms "legal" and "illegal" to talk 
about actions leads to a whole seperate blurring that is very difficult to 
deal with.  All Psychosis' proposal is doing is making sure that 2 weeks 
after the Admin says something is so, it is so.  It doesn't happen twice, 
it doesn't make anything weird.  It just brings the game state into 
accordance with what we think it is.

It's simple, succinct, and elegant.  What more could you want?

Bean

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:36:52 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go
  again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 06:06 PM 2002-02-05 -0500, you wrote:

>>However, I'd like to think that an Appealate system of Admin 
>>decisions >by popular vote would work better.
>>Bean
>
>Explanation?  I'm interested, but I'm not entirely sure what that 
>means.  It definately sounds interesting...

Okay, something along the lines of:  If someone doesn't agree with an Admin 
decision, they present some form of Appeal, which then gets voted on by all 
the players.  If the vote is affirmative, the Admin action os 
overturned.  Something to that effect.

Still installing Debian on my box.... so I'm going to more or less out of 
the loop until Thursday.

Bean

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:24:20 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: new proposal: siren
  pate
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>p.s. Persons of good character are generally observed to refrain from the
>use of such words as (I disdain to write it, but I must...) "Ass".

I do not believe there is a single instance recorded of my saying I was of good character. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:32:40 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Scoff! Gets his
  Kicks
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 9:57 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Tyler Crosby,
>
>> 
>> I call for Judgement!
>> 
>> STATEMENT:  Glotmorf did not succeed at giving Scoff! a Kick in the Ass
>for
>> having a title which is not on the LON, as she was acting within her
>> capacity as the female Style Police by calling herself Miss Emma Stanton
>> Scoff of Hadleydale Manor.
>> 
>> I name Glotmorf as defendant.
>> 
>
>Ironically enough, I think any judge would have to rule this FALSE because
>although Glotmorf did not succeed in giving Scoff! a Kick, it had nothing
>to
>do with Scoff!'s acting as female Style Police. In fact, the reason why
>Glotmorf failed to give Miss Scoff! a Kick was because he said "I am *so*
>giving her a Kick in the Ass." instead of "Scoff! gets a Kick in the Ass.".
>Since the Kick rule specifically requires the latter, the Kick fails not
>because it was unjustified but because it never happened in the first
>place.
>
>
>-- 
>Wonko

There's nothing that says the text syntax is mandatory, or that it's the only possible syntax.  Hence, the same logic in one CFJ that said standard delimiters don't regulate the format of proposals should say in this CFJ that the syntax in r260 doesn't regulate the format of Kicks in the Ass.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:35:52 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go
  again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 7:41 PM Dan wrote:

>Would anyonebeinterested in a
>(arrg_the_spacebar_isn't_working_on_this_school_computer)
>
>Would anyone be interested in a proposal that amalgamates the justice and
>proposal systems.  That is, that anyone can submit a judgement on any
>topic and judgements are subject to approval by popular vote?
>
>It might also solve our current problem of biased judges.
>
>Dan

That would involve either independent scheduling or Clock stoppages, wouldn't it?  I mean, I assume you're not suggesting that a CFJ become an nweek ballot issue...?

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:52:12 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  This ruleset isn't big enough
  for the both of us!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 8:43 PM Dan wrote:

>{{
>__This Ruleset isn't big enough for the both of us!__
>
>Enact the following new rule:
>{{
>__Opposed Proposals__
>
>A proposal may be specified as being "opposed to" another proposal
>or rule.  This may be specified by including the phrase "In Opposition to
>Proposal xxx" where xxx is the serial number or title of a proposal.
>
>If proposal b is opposed to proposal a then proposal a is considered to be
>in opposition to proposal b.
>
>Of any pair of mutually opposed proposals at most one can be enacted.  If
>more than one proposal of any opposed pair passes the proposal that
>recieved the fewest affirmitave votes of the pair becomes inactive and is
>not enacted.
>
>[[ 
>If opposed proposals a and b pass with 5 and 4 votes in favor,
>respectively, then a is enacted and b is not.
>
>If mutually opposed proposals a, b, and c pass with 5, 3, and 4 votes
>in favor, respectively, then a is enacted and b and c are not.
>
>if a is opposed to b and b is opposed to c then a is not nescessarily
>opposed to c.
>
>if a and b are opposed and a passes with 5 votes in favor but b does not
>pass even with 7 votes in favor then a is enacted and b is not.
>
>if a is opposed to b and c, but b and c are not mutually opposed, and b
>and c both pass but a does not then b and c are both enacted.
>
>}}
>
>Dan

If a is opposed to b and c, but b and c are not mutually opposed, and a and b both pass and c doesn't but b gets more affirmative votes than a, does that mean c automatically passes because a fails because of b?

This starts to get seriously complicated with sufficiently convoluted opposition structures.  How about something along the lines of, "An affirmative vote by a given player on a given proposal counts as a negative vote on any higher-numbered proposals the proposal in question opposes.  This overrides any votes the player may have cast on those opposed higher-numbered proposals."  That gives you a ripple-down effect that resolves conflicts on the way.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 01:10:55 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/5/02 at 10:45 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 06:29 PM 2002-02-05 -0500, you wrote:
>>Look at all the assumptions the rule makes in order to resolve a paradox
>>- you can't rely on any of these facts in an actual paradox situation:
>>
>>* The Clock exists and is functioning correctly.
>>* It is possible to determine which players are in the game.
>>* It is possible to submit a CFJ.
>>* It is possible to collect votes on a Ballot.
>
>You speak the truth, Plunder.
>
>Perhaps what's needed is a "wayback machine" sort of deal where we reset 
>the game to before the paradox began in terms of players eligible to vote 
>and stuff... I donno... just tossing out ideas here.
>
>Bean

Well, I could put a bunch of conditionals in there...if such-and-such condition exists, execute the step in the following way...Mostly the steps were structured around the assumptions to allow for the possibility that those things are working.  The Clock, I'll grant you, might fail; a refresh proposal would be needed to reset it.  Collecting votes on a ballot should be possible one way or another.

CFJs working?  For a paradox rule to activate, there essentially has to be some sort of a switch to throw.  If the switch is easy to throw, it's conceivable that an easily entertained miscreant might throw it all the time.  If the switch is hard to throw, it might not get thrown.  Maybe it doesn't have to be only CFJs, but then, what's the switch to use?

Which players are in the game?  Okay, admittedly that can be an issue, as demonstrated by Scoff!, but what paradox resolution comes down to is the more basic assumption that people want to continue to play the game.  It would be nice if we can come up with something now that we all agree is what can be done later if/when everything falls apart.  If we cannot demonstrate now that we'll be able to functionally deal with the situation later, we might as well agree that the game is dead the first time an unresolvable rule crisis comes up.

I suppose that would simplify things...

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:55:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/5/02 at 10:45 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
> 
> >At 06:29 PM 2002-02-05 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Look at all the assumptions the rule makes in order to resolve a paradox
> >>- you can't rely on any of these facts in an actual paradox situation:
> >>
> >>* The Clock exists and is functioning correctly.
> >>* It is possible to determine which players are in the game.
> >>* It is possible to submit a CFJ.
> >>* It is possible to collect votes on a Ballot.
> >
> >You speak the truth, Plunder.
> >
> >Perhaps what's needed is a "wayback machine" sort of deal where we reset
> >the game to before the paradox began in terms of players eligible to vote
> >and stuff... I donno... just tossing out ideas here.
> >
> >Bean
> 
> Well, I could put a bunch of conditionals in there...if such-and-such
> condition exists, execute the step in the following way...

Aiee!  That's the hard way methinks, it'll be too confusing.  It's prolly
easier to make reference to as few rules as possible, and perhaps back the
game state up to before the paradox existed (Admin discretion).  I think
that solves most of the problems.

Either that, or redefine what a ballot, etc. are in the paradox rule.

Bean

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:30:14 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Would anyone be interested in a proposal that amalgamates the justice and
> proposal systems.  That is, that anyone can submit a judgement on any
> topic and judgements are subject to approval by popular vote?
>
Ick! No! I'd like to think that the judge has done some amount of thinking about the issue, and spent time looking at the arguments for and against. With a proosal, people just won't put in the same thought - I certainly don't spend as much time on voting per proosal as I do on CFJ judging. That's fine for proosals - we go with what we like. For CFJs, we need to go with what is actually the case. Different standards, different situation.

> It might also solve our current problem of biased judges.
>
Are we having such a problem? I hadn't noticed one. If we are, some kind of appeal system would be a better solution. And would be greatly desirable anyway - even unbiased judges make mistaeks.

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, 06 Feb 2002 12:34:16 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Here we go again
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> {{
> __Precedents, Schmrecedents__
> 
> Amend rule 17 by replacing the following THEN delimited text,
> 
> THEN
> reaching the appropriate Fora.
> THEN
> 
> with the following NOW delimited text:
> 
> NOW
> their being recognized by the Administrator.  If an action is not recognized
> which is arguably deserviving of recognition, or vice versa, or if a player
> believes the Administrator has acted out of spite, e may make a CFJ on the
> subject, with the Administrator as Defendant.
> NOW
> 
> There, that should work.  Problems?  Talk to me.
>
Problem: why? It just slows down things which we should be able to do immediately (point transfers, whatever). If (for example) we discover we need to use some points to protect a proosal from being eaten, but I don't have enough, it should be possible for someone to transfer points to me, and me then to use them to prevent it. If we have to wait for the admin, it may be too late. (I can't remember if the oversalting thing passed, but whatever).

Problem: this gives the admin way too much power. Not only can he refuse to recognise something, it seems to me that submitting a CFJ is an action, so he can just refuse to recognise that too, and we can't stop him. If you want to play imperial nomic, do so - I don't (well, not in this nomic).

Problem: my statute proosal would do all the useful bits of this, and fix the statute, and not overpower the admin...

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, 06 Feb 2002 12:40:32 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Right, found it.  It was ruled illegal by CFJ 305,
> so the Admin was not at the time obligated to
> do anything in response to it, and the game
> state wasn't affected then.
>
Right.

> So if your action was an illegal action then,
> but by r129 is a legal action now, then r129
> is changing the nature of the action.  Since
> the action was in the past, r129 making it
> legal would change the past, which is illegal by
> r17, which takes precedence over r129.
>
I was going to agree with you. Like Bean says, I've made my point - r129 is broken, and this is really a preferable way for it to be broken. But... I think you're wrong. ;-)

The problem is that you're paraphrasing the rules again. R129 doesn't say "become legal". It says "treated *as* *if* they were legal". That's not a change to the actual legality in the past, it's a change to the way the rules view the legality now. Which is the problem with rules prohibiting retroactivity - they don't really accomplish much, because you can always just change the game to a state equivalent to changing it in the past. But I digress. ;-)

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: proosal
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:06:11 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:31:58 -0500, Rob Speer <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:01:44PM +0100, Antonio wrote:
>> __Game State Reigns Supreme__
>> {{Changes to the Game state may only be made as permitted by the rules}}
>> 
>> [[Short enough to be made into a Haiku but clarity (and precise wording)
>> are important here.
>> The game state is loose enough a term to permit maneuvering space, while
>> this rule places the whole Game state under the regulation of the rules.]]
>
>How is this any different from my proposal?
>
>And we've seen from things like 18 that you shouldn't have rules refer
>to what other Rules allow unless you have to, because it screws with
>overriding and deferring. That's why I phrased my proposal the way I
>did.

Well, to tell you the truth, I missed your proposal among all the mail I
get for the game, still I believe my version is better: it does away with
the problem of overriding and deferring just by stating the obvious (I'm
sure Gavin will hate it) while still placing the game state out of reach as
far as rule 18 is concerned. It's more effective this way (and also more
elegant IMHO)
I originally wanted to make an CFJ, but since CFJ have no true power (by
game custom)...
I'm sorry, I'm not going to rescind it unless it receives negative feedback
from other players too.
-- 
Antonio

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

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:41:51 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >> __Game State Reigns Supreme__
> >> {{Changes to the Game state may only be made as permitted by the rules}}
> >> 
> [comments]
> >
> > How is this any different from my proposal?
> >
> >And we've seen from things like 18 that you shouldn't have rules refer
> >to what other Rules allow unless you have to, because it screws with
> >overriding and deferring. That's why I phrased my proposal the way I
> >did.
>
> Well, to tell you the truth, I missed your proposal among all the mail I
> get for the game, still I believe my version is better: it does away with
> the problem of overriding and deferring just by stating the obvious (I'm
> sure Gavin will hate it)
>
Uh... what are you talking about? Why would I hate this? Like Rob says - it does just the same as his. So I don't think it should be necessary (except under the "braindead" r18 interpretation) (because I think that anything that's part of the gamestate is, by definition, regulated, and thus r18 doesn't apply), but... hate it?

> while still placing the game state out of reach as
> far as rule 18 is concerned. It's more effective this way (and also more
> elegant IMHO)
>
You think *this* is more elegant? That's pretty funny. Rob's is a true piece of nomic poetry, which I'll be voting for just for the sake of having it in the rules, even though I don't think it's needed. This is... well, it's OK, I suppose, but it pales in comparison.

> I originally wanted to make an CFJ, but since CFJ have no true power (by
> game custom)...
>
:-)
Isn't that something of a paradox? They can, at the least, affect game custom...

> I'm sorry, I'm not going to rescind it unless it receives negative feedback
> from other players too.
>
Negative feedback: what Rob said. His is more elegant, less potentially problematic, and, of course, first.

Although I do commend you on your choice of subject line.

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, 06 Feb 2002 14:18:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay...I think I see the problem here.  I'm thinking too small.  I was looking for some way to give credit for either the pinpointing or the creating of a paradox and to get the game moving again afterward, but from what I'm hearing, what (if anything) is needed is an Emergency Management mechanism -- What to Do if Things Break Down.  That covers more territory than paradox; it theoretically includes what happens if the judgment system breaks down, if the server breaks down, if the Administrator breaks down...

I think the general process outlined in my proposal would work.  It just needs to locally define some terms.  I still think the biggest problem is getting as far as starting the process.

I'll sleep on it.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:31:59 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: ptime
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Perhaps what's needed is a "wayback machine" sort of deal where we reset 
> the game to before the paradox began in terms of players eligible to vote 
> and stuff... I donno... just tossing out ideas here.
>
Well... my statute proosal would allow the admin to fix such things. It would need unanimous consent (or at least unanimous lack of dissent) from us, but he could make paradoxen go away, or indeed fix anything else broken, just by saying "it is like that".

That does, of course, require that the paradox doesn't involve the statute itself, but I think it's written so as to be about as independent of other rules as possible. I could take out the nweeks reference, but I think the public forum one has to stay. And I can't really think there's any way of getting around mentioning players...

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, 06 Feb 2002 12:39:49 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Judgement/Proposal overhaul
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> When a judgement on a CFJ is approved the Plaintiff and the Judge each
> recieve 10 points.  When a judgement is declined the Plaintiff and the
> Judge each lose 5 points.
>
I don't like this whole idea, but this bit is just silly. We'll get: people voting against CFJs just to prevent others from getting points; people submitting trivial CFJs just for the points; people reluctant to CFJ things, in case they lose points.

And you still have the "force of law" nonsense in there. That's bad because it doesn't really mean anything, and it's bad because CFJs should be about determining which interpretation of the rules is right, not about arbitrarily changing the gamestate. Admittedly, that's less of a problem if we're voting on CFJs (because we won't be letting 2 players change the gamestate), but it's still not good. You're effectively making CFJs into watered-down, over-complex proosals, when they should be there just for clarification when we can't decide what the rules are saying.

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, 6 Feb 2002 15:49:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  This ruleset isn't
 big enough  for the both of us!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The point of the opposed system is to allow a player to conveniently offer
two choices of what route of change to take with the ruleset.  This could
have been used by Uncle Psychosis when e had two different overhauls of
the justice system.  

If proposals that would conflict horribly are made opposed then they will
not both affect the ruleset and break the game with their conflict.  It
does this in an equitable way which does not unduly hinder the adoption of
either proposal, and enacts the more popular one.

The opposed system is something which cannot be written into proposals
because of its reflexivity.  Opposed proposals can be written by different
players at different times in the nweek, and only the second proposal
need be made opposed.  Since declined proposals are not failed, the
proposer of the less popular proposal is not penalized if their proposal
is defeated.

> 
> If a is opposed to b and c, but b and c are not mutually opposed, and
> a and b both pass and c doesn't but b gets more affirmative votes than
> a, does that mean c automatically passes because a fails because of b?
> 
> This starts to get seriously complicated with sufficiently convoluted
> opposition structures.  How about something along the lines of, "An
> affirmative vote by a given player on a given proposal counts as a
> negative vote on any higher-numbered proposals the proposal in
> question opposes.  This overrides any votes the player may have cast
> on those opposed higher-numbered proposals."  That gives you a
> ripple-down effect that resolves conflicts on the way.

No proposal is automatically passed.  Proposals which fail normal voting
are not affected by the system outlined in my proposal.  It does not
create convoluted opposition structures because each proposal can be
resolved independantly based on the voting results of it and the proposals
opposed to it.  Note that proposals that are not enacted because of
the opposition rule do not fail, they are made inactive.  The opposition
result of one proposal does not affect the opposition result of any other
proposal.

Every proposal is evaluated independantly in-between voting and enactment
by the following system:

did the proposal pass -> no -> thrown out.
	||
        \/
	yes
	||
	\/
was the proposal opposed to any proposal that passed -> no -> enact it
	||
	\/
	yes
	||
	\/
did any passed proposal opposed to this one recieve more affirmitave votes
	||		||
	\/		\/
	yes		no
	||		||
	\/		\/
not enacted		enacted

This still needs a bit to resolve ties.  I plan on resolving ties first by
negative votes and if the negative votes are also tied resolving by
rendering inactive the one with the higher proposal number.

Dan

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:57:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Judgement/Proposal
 overhaul
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> > When a judgement on a CFJ is approved the Plaintiff and the Judge
> each > recieve 10 points.  When a judgement is declined the Plaintiff
> and the > Judge each lose 5 points. > I don't like this whole idea,
> but this bit is just silly. We'll get: people voting against CFJs just
> to prevent others from getting points; people submitting trivial CFJs
> just for the points; people reluctant to CFJ things, in case they lose
> points.
> 
> And you still have the "force of law" nonsense in there. That's bad
> because it doesn't really mean anything, and it's bad because CFJs
> should be about determining which interpretation of the rules is
> right, not about arbitrarily changing the gamestate. Admittedly,
> that's less of a problem if we're voting on CFJs (because we won't be
> letting 2 players change the gamestate), but it's still not good.
> You're effectively making CFJs into watered-down, over-complex
> proosals, when they should be there just for clarification when we
> can't decide what the rules are saying.

I disagree.  The original Nomic ruleset by Peter Suber, upon which our
Berserker-derived ruleset was based, was heavily influenced by the US
constitution.  I believe it is one feature of the US constitution that at
the highest level, courts have the power to strike down or change laws.
Our CFJ system can be considered an analog to the court system, and should
have the power to update the rules, the interpretation of rules, or
arbitrarily change the game state to a state from which play can continue.

Dan

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:20:09 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: How does this look?
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Greetings to our esteemed compatriot Wonko, from my somewhat chilly London abode!

This is a most intriguing proposal.  I am still pondering this one, as I have done ever since you first posted a draft version, but so far I find no fault with it.  I dare say it addresses most, if not all, of the current problems with rules 17 and 129.  It is a fine piece of work, and a very welcome addition to this week's ballot.

It is certainly a pity that you are a drone, my friend, for one so clever as yourself deserves to be besieged by a multitude of suitors.  Were you a man, I do not doubt that it would be so.

Deepest Regards,

Miss Emma Stanton Scoff

p.s.  One feels, after lavishing such unsparing praise upon a proposal, loathe to comment upon its minor insufficiencies.  Unfortunately, it is ever true that poor spelling is patently styleless, and "Still" is spelt thusly, with two "l"s.  It may safely be hoped, however, that our gracious administrator will come to your rescue in this matter.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wonko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:46 PM
> To: Business Nomic
> Subject: spoon-business: How does this look?
> 
> 
> {{
> __Stil a Few Bugs in the System__

[well-crafted details of a worthy proposal are herein stricken for purposes of brevity]

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:54:42 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'd just like to note that the three Gremlins I threw which weren't caught
should have hit by now.

-- 
Wonko
Furnulum pani nolo.

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:17:07 -0600
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: throwing things
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Donald Whytock wrote:
> 
> Luigi and the King Gremlin should both be in limbo right now.  I'll pick them up, then throw Luigi at Congenital Optimist and the King at Iain.

I catch Luigi.

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

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: throwing things
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:25:53 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would do that in a public forum...

>From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
>
>Donald Whytock wrote:
> >
> > Luigi and the King Gremlin should both be in limbo right now.  I'll pick 
>them up, then throw Luigi at Congenital Optimist and the King at Iain.
>
>I catch Luigi.
>
>--
>[email-masked] / seishonagon.org
>"Life is short, but tacky just
>  goes on forever." -Caitlin R. Kiernan

-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.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 08:18:53 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  This ruleset
    isn't big enough  for the both of us!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The point of the opposed system is to allow a player to conveniently offer
> two choices of what route of change to take with the ruleset.  This could
> have been used by Uncle Psychosis when e had two different overhauls of
> the justice system.  
>
That wasn't me, that was (IIRC) Bean. Not that I would use this anyway, but then I write all my HTML in notepad...

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, 07 Feb 2002 08:19:20 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: Judgement/Propos
    al overhaul
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I disagree.  The original Nomic ruleset by Peter Suber, upon which our
> Berserker-derived ruleset was based, was heavily influenced by the US
> constitution.
>
Well... not just the constitution - those were the immutable rules, and the mutable ones were (like) the rest...

>  I believe it is one feature of the US constitution that at
> the highest level, courts have the power to strike down or change laws.
> Our CFJ system can be considered an analog to the court system, and should
> have the power to update the rules, the interpretation of rules, or
> arbitrarily change the game state to a state from which play can continue.
>
But it's not really a particularly close analog, and nor should it be. What you're doing, making CFJs into things which are voted on and can change the game, is basically making CFJs into proosals. Proosals are fine, I like proosals, but we already *have* them.

If you're bringing up Suber's initial rules, consider that they're much more closely modelled on the US system that ours, and they have CFJs as ways of determining which interpretation of the ruleset is correct (which is where I get the idea from).

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, 7 Feb 2002 08:39:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: change what...
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Uncle Psychosis, you might consider amending your So
Damn Ugly proposal to make it so the game state shall
be amended *to* what the admin said, instead of making
it so the game state shall be amended what the admin
said.... Just a thought..... :)

Also, isn't putting 'Garth Brooks' on the Logas
illegal? (unless it's an Action now, in which case I
Garth Brooks Uncle Psychosis :)

-- 
Wonko

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:56:44 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: change what...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Uncle Psychosis, you might consider amending your So
> Damn Ugly proposal to make it so the game state shall
> be amended *to* what the admin said, instead of making
> it so the game state shall be amended what the admin
> said.... Just a thought..... :)
>
You know, I actually noticed this... I'll fix it when I take out the extraneous "@@@"s that I pasted in (after the admin recognises it, as I'm not sure I can do it before).

> Also, isn't putting 'Garth Brooks' on the Logas
> illegal? (unless it's an Action now, in which case I
> Garth Brooks Uncle Psychosis :)
>
I think it'll become an action when it's on the list (it's a list of actions, so anything on it must be an action). Quite how one Garth Brooks I wouldn't like to think, but if Garth Brooks isn't generally abhorred...

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, 7 Feb 2002 18:22:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> He tried to give it to me, but failed, as per CFJ 280.

To the best of my knowledge, that CFJ still hasn't been judged. So I don't
see how it's relevant.

> [[This CFJ would seem to be neccessary, per Scoff!'s judgement on
> CFJ325 (not to mention the admin's persistent ignoring of me pointing
> this out. ;-))]].

I'm still waiting for the aforementioned CFJ to be evaluated by its
assigned Judge, Wonko. (If it's been judged and I've simply overlooked it,
many humble apologies.)

It would seem to be an almost-necessary precedent for this.

This CFJ will get a serial number later; it'll be assigned to The Voice.
(If e wants to go ahead and write up a ruling on it, e's welcome to do so.
It won't be official 'til I get the serial number thing straightened out,
of course, but that's a minor point of contention.)

...dave

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:43:04 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: change what...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/7/02 at 12:56 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Uncle Psychosis, you might consider amending your So
>> Damn Ugly proposal to make it so the game state shall
>> be amended *to* what the admin said, instead of making
>> it so the game state shall be amended what the admin
>> said.... Just a thought..... :)
>>
>You know, I actually noticed this... I'll fix it when I take out the
>extraneous "@@@"s that I pasted in (after the admin recognises it, as I'm
>not sure I can do it before).
>
>> Also, isn't putting 'Garth Brooks' on the Logas
>> illegal? (unless it's an Action now, in which case I
>> Garth Brooks Uncle Psychosis :)
>>
>I think it'll become an action when it's on the list (it's a list of
>actions, so anything on it must be an action). Quite how one Garth Brooks
>I wouldn't like to think, but if Garth Brooks isn't generally abhorred...
>
>uin.

Yeah, but there's no accounting for taste, so one can't reasonably discriminate for it.  Personally, there are some pierced-tongue people I'd like to give a kick in the ass to, but that would be Wrong.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:47:16 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/7/02 at 5:58 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>Glotmorf's attempted Kick in Scoff!'s Ass failed, since it wasn't phrased
>in the precise form required by the ass-kicking rule.
>
>Hm. It may be a moot point anyway: The Voice requests a CFJ on that very
>same subject. CFJ 369, assigned to Congenital Optimist.

The words "required" and "must" don't show up in that rule. :)  But we'll let the judgment decide.

>Congenital Optimist catches Luigi. Whee!
>Iain (in Limbo, I believe) catches the King Gremlin and tosses it back to
>Glotmorf.

Iain is in Limbo?  Damn.  That means I couldn't throw the King at Iain in the first place, because the rule only says people in Limbo can throw at people on the grid.  Mr. Admin...any chance people and things in Limbo can be listed at the bottom of the Grid page?

						Glotmorf

From: Antonio <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: proosal
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:15:39 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:41:51 -0500, "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> >> __Game State Reigns Supreme__
>> >> {{Changes to the Game state may only be made as permitted by the rules}}
>> >> 
>> [comments]
>>
>> Well, to tell you the truth, I missed your proposal among all the mail I
>> get for the game, still I believe my version is better: it does away with
>> the problem of overriding and deferring just by stating the obvious (I'm
>> sure Gavin will hate it)
>>
>Uh... what are you talking about? Why would I hate this? Like Rob says - it does just the same as his. So I don't think it should be necessary (except under the "braindead" r18 interpretation) (because I think that anything that's part of the gamestate is, by definition, regulated, and thus r18 doesn't apply), but... hate it?
>
I just thought you'd deem it "non necessary" like the rule 10 you tried
many times to repeal :)

>> while still placing the game state out of reach as
>> far as rule 18 is concerned. It's more effective this way (and also more
>> elegant IMHO)
>>
>You think *this* is more elegant? That's pretty funny. Rob's is a true piece of nomic poetry, which I'll be voting for just for the sake of having it in the rules, even though I don't think it's needed. This is... well, it's OK, I suppose, but it pales in comparison.

uh, well, OK. 

>Negative feedback: what Rob said. His is more elegant, less potentially problematic, and, of course, first.

very well, since i'm currently on forced leave my proposal never really
existed, and I'll keep it that way.

Thus was peace in BNomic restored.

-- 
Antonio

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:49:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday 
         morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/7/02 at 5:58 PM David E. Smith wrote:
> >Iain (in Limbo, I believe) catches the King Gremlin and tosses it back to
> >Glotmorf.
> 
> Iain is in Limbo?  Damn.  That means I couldn't throw the King at Iain in the first place, because the rule only says people in Limbo can throw at people on the grid.  Mr. Admin...any chance people and things in Limbo can be listed at the bottom of the Grid page?
> 
I think I am actually at (11,12), on the grid, and I seem to recall
posting a message which said so. Certainly the grid page says im there.

cheers,
Iain

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:19:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday
          morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, ID Scott wrote:

> > On 2/7/02 at 5:58 PM David E. Smith wrote:
> > >Iain (in Limbo, I believe) catches the King Gremlin and tosses it back to
> > >Glotmorf.
> >
> > Iain is in Limbo?
> >
> I think I am actually at (11,12), on the grid, and I seem to recall
> posting a message which said so. Certainly the grid page says im there.

Iain is, in fact, at (11,12). My bad.

(This is why anything that gives too much power to the Admin, without some
kind of check - doesn't matter too much what exactly - is a Bad Idea.
Imagine if, as some pundits had prophesied, we had to rewrite history two
weeks from now to yank Iain off the Grid. :)

I'm planning to add some kind of "stuff that's in Limbo" notation at some
point, but for now Limbo consists of basically everything that's not on
the grid.

...dave

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:20:57 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: change what...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:56:44PM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> I think it'll become an action when it's on the list (it's a list of actions, so anything on it must be an action). Quite how one Garth Brooks I wouldn't like to think, but if Garth Brooks isn't generally abhorred...

I'm tempted to create game objects called Brooks, just so that people
have to be careful not to Garth more than one of them.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:11:39 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> 
> I'm still waiting for the aforementioned CFJ to be evaluated by its
> assigned Judge, Wonko. (If it's been judged and I've simply overlooked it,
> many humble apologies.)
> 

I believe I already judged both of the CFJ's assigned to me (on 2/2/02).
They looked something like this:

CFJ 280 (Judge: Wonko)
CFJ by Uncle Psychosis

Statement: Uncle Psychosis's did not succeed in giving gritter 3 points.

Rule 152 states "Changes to the state of the game may only be made via a
Proposal or via an Action which is permitted by the Rules.". Rule 213 states
"The player who has the Cursed Sushi of Babel may not post any message to a
public Forum (such as the "spoon-business" list) without first taking these
steps:", followed by a number of steps. I did not follow these steps in the
message by which I attempted to transfer those points, and therefore rule
152 prevented them from being transferred.

Judgement: TRUE

Analysis: See Uin's logic above.

CFJ 341 (Judge: Wonko)
CFJ by Baron von Skippy

Statement: Uncle Psychosis has Denied the Undeniable Sushi and should be
given 4 more ndays with said Sushi and be fined 35 points.

Analysis: According to Rule 213/2, the player with the Sushi /must/
translate and retranslate eir messages, either Eng-Korean-Eng,
Eng-German-French-Eng, or through Pig Latin. Uncle Psychosis did none of
these in 7 recent messages, despite my action of giving em the Sushi being
publicly recognized. Each breach carries a one-day penalty (no more than 4
total) and a 5-point fine.

Judgment: FALSE

Analysis: The Sushi Rule forbids people to post un-screwed messages to
Public Forums. It says nothing about private Forums. In a message on Dec. 5,
the admin wrote:
(Joel agreed to let me use spoon-business as the public forum.)
The use of the word 'the' implies that spoon-business is not merely 'a'
public forum but the only public forum. Since the admin has taken no action
since then designating other forums as Public, I must conclude that messages
to spoon-discuss are immune to Sushi. However, I would reccommend that
people vote for my proposal to declare all forums private unless otherwise
designated, so that future Judges don't have to look back through hundreds
of records to find an answer.

-- 
Wonko
Magister Mundi sum!

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:25:06 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> This CFJ will get a serial number later; it'll be assigned to The Voice.
> (If e wants to go ahead and write up a ruling on it, e's welcome to do so.
> It won't be official 'til I get the serial number thing straightened out,
> of course, but that's a minor point of contention.)
> 
> ...dave

and
 
> I'm planning to add some kind of "stuff that's in Limbo" notation at some
> point, but for now Limbo consists of basically everything that's not on
> the grid.
> 
> ...dave

Would it be helpful if someone proposed to turn off the Clock for a few
days? This would give you some time to fix whatever you want to without
having to worry about recognizing everything.... Just a thought.

-- 
Wonko 
There are no stupid questions; just stupid people.

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:33:23 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Movement
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Actually, now that I think about it, why do moves not happen until the end
of the nweek? I seem to recall there being a reason for it, but I can't for
the life of me remember what it is....
-- 
Wonko
Cum catapultae proscriptae erat, tum soli proscript catapultas habeunt.

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:40:36 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The PIG
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:14 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to my calculations,
>we need to make at least 27 proposals or the PIG is gonna eat the football
>proposal again (unless someone represses it less than 4 ndays before the end
>of the week).

Hrmm.... I just did the math myself to check, and I think this is off a bit...

GN = 3
n = # of proposals on the ballot

k = proposal eaten = GN/(120/n) = 3/(120/n) = n/40, rounded up.

That means that if:

  1 <= n <= 40, then k=1, and Rob's beautiful default case proposal gets eaten;
41 <= n <= 80, then k=2, and Football gets eaten again.

Conclusion:  Since it is unlikely we'll have 40 proposals on the ballot, 
Rob, if you get a chance, resubmit that proposal... it really should get 
voted for.  If I don't see it by 4-5 tomorrow, I'll resubmit in your stead, 
with point donation as usual :)

Bean

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:35:03 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Movement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:33 PM 2002-02-07 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually, now that I think about it, why do moves not happen until the end
>of the nweek? I seem to recall there being a reason for it, but I can't for
>the life of me remember what it is....

It kinda makes sense, doesn't it?  That's when everything happens...

Bean

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:44:27 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: The PIG
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,

> At 10:14 PM 2002-02-03 -0500, you wrote:
>> Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but according to my calculations,
>> we need to make at least 27 proposals or the PIG is gonna eat the football
>> proposal again (unless someone represses it less than 4 ndays before the end
>> of the week).
> 
> Hrmm.... I just did the math myself to check, and I think this is off a bit...
> 
> GN = 3
> n = # of proposals on the ballot
> 
> k = proposal eaten = GN/(120/n) = 3/(120/n) = n/40, rounded up.
> 
> That means that if:
> 
> 1 <= n <= 40, then k=1, and Rob's beautiful default case proposal gets eaten;
> 41 <= n <= 80, then k=2, and Football gets eaten again.
> 
> Conclusion:  Since it is unlikely we'll have 40 proposals on the ballot,
> Rob, if you get a chance, resubmit that proposal... it really should get
> voted for.  If I don't see it by 4-5 tomorrow, I'll resubmit in your stead,
> with point donation as usual :)
> 
> Bean
> 
Yes, I noticed that... For some reason I had thought the Gremlin number was
9. Although, you don't neccessarily need to resubmit it; with such a low
number, it only costs 10 points to Repress the PIG and save the proposal....

-- 
Wonko
Recruit today night it feels.

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:47:18 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Poetry and Poverty
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/7/02 at 11:12 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>{{
>__Poetic Forms__
>
>Proposals may be sumbitted in a Poetic Form.  Poetic Forms are sets of 
>restrictions that are defined to be such by the ruleset.  If a proposal 
>confroming to a Poetic Form passes, its proponent recieves 5 points, and e 
>earns the Form Bonus of any forms the proposal conformed to.
>}}

Add "epic" as a poetic form.  Go ahead.  I dare you.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:47:35 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: change what...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/7/02 at 6:20 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:56:44PM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
>> I think it'll become an action when it's on the list (it's a list of
>actions, so anything on it must be an action). Quite how one Garth Brooks
>I wouldn't like to think, but if Garth Brooks isn't generally abhorred...
>
>I'm tempted to create game objects called Brooks, just so that people
>have to be careful not to Garth more than one of them.
>-- 
>Rob Speer

Garthing a Brook could be dropping a Big Rock into it to make a Big Splash...

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:23:00 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: let's get personal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> {{ _And We Can Make Little Outfits For Them Too!_
> 
> In Rule 296, replace the text "known as the Scoring Gremlin" with "known as
> the Scoring Gremlin, also known as Enrique".
> 
> In Rule 297, replace the text "known as the Witch Gremlin" with "known as the
> Witch Gremlin, also known as Agatha".
> 
> In Rule 347, replace the text "called the King Gremlin" with "called the King
> Gremlin, also known as Elvis".
> 
> }}
> 
> [[For the life of me, I couldn't think of a name for the Bandwidth
> Gremlin...]]
> 

How about just the Bandlin? Or maybe... Alfonse? Stu? Bob? James? Hans? I
don't know how well any of these would work... Hmm....

-- 
Wonko
In vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:57:04 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Poetry and Poverty
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:47 PM 2002-02-07 -0500, you wrote:
>On 2/7/02 at 11:12 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
> >{{
> >__Poetic Forms__
> >
> >Proposals may be sumbitted in a Poetic Form.  Poetic Forms are sets of
> >restrictions that are defined to be such by the ruleset.  If a proposal
> >confroming to a Poetic Form passes, its proponent recieves 5 points, and e
> >earns the Form Bonus of any forms the proposal conformed to.
> >}}
>
>Add "epic" as a poetic form.  Go ahead.  I dare you.

*rofl*  Oh my sides!  That's a good one.... I'll consider that.....

"1) Proposal must be at least 40 000 words long, and all in iambic pentameter.

Form Bonus is one win for each line."

Bean

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:33:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Poetry and Poverty
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/7/02 at 11:57 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 11:47 PM 2002-02-07 -0500, you wrote:
>>On 2/7/02 at 11:12 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>>
>> >{{
>> >__Poetic Forms__
>> >
>> >Proposals may be sumbitted in a Poetic Form.  Poetic Forms are sets of
>> >restrictions that are defined to be such by the ruleset.  If a proposal
>> >confroming to a Poetic Form passes, its proponent recieves 5 points,
>and e
>> >earns the Form Bonus of any forms the proposal conformed to.
>> >}}
>>
>>Add "epic" as a poetic form.  Go ahead.  I dare you.
>
>*rofl*  Oh my sides!  That's a good one.... I'll consider that.....
>
>"1) Proposal must be at least 40 000 words long, and all in iambic
>pentameter.
>
>Form Bonus is one win for each line."
>
>Bean

Let's see if anyone can do a Justice overhaul structured like Song of Hiawatha.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:52:12 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: let's
  get personal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/8/02 at 12:23 AM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Donald Whytock,
>
>> {{ _And We Can Make Little Outfits For Them Too!_
>> 
>> In Rule 296, replace the text "known as the Scoring Gremlin" with "known
>as
>> the Scoring Gremlin, also known as Enrique".
>> 
>> In Rule 297, replace the text "known as the Witch Gremlin" with "known
>as the
>> Witch Gremlin, also known as Agatha".
>> 
>> In Rule 347, replace the text "called the King Gremlin" with "called the
>King
>> Gremlin, also known as Elvis".
>> 
>> }}
>> 
>> [[For the life of me, I couldn't think of a name for the Bandwidth
>> Gremlin...]]
>> 
>
>How about just the Bandlin? Or maybe... Alfonse? Stu? Bob? James? Hans? I
>don't know how well any of these would work... Hmm....
>
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Well, I was hoping for something halfway meaningful...Oscar, because it gives you an award for best performance?

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:21:15 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Yoyo Gremlin
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/8/02 at 1:00 AM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>3)Yet another proposal, as I must use my ration of bandwidth for the nweek.
>
>{{
>__The Yoyo Gremlin__
>
>Create a new rule, entitled __The Yoyo Gremlin__ with the following -0- 
>delimited text:
>
>-0-
>There exists a gremlin known as the Yoyo Gremlin.  If the Yoyo Gremlin is 
>thrown at a player and is not caught, it returns to the possesion of the 
>player who threw it.  If it is caught, it goes into Hiding for one nweek.
>-0-
>[[Just kinda fun...]]
>[[And we like Gremlins...]]
>}}

Also known as Ma?

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:26:33 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Tilt
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/8/02 at 1:00 AM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>4)One more substantial proposal, I swear!
>{{
>__Tilt__
>
>Amend rule 301/1 by adding the following () delimited paragraph:
>()
>The Grid is divided into Quadrants.  The SW Quadrant is composed of all 
>squares with x values between 1 and 10 inclusive, and y values between 1
>and 
>10 inclusive.  The SE Quadrant is composed of all squares with x values 
>between 11 and 20 inclusive, and y values between 1 and 10 inclusive.  The 
>NW Quadrant is composed of all squares with x values between 1 and 10 
>inclusive, and y values between 11 and 20 inclusive.  The NE Quadrant is 
>composed of all squares with x values between 11 and 20 inclusive, and y 
>values between 11 and 20 inclusive.
>()
>
>Create a new rule, entitled __Tilt__, with the following -0- delimited
>text:
>
>-0-
>At the beginning of each nweek, the number of items on the Tilt List
>present 
>in each Quadrant of the Grid shall be calculated.  The Grid will be then 
>said to "Tilt" in the direction of the Quadrant which has the highest
>number 
>of the objects on the Tilt List.  All objects on the list below will then 
>move two spaces in the direction of that Quadrant (i.e. if it Tilts to the 
>SE quadrant, all objects on the Tilt List move two spaces diagonally down 
>and right).  If this movement would cause an object to move off of the
>Grid, 
>it is put into Limbo.
>
>The Tilt List is as follows:
>1)Big Rocks
>2)Big Sticks
>3)Shields
>4)Gremlins not in the possesion of a player
>[[any suggestions would be nice...]]
>-0-
>
>Amend rule 356/0 by adding the following -00- delimited paragraph:
>
>-00-
>If the Big Rock on which a Siren is sitting moves, the Siren moves with
>it.  
>If a Siren moves, any players in that Siren's ZOE move the same distance
>in 
>the same direction (eir position relative to the Siren remains the same).  
>If Sirens go into Limbo, they are destroyed.
>-00-
>}}

Um...this is a good way to have an infinite number of Big Rocks in Limbo...

I'm not sure I like the idea of all that stuff winding up in Limbo, and the Big Rocks were sorta meant to be stationary.  Honestly, I don't think I like Tilt at all, but if you're going to do it, why not leave the Rocks where they are, put a rim around the Grid that things pile up against, and turn the Grid into a sort of pachinko machine?

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:30:51 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Breather
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/8/02 at 1:00 AM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>5) And finally, the proposal which will get me back on Dave's good side 
>after all that and give us some time to catch our collective breath:
>
>{{
>__Ahh....__
>
>Create a new rule entitled __A Breather__ with the following -0- delimited 
>text:
>
>-0-
>At the beginning of every nweek, the following things shall occur in order 
>immediately:
>
>1)The following () delimited paragraph shall be appended to the end of
>rule 
>3/4:
>()
>While the Clock is Off, Judgements may be passed and enacted on current 
>CFJs.
>()
>
>2)The Clock will be turned Off.
>
>When the Watch reads 1 wweek, the following things shall occur in order 
>immediately:
>
>1)The final paragraph of rule 3/5 shall be deleted.
>
>2)The Clock will be turned On.
>
>3)This rule will repeal itself.
>-0-
>
>[[The purpose of this is to give Dave some time to effectively make all
>the 
>changes to his DB and the website without being overwhelmed by Real Life 
>(TM) and without us piling on more stuff...  It also gives us a little
>break 
>time and an opportunity to clear up any outstanding CFJs we have...  This
>is 
>really a good idea folks, think about it.  Do it for Mr. Administrator.]]
>}}

Automatic rule changes make more work for Mr. A because he's the one who has to implement them by hand. :)  Why not instead add a rule that says Mr. A can turn The Clock off any time he wants to for up to seven days, so that he can catch up with stuff?

						Glotmorf

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Breather
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:41:45 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Breather
>Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:30:51 -0500
>
>On 2/8/02 at 1:00 AM Tyler Crosby wrote:
>
> >5) And finally, the proposal which will get me back on Dave's good side
> >after all that and give us some time to catch our collective breath:
> >
> >{{
> >__Ahh....__
> >
> >Create a new rule entitled __A Breather__ with the following -0- 
>delimited
> >text:
> >
> >-0-
> >At the beginning of every nweek, the following things shall occur in 
>order
> >immediately:
> >
> >1)The following () delimited paragraph shall be appended to the end of
> >rule
> >3/4:
> >()
> >While the Clock is Off, Judgements may be passed and enacted on current
> >CFJs.
> >()
> >
> >2)The Clock will be turned Off.
> >
> >When the Watch reads 1 wweek, the following things shall occur in order
> >immediately:
> >
> >1)The final paragraph of rule 3/5 shall be deleted.
> >
> >2)The Clock will be turned On.
> >
> >3)This rule will repeal itself.
> >-0-
> >
> >[[The purpose of this is to give Dave some time to effectively make all
> >the
> >changes to his DB and the website without being overwhelmed by Real Life
> >(TM) and without us piling on more stuff...  It also gives us a little
> >break
> >time and an opportunity to clear up any outstanding CFJs we have...  This
> >is
> >really a good idea folks, think about it.  Do it for Mr. Administrator.]]
> >}}
>
>Automatic rule changes make more work for Mr. A because he's the one who 
>has to implement them by hand. :)  Why not instead add a rule that says Mr. 
>A can turn The Clock off any time he wants to for up to seven days, so that 
>he can catch up with stuff?
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>
In this case it's a non-issue, because it won't really matter if he updates 
the web page while the Clock is off, as the changes are just going to undo 
themselves anyway.  And the change is important, because without it, we 
could not judge CFJs while the Clock is off because only those actions 
specifically allowed by the rules may take place then.  It seemed to me that 
this would be the best way to accomplish that.

-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: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:19:09 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: grid page
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Tyler Crosby,

> 
> Umm... as he forfeited, shouldn't gritter not be on the Grid anymore?
> 
> 
> -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.*
> 

Why not?
-- 
Wonko
Furnulum pani nolo.

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:30:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The King
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> I catch the King Gremlin and throw it at gritter.  Whee!

No you don't, there's no such player!  Whee! :)

Bean

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:31:21 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The King
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There's a grid object called gritter on the grid page.  I just wanna see what happens.  whee!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gerlach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:30 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The King
> 
> 
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> > I catch the King Gremlin and throw it at gritter.  Whee!
> 
> No you don't, there's no such player!  Whee! :)
> 
> Bean
> 
> 
> 

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:33:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The King
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> There's a grid object called gritter on the grid page.  I just wanna see what happens.  whee!

Fine then!  Whee!

Bean

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:06:38 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
    (Thursday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Iain is, in fact, at (11,12). My bad.
>
> (This is why anything that gives too much power to the Admin, without some
> kind of check - doesn't matter too much what exactly - is a Bad Idea.
> Imagine if, as some pundits had prophesied, we had to rewrite history two
> weeks from now to yank Iain off the Grid. :)
>
My proosal is the history-rewriting one of which you speak. It contains pretty much the most effective check on your powers I can think of - if one single player objects, your statement isn't automatically legalised. And if you make a mistake, a correction such as the one you made above would work just fine.

If Wonko's proosal passes, we'll need to CFJ almost every time you make a mistake. I was going to say that something like the above, where you just miss something and correct yourself later, would be OK (because you could just recognise it later) but on reading his proosal, if you miss something out, then all your subsequent recognitions / refusals will be invalid (as per CFJ 280), as you're required to do them in the same order that the actions arrived in the forum. You'll probably have to redo them.

Of course, his will pass and mine will fail, because it's "wierd"...

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: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:08:21 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: How does this look?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> {{
> __Stil a Few Bugs in the System__
> 
> Amend rule 17 by replacing the sentence,
> 'Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora.'
> with,
> 'Actions cannot occur unless they are recognized by the Administrator. When
> an Action is recognized by the Administrator, it is treated as if it had
> happened at the time when it reached the appropriate Fora. The Administrator
> must recognize all actions unless e believes an action is either illegal or
> destructive of play. The Admin must recognize 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. The chronology bit ensures that
> if I give someone 10 points to pay off Luigi and its not recognized until
> after the end of the nweek, e gets the points before Luigi comes.]]
>
I don't think the chronology stuff works, because Luigi will have automatically broken his legs already, so you'd be changing the past - he'd have used the points, but his legs would still be broken. You'd need to change more than just when the action is treated as having happened. (For my rule 10 thing, there were no side effects, so "treated as if" worked).

Besides which, I still don't see why there's anything at all wrong with rule 17.

> 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.]]
>
Don't we know that anyway? And shouldn't this really be a separate proosal?

> 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 were not recognized.
> If an Action which the Admin refused to recognize is found to be legal by a
> CFJ, it shall be treated as if it were recognized.'
>
> [Much better than that 'Force of Law' garbage.]]
>
Well, pretty much anything would be better, but as above I'm not sure if "treated as if" is enough to get round the retroactivity thing.

> 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!]]
> }}
>
Rule 10 may look useless, but that's because it is. While it may be permitted to say you declare yourself immune to whatever you want, doing so doesn't actually make you immune to anything.

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: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:09:23 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: proosal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I just thought you'd deem it "non necessary" like the rule 10 you tried
> many times to repeal :)
>
I do deem it unnecessary, but I don't hate it because of that. I don't hate rule 10 either - I'd rather it were repealed, but it's not important, because it doesn't do anything. I was just using it as a way of demonstrating the brokenness of rule 129 without actually breaking anything.

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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:23:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: the Clock is there for a reason...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've already seen a couple of "last-day proosals" which pay little or no
heed to the fact that today is not, in fact, the last day of this nweek in
which proosals may be submitted.

It's still nday 6; proosals are accepted through the end of nday 7. (For
me, that's Saturday evening. Adjust for your timezone, of course.)

The batch of 50 emails to which I woke up this morning, shall be processed
sometime this evening. Maybe early, maybe late, I don't know, but sometime
this evening. (Or maybe technically tomorrow morning. They all blend
together after a while.)

...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

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: change what... 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:05:10 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Donald Whytock":
> On 2/7/02 at 6:20 PM Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:56:44PM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> >> I think it'll become an action when it's on the list (it's a list of
> >actions, so anything on it must be an action). Quite how one Garth Brooks
> >I wouldn't like to think, but if Garth Brooks isn't generally abhorred...
> >
> >I'm tempted to create game objects called Brooks, just so that people
> >have to be careful not to Garth more than one of them.
> >-- 
> >Rob Speer
> 
> Garthing a Brook could be dropping a Big Rock into it to make a Big>  Splash...
> 
> 						Glotmorf

This makes me want to join the game as Brooks. Then I could distribute 
kicks in the ass upon being garthed. :)

-- 
J.

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:31:48 -0600
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: change what...
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is all getting too surreal.  When I was in college, my friends and I (for no good reason) had an elaborate system of nouns and verbs based on the names of country singers.  For example, to "Yoakum" was to vomit, especially projectile-style, and especially when drunk.  It also served as a noun for the resulting stuff.  To "Garth" was to rough someone about in a playful manner.  "Yearwood" was the state of lusting after an incoming  freshman during the first month of the fall semester.  To "Johnny Cash" was to hit up one's parents for money.  Et cetera.  

I don't know whether to thank or curse you all for bringing back memories of the bizarre ways we entertained ourselves.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karin L. Kross [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:15 PM
> To: B Nomic Business
> Subject: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: change what...
> 
> 
> > > Garthing a Brook could be dropping a Big Rock into it to 
> make a Big=
> > >  Splash...
> > > 
> > > 						Glotmorf
> 
> All right then.  Create a rule as follows:
> 
> {{
> __Water, Water Everywhere__
> 
> There exist Passable Stationary Grid Objects called Brooks.  A 
> Brook appears when a formerly Frozen grid square ceases to be 
> Frozen.  [[I'm melting!  I'm melting!!]]
> 
> If a Player moves into a Brook, e gains the attribute Wet.
> 
> When a Big Rock is dropped into a Brook, e commits the act of
> Garthing a Brook, and the Brook gains the attribute "Garthed".  
> Each Player, Gremlin, or MO in the grid squares immediately
> adjoining the Brook (vertically, horizontally, or diagonally)  
> gains the attribute Wet.
> 
> The attribute of Wet lasts until the end of the nweek.
> 
> }}
> 
> 
> -- 
> [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: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:56:45 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the Clock is there for a reason...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 04:23:03PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> I've already seen a couple of "last-day proosals" which pay little or no
> heed to the fact that today is not, in fact, the last day of this nweek in
> which proosals may be submitted.
> 
> It's still nday 6; proosals are accepted through the end of nday 7. (For
> me, that's Saturday evening. Adjust for your timezone, of course.)

Ah ha. Would someone remind me why we made ndays one-based? Nday 7
should be three days before the end of the week, not nday 8.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:01:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the Clock is there for a reason...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:
> Ah ha. Would someone remind me why we made ndays one-based? Nday 7
> should be three days before the end of the week, not nday 8.

Because the weeks were one based and the says were zero-based, and people
were complaining about it?  I'll admit, it was my proposal... but we all
voted for it, didn't we?

Bean

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:18:47 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the Clock is there for a reason...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 06:01:23PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:
> > Ah ha. Would someone remind me why we made ndays one-based? Nday 7
> > should be three days before the end of the week, not nday 8.
> 
> Because the weeks were one based and the says were zero-based, and people
> were complaining about it?  I'll admit, it was my proposal... but we all
> voted for it, didn't we?

I didn't.

I don't see why one-based nweeks would be a problem. The nweeks never
"start over". The displayed "nweek 0", the original ruleset, has no
ndays. So there's no reason to consider the starting value for nweeks
and ndays simultaneously.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night/Saturday morning)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 12:50:20 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>"Weather" is 381/0. And you don't want to base the weather on my
>location... it's notoriously screwy. In the past two weeks we've had >snow, 
>ice, and highs of 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
>...dave

Well, don't you think that the weather in an environment where *we* are in 
control of the rules would be notoriously screwy?  That's actually what I 
was going for.  I was going to use here in Ithaca, NY, but I decided that I 
would give you one more thing to worry about. :)

-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: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:04:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday
  night/Saturday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/9/02 at 7:15 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>(Aside: For the life of me, I can't find Glotmorf anywhere. Did e, in
>fact, enter the Grid at some point?)

Glotmorf has not entered the Grid.  Glotmorf is in Limbo, where freshly minted Gremlins go.  Glotmorf will probably be staying there for a while, as e has a bright idea or two.

>"The Pause That Refreshes" is 367/1. I suddenly feel very fatalistic for
>some inexplicable reason.

Hey, it's not like we're writing your will or taking out insurance policies on you...:)

>I may just have to accept this particular limitation, pending some really
>clever ideas. I'm still got a few queries to optimize, but I'm growing
>skeptical as to the benefits to be derived therefrom.

Um...why not have a couple admin-accessible web apps that generate static HTML pages from database queries on a demand basis?  When you update the rules, you run the app and generate fresh HTML.  You update the proposals, or the CFJs, or whatever, you run the app and generate fresh HTML.  That way, except for the search engine, no one but you ever does a database query.

Though personally I've been saving a copy of the rules page after every nweek update.  Saves time, and lets me look at it offline too.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:30:35 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Breather
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/8/02 at 9:41 AM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>>From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Breather
>>Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:30:51 -0500
>>
>>On 2/8/02 at 1:00 AM Tyler Crosby wrote:
>>
>> >5) And finally, the proposal which will get me back on Dave's good side
>> >after all that and give us some time to catch our collective breath:
>> >
>> >{{
>> >__Ahh....__
>> >
>> >Create a new rule entitled __A Breather__ with the following -0- 
>>delimited
>> >text:
>> >
>> >-0-
>> >At the beginning of every nweek, the following things shall occur in 
>>order
>> >immediately:
>> >
>> >1)The following () delimited paragraph shall be appended to the end of
>> >rule
>> >3/4:
>> >()
>> >While the Clock is Off, Judgements may be passed and enacted on current
>> >CFJs.
>> >()
>> >
>> >2)The Clock will be turned Off.
>> >
>> >When the Watch reads 1 wweek, the following things shall occur in order
>> >immediately:
>> >
>> >1)The final paragraph of rule 3/5 shall be deleted.
>> >
>> >2)The Clock will be turned On.
>> >
>> >3)This rule will repeal itself.
>> >-0-
>> >
>> >[[The purpose of this is to give Dave some time to effectively make all
>> >the
>> >changes to his DB and the website without being overwhelmed by Real Life
>> >(TM) and without us piling on more stuff...  It also gives us a little
>> >break
>> >time and an opportunity to clear up any outstanding CFJs we have... 
>This
>> >is
>> >really a good idea folks, think about it.  Do it for Mr.
>Administrator.]]
>> >}}
>>
>>Automatic rule changes make more work for Mr. A because he's the one who 
>>has to implement them by hand. :)  Why not instead add a rule that says
>Mr. 
>>A can turn The Clock off any time he wants to for up to seven days, so
>that 
>>he can catch up with stuff?
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>>
>>
>In this case it's a non-issue, because it won't really matter if he
>updates 
>the web page while the Clock is off, as the changes are just going to undo 
>themselves anyway.  And the change is important, because without it, we 
>could not judge CFJs while the Clock is off because only those actions 
>specifically allowed by the rules may take place then.  It seemed to me
>that 
>this would be the best way to accomplish that.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

So...every nweek there will be a seven-day pause in which we can do nothing but chat and CFJ?  Whether or not Mr. A wants or needs or actually makes use of the time?

While I don't necessarily want to chain Mr. A to the Nomiculator and force him to work for us, I'd rather the game not be slowed down at a flat rate when it may not be necessary.  Besides which, if we vote for something Truly Draconian that makes him hole up and code for a while (and he doesn't veto with his feet), a week might not cut it.

I still think it'd be simpler and better for Mr. A to be able to turn the Clock off whenever he needed to.  Modify the Clock rule to allow for judgments on CFJs to be submitted, if you think such a thing can't wait for the Clock to be restarted...in fact, do that anyway, so that if a CFJ turns out to be critical Mr. A can turn off the Clock until it gets judged.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 23:33:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday
  night/Saturday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Um...why not have a couple admin-accessible web apps that generate
> static HTML pages from database queries on a demand basis?  When you

It's so simple, I didn't even think of it. That's why. :-)

I've got to hash out a couple of permissions issues, but it works
splendidly on my home system. (Joel's system, being accessible to the
outside world and all, actually *has* security and stuff. And I don't want
to make files that are world-writable for reasons that, to geeks, should
be obvious.)

An aside: I think the intent of the "seven days" proposal was that it be
self-deleting (i.e. it was only a one-time pause of seven days, not
something that happens every nweek).

I'm also not too comfortable with the notion of my being able to stop the
Clock at a whim. What if, while the Clock is stopped, I get hit by a bus?
Maybe if I ask for a temporary stoppage (i.e. "Stop the Clock until the
Watch reaches three ndays"), preferably one that requires at least a
nominal backing of other players (just two or three supporting votes, but
the number's flexible).

...dave

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 18:25:06 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I catch Luigi and throw it at Baron von Skippy, since e hasn't forfeited and 
all.

Let's see if e can catch the Gremlin with eir tongue tied behind eir back...

						Glotmorf

-Iyay abuseyay ayay oopholelay inyay ethay Ushisay uleray otay atchcay 
Uigilay ilewhay illstay eingbay understandableyay. Iyay ovemay otay (3, 11). 
Iyay etsay Uigilay onyay irefay ithway ethay ursedcay owerspay ofyay ethay 
Ursedcay Ushisay andyay owthray Uigilay atyay ethay Yetiay otay eesay ifyay 
atthay awsthay oldyay ice-buttyay. Uigilay avelstray oughthray (4-18, 10) 
onyay ishay ayway otay (19, 10) andyay etssay irefay otay everythingyay 
inyay osethay uaressqay, includingyay Ongenitalcay Optimistyay andyay ethay 
Ingkay Emlingray. Oopsieyay, Iyay upposesay. Enthay Iyay etsay irefay otay 
Otmorfglay orfay oodgay easuremay.

[[http://rinkworks.com/dialect/]]-

                                           -BvSay-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night/Saturday 
 morning)
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 19:25:54 -0600
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "David E. Smith":
[snip]
> I've got the same code working on another Web site, regularly caching
> pages of 200-300k, but that's on a somewhat beefier Web server than Joel's
> home 'puter.

On that topic, here's a plug for charity: 

charybdis currently is a 166mHz Pentium. The guts of scylla, my 700mHz 
Duron, will be put into charybdis next time scylla is upgraded, but that's 
quite a ways down the road. If anyone has a burning desire for charybdis to 
be faster sooner, and a spare processor and motherboard they're willing to 
contribute to a certain impoverished grad student, that dream could become 
a reality. So if you're upgrading your system, and don't know what to do 
with that old processor, think of nomic.net. :)

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:26:50 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 06:25:06PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> -Iyay abuseyay ayay oopholelay inyay ethay Ushisay uleray otay atchcay 
> Uigilay ilewhay illstay eingbay understandableyay. Iyay ovemay otay (3, 
> 11). Iyay etsay Uigilay onyay irefay ithway ethay ursedcay owerspay ofyay 
> ethay Ursedcay Ushisay andyay owthray Uigilay atyay ethay Yetiay otay eesay 
> ifyay atthay awsthay oldyay ice-buttyay. Uigilay avelstray oughthray (4-18, 
> 10) onyay ishay ayway otay (19, 10) andyay etssay irefay otay everythingyay 
> inyay osethay uaressqay, includingyay Ongenitalcay Optimistyay andyay ethay 
> Ingkay Emlingray. Oopsieyay, Iyay upposesay. Enthay Iyay etsay irefay otay 
> Otmorfglay orfay oodgay easuremay.
> 
> [[http://rinkworks.com/dialect/]]-

Be honest - was babelfish actually down at the time?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:49:08 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PIG
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan,

> I catch the PIG and pick it up.  I throw it at Wonko.
> Dan
> 
I catch the PIG and pick it up myself, and throw it at the player who was up
until recently known as Baron von Skippy.

-- 
Wonko
Recruit today night it feels.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:54:04 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

-Iyay abuseyay ayay oopholelay inyay ethay Ushisay uleray otay atchcay
Uigilay ilewhay illstay eingbay understandableyay. Iyay ovemay otay (3, 11). 
Iyay etsay Uigilay onyay irefay ithway ethay ursedcay owerspay ofyay ethay 
Ursedcay Ushisay andyay owthray Uigilay atyay ethay Yetiay otay eesay fyay 
atthay awsthay oldyay ice-buttyay. Uigilay avelstray oughthray (4-18, 10) 
onyay ishay ayway otay (19, 10) andyay etssay irefay otay everythingyay 
inyay osethay uaressqay, includingyay Ongenitalcay Optimistyay andyay ethay 
Ingkay Emlingray. Oopsieyay, Iyay upposesay. Enthay Iyay etsay irefay otay 
Otmorfglay orfay oodgay easuremay.

[[http://rinkworks.com/dialect/]]-

Be honest - was babelfish actually down at the time?

--
Rob Speer

-- Well, consequently, it the both sides dropped to both objections and it 
worked at identical hour. It spreads out, it understands? I did not inspect, 
is like that it in one time was the both sides with technique. Low or open 
circuit of the nation of the cranium which works it went out and it 
inspected, the corrugation it destroys, the i.e it broke, iss ess c. It goes 
out and it is talked, is like that in your plunder as this it of fortune 
what it is rough law and, anyhow, I will talk the fact that you will not 
know assuredly theyn the place.--

                                         --BvS--

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PIG
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 23:02:29 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Wonko,

 > Quoth Dan,
  >
 > I catch the PIG and pick it up.  I throw it at Wonko.
 > Dan

I catch the PIG and pick it up myself, and throw it at the player who was up 
until recently known as Baron von Skippy.

--I sharp pains comfort throw PIG, (9, 12). The Big it is from Rock that 
place and when, in in it me bounces back. The in Voice in PIG and throw it I 
that time set fire.--

                                          --BvS--

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:25:46 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PIG
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth the Baron,

> 
> --I sharp pains comfort throw PIG, (9, 12). The Big it is from Rock that
> place and when, in in it me bounces back. The in Voice in PIG and throw it I
> that time set fire.--
> 

Is it legal to set time on fire? I'd think that what with time being more of
an idea than a physical object, it would be difficult to figure out exactly
what to ignite...

Maybe the Clock's on Fire now?

-- 
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: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:24:20 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My votes:

YES > Proposal 339/2: The All-Important Default Case (Rob)
YES > Proposal 342/2: Are you ready for some football! (Bean)
YES > Proposal 343/0: Just a little bit... (Bean)
 NO > Proposal 359/2: Run, Run, As Fast As You Can! (Wonko)
[[ I can see this interfering with other rules, and Wonko has too many
points anyway. ]]
 NO > Proposal 360/2: Let's Get Ready To GREMBALL!!!!! (Wonko)
[[ Too confusing. ]]
YES > Proposal 361/0: Broadening Horizons (Wonko)
YES > Proposal 362/1: Poetry In Motion (Bean)
YES > Proposal 363/0: You can only throw so far... (Wonko)
YES > Proposal 364/1: Not to be Confused with Sylvester Stallone (Glotmorf)
 NO > Proposal 365/0: Get AWAY From That! (Glotmorf)
[[ Take precedence over the Yeti? Why? ]]
YES > Proposal 366/0: My Recipe for Siren Pate (Glotmorf)
YES > Proposal 367/1: The Pause that Refreshes (Glotmorf)
 NO > Proposal 368/0: A Whole New Ball of Wax (Congenital Optimist)
[[ Too much stuff is being thrown around for me to keep track of
already. ]]
YES > Proposal 370/1: Windows aren't all bad! (The Voice)
 NO > Proposal 371/0: Judgement/Proposal overhaul (Dan)
YES > Proposal 372/1: This Ruleset isn't big enough for the both of us! (Dan)
YES > Proposal 373/0: Fixing my own mistakes (Scoff!)
YES > Proposal 374/0: Judicial Rear View (Scoff!)
YES > Proposal 375/1: Still a Few Bugs in the System (Wonko)
 NO > Proposal 376/0: Kill this man. (Uncle Psychosis)
 NO > Proposal 377/1: So damn ugly. (Uncle Psychosis)
[[ You think I would be crazy enough to accept a proposal by Uncle P
that puts arbitrary things into effect when nobody objects to them? ]]
 NO > Proposal 379/0: Vow of Poverty (Bean)
[[ Egad! Most people's respect would become extremely negative! Was the
losing-respect part only intended to apply to players who have taken a
Vow of Poverty? ]]
 NO > Proposal 380/0: And We Can Make Little Outfits For Them Too! (Glotmorf)
[[ Amusing, but useless. ]]
YES > Proposal 381/0: Weather (The Voice)
 NO > Proposal 382/0: The Yoyo Gremlin (The Voice)
[[ No good reason for this to be a Gremlin. The fact that we throw
Gremlins around started as an amusing side effect, so let it remain that
way. ]]
 NO > Proposal 383/0: Tilt (The Voice)
[[ I'd rather not screw with everything done to the Grid so far. ]]
 NO > Proposal 384/0: Ahh... (The Voice)
YES > Proposal 385/0: The Final Frontier (Rob)
YES > Proposal 386/0: Water, Water Everywhere (Congenital Optimist)

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:50:12 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/10/02 at 6:24 PM Rob Speer wrote:

> NO > Proposal 365/0: Get AWAY From That! (Glotmorf)
>[[ Take precedence over the Yeti? Why? ]]

Well, the frozen squares, actually.  The idea is that a player would instinctively get as far from Beano as possible when it cuts loose.

> NO > Proposal 380/0: And We Can Make Little Outfits For Them Too!
>(Glotmorf)
>[[ Amusing, but useless. ]]

Oh yeah?  Wait till I start trying to give them gender! :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:25:44 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: let's get personal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> {{ _And We Can Make Little Outfits For Them Too!_
> 
> In Rule 296, replace the text "known as the Scoring Gremlin" with "known as
> the Scoring Gremlin, also known as Enrique".
> 
> In Rule 297, replace the text "known as the Witch Gremlin" with "known as the
> Witch Gremlin, also known as Agatha".
> 
> In Rule 347, replace the text "called the King Gremlin" with "called the King
> Gremlin, also known as Elvis".
> 
> }}
> 
> [[For the life of me, I couldn't think of a name for the Bandwidth
> Gremlin...]]
> 
Say, since the rules only prohibit changing players' information, can't we
just arbitrarily declare 'I give the Scoring Gremlin the nickname Enrique',
etc.? It seems to me that if it's legal to set 'em on fire, we ought to be
able to name 'em too...

-- 
Wonko 
There are no stupid questions; just stupid people.

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:23:27 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: let's
  get personal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/10/02 at 8:25 PM Wonko wrote:

>Say, since the rules only prohibit changing players' information, can't we
>just arbitrarily declare 'I give the Scoring Gremlin the nickname Enrique',
>etc.? It seems to me that if it's legal to set 'em on fire, we ought to be
>able to name 'em too...

We can probably call them whatever we want, but if we give a Gremlin a name that's not recognized in the rules, Mr. A is theoretically not required to recognize the nickname as part of an Action.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 23:54:58 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: new proposal: let's get personal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:23:27PM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> On 2/10/02 at 8:25 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
> >Say, since the rules only prohibit changing players' information, can't we
> >just arbitrarily declare 'I give the Scoring Gremlin the nickname Enrique',
> >etc.? It seems to me that if it's legal to set 'em on fire, we ought to be
> >able to name 'em too...
> 
> We can probably call them whatever we want, but if we give a Gremlin a name that's not recognized in the rules, Mr. A is theoretically not required to recognize the nickname as part of an Action.

Right.

He's not even required to recognize that setting a Gremlin on fire will
have any effect; he acknowledged that the only reason he made "Flaming"
part of the game state was because it amused him.

--
Rob Speer

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:25:52 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night/Saturday
    morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Baron von Skippy, upon returning from Leave, takes the Cursed Sushi of
> Babel from, well, whoever owns the darn thing. (This will become important
> in a moment.) E tries to give away negative activity points, but I don't
> think it's legal to do so. E changes eir name to "Really Long String That
> I'm Not Gonna Retype."
>
Actually, none of this happens (including the name change) because, as you note below, he failed to sushi his action. So he's still called "Baron von Skippy", and you don't need to update the roster. I believe it's traditional for you to ignore me saying this until I CFJ it. ;-)

> Baron von Skippy tries to forfeit, but can't, because e forgot to Sushi
> eir action. (This means unless someone volunteers to take the Sushi away
> from em, e's stuck with it for several weeks. This will, I suspect, make
> life more pleasant for all of us.)
>
This, though, I believe works, as the good Baron intended, as rule 14 allows him to forfeit at any time, and takes precedence over the sushi stuff. Oh, wait... he said he forfeited as soon as all his other actions were recognised. Since (at least) his activity points transfer wasn't recognised, he didn't forfeit. Well, not in English, anyway - I remain silent on what the sushi message that looked like an attempt at forfeiting did. ;-)

Having said that, since he later tried to (but failed) rescind his forfeitures, it's probably easiest to ignore the sushied one too (on the grounds that it's completely incomprehensible, and we'd only be guessing at it being a forfeit attempt).

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: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:27:26 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I don't like being on Forced Leave... so maybe I'll vote today.
>
And maybe your votes won't count, as they were sent unsushied to a public forum. You might want to send them to the admin by private email, which would count. Of course, you may already have done so...

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: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:31:19 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>  NO > Proposal 377/1: So damn ugly. (Uncle Psychosis)
> [[ You think I would be crazy enough to accept a proposal by Uncle P
> that puts arbitrary things into effect when nobody objects to them? ]]
>
Arbitrary things... that the admin says, that not one single player objects to for 20 days. That'll be a scam on my part. After all, I tried to scam the rule I'm trying to fix here, by evilly using the loophole to fix itself.

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: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:43:52 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It doesn't have to be down, only unusable.  There are any number of ways one can deliberately make babelfish unusable.  

1)  Add a bogus static route to babelfish to your system.

2)  Add babelfish to the "Paranoid Parent" exclusion list on your system.

3)  If you're behind a proxy firewall, tell your browser to bypass the proxy for  babelfish.altavista.com.

Et cetera.  And all perfectly legal by the letter of the rule.  Not especially sportsmanlike, but legal.

Moreover, if you want to get really unsportsmanlike, check out the tip of the day from babelfish:  "Tip: If you do not want a word to be translated add a x on each side of it. Eg: I love xPinkx xFloydx"

So, I can put in "xIx xcatchx xthex xPIGx." and the E->K->E path gives back "xIx xcatchx xthex }xpigx{."

Not really in the spirit of the rule, but legal.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
> 
> Be honest - was babelfish actually down at the time?
> 
> -- 
> Rob Speer
> 
> 
> 

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:52:07 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: My Votes
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Proposal 374/0: Judicial Rear View (Scoff!)
> No. It's a good idea, but it means that it could take more 
> than 2 nweeks to
> settle a CFJ. I'd like to see this back in a form that 
> doesn't wait 'till
> the end of the nweek to overturn, though.

Well, the alternative is either:

1) a special election for every appeal (2 nday lead time or whatever), which is going to make for a *lot* of special elections and special vote countings and special headaches for the Administrator, or

2) have an appeals court of probably 3 judges to judge the appeal.  Which could easily take an nweek by the time one appoints all 3 judges and manages to get them all to submit their ruling.

I don't like waiting up to 2 nweeks either, but it seems the least fiddly method of doing it.  Minimal overhead.

And in most cases it won't be that long -- generally any judgement submitted on ndays 1 through 6 should allow enough lead time for someone to appeal it onto the current nweek's ballot.

--Scoff!

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:02:07 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >Proposal 376/0: Kill this man. (Uncle Psychosis)
> Yes, but only because of p386.
> BTW, nice try on the haiku, but nowhere is the
> syllable breakdown of LOGAS defined. :)
>
Unlike all the other words we use? It's either log-ass or  low-gass - any other reading would just be willful perversity.

> >Proposal 377/1: So damn ugly. (Uncle Psychosis)
> [Have I mentioned how much I'm bothered by this whole
> look-behind concept?]
> No.
>
You've mentioned how much you're bothered by your bizarre misinterpretation of it, but it (still) doesn't do what you think it does. Unless you're talking about some other issues you have with 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: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:54:05 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Bribery
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I will give 1 point to each player who votes for p377, or 3 points if it passes.

This isn't, of course, an offer that's enforced by the rules, but if I don't then I encourage everyone to always vote against all my proosals.

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: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:56:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> >Proposal 379/0: Vow of Poverty (Bean)
> ["Let us load up on points and venture forth to explore negative respect space!" Um...]

Oh shoot... That's a bug in the proposal... Uh... I'll make a proposal to
fix this, so I'm hoping that'll change your vote :)

Bean

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:10:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Scoff!'s votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> NO > Proposal 343/0: Just a little bit... (Bean)
> 
> Respect doesn't actually *do* anything useful yet, nor does it do anything fun, as far as I can see.

No, you're right, but it allows for an interesting possibility of a
victory condition, for instance.... I just thought that with some things
like Robs beautiful piece of "nomic poetry", we might want to acknowledge
that.

> NO > Proposal 362/1: Poetry In Motion (Bean)
> 
> I was rather torn by this one.  I like limericks, but I don't see the point of cinquains.  Also, the awarding of respect for poetic proposals dilutes the concept of respect as something given by the players to recognize or disparage another player.  Considering that is pretty much *all* that respect does right now, I'm not sure why this proposal would want to make a player's Respect score less meaningful.

Well, if you like the general idea, then vote it in this week, and then
propose to repeal the cinquain rule next week (one of the reasons I made
them separate rules). I might actually vote to repeal it too (I just
wanted to add more than one form).  That way we all get points!

Bean

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:42:48 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The intent was that the latter statement, by precedence rules, overrules the more-imprecise haiku-form first statement, which was only there for the cosmetic reason of starting the haiku rule with a sort-of-haiku.  So you only get points if it passes.  But we'll see if the judge agrees.  

And if e doesn't, comment brackets are going around that "haiku".

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Doig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
> 
> 
> <CFJ>
> <statement>Uncle Psychosis got 10 points for submitting 
> proosal 376.</statement>
> <defendant>Glotmorf</defendant>
> <analysis>
> Rule 357 states:
> "Players submitting 
> Proposals in haiku form 
> Earn 10 extra points 
> 
> 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."
> 
> To me, that reads as 10 points for submitting it, and another 
> 10 if it passes.
> 
> Of course, there's always Glotmorf's "LOGAS isn't 2 
> syllables" argument, but... well, that's a pretty cheap way 
> of trying to stop me getting 10 points I don't even care 
> about in the first place. ;-)
> 
> [[Just because I think it's funny, I'll give 5 points to the 
> judge if this is ruled true.]]
> </analysis>
> </CFJ>
> 
> 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: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:47:51 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan Van Matre,

> The intent was that the latter statement, by precedence rules, overrules the
> more-imprecise haiku-form first statement, which was only there for the
> cosmetic reason of starting the haiku rule with a sort-of-haiku.  So you only
> get points if it passes.  But we'll see if the judge agrees.
> 
> And if e doesn't, comment brackets are going around that "haiku".
> 
> --Scoff!
> 
But according to the precedence rule, later paragraphs only take precedence
if they conflict with earlier ones. The statements,

"Players submitting proposals in haiku form earn 10 extra points"

and

"A player who submits a proposal in haiku form earns 10 Score points if the
proposal is adopted"

do not conflict with each other, and so the submission of a haiku proposal
is worth 10 points.

OTOH, I'm not sure the term 'proosal' means anything. The rule which uses it
states that 

"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". "

This seems to be to be defining the term 'proposal' to mean 'proosal'. It
does not specify a meaning for the term 'proosal'. So all that rule does is
redefine proposal to mean nothing, which does nothing because a lower
numbered rule defines what a proposal is and takes precedence.

Thus, it appears that UP didn't get 10 points for submitting proosal 376
because there is no proosal 376.
-- 
Wonko
In vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:46:51 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/11/02 at 1:35 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>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."
>
>To me, that reads as 10 points for submitting it, and another 10 if it
>passes.

"earns 10 Score points if the proposal is adopted" seems to say you only get them, like, if the proposal is adopted.  Nowhere does it say you gain points for just submitting it.

>Of course, there's always Glotmorf's "LOGAS isn't 2 syllables" argument,
>but... well, that's a pretty cheap way of trying to stop me getting 10
>points I don't even care about in the first place. ;-)

Scuse me, but there are some people out there that'd pronounce the abbreviation LOGAS as "el oh gee ay ess", which don't fit yer limerick.  Those of various regional accents, and those attempting airs of literacy, might argue that the A can be regarded as silent, and thus pronounce it "log's" which is one syllable.

I myself am a commuter, though, and therefore, in the depths of my mind, pronounce it "low-gas".  But the depths of my mind isn't a dictionary, and I don't recall seeing LOGAS in a dictionary.

But you see...I'm not trying to stop you getting 10 points.  I'm trying to stop you getting an EASY 10 points...:)

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:29:49 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>I don't like being on Forced Leave... so maybe I'll vote today.
 >
And maybe your votes won't count, as they were sent unsushied to a public 
forum. You might want to send them to the admin by private email, which 
would count. Of course, you may already have done so...

uin.
--

-Uin, you need a damn hobby. OTHER than nipicking at me. If I translated my 
votes, would it REALLY change them? Accept them, for the love of God... How 
many ndays until I can give the Sushi to someone?-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:31:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It doesn't have to be down, only unusable.  There are any number of ways one 
can deliberately make babelfish unusable.

1)  Add a bogus static route to babelfish to your system.

2)  Add babelfish to the "Paranoid Parent" exclusion list on your system.

3)  If you're behind a proxy firewall, tell your browser to bypass the proxy 
for  babelfish.altavista.com.

Et cetera.  And all perfectly legal by the letter of the rule.  Not 
especially sportsmanlike, but legal.

Moreover, if you want to get really unsportsmanlike, check out the tip of 
the day from babelfish:  "Tip: If you do not want a word to be translated 
add a x on each side of it. Eg: I love xPinkx xFloydx"

So, I can put in "xIx xcatchx xthex xPIGx." and the E->K->E path gives back 
"xIx xcatchx xthex }xpigx{."

Not really in the spirit of the rule, but legal.

-Hey, thanks for the tips.-

                                       -BvS-

--Scoff!

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Rob Speer [mailto:[email-masked]]
 > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:27 PM
 > To: [email-masked]
 > Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: GremBall
 >
 > Be honest - was babelfish actually down at the time?
 >
 > --
 > Rob Speer
 >
 >
 >

_________________________________________________________________
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: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:46:34 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

-Wonko, you're a genius at this game... And that frightens me... A lot...-

                                        -BvS-

OTOH, I'm not sure the term 'proosal' means anything. The rule which uses it
states that

"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". "

This seems to be to be defining the term 'proposal' to mean 'proosal'. It
does not specify a meaning for the term 'proosal'. So all that rule does is
redefine proposal to mean nothing, which does nothing because a lower
numbered rule defines what a proposal is and takes precedence.

Thus, it appears that UP didn't get 10 points for submitting proosal 376
because there is no proosal 376.
--
Wonko
In vita priore ego imperator Romanus fui.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:44:59 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the Haiku Bonus
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:39 PM 2002-02-11 -0500, you wrote:
>While we're on the subject of people getting points easily, how about
>this...
>
>I transfer -88 points from myself to Antonio.
>I transfer -4 points from myself to Bean.
>I transfer -60 points from myself to Congenital Optimist.
>I transfer -85 points from myself to Glotmorf.
>I transfer -56 points from myself to Iain.
>I transfer -92 points from myself to Rob.
>I transfer -122 points from myself to Scoff!.
>I transfer -83 points from me myself The Voice.
>I transfer -10 points from me myself Turgul.
>I transfer -106 points from me myself Uncle Psychosis.
>If Uncle Psychosis recieved 10 points for submitting proposal 376, then I
>transfer -10 points from myself to Uncle Psychosis.
>I transfer -137 points from myself to Dan.

*sigh*  I think you'll find that points are objects.  You can't transfer 
things you don't have.  And Rule 18 doesn't apply because transerring of 
points between players is regulated.  I'm not even going to bother CFJing 
it as both I and the Admin know that this is illegal and therefore your 
action never happened.

Thank you for shopping at Bean's Rules Lawyers 'R Us, please come again!

Bean

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the Haiku Bonus
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:28:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,
>*sigh*  I think you'll find that points are objects.  You can't transfer 
>things you don't have.  And Rule 18 doesn't apply because transerring of 
>points between players is regulated.  I'm not even going to bother CFJing 
>it as both I and the Admin know that this is illegal and therefore your 
>action never happened.
>
>Thank you for shopping at Bean's Rules Lawyers 'R Us, please come again!
>
>Bean
>

Ladies, Gentlemen and Drones, the King has left the building.

-0-Thus Spake The Voice-0-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:17:29 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:29:49PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> -Uin, you need a damn hobby. OTHER than nipicking at me. If I translated my 
> votes, would it REALLY change them? Accept them, for the love of God... How 
> many ndays until I can give the Sushi to someone?-

I actually have to agree with him here. You can vote with the Sushi ("It
is like that." is an affirmative vote.) If you didn't want the Sushi,
why did you take it?
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:23:35 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -Uin, you need a damn hobby. OTHER than nipicking at me. If I translated my 
> votes, would it REALLY change them? Accept them, for the love of God...
>
I was trying to help you, by poining out that you'd forgotten to sushi your votes. I assumed you'd want your votes to count. Under the current rules, interpreted according to CFJ 280, they don't unless you sushi them. It has nothing to do with whether I accept them - I think the whole sushi thing is silly, and that your votes should count. But I'm not the rules, and the rules think otherwise.

> How many ndays until I can give the Sushi to someone?-
>
4 from when you first got it. I make that 0 now, as you never managed to give it to me in the first place (see CFJ 378).

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, 12 Feb 2002 08:24:01 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Votes (fwd)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> When UIN voted for this nweek, privately, e reminded me that I hadn't yet
> publicized eir votes from last nweek. I'd like to publicly thank em for
> not CFJing me on such a silly oversight on my part. (And here's hoping I
> don't do it again this nweek.)
>
I don't know how you're keeping track of votes at the moment, but if you're automating the counting at all (well, even if you're not ;-)), it'd be nice to see results looking something like:

P523 - passed
For - 3 (uin, Wonko, Rob)
Against - 2 (Baron von Skippy, gritter)

Which would add a level of error checking ("Hey! That's not how I voted!"), as well as meaning you don't need to worry about forgetting to publicise private votes. And it would mean I could hand out my bribes more easily. It might even encourage people to vote privately, thus encouraging our holy grail of bandwidth reduction.

Now that I think about it, though, I do seem to recall you saying something about counting votes on paper(!), so this probably won't be practical.

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, 12 Feb 2002 08:24:21 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >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."
> >
> >To me, that reads as 10 points for submitting it, and another 10 if it
> >passes.
> 
> "earns 10 Score points if the proposal is adopted" seems to say you only get
> them, like, if the proposal is adopted.
>
Yes.

> Nowhere does it say you gain points for just submitting it.
>
Nowhere in the portion you quoted, certainly. The bit at the start of the rule that says
"Players submitting 
Proposals in haiku form 
Earn 10 extra points"
does, however. ;-)

> >Of course, there's always Glotmorf's "LOGAS isn't 2 syllables" argument,
> >but... well, that's a pretty cheap way of trying to stop me getting 10
> >points I don't even care about in the first place. ;-)
>
> Scuse me, but there are some people out there that'd pronounce the
> abbreviation LOGAS as "el oh gee ay ess", which don't fit yer limerick. 
> Those of various regional accents, and those attempting airs of literacy,
> might argue that the A can be regarded as silent, and thus pronounce it
> "log's" which is one syllable.
>
> I myself am a commuter, though, and therefore, in the depths of my mind,
> pronounce it "low-gas".  But the depths of my mind isn't a dictionary, and
> I don't recall seeing LOGAS in a dictionary.
>
Sure, you can find a pronunciation that's not 2 syllables. But you pretty much have to look... it's most natural (at least in the context of what's obviously a haiku) to interpret it as 2 syllables. And since the rules are silent on pronounciation, I see no reason not to go for the obvious interpretation. I mean, you'd accept it if there weren't points riding on it, right? Like you say, you're "trying to stop me"...

> But you see...I'm not trying to stop you getting 10 points.  I'm trying to
> stop you getting an EASY 10 points...:)
>
It's not so much easy, as accidental. If I'd been going for points, I'd have filled up my next week's allocation with unambiguously haiku'd proosals, and *then* CFJed. If the judge rules false on the grounds that it wasn't a haiku, and leaves out the issue of whether the rule gives out 10 points for submitting a haiku, it'll just be tiresome.

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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:08:54 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night/Saturd
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

hee hee.  "a pain inside the donkey which it spreads out" indeed.  Plunder's "ass the flag thing in" apparently had consequences for the poor ass.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Truelsen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 5:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
> (Friday night/Saturd
> 
> 
> To this in hell. I changed it one time, B will do my name 
> again. "Prince 
> Superior of the RICV, Baron Skippy, Lord of Squirrels, Master 
> of the State 
> of Hallucinations, Minister of the ULC of Modesto, Calif., 
> and Generator of 
> Oddities and Entities" I change my name to which is happy  
> now, it adds up a 
> pain inside the donkey which it spreads out? I do not quit. 
> This message was 
> translate in the Babelfish.
> 
>                                             -BvS-
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> 
> 
> 

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:22:26 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> But according to the precedence rule, later paragraphs only take precedence
> if they conflict with earlier ones. The statements,
>
>
> "Players submitting proposals in haiku form earn 10 extra points"
>
> and
>
> "A player who submits a proposal in haiku form earns 10 Score points if the
> proposal is adopted"
> 
> do not conflict with each other, and so the submission of a haiku proposal
> is worth 10 points.
>
Precisely.

> OTOH, I'm not sure the term 'proosal' means anything. The rule which uses it
>states that 
>
> "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". "
>
> This seems to be to be defining the term 'proposal' to mean 'proosal'. It
> does not specify a meaning for the term 'proosal'. So all that rule does is
> redefine proposal to mean nothing, which does nothing because a lower
> numbered rule defines what a proposal is and takes precedence.
>
> Thus, it appears that UP didn't get 10 points for submitting proosal 376
> because there is no proosal 376.
>
It's not redefining "proposal". It's saying that "proposal" and "proosal" are equivalent. Equivalence is commutative - a=b means exactly the same as b=a (those are the 3-barred equals sign thingies, not C-style comparisons, not that it matters). Since the 2 terms are equivalent for game purposes, effectively the game is blind as to which we're using - "proosal" and "proposal" are, in game terms, the same. In support of this interpretation, I offer the game custom that it's always worked so far - I haven't submitted a proposal since proosals came into existence, and I think Antonio also submitted a proosal. Admittedly, that doesn't mean we haven't been wrong, but it seems wrong (and may well cause some degree of administrative headaches as we realise the ballot isn't correct for this nweek) to deliberately choose the interpretation we haven't been using so far (and which in any case requires paraphrasing the rule, rather than just going with what it says), when both are val!
id, just to cause one "scam" that only happened by accident to fail.

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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:42:48 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> It's not redefining "proposal". It's saying that "proposal" 
> and "proosal" are equivalent. Equivalence is commutative - 
> a==b means exactly the same as b==a (those are the 3-barred 
> equals sign thingies, not C-style comparisons, not that it 
> matters).

Dearest Uncle Psychosis,

Equivalence may be commutative for mathematics, but that doesn't extend to the written word.

For example "lead" (pron. leed) is synonymous with "direct", the verb.  But "lead" (led), the metal, is not synonymous with "direct", the adjective.  Moreover "lead" (leed), meaning an electrical wire, is not synonymous with "direct", either.

Not to mention that your rule contradicts itself.  If "proposal" is *precisely* equivalent to "proosal", how can "proosal" be "far superior"?

Since the "far superior" portion of the rule follows the "precisely equivalent" portion, and they appear to be contradictory, that should mean the terms are not equivalent, per the precedence rules.

Speaking as one who has yet to find a spouse, I for one should greatly prefer a proposal to a proosal, whatever that may be.

With Regards,

Miss Emma Stanton Scoff,
Hadleydale Manor

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:56:12 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > It's not redefining "proposal". It's saying that "proposal" 
> > and "proosal" are equivalent. Equivalence is commutative - 
> > a=b means exactly the same as b=a (those are the 3-barred 
> > equals sign thingies, not C-style comparisons, not that it 
> > matters).
>
> Dearest Uncle Psychosis,
> 
> Equivalence may be commutative for mathematics, but that doesn't
> extend to the written word.
>
> For example "lead" (pron. leed) is synonymous with "direct", the
> verb.  But "lead" (led), the metal, is not synonymous with "direct",
> the adjective.  Moreover "lead" (leed), meaning an electrical wire,
> is not synonymous with "direct", either.
>
Well... so what? Those are different words (which happen to be spelt the same), and anyway your argument is irrelevant - to be relevant, you'd need to be saying that "lead" (pron. leed) the verb is synonymous with "direct" the verb, but "direct" the verb is not synonymous with "lead" (pron. leed) the verb. 

Not that we're dealing with the written word, in general - we're only dealing with the rules.

> Not to mention that your rule contradicts itself.  If "proposal" is
> *precisely* equivalent to "proosal", how can "proosal" be "far
> superior"?
>
> Since the "far superior" portion of the rule follows the "precisely
> equivalent" portion, and they appear to be contradictory, that
> should mean the terms are not equivalent, per the precedence
> rules.
>
Well, you could make an argument that they're precisely equivalent in use, but one is superior in aesthetics. Disregarding that, they're only not equivalent where the 2 parts would conflict - ie, they're precisely equivalent except for the purposes of determining which is superior, where proosal wins. Since no rule cares whether one word is better than another, I can't see how this matters.

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: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:58:41 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:29:49PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
 > -Uin, you need a damn hobby. OTHER than nipicking at me. If I translated 
my
 > votes, would it REALLY change them? Accept them, for the love of God... 
How
 > many ndays until I can give the Sushi to someone?-

I actually have to agree with him here. You can vote with the Sushi ("It
is like that." is an affirmative vote.) If you didn't want the Sushi,
why did you take it?
--
Rob Speer

--The Sushi is fine. My problem is with people looking for problems.--

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:36:52 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Well... so what? Those are different words (which happen to 
> be spelt the same), 

Yes, and the important thing is that the only way you know which of the words I mean is because I made sure to make it clear which definition I was referring to.  In contrast, the rules do not make it clear which definition of "proposal" is equivalent to "proosal", nor what any of the definitions of "proosal" are, or how many there may be.  For all we know, "proosal" could be equivalent to every other word in the English language as well.

Here's my new draft proposal:

__Proosal__

{{
Proosal proosal.  Proosal proosal proosal proosal.  Proosal proosal proosal.
}}

> and anyway your argument is irrelevant - 
> to be relevant, you'd need to be saying that "lead" (pron. 
> leed) the verb is synonymous with "direct" the verb, but 
> "direct" the verb is not synonymous with "lead" (pron. leed) 
> the verb. 
> 
> Not that we're dealing with the written word, in general - 
> we're only dealing with the rules.

Yes, but the rules are communicated solely by the written word.  For words occurring in the dictionary and/or common English usage we have context to guide us toward understanding of the meaning, but for made-up words, there is no such context, and therefore no clear meaning.  

> Well, you could make an argument that they're precisely 
> equivalent in use, but one is superior in aesthetics. 

You could also argue that one is superior in meaning, in which case the point of conflict is entirely relevant.  The rules *do* care what the words mean.

Because we have a made-up word, and the rule is not clear on what it means to be the substance of the equivalence between these two words, or the manner in which one is superior to the other, any number of interpretations can apply.

This is why I was not at all fond of this "proosal" silliness in the first place.  In a game played with written English words, made-up words for concepts we've already got perfectly good real words for are the last thing we need.  

--Scoff!

p.s.  Regarding the larger issue of the 10-point haiku bonus, I don't really care which way that slices.  I'll fix it next nweek if necessary.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:09:09 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Well... so what? Those are different words (which happen to 
> > be spelt the same), 
>
> Yes, and the important thing is that the only way you know
> which of the words I mean is because I made sure to make it
> clear which definition I was referring to.  In contrast, the rules
> do not make it clear which definition of "proposal" is equivalent
> to "proosal", nor what any of the definitions of "proosal" are, or
> how many there may be.  For all we know, "proosal" could be
> equivalent to every other word in the English language as well.
>
But the rule doesn't say that one meaning of "proposal" is equivalent to "proosal", or that "proposal means proosal". They say that the 2 terms are equivalent - wherever you see "proosal", treat it as "proposal", or vice versa. It's operating at a syntactic level, not a semantic one. So saying "proosal proosal proosal" is, as far as the rules are concerned, just the same as saying "proposal proposal proposal". It's the very opposite of a synonym: effectively, it's making "proosal" and "proposal" different spellings of the same word.

> > and anyway your argument is irrelevant - 
> > to be relevant, you'd need to be saying that "lead" (pron. 
> > leed) the verb is synonymous with "direct" the verb, but 
> > "direct" the verb is not synonymous with "lead" (pron. leed) 
> > the verb. 
> > 
> > Not that we're dealing with the written word, in general - 
> > we're only dealing with the rules.
> 
> Yes, but the rules are communicated solely by the written word. 
> For words occurring in the dictionary and/or common English
> usage we have context to guide us toward understanding of the
> meaning, but for made-up words, there is no such context, and
> therefore no clear meaning.  
>
Well, exactly. Thus, we must rely on the rules. The rules say that "proosal" is interchangeable with "proposal".

> > Well, you could make an argument that they're precisely 
> > equivalent in use, but one is superior in aesthetics. 
>
> You could also argue that one is superior in meaning, 
>
No, I don't think you could. I don't think "superior in meaning" is a meaningful term.

> in which case the point of conflict is entirely relevant.
> The rules *do* care what the words mean.
>
And even if "superior in meaning" is meaningful, the rules care about *what* words mean, not about how well they mean them. If one word means the same thing as another, but means it "better", I don't see anything in the rules that prevents the less-well-meant word from working just fine.

> Because we have a made-up word, and the rule is not
> clear on what it means to be the substance of the
> equivalence between these two words, or the manner
> in which one is superior to the other, any number of
> interpretations can apply.
>
Maybe they can, but as you argue above, we should use standard interpretation for "equivalent", and I don't see how one word being superior (in whatever sense) to another affects the rules in any way.

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: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ...
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:58:10 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Well, then, I catch the PIG and throw it at Antonio.

-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

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:03:42 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>--The Sushi is fine. My problem is with people looking for problems.--

But isn't that the point, my dear Baron?

-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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:19:17 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the Haiku
	Bonus
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Eric Gerlach,

> At 07:39 PM 2002-02-11 -0500, you wrote:
>> While we're on the subject of people getting points easily, how about
>> this...
>> 
>> I transfer -88 points from myself to Antonio.
>> I transfer -4 points from myself to Bean.
>> I transfer -60 points from myself to Congenital Optimist.
>> I transfer -85 points from myself to Glotmorf.
>> I transfer -56 points from myself to Iain.
>> I transfer -92 points from myself to Rob.
>> I transfer -122 points from myself to Scoff!.
>> I transfer -83 points from me myself The Voice.
>> I transfer -10 points from me myself Turgul.
>> I transfer -106 points from me myself Uncle Psychosis.
>> If Uncle Psychosis recieved 10 points for submitting proposal 376, then I
>> transfer -10 points from myself to Uncle Psychosis.
>> I transfer -137 points from myself to Dan.
> 
> *sigh*  I think you'll find that points are objects.  You can't transfer
> things you don't have.  And Rule 18 doesn't apply because transerring of
> points between players is regulated.  I'm not even going to bother CFJing
> it as both I and the Admin know that this is illegal and therefore your
> action never happened.
> 
> Thank you for shopping at Bean's Rules Lawyers 'R Us, please come again!
> 
> Bean
> 

Alright, here's how I see it:

I had 239 points. I needed 1000 points. Thus, I owed myself 761 points, for
the ones I didn't have. So I gave those negative points to others, who then
owed me those points.

Although I suppose this is a rather eccentric way of looking at it...

Also, if my attempt did work, The Baron's attempt to take 1000 points from
me still wouldn't, 'cause my score would be zero (post-win reset). Thus,
giving -1000 points to me would reduce my score below zero, which is
illegal. (which actually seems to be a bit of a problem... If somebody CFJ'd
the Baron right now that he had Denied the Undeniable, the Judge would be
forced to judge FALSE, because it would be illegal to judge true, as that
would reduce Baron's score to negative). (Actually, that gives me an
idea...)
-- 
Wonko
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:36:43 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the HaikuBonus
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The way *I* see it, the only way you could have had negative points to give would be if you borrowed the points from Luigi, thus creating a point debt.  (You said yourself that you "owed 761 points" -- your mistake was thinking you owed them to yourself.)

So, you're now in debt to Luigi, and thanks to post-win reset, you have no points to pay em back.

--Scoff!

> Alright, here's how I see it:
> 
> I had 239 points. I needed 1000 points. Thus, I owed myself 
> 761 points, for
> the ones I didn't have. So I gave those negative points to 
> others, who then
> owed me those points.
> 
> Although I suppose this is a rather eccentric way of looking at it...
> 
> Also, if my attempt did work, The Baron's attempt to take 
> 1000 points from
> me still wouldn't, 'cause my score would be zero (post-win 
> reset). Thus,
> giving -1000 points to me would reduce my score below zero, which is
> illegal. (which actually seems to be a bit of a problem... If 
> somebody CFJ'd
> the Baron right now that he had Denied the Undeniable, the 
> Judge would be
> forced to judge FALSE, because it would be illegal to judge 
> true, as that
> would reduce Baron's score to negative). (Actually, that gives me an
> idea...)
> -- 
> Wonko
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:25:46 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the
	HaikuBonus
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan Van Matre,

> The way *I* see it, the only way you could have had negative points to give
> would be if you borrowed the points from Luigi, thus creating a point debt.
> (You said yourself that you "owed 761 points" -- your mistake was thinking you
> owed them to yourself.)
> 
> So, you're now in debt to Luigi, and thanks to post-win reset, you have no
> points to pay em back.
> 
> --Scoff!
> 
>> Alright, here's how I see it:
>> 
>> I had 239 points. I needed 1000 points. Thus, I owed myself
>> 761 points, for
>> the ones I didn't have. So I gave those negative points to
>> others, who then
>> owed me those points.
>> 
>> Although I suppose this is a rather eccentric way of looking at it...
>> 
>> Also, if my attempt did work, The Baron's attempt to take
>> 1000 points from
>> me still wouldn't, 'cause my score would be zero (post-win
>> reset). Thus,
>> giving -1000 points to me would reduce my score below zero, which is
>> illegal. (which actually seems to be a bit of a problem... If
>> somebody CFJ'd
>> the Baron right now that he had Denied the Undeniable, the
>> Judge would be
>> forced to judge FALSE, because it would be illegal to judge
>> true, as that
>> would reduce Baron's score to negative). (Actually, that gives me an
>> idea...)
>> -- 
>> Wonko
>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
> 
> 
If my debt was to Luigi, then it couldn't have been greater than 100 points,
so there would have been no post-win reset. Besides, I never borrowed from
Luigi, so I don't see how that has any relevance to the issue.
-- 
Wonko
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:34:48 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my proposals for the nweek
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan Van Matre,

> #1:
> 
> __Let's Nip This In The Bud__
> 
> {{
> Add "Self-important use of Latin, especially in signature lines" to the LOGAS.
> }}

Sorry about that... I put all those on my list of random signatures and then
just forgot about them. I'll turn 'em off.
 
> #2:
> 
> __You Can't Have Football Without Color Commentary__
> 
> Create a new rule:
> 
> __You Can't Have Football Without Color Commentary__
> 
> {{
> "Color Commentator" is a Title.  The Title "Color Commentator" may not be held
> concurrently by more than two players.
> 
> At the beginning of each nweek, the Administrator will choose at random a
> player who is not playing Football to be the Color Commentator for the nweek.
> The Color Commentator may also, at eir discretion, select a second player to
> be co-Color Commentator, in which case both players hold the title for the
> duration of the nweek.
> 
> While in possession of the Title "Color Commentator", it is a player's duty to
> provide interesting commentary on the Football game in play.  Comedic
> imitation of the dim-wittedness of actual American football commentators is
> encouraged.
> 
> A Color Commentator is exempt from GremBall while in possession of the "Color
> Commentator" Title.  This rule supersedes Rule 355.

Does 'exempt from GremBall' mean 'exempt from the rule entitled GremBall' or
'exempt from all things pertaining to Gremball'?

> At the end of the nweek, any player holding the "Color Commentator" Title
> surrenders the Title, and a new Color Commentator is chosen by the
> Administrator as described above.
> }}

*sigh* I don't like all these things that make people exempt from all the
Grid stuff. I think it would be more fun and more interesting if people had
to work around things instead of just flat-out ignoring them. That's part of
the reason why I don't entirely like the football proposal, 'cause what's
the point of having things like Shiny Things and Elbonian Airways if we just
make everyone immune to them?
 
> #3:
> 
> __Fix The Haiku Bonus__
> 
> {{
> Place open- and close-comment markers at the beginning and end respectively of
> the first paragraph of rule 357.
> 
> Transfer from Scoff! to the Scoring Gremlin the same number of Score points
> earned by Scoff! for the passage of this proposal.
> 
> [[No points for filling up holes I dug myself.]]
> }}
> 
> [[Might as well fix it whether it's broke or not, since I have the proposals
> left this nweek anyway.]]

It might make more sense if you said 'the first three lines' instead of 'the
first paragraph', because I think technically the paragraph ends at the new
line, so this would make it look like

[[Players submitting]]
proposals in haiku form
earn 10 extra points.

Legally speaking, this would award 10 points to any proposal which was a
Haiku. What's a proposal going to do with points? (although that could be
interesting...)

> --Scoff!

What, no latin? ;)

-- 
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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:59:24 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proosals.
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ The Rule ]]
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".
[[ ]]

This means that whenever you see the word 'proposal', it should be treated
as if it were 'proosal'. An analogy would be when, while doing algebra, you
state that x is equivalent to 3. If x was already defined to be 5, then you
haven't just defined 3 to be equivalent to 5. You've redefined the value of
x. So by stating that 'proposal' is equivalent to 'proosal', that means that
the value of 'proposal' is now 'proosal'. You have not, in any way, changed
the definition of proosal, any more than you would have changed the
definition of 3 in algebra.

Or, if the rule were interpreted to mean proposal==proosal, then the rule is
a paradox, because it isn't true. The triple equal thingy is a comparison
operator, not an assignment operator, to use programming terminology.

Anyhow, this isn't just an attempt to cause your 'scam' to fail  I agree
with your 'scam', and if you fix the CFJ to use the right word, I'd judge it
TRUE. Your 'scam' just drew attention to this problem, which has always been
a problem.

-- 
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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:55:59 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my
  proposals for the nweek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 06:34 PM 2002-02-12 -0500, you wrote:
>That's part of
>the reason why I don't entirely like the football proposal, 'cause what's
>the point of having things like Shiny Things and Elbonian Airways if we just
>make everyone immune to them?

Actually, you make a good point about the Shiny Things.... perhaps we 
should fix that next nweek?  As for Elbonian Airways, well don't you think 
it would be silly if you could take good 'ol Air Elbonia to the 
endzone?  or to within 2 units of someone to tackle them?

>What's a proposal going to do with points? (although that could be
>interesting...)

Whatever it damn well wants!

Bean

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:08:24 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proosals.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 06:59 PM 2002-02-12 -0500, you wrote:
>An analogy would be when, while doing algebra, you
>state that x is equivalent to 3. If x was already defined to be 5, then you
>haven't just defined 3 to be equivalent to 5. You've redefined the value of
>x.

<nitpick source="Math Undergrad" reason="I've got the title and I'm gonna 
use it"> One can't _redefine_ things in algebra.  Once you say something is 
equal to something, it is.  There's no changing it, because then one of 
your statements is no longer true.  The analogy you're looking for is 
something closer to computer science.</nitpick>  However, the rhetorical 
analysis (minus the nitpick) holds methinks.

Bean

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the Haiku Bonus
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:01:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Alright, here's how I see it:

I had 239 points. I needed 1000 points. Thus, I owed myself 761 points, for 
the ones I didn't have. So I gave those negative points to others, who then 
owed me those points.

Although I suppose this is a rather eccentric way of looking at it...
-Isn't that normal for you?-

Also, if my attempt did work, The Baron's attempt to take 1000 points from 
me still wouldn't, 'cause my score would be zero (post-win reset).
-Oh, duh.-

Thus, giving -1000 points to me would reduce my score below zero, which is 
illegal. (which actually seems to be a bit of a problem... If somebody CFJ'd 
the Baron right now that he had Denied the Undeniable, the Judge would be 
forced to judge FALSE, because it would be illegal to judge true, as that 
would reduce Baron's score to negative).
-Woohoo! I am invincible!-

(Actually, that gives me an idea...)
-Oh hell. Is this going to result in me being Sushiied for a long time, held 
at zero points for a long time, kicked in the ass, or given a major 
headache?-

                                         -Cheers,-
                                           -BvS-
--
Wonko
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:57:16 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--The Sushi is fine. My problem is with people looking for
problems.--

But isn't that the point, my dear Baron?

---Ah, Voice, it is one thing to search for problems in the game, or with 
this maddening Sushi. It's not even cooked fully... Anyway, it is quite 
another to search for problems in your fellow players, like how they fail to 
Sushificate eir votes. Wouldn't you agree, O Voice, that picking over the 
rules for some time is far less conducive to injured players than picking 
over the personalities of one's gamemates?

      That's not the first time today I've talked to a bodiless voice...

      Yes, I know sushi isn't cooked. That was a joke, or attempt at 
such.---

                                          -Cheers,-
                                            -BvS-

-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

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Status update
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:24:36 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Okay, from my first glance at "Aah..." I believe it passes.
>Since that turns the Clock off for seven days, I won't feel too bad about 
>not getting to vote counting and the last 60+ email messages 'til later 
>tonight. I'm gonna go eat dinner now, and enjoy it, darnit.  A whole stack 
>of recognitions will follow the pizza and chili dogs.
>...dave

You won't read this for a while, but have a nice 'relaxed' week.  I know I 
will.

-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.

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:45:11 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>--The Sushi is fine. My problem is with people looking for
>problems.--
>
>But isn't that the point, my dear Baron?
>
>---Ah, Voice, it is one thing to search for problems in the game, or with
>this maddening Sushi. It's not even cooked fully... Anyway, it is quite
>another to search for problems in your fellow players, like how they fail 
>to
>Sushificate eir votes. Wouldn't you agree, O Voice, that picking over the
>rules for some time is far less conducive to injured players than picking
>over the personalities of one's gamemates?
>
>      That's not the first time today I've talked to a bodiless voice...
>
>      Yes, I know sushi isn't cooked. That was a joke, or attempt at
>such.---
>
>                                          -Cheers,-
>                                            -BvS-

Feh.

-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.*

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 7
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:58:28 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--The Sushi is fine. My problem is with people looking for
problems.--

But isn't that the point, my dear Baron?

---Ah, Voice, it is one thing to search for problems in the game, or
with this maddening Sushi. It's not even cooked fully... Anyway, it is
quite another to search for problems in your fellow players, like how they 
fail to Sushificate eir votes. Wouldn't you agree, O Voice, that picking 
over the rules for some time is far less conducive to injured players than 
picking over the personalities of one's gamemates?

      That's not the first time today I've talked to a bodiless
voice...

      Yes, I know sushi isn't cooked. That was a joke, or attempt at
such.---

                                          -Cheers,-
                                            -BvS-

Feh.

-<Shall I take your dismissal as tacit agreement, the O his use is and 
almost eps with far between the existence it will ask, it respected, as we 
say where I come from?>-

-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.*

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:52:37 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule inside
  this game?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 10:38 PM 2002-02-12 -0500, you wrote:
>The ma which it sees, I am contributing,!
>
>{{
>__I Have Found the Solution!__
>
>Create a new rule which reads:
>
>{{
>__You say Proosal, I say Proposal__
>
>At the time of this rule's passing, all instances of the word "proosal" in 
>the current ruleset shall be replaced with the word "proposal." Should a 
>rule with the word "proosal" in it be proposed, all instances of the word 
>"proosal" shall be changed to "proposal," except in rule 259.
>[[That fixes the problem without causing semantic nightmares, which I'm 
>good at making...]]
>
>At the time of this rule's passing, "proposing a rule with the word 
>"proosal" in it, unless that proposal is an amendment" shall be added to 
>the LOGAS.
>}}

Two points, one substantial, one aesthetic:

1)  You can't propose anything as the Clock is Off (methinks)
2)  You don't have to make a rule that does that.  Just place the actions 
in the proposal body, and don't bother cluttering up the ruleset.  Some 
people might vote against this just for that bit.

Oh.... and you didn't close the proposal properly.  Moot point seeing as 
how you can't currently propose though.

Bean

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule insid
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:05:23 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Two points, one substantial, one aesthetic:

1)  You can't propose anything as the Clock is Off (methinks)
2)  You don't have to make a rule that does that.  Just place the actions
in the proposal body, and don't bother cluttering up the ruleset.  Some
people might vote against this just for that bit.

Oh.... and you didn't close the proposal properly.  Moot point seeing as
how you can't currently propose though.

Bean

-If I already responded, ignore this message. My comp and Hotmail are both 
acting really odd.

First, oops. Fine, I don't propose it, I will when the Clock turns on.

Second, how can I not make a rule doing this? I don't follow what you're 
saying at all. How is this /cluttering/ the ruleset? The entire ruleset is 
in and of itself massive clutter! Example: the Sushi I hold...

Lastly, how did I not close properly, and how do I do so?-

                                           -BvS-

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

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:09:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule inside this
 game?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> {{
> __Amputate__
> 
> Rule 2 5 9
> It gives me a big headache
> It shall be repealed
> }}

Unfortunately your first line is only four syllables.  Perhaps we should
have the admin rectify it to be "Rule two-fifty-nine"?

Dan

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:29:40 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Two new Proposals.  Gremlins go wild!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Clock is Off.  No proposing.

Sincerely,

Bean
Keeper of the Time, Defender of the Clock, High Lord of Continuity.

P.S. No ass kicking, the Clock is Off :P

At 11:04 PM 2002-02-12 -0500, you wrote:
>  <A bunch of proposals>

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:35:09 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to
  present a rule insid
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:05 PM 2002-02-12 -0500, you wrote:

>-If I already responded, ignore this message. My comp and Hotmail are both 
>acting really odd.

Nope, looks good to me.

>First, oops. Fine, I don't propose it, I will when the Clock turns on.

Minor point really.... I'm just hoping people start realising we're not 
doing anything for a week :)

>Second, how can I not make a rule doing this? I don't follow what you're 
>saying at all. How is this /cluttering/ the ruleset? The entire ruleset is 
>in and of itself massive clutter! Example: the Sushi I hold...

Well, proposals can do other things than making rules... You could just 
say, for example:

{{
__This is not a proposal__

Do thing 1.

Do thing 2.

}}

And no rule gets made, but the actions get completed.

>Lastly, how did I not close properly, and how do I do so?-

You just missed a '}}' at the end of your first proposal, that's all.  The 
Admin would have likely rectified it anyways.  Just fulfilling my duty as 
the Nitpicking King of Morons. :)

Cheers,

Bean

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:57:49 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule insid
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:05:23PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> Two points, one substantial, one aesthetic:
> 
> 1)  You can't propose anything as the Clock is Off (methinks)

This runs disturbingly contrary to the idea of Nomic.

I believe the Suber ruleset says something like "It may never become
entirely illegal to modify the rules". I know we don't use this rule,
and that this state is only temporary, but my impression is that the
Nomic is basically ceasing to exist for seven days.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:38:50 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the
  Haiku Bonus
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/12/02 at 9:01 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>-Oh hell. Is this going to result in me being Sushiied for a long time,
>held 
>at zero points for a long time, kicked in the ass, or given a major 
>headache?-

No wager on the headache.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:41:11 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule
  inside this game?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/12/02 at 10:38 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>{{
>__Another Way to Remove a Splinter__
>
>Create a rule which reads:
>
>{{
>__Amputate__
>
>Rule 2 5 9
>It gives me a big headache
>It shall be repealed
>}}
>
>[[I didn't want to affix this to the other one. It's more than one rule 
>change, and I didn't want the whole defeated because people don't agree
>with 
>one part. Oh, "2 5 9" is three syllables, and refers to two hundred fifty 
>nine, for those of you who might argue that point.]]
>
>                                               -BvS-

Er, yes, but "rule" is one syllable.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:20:12 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Proosals.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[ The Rule ]]
> 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".
> [[ ]]
>
> This means that whenever you see the word 'proposal', it should be treated
> as if it were 'proosal'.
>
And vice versa.

> An analogy would be when, while doing algebra, you
> state that x is equivalent to 3. If x was already defined to be 5, then you
> haven't just defined 3 to be equivalent to 5. You've redefined the value of
> x. So by stating that 'proposal' is equivalent to 'proosal', that means that
> the value of 'proposal' is now 'proosal'. You have not, in any way, changed
> the definition of proosal, any more than you would have changed the
> definition of 3 in algebra.
>
That's a really, *really* bad analogy. A better one: you state that x and y are equivalent (which is *not* the same as "let x = y" in a(n imperative) programming language). If x was already defined to be 5, then now so is y. "Proposal" and "proosal" are both words, which in your analogy are variables. You're treating them as if "proposal" were a variable, and "proosal" a value. The values are the meanings of the words, as distinct from the words themselves (or the strings of characters that compose them, if you prefer). Now, you might run into problems if you try to set "proposal" and "CFJ" to be equivalent (since now either word would mean what both words mean) but since "proosal" has no meaning, there are no such problems here.

> Or, if the rule were interpreted to mean proposal=proosal, then the rule is
> a paradox, because it isn't true. The triple equal thingy is a comparison
> operator, not an assignment operator, to use programming terminology.
>
No. It's not saying "x=y". It's more like saying "let x=y"; changing things so that it is true, not asserting that it is.

> Anyhow, this isn't just an attempt to cause your 'scam' to fail  I agree
> with your 'scam', and if you fix the CFJ to use the right word, I'd judge it
> TRUE. Your 'scam' just drew attention to this problem, which has always been
> a problem.
>
It's not a scam, it's an accident. But if you're convinced that the rule is completely meaningless, then "proosal" would fall under the standard "unambiguous misspeeling" thing (which we don't have in the rules, but I'm pretty sure we do in game custom (as all my proosals have been accepted as proposals)) as an unambiguous misspeeling of "proposal".

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, 13 Feb 2002 08:27:47 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A solution to the Haiku Bonus
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Also, if my attempt did work, The Baron's attempt to take 1000 points from
> me still wouldn't, 'cause my score would be zero (post-win reset). Thus,
> giving -1000 points to me would reduce my score below zero, which is
> illegal.
No, I think it'd still work. I mean, it doesn't, because it's just silly, but if your attempt worked, then there's nothing to stop me from giving you -100000000 points. Your score wouldn't go below 0, that's all. Of course, I couldn't *take* any points from you... and no, this doesn't really make sense, but it doesn't matter, because (at least) rule 150 prevents this from working, as you didn't own negative points.

> (which actually seems to be a bit of a problem... If somebody CFJ'd
> the Baron right now that he had Denied the Undeniable, the Judge would be
> forced to judge FALSE, because it would be illegal to judge true, as that
> would reduce Baron's score to negative). (Actually, that gives me an
> idea...)
No. "Whenever a rule states that a player loses points, the number of points in eir possession shall be lowered accordingly, but it shall never become less than zero.". Which takes precedence, so judging true is fine, it just won't reduce the Baron's score (below 0).

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, 13 Feb 2002 08:36:22 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to
    present a rule inside this game?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Two points, one substantial, one aesthetic:
>
> 1)  You can't propose anything as the Clock is Off (methinks)
>
Nor, I feel compelled to point out, did he sushi the message. ;-)

Actually, in the sushied message where he changed his name, was the *name* sushied? It looked suspiciously untranslated to me...

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, 13 Feb 2002 08:10:43 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my proposals for the nweek
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > {{
> > Add "Self-important use of Latin, especially in signature 
> lines" to the LOGAS.
> > }}
> 
> Sorry about that... I put all those on my list of random 
> signatures and then
> just forgot about them. I'll turn 'em off.

S'arright.  It only irks me because I know a smattering of Latin myself--just enough to halfway understand most of them, and then I have to go rifle the dictionary to figure out the rest.  If I knew no Latin at all, I'd just be suitably impressed and leave it at that.  

> *sigh* I don't like all these things that make people exempt 
> from all the
> Grid stuff. I think it would be more fun and more interesting 
> if people had
> to work around things instead of just flat-out ignoring them. 

Good point, but in this case I thought it seemed a fair trade for making the game more interesting.  I figure the time and effort to provide commentary should just about match the effort of keeping up with GremBall.  

And I'd rather exempt someone from GremBall for an nweek than hand out free points just for being chosen as Commentator at random.  

Besides, we have so much Grid stuff now that exemption from just one thing isn't really much of an exemption.

> It might make more sense if you said 'the first three lines' 
> instead of 'the
> first paragraph', because I think technically the paragraph 
> ends at the new
> line, so this would make it look like

Good call.  Thanks!

> -- 
> 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.

Now that's more like it!  

--Scoff!

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:14:24 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Status update
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Pizza *and* chili dogs...bravo!  That's the way to celebrate!

Enjoy your breather--you've earned it.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-business: Status update
> 
> 
> Okay, from my first glance at "Aah..." I believe it passes.
> 
> Since that turns the Clock off for seven days, I won't feel 
> too bad about
> not getting to vote counting and the last 60+ email messages 
> 'til later
> tonight. I'm gonna go eat dinner now, and enjoy it, darnit.
> 
> A whole stack of recognitions will follow the pizza and chili dogs.
> 
> ..dave

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:25:00 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Two new Proposals.  Gremlins go wild!
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Notwithstanding the issue of whether you can propose these now or not, the Swarm Gremlins won't work unless you find a way to specify a unique Gremlin name for each one.  'All Gremlins must have unique names, in the form of "the **** Gremlin", where **** is a string of at least 1 alphanumeric character.'

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:05 PM
> To: 'nomic-business'
> Subject: spoon-business: Two new Proposals. Gremlins go wild!
> 
> 
> {{
> __The Gremlin Factory__
> Enact a new rule:
> {{
> __The Factory__
> There Exists a Factory.  The Factory is an immovable, 
> impassable object.
> A Player who is adjacent to the Factory on the Grid may press 
> the purple
> button on the Factory.  The first time this is done on any nday the
> Factory shall produce a Swarm Gremlin.  The Administrator 
> shall place the
> newly created gremlin on the Grid at the location of the 
> player who was
> responsible for its creation.
> }}
> 
> Enact a new rule:  
> {{ __Swarm Gremlins__ 
> 
> Swarm Gremlins are Gremlins.  
> They may be created, modified, and destroyed only as specified by the
> Rules.  
> }} 

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:54:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: B Nomic Discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proposal 376
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Er, could someone forward me a copy of Proposal 376, so that I 
can take care of my CFJ?

thanks.

-klk

-- 
[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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:56:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: B Nomic Discuss <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Oops, never mind.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I forgot about the handy "historical stuff" link.

-klk

-- 
[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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:31:26 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nweek 7 vote results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/13/02 at 7:14 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>377/1 passes (6-4-1).
>I much preferred the version created by 375, but what the hell.
>Created 129/2.
>Just to test it out, I declare that the gamestate is Blue.
>Uncle Psychosis scores 12 points.

I just want to say that I object to the passage of this proposal.  I still distrust the whole look-behind concept.  I think it's gonna bite us in the butt on or about 20 days from now.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:40:11 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my
  proposals for the nweek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/13/02 at 8:10 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>S'arright.  It only irks me because I know a smattering of Latin
>myself--just enough to halfway understand most of them, and then I have to
>go rifle the dictionary to figure out the rest.  If I knew no Latin at
>all, I'd just be suitably impressed and leave it at that.  

Really?  So I could just pick a random work of Cicero, use each sentence in order in my signature, and that'd be enough to impress someone? :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:41:59 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my proposals for the nweek
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It'd be enough to impress someone who didn't know any better.  Which is the vast majority of American citizens, at least when it comes to Latin.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:40 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my
> proposals for the nweek
> 
> 
> On 2/13/02 at 8:10 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> 
> >S'arright.  It only irks me because I know a smattering of Latin
> >myself--just enough to halfway understand most of them, and 
> then I have to
> >go rifle the dictionary to figure out the rest.  If I knew 
> no Latin at
> >all, I'd just be suitably impressed and leave it at that.  
> 
> Really?  So I could just pick a random work of Cicero, use 
> each sentence in order in my signature, and that'd be enough 
> to impress someone? :)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:42:00 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Judgment on CFJ 388
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/13/02 at 9:08 AM Karin L. Kross wrote:

>CFJ 388 (Judge: Congenital Optimist)
>CFJ by Uncle Psychosis
>
>> Statement: Uncle Psychosis got 10 points for submitting proosal 
>> 376. 
>> 
>> Defendant: Glotmorf 
>> 
>> Rule 357 states: 
>> Players submiting
>> Proposals in haiku form
>> Earn 10 extra points
>> 
>> 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." 
>>
>> To me, that reads as 10 points for submitting it, and another 
>> 10 if it passes. 
>
>Ruling: FALSE
>
>Analysis: Cloudy though the wording of the original rule may be, 
>it seems fairly clear to me that the intention was to use the 
>haiku as an introduction, and the prose paragraph as a full 
>explanation.  The prose paragraph seems clear to me: "earns 10 
>Score points _if the proposal is adopted_" (emphasis mine). 
>
>
>-Congenital Optimist

Since I was named as defendant, can I counter-sue for punitive damages? :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:43:49 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Judgment on CFJ 388
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Spoken like a true, red-blooded, excessively-litigious American.  It's good to see you're not letting the terrorists win.  ;-)

--Scoff!

> Since I was named as defendant, can I counter-sue for 
> punitive damages? :)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:13 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nweek 7 vote results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I think it's gonna bite us in the butt on or about 20 days from now.
>
How?

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, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:39 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Judgment on CFJ 388
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Ruling: FALSE
>
> Analysis: Cloudy though the wording of the original rule may be, 
> it seems fairly clear to me that the intention was to use the 
> haiku as an introduction, and the prose paragraph as a full 
> explanation.  The prose paragraph seems clear to me: "earns 10 
> Score points _if the proposal is adopted_" (emphasis mine). 
>
That may well have been the intention, but I think it's a very poor precedent to use the *intention* of a rule, when than what it actually *says* contradicts it.

Appeal forthcoming (can I do that when the clock is stopped?).

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: I it will be able to present a rule
 inside this game?
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:43:45 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > {{
 > __Amputate__
 >
 > Rule 2 5 9
 > It gives me a big headache
 > It shall be repealed
 > }}

Unfortunately your first line is only four syllables.  Perhaps we should
have the admin rectify it to be "Rule two-fifty-nine"?

Dan

-Well, as I can't propose anyway, thank you Bean, it doesn't need rectifying 
by the admin. Also, it's pronounced "RU-el" where I'm from. Two syllables. 
Of course, I suppose in some accents it could be "rul..." Okay, can some 
other people give input? I'll go with public opinion on this one.-

                                        -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:52:50 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a ruleinside this game?
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Definitely one syllable.  I checked a couple of different dictionaries to verify the 2-syllable pronunciation isn't recognized as an alternate.  You can also visit m-w.com to check it out.  Regional accents aside, "rule" is a one-syllable word.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Truelsen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to
> present a ruleinside this game?
> 
> 
>  > {{
>  > __Amputate__
>  >
>  > Rule 2 5 9
>  > It gives me a big headache
>  > It shall be repealed
>  > }}
> 
> Unfortunately your first line is only four syllables.  
> Perhaps we should
> have the admin rectify it to be "Rule two-fifty-nine"?
> 
> Dan
> 
> -Well, as I can't propose anyway, thank you Bean, it doesn't 
> need rectifying 
> by the admin. Also, it's pronounced "RU-el" where I'm from. 
> Two syllables. 
> Of course, I suppose in some accents it could be "rul..." 
> Okay, can some 
> other people give input? I'll go with public opinion on this one.-
> 
>                                         -BvS-
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:24:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nweek 7 vote results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I just want to say that I object to the passage of this proposal.  I
> still distrust the whole look-behind concept.  I think it's gonna bite
> us in the butt on or about 20 days from now.
> 
> 						Glotmorf

I completely agree.   I have been suspiscious of this thing from the
start, and I have fought valiantly to keep it from coming to pass.  We are
heading for a crash now.

Dan

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:39:34 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nweek 7 vote results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I just want to say that I object to the passage of this proposal.  I
> > still distrust the whole look-behind concept.  I think it's gonna bite
> > us in the butt on or about 20 days from now.
> > 
> > 						Glotmorf
> 
> I completely agree.   I have been suspiscious of this thing from the
> start, and I have fought valiantly to keep it from coming to pass.  We are
> heading for a crash now.
>
Again, how? I've yet to see a single coherent example of how rule 129 (as opposed to some bizarre misinterpretation thereof) will cause problems. Even Chicken Little had *some* evidence.

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, 13 Feb 2002 13:58:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > I completely agree.  I have been suspiscious of this thing from the
> > start, and I have fought valiantly to keep it from coming to pass.  
> We are > heading for a crash now. 

> Again, how? I've yet to see a single coherent example of how rule 129
> (as opposed to some bizarre misinterpretation thereof) will cause
> problems. Even Chicken Little had *some* evidence.

How's this for starters:  if the Administrator makes an arithmetical error
and gives a player 5 extra points and nobody catches it then the simplest
way to make it consistant would be to add a rule which allows the
administrator to give players points at will.  And that's not a gross
misinterpretation of the rule.  We wouldn't know until 20 days later when
someone pointed it out as part of a scam that the point system was
entirely broken.  And that's a relatively minor thing.  What happens if
the Admin misnumbers one of the rules?  *shudder*

My problem with it is not that it gives to the Admin the power to
summarily overrule player actions.  The problem is that it makes it too
easy for the game state to get accidentally shagged in game-breaking ways,
and that we won't find out for 20 days.

There that's a specific case in which the new rule 129 could be abused.
And it could be happening already for all I know.  we are heading for a
crash as soon as we get back from the pause.

Also (although this is fixable) it should use ndays not days.  Because if
the clock is stopped for 20 days there is no way we can keep the admin
from saying whatever e likes about the game state.

Dan

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:09:15 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Again, how? I've yet to see a single coherent example of how rule 129
> > (as opposed to some bizarre misinterpretation thereof) will cause
> > problems. Even Chicken Little had *some* evidence.
>
> How's this for starters:  if the Administrator makes an arithmetical error
> and gives a player 5 extra points and nobody catches it then the simplest
> way to make it consistant would be to add a rule which allows the
> administrator to give players points at will.
>
Uh... what on earth are you talking about? Where does the rule say *anything* about making stuff consistent? All it says is that the game is changed to what if would be had what the admin said been true - that is, it's changed so that the player has 5 extra points. Which is, anyway, a simpler way of making things consistent.

>  And that's not a gross
> misinterpretation of the rule.
>
Yes, it is!

>  We wouldn't know until 20 days later when
> someone pointed it out as part of a scam that the point system was
> entirely broken.  And that's a relatively minor thing.  What happens if
> the Admin misnumbers one of the rules?  *shudder*
>
If the admin misnumbers a rule (in a message to all players, anyway - the webpage doesn't count), then the rule just gets renumbered to what he said after 20 days (effectively, though not actually, retroactively to the time he said it).

> My problem with it is not that it gives to the Admin the power to
> summarily overrule player actions.
>
Good, because it doesn't. ;-)

>  The problem is that it makes it too
> easy for the game state to get accidentally shagged in game-breaking ways,
> and that we won't find out for 20 days.
>
One of the things it does is allow the admin to *fix* the game if it's broken.

>
> There that's a specific case in which the new rule 129 could be abused.
> And it could be happening already for all I know.  we are heading for a
> crash as soon as we get back from the pause.
>
Again, I await a coherent example. ;-)

> Also (although this is fixable) it should use ndays not days.  Because if
> the clock is stopped for 20 days there is no way we can keep the admin
> from saying whatever e likes about the game state.
>
It deliberately avoids ndays. It should probably allow objections when the clock is off, though. So that's one problem...

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, 13 Feb 2002 14:48:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my proposals
 for the nweek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Bean

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> It'd be enough to impress someone who didn't know any better.  Which is the vast majority of American citizens, at least when it comes to Latin.
> 
> --Scoff!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:40 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Using the rest of my
> > proposals for the nweek
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/13/02 at 8:10 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> > 
> > >S'arright.  It only irks me because I know a smattering of Latin
> > >myself--just enough to halfway understand most of them, and 
> > then I have to
> > >go rifle the dictionary to figure out the rest.  If I knew 
> > no Latin at
> > >all, I'd just be suitably impressed and leave it at that.  
> > 
> > Really?  So I could just pick a random work of Cicero, use 
> > each sentence in order in my signature, and that'd be enough 
> > to impress someone? :)
> > 
> > 						Glotmorf
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:03:44 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Apart from the 1 nweek, 2 nweek time difference, I see no major difference between the bug fixing proposal alone and the same proposal with Uncle Psychosis's rule 129 mod.  

In either event, if the admin makes a mistake, someone must notice it and call attention to it within a set amount of time.

In either event, if no one notices, said mistake becomes irreversible if not noticed within that timeframe.

In either event, the Admin is free to report whatever incorrect information about the game state e likes -- for example, that a Gremlin is "flaming".  And we are free to either say "That's OK", or challenge what has been said.

However, in either event there are limits on that power, because Rule 10 requires the Admin to abide by all the rules.  So the Admin is barred from misrepresenting the game state in an illegal fashion.  E can assign bogus attributes to Gremlins (or call the gamestate blue), but e can't break the rules by, for example, resetting everyone's score to zero in a situation that doesn't require it.  This works despite Rule 129 claiming precedence over Rule 10, because Rule 10 has higher Chutzpah.  Even if the precedence doesn't work, if the admin is regularly breaking the rules, we'll all just quit playing because a rigged game is no fun, so it's in eir best interest not to do so.

Therefore, this is the precise difference between the situation with / without Uncle Psychosis's mod to Rule 129:

You either get 1 nweek or 2 nweeks to complain.

That's it.

Anyone care to demonstrate something I've missed?

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom
> 
> 
> > > I completely agree.  I have been suspiscious of this 
> thing from the
> > > start, and I have fought valiantly to keep it from coming 
> to pass.  
> > We are > heading for a crash now. 
> 
> > Again, how? I've yet to see a single coherent example of 
> how rule 129
> > (as opposed to some bizarre misinterpretation thereof) will cause
> > problems. Even Chicken Little had *some* evidence.
> 
> How's this for starters:  if the Administrator makes an 
> arithmetical error
> and gives a player 5 extra points and nobody catches it then 
> the simplest
> way to make it consistant would be to add a rule which allows the
> administrator to give players points at will.  And that's not a gross
> misinterpretation of the rule.  We wouldn't know until 20 
> days later when
> someone pointed it out as part of a scam that the point system was
> entirely broken.  And that's a relatively minor thing.  What 
> happens if
> the Admin misnumbers one of the rules?  *shudder*
> 
> My problem with it is not that it gives to the Admin the power to
> summarily overrule player actions.  The problem is that it 
> makes it too
> easy for the game state to get accidentally shagged in 
> game-breaking ways,
> and that we won't find out for 20 days.
> 
> There that's a specific case in which the new rule 129 could 
> be abused.
> And it could be happening already for all I know.  we are 
> heading for a
> crash as soon as we get back from the pause.
> 
> Also (although this is fixable) it should use ndays not days. 
>  Because if
> the clock is stopped for 20 days there is no way we can keep the admin
> from saying whatever e likes about the game state.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule insid
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:37:45 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > Two points, one substantial, one aesthetic:
 >
 > 1)  You can't propose anything as the Clock is Off (methinks)
 >
Nor, I feel compelled to point out, did he sushi the message. ;-)

Actually, in the sushied message where he changed his name, was the *name* 
sushied? It looked suspiciously untranslated to me...

uin.

-I feel compelled to note that you did not pay attention. The first sentence 
and the header were both Sushied. The proposals were not, as that would be 
really stupid, sushiing a proposal... Is there some precedent here? Please? 
Also, when I changed my name, I put the entire message through Babelfish. So 
there. Why, yes, the name /looked/ untranslated, but it went in, it came 
out. Bean's the nitpicker. Don't go trying to take er job away.-

                                           -BvS-
--

_______________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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: Judgment on CFJ 388
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:43:12 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

-Can e do it this nweek? It would do for a bit of amusement...-

                                         -BvS-

Spoken like a true, red-blooded, excessively-litigious American.  It's good 
to see you're not letting the terrorists win.  ;-)

--Scoff!

 > Since I was named as defendant, can I counter-sue for
 > punitive damages? :)
 >
 > 						Glotmorf
 >
 >
 >
 >

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a ruleinside
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:46:18 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Definitely one syllable.  I checked a couple of different dictionaries to 
verify the 2-syllable pronunciation isn't recognized as an alternate.  You 
can also visit m-w.com to check it out.  Regional accents aside, "rule" is a 
one-syllable word.

--Scoff!

-*shrug* Okay. I'll go with that. As it wasn't legal to proppose now, let's 
all forge it happened, and I'll reprposes later with "Rule two-fifty-nine." 
Who suggested that again? I transfer to em 10 points in thanks.-

                                             -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:48:23 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule insid
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The precedent was very admirably set by Rob (aka Plunder), creator of the Sushi, who not only Sushied his proposal while in possession of the Sushi, but actually managed to get it *passed*.  And without resorting to any of the tricks I mentioned previously.

For reference, here is Plunder's lovely proposal:

"Proposal 223/0:Sushi

I present the paragraph which comes after. 

Inside 213th rule, word " official forum " remove. Inside that place, rule 28's 31st with 32nd word insert. "

As for the idea of Sushiing a proposal, it's not stupid.  It wouldn't be a very good curse if it didn't have some negative consequences.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Truelsen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to
> present a rule insid
> 
> 
>  > Two points, one substantial, one aesthetic:
>  >
>  > 1)  You can't propose anything as the Clock is Off (methinks)
>  >
> Nor, I feel compelled to point out, did he sushi the message. ;-)
> 
> Actually, in the sushied message where he changed his name, 
> was the *name* 
> sushied? It looked suspiciously untranslated to me...
> 
> uin.
> 
> -I feel compelled to note that you did not pay attention. The 
> first sentence 
> and the header were both Sushied. The proposals were not, as 
> that would be 
> really stupid, sushiing a proposal... Is there some precedent 
> here? Please? 
> Also, when I changed my name, I put the entire message 
> through Babelfish. So 
> there. Why, yes, the name /looked/ untranslated, but it went 
> in, it came 
> out. Bean's the nitpicker. Don't go trying to take er job away.-
> 
>                                            -BvS-
> --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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: Nweek 7 vote results
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:50:11 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > I just want to say that I object to the passage of this proposal.  I
 > still distrust the whole look-behind concept.  I think it's gonna bite
 > us in the butt on or about 20 days from now.
 >
 > 						Glotmorf

I completely agree.   I have been suspiscious of this thing from the
start, and I have fought valiantly to keep it from coming to pass.  We are
heading for a crash now.

Dan

-Good news and bad news, I suppose. Good news: We have 20 days to find and 
plug the loophole. Bad news: There is only one vote in that time. So work 
fast. And repeal it.-

                                          -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I it will be able to present a rule insid
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:57:20 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The precedent was very admirably set by Rob (aka Plunder), creator of the 
Sushi, who not only Sushied his proposal while in possession of the Sushi, 
but actually managed to get it *passed*.  And without resorting to any of 
the tricks I mentioned previously.

For reference, here is Plunder's lovely proposal:

"Proposal 223/0:Sushi

I present the paragraph which comes after.

Inside 213th rule, word " official forum " remove. Inside that place, rule 
28's 31st with 32nd word insert. "

As for the idea of Sushiing a proposal, it's not stupid.  It wouldn't be a 
very good curse if it didn't have some negative consequences.

--Scoff!

-Fine, but you can't Sushi a haiku and expect it to come out right. *sigh* I 
guess I'll have to give up the thing... well, give it to someone. While 
sushiing the message- this could be rather interesting. Oh well.-

                                              -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:15:12 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: nweek-transition stuff
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> The Voice moves N to (6,5). E threw the PIG to Antonio when e was Off
> Leave, but now e's On Leave and therefore not a legal target for the PIG.
> Lacking a better idea, I decree that the PIG simply lands at Antonio's
> location. (If the rules actually define this, lemme know.)

I actually think that since it was legal for Voice to chuck the PIG when e
did it, it hits Antonio anyway. If Antonio didn't want to be hit, e should
have either caught it or gone On Leave before it was thrown.

-- 
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:20:12 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Predictions of Doom and Gloom
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

> If the admin misnumbers a rule (in a message to all players, anyway - the
> webpage doesn't count), then the rule just gets renumbered to what he said
> after 20 days (effectively, though not actually, retroactively to the time he
> said it).
> 

But what if the Admin says something like ""Bean sucks, but Vows of Poverty
don't" is 393/0."? That's an almost exact quote from a recent recognizer,
except with a typo in the number. 20 days after this hit the forums, the
All-Important Default case would suddenly cease to exist, because it would
turn into "Bean sucks, but Vows of Poverty don't". That's probably bad...
Not only would it destroy the Default case, but it would also wreak havoc on
the filing system by suddenly turning 393/0 into a proposal. A proposal that
had already been voted on, even. Then what?

-- 
Wonko 
There are no stupid questions; just stupid people.

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:06:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> I submit the following proposal 6 days from now:
> 
> __Someday We'll All Look Back On This and Laugh Nervously__
> {{
> Create revisable object 129/3, which is identical to 129/1.
> [[ This undoes uin's proposal, and puts back what Wonko's intended to do
> to 129. ]]
> }}
> 
> [[
> I must make another reference to Godel, Escher, Bach. Uncle P, if you're
> dying to know why your proposal will never work, the chapter
> "Contrafactus" sums it up (it involves Tortoise and Achilles watching
> their Subjunc-TV, which shows exactly what would have happened at
> various stages in a football game if certain contrary-to-fact events had
> occurred.)
> 
> Since we have no Subjunc-TV, we have no way of looking at the
> counterfactual version of the Nomic, where (for example) the proposals
> were numbered differently. Is it a version of the game where one of the
> proposals with conflicting numbers didn't exist? Or a version where
> those two proposals had each other's numbers? Or where all the numbers
> were different? Or a version of the game where a highly efficient but
> silly bunch of players encodes everything about each object in a
> three-digit number, which could be the same as another object's
> three-digit number, and these numbers are then uniquely identified by
> multiple paragraphs of text?
> 
> The rule gives no way to determine this; it only says "what they now
> would be had the statement been true at the time it was made", as if
> there is any deterministic way to tell that.
> 
> If we do not undo this proposal, the game WILL die.
> ]]

(Normally I snip, but doing so in this case could prove bad)

There's only one problem with your logic... the admin is our one view into
the game state.  What he says, we assume to be true.  Therefore, why not
make it true?  (There's also one problem with my argument, in that I
haven't yet read GEB, but that doesn't apply to the next points)

There have finally been flaws pointed out in Uncle Psychosis' proposal
(after all the empty bickering).  Going back to 129/1 isn't going to fix
anything.  It was equally broken, perhaps moreso.  If you're going to do
anything it should be to move in a forwards direction, not a backwards
one.

My Nomic philosophy is: "If it's not *critically* (i.e. not fixable in one
nweek) broken, but it does some good, vote it in and fix it the next
nweek."  I think that's good advice, and we'd do well to follow it.  We've
done that with Uncle Psychosis' version of 129.  It's better than its
predecessor, but not perfect.  *SO*, instead of taking a step back, lets
continue to fix problems.

Not to mention, don't we trust the admin?  Sure he's human and makes
mistakes, but there are many eyes in the game... don't you think we'll
catch it?

Oh, and we've got plenty of time to save the game from "death".  No rush
on this.

Bean

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:58:34 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 08:06:08PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> Not to mention, don't we trust the admin?  Sure he's human and makes
> mistakes, but there are many eyes in the game... don't you think we'll
> catch it?

We'll catch it most of the time. It's the one time we don't catch it
when the rule's counterfactual magic kicks in, and more likely than not
creates a paradox. And if we'll catch it _all_ the time, then what was
the purpose of this proposal?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:33:30 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/13/02 at 8:06 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>There have finally been flaws pointed out in Uncle Psychosis' proposal
>(after all the empty bickering).  Going back to 129/1 isn't going to fix
>anything.  It was equally broken, perhaps moreso.  If you're going to do
>anything it should be to move in a forwards direction, not a backwards
>one.
>
>My Nomic philosophy is: "If it's not *critically* (i.e. not fixable in one
>nweek) broken, but it does some good, vote it in and fix it the next
>nweek."  I think that's good advice, and we'd do well to follow it.  We've
>done that with Uncle Psychosis' version of 129.  It's better than its
>predecessor, but not perfect.  *SO*, instead of taking a step back, lets
>continue to fix problems.
>
>Not to mention, don't we trust the admin?  Sure he's human and makes
>mistakes, but there are many eyes in the game... don't you think we'll
>catch it?
>
>Oh, and we've got plenty of time to save the game from "death".  No rush
>on this.
>
>Bean

I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's proposal is already dead.

See...when I posted that objection about its passage, I was following r129/2, in that I was objecting to Mr. A's statement that the proposal passed.  R129/2 doesn't say that said objection is an action, or even that it has to go to a public forum, but must be a message sent to all players; there's been enough activity on spoon-discuss that I'm fairly confident all players got my message.

And therefore, in about eighteen days, when the game state is adjusted to reflect statements made by Mr. A two days ago, said adjustment won't include the passage and implementation of Uncle Psy's proposal, because I objected to that part of the statement.

At which point, r129/2 will not have been implemented, r129/1 which was brought about by Wonko's passed proposal will be in place, and Uncle Psy will be short by as many points as Mr. A claimed e received.  All in accordance with r129/2.  

Which will have bitten us in the butt within 20 days of its passage, as I said it would. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:15:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Actually, Glotmorf, the very action you have taken is the action which
causes 129/2 to break.

It stops the adoption of 129/2 if we assume that 129/2 has already
been adopted.  But under 129/1 it is not a valid action, and there is no
way to prevent the adoption of 129/2.

This is a paradoxical condition that cannot be resolved under the rules.

We have 20 days from the adoption of rule 129/2 to get rid of it or we
will have to invoke the emergency procedures outlined in rule 0.  I'm not
sure that we have enough time.

My suggestion:  That we allow a game discontinuity and revert to 129/1.
This is exactly the sort of situation I was referring to earlier when I
wrote that in some situations we need to be able to chuck the rules out
the window and rewrite the game as something that is playable.

Vive la revolution!

Dan

> I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's proposal is already dead.
> 
> See...when I posted that objection about its passage, I was following
> r129/2, in that I was objecting to Mr. A's statement that the proposal
> passed.  R129/2 doesn't say that said objection is an action, or even
> that it has to go to a public forum, but must be a message sent to all
> players; there's been enough activity on spoon-discuss that I'm fairly
> confident all players got my message.
> 
> And therefore, in about eighteen days, when the game state is adjusted
> to reflect statements made by Mr. A two days ago, said adjustment
> won't include the passage and implementation of Uncle Psy's proposal,
> because I objected to that part of the statement.
> 
> At which point, r129/2 will not have been implemented, r129/1 which
> was brought about by Wonko's passed proposal will be in place, and
> Uncle Psy will be short by as many points as Mr. A claimed e received.  
> All in accordance with r129/2.
> 
> Which will have bitten us in the butt within 20 days of its passage,
> as I said it would. :)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:00:13 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:15:04AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Actually, Glotmorf, the very action you have taken is the action which
> causes 129/2 to break.
> 
> It stops the adoption of 129/2 if we assume that 129/2 has already
> been adopted.  But under 129/1 it is not a valid action, and there is no
> way to prevent the adoption of 129/2.
> 
> This is a paradoxical condition that cannot be resolved under the rules.
> 
> We have 20 days from the adoption of rule 129/2 to get rid of it or we
> will have to invoke the emergency procedures outlined in rule 0.  I'm not
> sure that we have enough time.
> 
> My suggestion:  That we allow a game discontinuity and revert to 129/1.
> This is exactly the sort of situation I was referring to earlier when I
> wrote that in some situations we need to be able to chuck the rules out
> the window and rewrite the game as something that is playable.

I've heard about AckaNomic. Game discontinuities aren't fun. (Half the
people decided to change the rules outside of the game; the other half
decided to keep playing by those rules. The game split down the middle.)

Is this a problem that a thread split won't solve? Granted, it will be
very ugly, as we will have to split once for each time that 129/2 has
any effect, but we just might make it through to the next nweek and pass
my proposal or one like it.

You know, if Uncle P had meant for 129/2 to have this effect, it would
be a brilliant way to win. Especially since he very charismatically
convinced five people to vote for it. (Yes, I should have objected to it
louder... but given UP's past failed proposals, I really doubted that
such a logic-defying proposal would ever pass.)

But if this really does cause an irreversible descent into paradox, then
it's Glotmorf who gets the win, because he took the pseudo-Action.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille and running into the walls
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:27:30 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>You know, if Uncle P had meant for 129/2 to have this effect, it would
>be a brilliant way to win. Especially since he very charismatically
>convinced five people to vote for it. (Yes, I should have objected to it
>louder... but given UP's past failed proposals, I really doubted that
>such a logic-defying proposal would ever pass.)
>
>But if this really does cause an irreversible descent into paradox, then
>it's Glotmorf who gets the win, because he took the pseudo-Action.
>--
>Rob Speer
>
Actually, I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that if a 
paradoxical condition is caused by a player, that player is awarded a win.  
And, even if there did, rule 0 would take precedence over it, as the two 
would conflict.  The "paradox win" rule would say, "if an unresolveable 
paradoxical condition exists, (a) will happen," and rule zero says, "if an 
unresolveable paradoxical condition exits, (b) will happen."  Rule 0 will 
take precendence (since neither has chutzpah greater than one), and no win 
will be awarded, unless it is part of the refresh proposal which passes.  In 
Suber's original ruleset, there is a provision for a player winning if they 
are unable to complete a turn, but we have no such rule.  If r129/2 really 
is broken, then neither Glormorf nor Uncle Psy will win automatically from 
it.  It will have to get through the other players first.

Wow, that's too much thinking for 7:20 in the morning...

-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.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:57:21 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's
> proposal is already dead.
>
Well... no. Your attempt fails on several levels:

> See...when I posted that objection about its
> passage, I was following r129/2, in that I was
> objecting to Mr. A's statement that the
> proposal passed. 
>
This statement contradicts itself. You said "I object to the passage of this proposal", not "I object to this statement". You were *not* objecting to his statement about the passage of the proosal, you were objecting to the passage of the proosal. Granted, that's easily fixed...

> R129/2 doesn't say that said objection is an
> action, or even that it has to go to a public
> forum, but must be a message sent to all
> players; there's been enough activity on
> spoon-discuss that I'm fairly confident all
> players got my message.
>
...but this has some problems too. While it doesn't *say* that the objection is an action, nor do most of our other rules, and I think that game custom is that any action we take in the game is, in fact, an action. Which would mean that the clock being stopped, and Wonko's (rather broken) version of rule 17 both prevent your action from working (it's certainly a "game-related action", as per rule 3). And even if that were not the case...

> And therefore, in about eighteen days, when the
> game state is adjusted to reflect statements made
> by Mr. A two days ago, said adjustment won't
> include the passage and implementation of Uncle
> Psy's proposal, because I objected to that part of
> the statement.
>
...while this would be fine (had you actually made the objection)... 

> At which point, r129/2 will not have been implemented,
> r129/1 which was brought about by Wonko's passed
> proposal will be in place, and Uncle Psy will be short
> by as many points as Mr. A claimed e received.  All
> in accordance with r129/2.  
>
...it falls over again here. Rule 129/2 doesn't say that things don't happen unless it legalises them; it merely says when it does legalise them. Rule 17 already defines when things take place, so rule 129/2 was created at the end of the voting period, as per r32/8. To claim that things only happen when rule 129/2 legalises them is blatantly ridiculous, as it could never have come into existence were that the case. All your objection, had it occurred, would have done would have been to cause "the usual methods" to apply. Since, under those methods, r129/2 was created, objecting to something which is already legal has no effect.

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, 14 Feb 2002 09:58:43 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I've heard about AckaNomic. Game discontinuities aren't fun. (Half the
> people decided to change the rules outside of the game; the other half
> decided to keep playing by those rules. The game split down the middle.)
>
The problem was that each half thought the other was the one which had changed the rules outside the game. Both halves died shortly afterwards.

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, 14 Feb 2002 09:59:06 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[
> I must make another reference to Godel, Escher, Bach. Uncle P, if you're
> dying to know why your proposal will never work, the chapter
> "Contrafactus" sums it up (it involves Tortoise and Achilles watching
> their Subjunc-TV, which shows exactly what would have happened at
> various stages in a football game if certain contrary-to-fact events had
> occurred.)
>
> Since we have no Subjunc-TV, we have no way of looking at the
> counterfactual version of the Nomic, where (for example) the proposals
> were numbered differently.
>
I'm not so sure that's true. We *do* have a way of looking at the counterfactual nomic - exactly the same way we have of looking at the factual nomic. It's just like if there were a thread split, where one thread is counterfactual. The only way we have of ever knowing what the state of the nomic is is if we work it out; all we need to do is work it out starting from when the previously counterfactual statement was true.

And anyway, even if there is a huge problem, all we need is for the admin to say that the gamestate is what it should have been, and it'll all go away.

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, 14 Feb 2002 11:56:48 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/14/02 at 9:57 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's
>> proposal is already dead.
>>
>Well... no. Your attempt fails on several levels:
>
>> See...when I posted that objection about its
>> passage, I was following r129/2, in that I was
>> objecting to Mr. A's statement that the
>> proposal passed. 
>>
>This statement contradicts itself. You said "I object to the passage of
>this proposal", not "I object to this statement". You were *not* objecting
>to his statement about the passage of the proosal, you were objecting to
>the passage of the proosal. Granted, that's easily fixed...
>
>> R129/2 doesn't say that said objection is an
>> action, or even that it has to go to a public
>> forum, but must be a message sent to all
>> players; there's been enough activity on
>> spoon-discuss that I'm fairly confident all
>> players got my message.
>>
>...but this has some problems too. While it doesn't *say* that the
>objection is an action, nor do most of our other rules, and I think that
>game custom is that any action we take in the game is, in fact, an action.
>Which would mean that the clock being stopped, and Wonko's (rather broken)
>version of rule 17 both prevent your action from working (it's certainly a
>"game-related action", as per rule 3). And even if that were not the
>case...
>
>> And therefore, in about eighteen days, when the
>> game state is adjusted to reflect statements made
>> by Mr. A two days ago, said adjustment won't
>> include the passage and implementation of Uncle
>> Psy's proposal, because I objected to that part of
>> the statement.
>>
>...while this would be fine (had you actually made the objection)... 
>
>> At which point, r129/2 will not have been implemented,
>> r129/1 which was brought about by Wonko's passed
>> proposal will be in place, and Uncle Psy will be short
>> by as many points as Mr. A claimed e received.  All
>> in accordance with r129/2.  
>>
>...it falls over again here. Rule 129/2 doesn't say that things don't
>happen unless it legalises them; it merely says when it does legalise
>them. Rule 17 already defines when things take place, so rule 129/2 was
>created at the end of the voting period, as per r32/8. To claim that
>things only happen when rule 129/2 legalises them is blatantly ridiculous,
>as it could never have come into existence were that the case. All your
>objection, had it occurred, would have done would have been to cause "the
>usual methods" to apply. Since, under those methods, r129/2 was created,
>objecting to something which is already legal has no effect.
>
>uin.

Nice try, but you forget the last sentence of your 129/2: "This rule takes precedence over all other rules."  That means it takes precedence over r16, which says actions may only be taken in public fora.  It takes precedence over r17, which says actions have to be recognized by the administrator.  It takes precedence over r3, which says actions can't be taken when the clock is off.  It even takes precedence over r204, which says a rule can't affect events prior to its adoption.  And if "game custom" is considered an unwritten rule, r129/2 takes precedence over that too.

In addition, the phrasing of the rule suggests that it is the rule's intent to not follow game custom.  Most rules, after all, talk about actions taken, messages posted to the public forum, etc., while r129/2 specifically talks about messages sent to all players, as opposed to actions or forum postings.  R129/2 doesn't even say my objection has to be recognized under the existing system for rendering judgments, which would involve a forum posting; it merely requires that I object.

As for "the usual methods of determining the game state", there's no definition of exactly what those are.  My dictionary defines "usual" as meaning "commonly met with or observed in experience."  The methods we've most commonly met with or observed in experience are the administrator announcing that a proposal is recognized, the administrator announcing the vote tally, the administrator announcing the passage of a given proposal, and the administrator updating the website's rule list.  That's the usual method.  If I object to any of these statements by the administrator, the usual method becomes simultaneously illegal and required.

So let's just make it official, as per your r129/2:

I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 passed.
I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 received six affirmative votes.
What the hell...I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 was recognized and part of the ballot.

That'll pull the horizon a bit closer, since the proposal was recognized as on the ballot three days before it was implemented.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:56:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yoiks!

Okay.  With all that's followed out of this I think I've been convinced
that Rule 129/2 is still broken.  However, UP already showed that 129/1
was equally if not moreso broken.  So let's not try to go around breaking
the game more, instead let's try to fix it.

The facts as I see them:
- 129/2 is better than 129/1: 129/1 was seriously broken.  There was no
recourse to any action taken by a player as there was no mention of CFJs
in it.  If we go back to that, I'll just repeal all the rules after 100 
and wait a week for it to happen.  Yes, I'll be that much of a jerk (all
this back-to-129/1 talk is starting to piss me off, and I've had a bad
morning).

- 129/2 is flawed:  I think that the attempt to make it a paradox-solving
rule as well may have made it a little more powerful than it should be, as
people are currently pointing out.

- Yoda: "There is another..." ... way of determining game state that is...
CFJs.  So Glotmorf, we have one more way outside of the Admin saying
stuff.  So we need to make sure that CFJs are "untouchable" by the
Statute.  Then we're safe.

- We have a paradox recovery mechanism:  Therefore Rule 129 does not need
to try to serve that role anymore as well.

- Impatience is a flaw:  People are really rushing on this one.  As broken
as it may be, we're making steps in the right direction. Right now, we've
got a week to sit back and think.  Nothing is happening for another few
days.  So lets all calm down and discuss this first, rather than getting
way ahead of things with statements like "Well, I propose this as soon as
I can".  I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
*doing*."  So let's slow down in the here and now, there is no rush.

So what we need to do now is sit back, think, then make a proposal that
*fixes* 129/2, *not* one that goes back to the *broken* 129/1.  Here's my
suggestion:

<proposal_draft note="NOT A REAL PROPOSAL">
<title>Fixing the Statue... I mean Statute</title>
<body>
Revise Rule 129 in the following manner:

- Replace "20 days" with "2 nweeks"
- Replace "in a message to all players" with "in a public forum"
- Replace "any player objects to the statement in a message to all
players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
and game state shall apply" with "a CFJ is made naming the
Administrator as defendant which calls into question the statement, in
which case the rules governing CFJs shall apply"
- Remove "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
- Give it a Chutzpah of 8
</body>
</proposal_draft>

What do people think of that?  Let's negotiate, try to fix this problem,
and whatever comes of this proposal I'll submit it as soon as the Clock is
back On.

Cheers,

Bean

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:59:34 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Nice try, but you forget the last sentence of your
> 129/2: "This rule takes precedence over all other
> rules."
>
I don't forget it; it's not relevant. Precedence only applies when there's conflict - it doesn't mean that a higher precedence rule completely disregards everything in a lower one. Unless rule 129 says something which contradicts an earlier rule, precedence doesn't come into it.

> That means it takes precedence over r16, which
> says actions may only be taken in public fora. 
>
That's not what rule 16 says. It says "Actions may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules." So, although rule 129 says they may be taken elsewhere, there's no conflict here, and hence precedence is irrelevant.

> It takes precedence over r17, which says actions have
> to be recognized by the administrator.
>
It would do, except that it doesn't say that objections need not be recognised, so there's no conflict, and hence precedence is irrelevant.

> It takes precedence over r3, which says actions can't
> be taken when the clock is off.
>
Again, there's no conflict, and hence precedence is irrelevant.

> It even takes precedence over r204, which says a rule
> can't affect events prior to its adoption. 
>
Again, there's no conflict, as it doesn't try to.

> And if "game custom" is considered an unwritten rule,
> r129/2 takes precedence over that too.
>
It's not, though. It's considered to be (wait for it) the customs of the game. And anyway, *all* rules take precedence over it.

> In addition, the phrasing of the rule suggests that it is
> the rule's intent to not follow game custom.
>
Uh... what?

> Most rules, after all, talk about actions taken, messages
> posted to the public forum, etc., while r129/2 specifically
> talks about messages sent to all players, as opposed to
> actions or forum postings.
>
Yes, it does. That's because it's doing something quite different from most rules (which is itself true of most rules). So what? Just because it does something that's not customary doesn't mean that the things it does do shouldn't be interepreted in accordance with game custom.

> R129/2 doesn't even say my objection has to be
> recognized under the existing system for rendering
> judgments, which would involve a forum posting; it merely
> requires that I object.
>
It has nothing to do with judgments. Where did that come from?

> As for "the usual methods of determining the game state",
> there's no definition of exactly what those are.
>
Deliberately so.

> My  dictionary defines "usual" as meaning "commonly
> met with or observed in experience." 
>
Uh-huh.

> The methods we've most commonly met with or observed
> in experience are the administrator announcing that a
> proposal is recognized, the administrator announcing the
> vote tally, the administrator announcing the passage of a
> given proposal, and the administrator updating the website's
> rule list.  That's the usual method.
>
That's one usual method. You're forgetting consensus, and of course the CFJ. Don't agree that CFJs do that? Then you can CFJ it, thus neatly proving that they do. ;-)

> If I object to any of these statements by the administrator,
> the usual method becomes simultaneously illegal and
> required.
>
Now we're back to your fallacy that actions aren't legal unless they're made legal by rule 129. Aside from the fact that the admin is only one of the usual methods (and one that can be and has been overriden by CFJs), which means it's not required, it's not illegal. Rule 129 doesn't make what the admin said illegal if you object; it merely doesn't make it legal if it wasn't. If it was legal anyway, your objection has no effect on that.

> So let's just make it official, as per your r129/2:

> I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 passed.
>
So we count the votes, and find that it did.

> I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 received six affirmative votes.
>
Same.

> What the hell...I object to the statement by the administrator
> that p377 was recognized and part of the ballot.
>
So we check, and find that the admin did in fact recognise it (as per the relevant rules, not by means of r129), and so it was.

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, 14 Feb 2002 13:01:05 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and
    much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
> looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
> *doing*."
>
That was Yoda to Luke, about Luke, in Empire (and it was "you", not "he", and associated misquotings).

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, 14 Feb 2002 13:07:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and   
 much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> > I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
> > looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
> > *doing*."
> >
> That was Yoda to Luke, about Luke, in Empire (and it was "you", not "he", and associated misquotings).

Notwithstanding the misquotings, it still applies to the situation (Yes, I
didn't think about it, and yes, you're right)

Bean

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:12:25 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis,
  and much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/14/02 at 12:56 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>Yoiks!
>
>Okay.  With all that's followed out of this I think I've been convinced
>that Rule 129/2 is still broken.  However, UP already showed that 129/1
>was equally if not moreso broken.  So let's not try to go around breaking
>the game more, instead let's try to fix it.
>
>The facts as I see them:
>- 129/2 is better than 129/1: 129/1 was seriously broken.  There was no
>recourse to any action taken by a player as there was no mention of CFJs
>in it.  If we go back to that, I'll just repeal all the rules after 100 
>and wait a week for it to happen.  Yes, I'll be that much of a jerk (all
>this back-to-129/1 talk is starting to piss me off, and I've had a bad
>morning).
>
>- 129/2 is flawed:  I think that the attempt to make it a paradox-solving
>rule as well may have made it a little more powerful than it should be, as
>people are currently pointing out.
>
>- Yoda: "There is another..." ... way of determining game state that is...
>CFJs.  So Glotmorf, we have one more way outside of the Admin saying
>stuff.  So we need to make sure that CFJs are "untouchable" by the
>Statute.  Then we're safe.
>
>- We have a paradox recovery mechanism:  Therefore Rule 129 does not need
>to try to serve that role anymore as well.
>
>- Impatience is a flaw:  People are really rushing on this one.  As broken
>as it may be, we're making steps in the right direction. Right now, we've
>got a week to sit back and think.  Nothing is happening for another few
>days.  So lets all calm down and discuss this first, rather than getting
>way ahead of things with statements like "Well, I propose this as soon as
>I can".  I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
>looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
>*doing*."  So let's slow down in the here and now, there is no rush.
>
>So what we need to do now is sit back, think, then make a proposal that
>*fixes* 129/2, *not* one that goes back to the *broken* 129/1.  Here's my
>suggestion:
>
><proposal_draft note="NOT A REAL PROPOSAL">
><title>Fixing the Statue... I mean Statute</title>
><body>
>Revise Rule 129 in the following manner:
>
>- Replace "20 days" with "2 nweeks"
>- Replace "in a message to all players" with "in a public forum"
>- Replace "any player objects to the statement in a message to all
>players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
>and game state shall apply" with "a CFJ is made naming the
>Administrator as defendant which calls into question the statement, in
>which case the rules governing CFJs shall apply"
>- Remove "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
>- Give it a Chutzpah of 8
></body>
></proposal_draft>
>
>What do people think of that?  Let's negotiate, try to fix this problem,
>and whatever comes of this proposal I'll submit it as soon as the Clock is
>back On.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bean

What I object to about 129/2...what I've always objected to...is the whole "look behind" concept.  The language of 129/2 clearly states that an active change is to come to the game retroactive to 20 days prior to the current moment.  It doesn't matter if it's 20 ndays, or two nweeks, or whatever -- except that making it ndays instead of days means an instance of wdays pushes the date farther back into the past; what matters is that it's saying the game state is "altered".  Therein is the problem: whatever the game state is today, the game state 20 days ago is subject to change, and a sneaky enough person can pry open a big enough crack to make that change be undesirable.

What is so terribly wrong with a passive statute of limitations that says that as of a certain point events and conditions in the past can't be objected to?  Nothing's being changed, nothing's being altered, you don't have to belly-crawl through a french horn to prevent someone doing something malicious.

Fixing 129/2 but leaving it conceptually intact just isn't gonna cut it.  Replace objections with CFJs?  Fine.  I'll CFJ that every announcement made by the Administrator as of 20 days ago is a bunch of malarky.  It doesn't matter if that's true or false; the CFJ prevents the game state from being altered.  Messages in a public forum?  Okay.  That'll probably be easier than my backup plan of gleaning all your email addresses out of my email archive and sending the objection outside the mailing list.  Take away its power?  Then what good is it?

Rather than have r129 in its present form, why not do away with it altogether and modify the CFJ rule instead, saying a CFJ can't be submitted for an action or event of more than x days ago?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:42:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis,  and
 much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/14/02 at 12:56 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
> 
> >Yoiks!
> >
> >Okay.  With all that's followed out of this I think I've been convinced
> >that Rule 129/2 is still broken.  However, UP already showed that 129/1
> >was equally if not moreso broken.  So let's not try to go around breaking
> >the game more, instead let's try to fix it.
> >
> >The facts as I see them:
> >- 129/2 is better than 129/1: 129/1 was seriously broken.  There was no
> >recourse to any action taken by a player as there was no mention of CFJs
> >in it.  If we go back to that, I'll just repeal all the rules after 100
> >and wait a week for it to happen.  Yes, I'll be that much of a jerk (all
> >this back-to-129/1 talk is starting to piss me off, and I've had a bad
> >morning).
> >
> >- 129/2 is flawed:  I think that the attempt to make it a paradox-solving
> >rule as well may have made it a little more powerful than it should be, as
> >people are currently pointing out.
> >
> >- Yoda: "There is another..." ... way of determining game state that is...
> >CFJs.  So Glotmorf, we have one more way outside of the Admin saying
> >stuff.  So we need to make sure that CFJs are "untouchable" by the
> >Statute.  Then we're safe.
> >
> >- We have a paradox recovery mechanism:  Therefore Rule 129 does not need
> >to try to serve that role anymore as well.
> >
> >- Impatience is a flaw:  People are really rushing on this one.  As broken
> >as it may be, we're making steps in the right direction. Right now, we've
> >got a week to sit back and think.  Nothing is happening for another few
> >days.  So lets all calm down and discuss this first, rather than getting
> >way ahead of things with statements like "Well, I propose this as soon as
> >I can".  I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
> >looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
> >*doing*."  So let's slow down in the here and now, there is no rush.
> >
> >So what we need to do now is sit back, think, then make a proposal that
> >*fixes* 129/2, *not* one that goes back to the *broken* 129/1.  Here's my
> >suggestion:
> >
> ><proposal_draft note="NOT A REAL PROPOSAL">
> ><title>Fixing the Statue... I mean Statute</title>
> ><body>
> >Revise Rule 129 in the following manner:
> >
> >- Replace "20 days" with "2 nweeks"
> >- Replace "in a message to all players" with "in a public forum"
> >- Replace "any player objects to the statement in a message to all
> >players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
> >and game state shall apply" with "a CFJ is made naming the
> >Administrator as defendant which calls into question the statement, in
> >which case the rules governing CFJs shall apply"
> >- Remove "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
> >- Give it a Chutzpah of 8
> ></body>
> ></proposal_draft>
> >
> >What do people think of that?  Let's negotiate, try to fix this problem,
> >and whatever comes of this proposal I'll submit it as soon as the Clock is
> >back On.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Bean
> 
> What I object to about 129/2...what I've always objected to...is the
> whole "look behind" concept.  The language of 129/2 clearly states
> that an active change is to come to the game retroactive to 20 days
> prior to the current moment.  It doesn't matter if it's 20 ndays, or
> two nweeks, or whatever -- except that making it ndays instead of days
> means an instance of wdays pushes the date farther back into the past;
> what matters is that it's saying the game state is "altered".  
> Therein is the problem: whatever the game state is today, the game
> state 20 days ago is subject to change, and a sneaky enough person can
> pry open a big enough crack to make that change be undesirable.

Possibly, unless it doesn't have that much power.  I'm going to trust that
the admin isn't going to be sneaky, and he's the only one who can make
altering statements like that.  Care to comment on that?

But you do have a point, the altering could possibly be a bit of a
problem... though I don't see it as severly as some of you seem to make it
out. Uncle Psychosis' intention was to have a rule that brings the "real"
gamestate into line with our "records" of the gamestate.  I think this
rule does this well, but I think it also does a good job of providing a
check in the form of "methods for determining gamestate".

> What is so terribly wrong with a passive statute of limitations that
> says that as of a certain point events and conditions in the past
> can't be objected to?  Nothing's being changed, nothing's being
> altered, you don't have to belly-crawl through a french horn to
> prevent someone doing something malicious.

But our records of the game may not be accurate... If you want to clarify
it by drafting a proposal which makes the Admin's records equivalent to
the gamestate, that'll be better, but as it stands, the Admin's records
may be in error compared to what has transpired *according to the rules*
(See recently reinstated Rule 10). And if that's the case, we either have
to bring the records into step with the gamestate (CFJ or consensus) or
bring the gamestate into line with the records (current incarnation of
rule 129).  Rule 129 covers both of these cases well.

> Fixing 129/2 but leaving it conceptually intact just isn't gonna cut
> it.  Replace objections with CFJs?  Fine.  I'll CFJ that every
> announcement made by the Administrator as of 20 days ago is a bunch of
> malarky.

And you'll be ruled FALSE on most, if not all of them.  We've just
determined gamestate in *exactly* the same way that rule 129/2 would have,
but you've just caused us a *lot* more pain in doing it.

>  It doesn't matter if that's true or false; the CFJ prevents
> the game state from being altered.

Yes it does.  See above.

>  Messages in a public forum?  
> Okay.  That'll probably be easier than my backup plan of gleaning all
> your email addresses out of my email archive and sending the objection
> outside the mailing list.  Take away its power?  Then what good is it?

By take away it's power, I meant over other rules... make it less
powerful, not non-powerful....

> Rather than have r129 in its present form, why not do away with it
> altogether and modify the CFJ rule instead, saying a CFJ can't be
> submitted for an action or event of more than x days ago?

Then we still get discrepancies.  The only way to solve that is to make a
rule which makes the gamestate equivalent to the Admin's records.  That
opens a whole new can of worms, IMHO.

Bean

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:24:33 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

First, there seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding of what 129/2 does.  It does not change the game state of 20 days ago.  It changes the game state *now* to repair it to the best of our ability in accordance with what is determined to have happened 20 days ago.

This would have been essentially the same under 129/1 (and take note--129/0 is the original rule everyone keeps referring to, not 129/1, which is the revision briefly introduced by the Bugs In The System proposal before being overridden by UP's proposal).  

Under 129/1, you can't CFJ an action more than 1 nweek after it happens.  If, for example, you CFJ someone awarding emself 500 points and using them to buy Big Rocks for every square on the Grid, then when the award of points is ruled illegal, repairs must take place.  Either way -- 129/1 or 129/2, repairs are required (and let's avoid the Platonist question of whether we're repairing the game state or just its records).  We have to decide what to do with the points, what to do with the Rocks, and how to treat any moves / entities that may have been affected by the presence of the Rocks.  We're "looking back" either way, though -- that's not some special feature of 129/2.

Under 129/2, the repair scenario is that the judgement gets made, the Admin says "The game state is now thus," probably guided by whatever the judge suggests, and play continues unless someone objects to how the game state has been repaired.  Under 129/1, there's really no clear definition of how the repair would take place, but I assume under game custom it would work essentially the same way.

With all of that said, I do think the generalized wording of 129/2, while making for a rather succinct implementation of statute of limitations and emergency management in one fell swoop, does make it susceptible to rampant misunderstanding.  And I tend to think where misunderstanding persists, exploitation (accidental, deliberate, or both) is sure to follow.

Much as I prefer the terse, elegant solution, I begin to think that in this case the more clearly-delineated language of the BugFix proposal may be better for the long-term health of the game.  Everyone at least seems to share an understanding of what that one *does*, however much opinions may differ on how effective it is in doing it.

However, what I do like about 129/2 that was not provided in 129/1 is that it provides a clear mechanism by which repairs are implemented.  Under 129/1, our best indication is that all duties not otherwise specified in the rules fall to the Administrator.  Maybe that's enough, though.

--Scoff!

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:46:46 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:59:34PM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> Now we're back to your fallacy that actions aren't legal unless they're made legal by rule 129. Aside from the fact that the admin is only one of the usual methods (and one that can be and has been overriden by CFJs), which means it's not required, it's not illegal. Rule 129 doesn't make what the admin said illegal if you object; it merely doesn't make it legal if it wasn't. If it was legal anyway, your objection has no effect on that.

Let me get this straight... Rule 129/2 only makes things legal if they
are legal?

So, how do you determine whether a statement was illegal in order to not
make it legal?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:53:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:59:34PM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> > Now we're back to your fallacy that actions aren't legal unless they're made legal by rule 129. Aside from the fact that the admin is only one of the usual methods (and one that can be and has been overriden by CFJs), which means it's not required, it's not illegal. Rule 129 doesn't make what the admin said illegal if you object; it merely doesn't make it legal if it wasn't. If it was legal anyway, your objection has no effect on that.
> 
> Let me get this straight... Rule 129/2 only makes things legal if they
> are legal?
> 
> So, how do you determine whether a statement was illegal in order to not
> make it legal?

CFJ methinks.  Isn't that the point of them?

Bean

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:03:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The end of nweek 7: non-vote-counting-stuff
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, David E. Smith wrote:
> First, responses to stuff on the ballot:
> 
> On 362:
> 
> > Yes, but needs rectification - 'confroming' should be 'conforming'
> > (happens twice), and I think Bean meant to say 'If Proposal 343
> > *failed*', 'cause the way it's written now the rule only gives people
> > Respect if there's no such thing.
> 
> The first change is legal and obvious, and so rectified. The second
> change, changes the meaning of the proosal substantially, so I don't think
> I can legally do that.

Heh.... who was it that was opposed to the poetic forms because they gave
respect to people?  I just realised you got your wish through my being a
moron. :)

Bean

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:00:12 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 09:59:06AM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> > [[
> > I must make another reference to Godel, Escher, Bach. Uncle P, if you're
> > dying to know why your proposal will never work, the chapter
> > "Contrafactus" sums it up (it involves Tortoise and Achilles watching
> > their Subjunc-TV, which shows exactly what would have happened at
> > various stages in a football game if certain contrary-to-fact events had
> > occurred.)
> >
> > Since we have no Subjunc-TV, we have no way of looking at the
> > counterfactual version of the Nomic, where (for example) the proposals
> > were numbered differently.
> >
> I'm not so sure that's true. We *do* have a way of looking at the counterfactual nomic - exactly the same way we have of looking at the factual nomic. It's just like if there were a thread split, where one thread is counterfactual. The only way we have of ever knowing what the state of the nomic is is if we work it out; all we need to do is work it out starting from when the previously counterfactual statement was true.

I'll clarify something - this bad situation doesn't occur when the
Administrator makes a false statement and we treat it as if it were
true. There, we _are_ playing the subjunctive version of the Nomic, so
we only need to back up to the split point and determine what should
have happened.

It occurs when the Administrator makes a false statement, which
could not possibly be true in the circumstances, and we don't notice.
(Consider if the misnumbered proposal had never been rectified.)
After two weeks, we are required to alter the gamestate to what it would
have been were that statement true, as specified exactly by your rule.
And there *is* no thread where that statement was true, because it's
false and we know it; the rules of the game would have to have been
different at the time for the statement to be true.

In a subjunctive game of football, the first is like watching, when a
dubious penalty is called, what would have happened if it were not
called. The second would be more like watching what would happen if the
football were instead a live duck. Not if it had _turned into_ a duck,
mind you, but if it had been a duck all along.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:08:14 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:56:25PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> <proposal_draft note="NOT A REAL PROPOSAL">
> <title>Fixing the Statue... I mean Statute</title>
> <body>
> Revise Rule 129 in the following manner:
> 
> - Replace "20 days" with "2 nweeks"
> - Replace "in a message to all players" with "in a public forum"
> - Replace "any player objects to the statement in a message to all
> players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
> and game state shall apply" with "a CFJ is made naming the
> Administrator as defendant which calls into question the statement, in
> which case the rules governing CFJs shall apply"
> - Remove "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
> - Give it a Chutzpah of 8
> </body>
> </proposal_draft>
> 
> What do people think of that?  Let's negotiate, try to fix this problem,
> and whatever comes of this proposal I'll submit it as soon as the Clock is
> back On.

Um... great job fixing the details, but it doesn't fix the fundamental
flaw in what 129 DOES. Basically, it assumes that when the Administrator
makes a statement, we always either believe him and take it into
account, or object to it. If we miss the statement entirely and go on
with the game, then in two nweeks it switches the whole Nomic to another
"thread" which may not even make any logical sense.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:11:27 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis,  and much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:42:37PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> But you do have a point, the altering could possibly be a bit of a
> problem... though I don't see it as severly as some of you seem to make it
> out. Uncle Psychosis' intention was to have a rule that brings the "real"
> gamestate into line with our "records" of the gamestate.  I think this
> rule does this well, but I think it also does a good job of providing a
> check in the form of "methods for determining gamestate".

If that's what it did, it would be better. But it doesn't bring the game
in line with what we *think* the gamestate is; it brings it in line with
what the Admin *says* it is, no matter if he says something he didn't
mean at all.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:13:59 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:56:25PM -0500, Eric Gerlach wrote:
> The facts as I see them:
> - 129/2 is better than 129/1: 129/1 was seriously broken.  There was no
> recourse to any action taken by a player as there was no mention of CFJs
> in it.  If we go back to that, I'll just repeal all the rules after 100 
> and wait a week for it to happen.  Yes, I'll be that much of a jerk (all
> this back-to-129/1 talk is starting to piss me off, and I've had a bad
> morning).

You were making me seriously doubt my sanity there for a moment. 129/1
(from Wonko's proposal, immediately clobbered by 129/2) had never seemed
that horribly broken to me.

Now that I've read JvM's message, I realize that you're probably
referring to 129/0, whereas I want to return to 129/1.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:05:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Simple enough question.

I'm taking the time off to (in part) relax just a little bit. I love
watching the game unfold, but it is taking up ten or fifteen minutes a
day, and a couple hours after each ballot.

But, what sorts of things should I be doing? What do you want to see when
the new-and-improved B Nomic Web site rolls out next week?

Here's what's already on the burner, best shown by example. Let's take a
random rule, say, 204. On the current-rules page, it'll soon look like
this:

Rule 204/1
Thou Shalt Not Screw With Time
Last Revision: nweek 5. [Revision History]
Keywords: [Time]

The [bracketed] stuff represents where links are. (Mind you, the links
don't work yet, but that's another tale entirely...)

They'll do the obvious things: "revision history" will pull up previous
versions of the rule or proposal in question, and each keyword (except
for Uncategorized) will pull up a list of other rules with that keyword.

(I'll be adding more keywords to the system as well. I don't think there's
even a Gremlin keyword yet. Sigh.)

Things like that will make life easier for all the players...

But, I'm always open to other ideas. Both things that will make your lives
easier, and (especially) things that will make my life easier.

Unfortunately, most of the really good stuff would be technically illegal
- some have suggested a Web-based Proposal system, and even Web voting,
but neither of those would be legal. I'd have to carefully check every
online proposal against the Forum version to be sure they are in fact the
same, and online voting would be subject to ballot-stuffing and/or forgery
unless I put a LOT more time into it than I'd really like to.

But ideas are good. I'm a big fan of ideas.

...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, 14 Feb 2002 23:29:30 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 02:05:02AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> Unfortunately, most of the really good stuff would be technically illegal
> - some have suggested a Web-based Proposal system, and even Web voting,
> but neither of those would be legal. I'd have to carefully check every
> online proposal against the Forum version to be sure they are in fact the
> same, and online voting would be subject to ballot-stuffing and/or forgery
> unless I put a LOT more time into it than I'd really like to.

How about a Web-based voting system which outputs a text file that we
can attach to an e-mail?

Oh, and be sure to include Chutzpah in your rule display.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:45:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/15/02 at 2:05 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Simple enough question.
>
>I'm taking the time off to (in part) relax just a little bit. I love
>watching the game unfold, but it is taking up ten or fifteen minutes a
>day, and a couple hours after each ballot.
>
>But, what sorts of things should I be doing? What do you want to see when
>the new-and-improved B Nomic Web site rolls out next week?
>
>Here's what's already on the burner, best shown by example. Let's take a
>random rule, say, 204. On the current-rules page, it'll soon look like
>this:
>
>Rule 204/1
>Thou Shalt Not Screw With Time
>Last Revision: nweek 5. [Revision History]
>Keywords: [Time]
>
>The [bracketed] stuff represents where links are. (Mind you, the links
>don't work yet, but that's another tale entirely...)
>
>They'll do the obvious things: "revision history" will pull up previous
>versions of the rule or proposal in question, and each keyword (except
>for Uncategorized) will pull up a list of other rules with that keyword.
>
>(I'll be adding more keywords to the system as well. I don't think there's
>even a Gremlin keyword yet. Sigh.)
>
>Things like that will make life easier for all the players...
>
>But, I'm always open to other ideas. Both things that will make your lives
>easier, and (especially) things that will make my life easier.
>
>Unfortunately, most of the really good stuff would be technically illegal
>- some have suggested a Web-based Proposal system, and even Web voting,
>but neither of those would be legal. I'd have to carefully check every
>online proposal against the Forum version to be sure they are in fact the
>same, and online voting would be subject to ballot-stuffing and/or forgery
>unless I put a LOT more time into it than I'd really like to.
>
>But ideas are good. I'm a big fan of ideas.
>
>...dave

Why would web voting be illegal?  The rules just talk about submitting the vote to the administrator; it doesn't say that has to be done through email.

And web-based proposals?  What if a player could edit the proposal on a webpage, and cause the new version to be spat to the forum?

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:46:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> How about a Web-based voting system which outputs a text file that we
> can attach to an e-mail?

That doesn't help the vote-fraud option too much. Worst-case: I'd have to
sort through tens or hundreds of votes to find the dozen legit ones.

If I took enough unique information from each user, though, and hashed it
round the cryptographic pot a bit... hm. Must ponder.

> Oh, and be sure to include Chutzpah in your rule display.

Right now, there is precisely one rule that has a Chutzpah != 1. Its
modified Chutzpah rating is listed at the bottom of the rule, with the
revision history.

If lots and lots of rules begin to acquire weird Chutzpah values, *then*
I'll worry about it. A lot of what I'm doing this week is cleaning-up
large portions of the ugly ad-hoc code that I'd cobbled together, so that
making changes like that in the future won't be quite as painful, if/when
they're needed.

...dave

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:52:26 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Why would web voting be illegal?  The rules just talk about submitting
> the vote to the administrator; it doesn't say that has to be done
> through email.

Point. I suppose my interpretation of the rules has been a touch
conservative... perhaps that's why I've not been very successful at
*playing* Nomic.

> And web-based proposals?  What if a player could edit the proposal on
> a webpage, and cause the new version to be spat to the forum?

I was actually thinking of a middle-ground sorta idea: Have a separate
database table for "unrecognized" stuff. Add a unique signature that can
be easily (at least by me) verified - probably some variant on the old md5
cryptographic hash - to make sure what I've got in the database is the
same as what gets mailed to a forum.

I kinda like your idea as well, though, don't get me wrong.

One of the "limitations" of the old system is that I can't change an
item's type without much nuisance. Usually, that's a good thing, so I
don't accidentally change something from a proposal to a CFJ or something
equally wacky. But if I just added an "unrecognized" category type, and
set things up carefully on my end... hm...

Darn you people and your ideas! I'm not sure just how much coolness I can
crank out in a week!

...dave

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:33:13 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

For the web-proposal and web-voting ideas, your point is a good one.

But...what if you had a voting/proposal daemon set up to take votes and proposals directly from the e-mails to the forum?

It would require more stringently observed and enforced standard delimiters to make parsing the messages possible, but apart from the initial programming effort it would probably save a lot of time.

You could set it up to send confirmation / rejection messages directly to the player, and send you a daily rejection report so you can manually process the few that get bounced for some reason.

For voting, you could even have it automatically generate a ballot with the delimiter tags built in.

e.g.

<ballot>
<prop n=258>Wonko's Something Proposal</prop><vote> </vote>
<prop n=259>Scoff!'s Something Proposal</prop><vote> </vote>
</ballot>
<player>
Player's Name
</player>

...where you fill in the blank with Y, N, A, or O (for special cases like the "YEA" mini-scam).  If you put in O, you add an <other>"YEA"</OTHER> tag.

Or something like that.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
> 
> 
> Simple enough question.
> 
> I'm taking the time off to (in part) relax just a little bit. I love
> watching the game unfold, but it is taking up ten or fifteen minutes a
> day, and a couple hours after each ballot.
> 
> But, what sorts of things should I be doing? What do you want 
> to see when
> the new-and-improved B Nomic Web site rolls out next week?
> 
> Here's what's already on the burner, best shown by example. 
> Let's take a
> random rule, say, 204. On the current-rules page, it'll soon look like
> this:
> 
> Rule 204/1
> Thou Shalt Not Screw With Time
> Last Revision: nweek 5. [Revision History]
> Keywords: [Time]
> 
> The [bracketed] stuff represents where links are. (Mind you, the links
> don't work yet, but that's another tale entirely...)
> 
> They'll do the obvious things: "revision history" will pull 
> up previous
> versions of the rule or proposal in question, and each keyword (except
> for Uncategorized) will pull up a list of other rules with 
> that keyword.
> 
> (I'll be adding more keywords to the system as well. I don't 
> think there's
> even a Gremlin keyword yet. Sigh.)
> 
> Things like that will make life easier for all the players...
> 
> But, I'm always open to other ideas. Both things that will 
> make your lives
> easier, and (especially) things that will make my life easier.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of the really good stuff would be 
> technically illegal
> - some have suggested a Web-based Proposal system, and even 
> Web voting,
> but neither of those would be legal. I'd have to carefully check every
> online proposal against the Forum version to be sure they are 
> in fact the
> same, and online voting would be subject to ballot-stuffing 
> and/or forgery
> unless I put a LOT more time into it than I'd really like to.
> 
> But ideas are good. I'm a big fan of ideas.
> 
> ..dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
> http://www.technopagan.org/    http://metadave.net/
> http://www.bureau42.com/       http://whatIsay.com/
> 
> "Use anger to throw them into disarray." -- Sun Tzu
> 
> 
> 

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:25:55 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Now we're back to your fallacy that actions
> > aren't legal unless they're made legal by rule
> > 129. Aside from the fact that the admin is only
> > one of the usual methods (and one that can be
> > and has been overriden by CFJs), which means
> > it's not required, it's not illegal. Rule 129 doesn't
> > make what the admin said illegal if you object;
> > it merely doesn't make it legal if it wasn't. If it
> > was legal anyway, your objection has no effect
> > on that.
>
> Let me get this straight... Rule 129/2 only makes
> things legal if they are legal?
> 
No. Rule 129 makes everything legal, unless you object to something, in which case the thing to which you objected doesn't get *made* legal. The point I was making is that Glotmorf seems to think that if something isn't made legal by rule 129, it isn't legal at all, which is not the case - it simply retains its original legality (or lack of).

> So, how do you determine whether a statement
> was illegal in order to not make it legal?
>
In the case where someone objects to something, a CFJ would determine whether or not what the statement they objected to referred to was legal or not.

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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:26:19 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'll clarify something - this bad situation doesn't occur when the
> Administrator makes a false statement and we treat it as if it were
> true. There, we _are_ playing the subjunctive version of the Nomic, so
> we only need to back up to the split point and determine what should
> have happened.
>
Fine.

> It occurs when the Administrator makes a false statement, which
> could not possibly be true in the circumstances, and we don't notice.
> (Consider if the misnumbered proposal had never been rectified.)
> After two weeks, we are required to alter the gamestate to what it would
> have been were that statement true, as specified exactly by your rule.
>
No. The gamestate is altered; that's not something that *we* do, that's something that *happens*.

> And there *is* no thread where that statement was true, because it's
> false and we know it; the rules of the game would have to have been
> different at the time for the statement to be true.
>
But there *is*. There couldn't be at the time, no. But rule 129 doesn't somehow travel back in time and change things in accordance with the rules then. It just changes things now. If that means that our gamestate now is one that could not possibly have come about without rule 129... so what? That's the whole point of having a statute of limitations - after a certain time, things which were illegal at the time become legal.

> In a subjunctive game of football, the first is like watching, when a
> dubious penalty is called, what would have happened if it were not
> called. The second would be more like watching what would happen if the
> football were instead a live duck. Not if it had _turned into_ a duck,
> mind you, but if it had been a duck all along.
>
If the admin does accidentally make some kind of "impossible" misstatement, then there's a good chance that it'll be overwritten by a later statement where he doesn't make the same typo (or whatever). And if that doesn't happen, then as soon as we notice the problem, all he needs to do is make the statement, and it will be fixed.

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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:26:45 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and
    much much more!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> What is so terribly wrong with a passive statute
> of limitations that says that as of a certain point
> events and conditions in the past can't be
> objected to?
>
It doesn't work, that's what. We *need* to have some way of knowing whether something was legal or not. The "ideal" situation would be to have no statute, and just recalculate all our gamestate if we determine that we made a mistake 235 nweeks ago. Pragmatically, that's unworkable. Under your passive system, if we noticed a problem in the rules from nweek 3, and it's now nweek 238, we have *no* *way* of knowing what our current gamestate is.

>  Nothing's being changed, nothing's
> being altered, you don't have to belly-crawl
> through a french horn to prevent someone
> doing something malicious.
>
We *need* to change things if we want to have a statute of limitations. Either that, or we need to be able to CFJ something no matter when it happened. Or we could have a thing once a month (or whatever) where we stop the clock, the admin says "the gamestate and rules are precisely <this>", and (once we approve it) they're changed to that, with no CFJs being possible on things before the admin's reset.

> Fixing 129/2 but leaving it conceptually intact
> just isn't gonna cut it.  Replace objections with
> CFJs?  Fine.  I'll CFJ that every announcement
> made by the Administrator as of 20 days ago
> is a bunch of malarky.  It doesn't matter if
> that's true or false; the CFJ prevents the game
> state from being altered.
>
I considered making it 2 players, to prevent such antisocial spamming, but didn't think it would be necessary...

> Rather than have r129 in its present form,
> why not do away with it altogether and
> modify the CFJ rule instead, saying a
> CFJ can't be submitted for an action or
> event of more than x days ago?
>
Because events in the past affect events in the present. If we can't know what the past is, we can't know what the present is. Or, depending on the wording, it wouldn't work because we could just CFJ the parts of the current gamestate which were dependant on the past actions, and thus get ourselves back in the "235 nweeks of recalculation" position. We *need* to, at some point, change the gamestate to what we say, or we'll have to redo all our records 

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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:59:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Because events in the past affect events in the present. If we can't
> know what the past is, we can't know what the present is. Or,
> depending on the wording, it wouldn't work because we could just CFJ
> the parts of the current gamestate which were dependant on the past
> actions, and thus get ourselves back in the "235 nweeks of
> recalculation" position. We *need* to, at some point, change the
> gamestate to what we say, or we'll have to redo all our records

This is exactly why 129/2 is perilous.  Because until 20 days after an
action has been taken we have no way of calculating the state the game was
in at any time after that action.

OTOH under 129/1 we had a game state at all times.  When an action is
taken (or recognized) it affects the game state immediately.  CFJs can be
used to reconstruct the game state if it turns out that the action was in
error.

How s this for a revised draft based strongly on 129/1:

{{
__Legality of Actions/Statute of Limitations__

Actions taken in a public forum are assumed to be legal when recognized by
the Administrator.  Otherwise they are assumed to be illegal, therefore
not actions.

Judgement of a CFJ may correct the recognition of the illegal only if the
CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged illegal recognition.

Judgement of a CFJ may correct the failure to reconize a legal action only
if the CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged legal action.

}}

Dan

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:41:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > Because events in the past affect events in the present. If we can't
> > know what the past is, we can't know what the present is. Or,
> > depending on the wording, it wouldn't work because we could just CFJ
> > the parts of the current gamestate which were dependant on the past
> > actions, and thus get ourselves back in the "235 nweeks of
> > recalculation" position. We *need* to, at some point, change the
> > gamestate to what we say, or we'll have to redo all our records
>
>
>This is exactly why 129/2 is perilous.  Because until 20 days after an
>action has been taken we have no way of calculating the state the game was
>in at any time after that action.
>
>OTOH under 129/1 we had a game state at all times.  When an action is
>taken (or recognized) it affects the game state immediately.  CFJs can be
>used to reconstruct the game state if it turns out that the action was in
>error.
>
>How s this for a revised draft based strongly on 129/1:
>
>{{
>__Legality of Actions/Statute of Limitations__
>
>Actions taken in a public forum are assumed to be legal when recognized by
>the Administrator.  Otherwise they are assumed to be illegal, therefore
>not actions.
>
>Judgement of a CFJ may correct the recognition of the illegal only if the
>CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged illegal recognition.
>
>Judgement of a CFJ may correct the failure to reconize a legal action only
>if the CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged legal action.
>
>}}
>
>
>Dan
>
>

I think this one will actually work.  It does what I think UP wanted to do, 
and makes it easier.  People are going to make problems about the CFJ system 
being used here, but we're going to have to fix that too.  I propose that we 
use this opportunity to plan out how to fix the justice system as well... it 
is a natural follow-up to the statute being set.

-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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:36:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >How s this for a revised draft based strongly on 129/1:
> >
> >{{
> >__Legality of Actions/Statute of Limitations__
> >
> >Actions taken in a public forum are assumed to be legal when recognized by
> >the Administrator.  Otherwise they are assumed to be illegal, therefore
> >not actions.
> >
> >Judgement of a CFJ may correct the recognition of the illegal only if the
> >CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged illegal recognition.
> >
> >Judgement of a CFJ may correct the failure to reconize a legal action only
> >if the CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged legal action.
> >
> >}}
> >
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> 
> I think this one will actually work.  It does what I think UP wanted to do, 
> and makes it easier.  People are going to make problems about the CFJ system 
> being used here, but we're going to have to fix that too.  I propose that we 
> use this opportunity to plan out how to fix the justice system as well... it 
> is a natural follow-up to the statute being set.

I'm a little concerned that ambiguity might creep in through my use of
'assumed to be legal' when I subsequently discuss legality later in the
rule, without actually giving any concrete definition of what legality is.
Some twisted judge might decide that in the first paragraph I'm defining
'legal' for use in the second and third.  Do you think this will be a
problem?

I couldn't find a better way of saying it without cluttering up the rule
with all sorts of cases and definitions.

Dan

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:12:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: A future proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If the admin does accidentally make some kind of "impossible"
> misstatement, then there's a good chance that it'll be overwritten by
> a later statement where he doesn't make the same typo (or whatever).
> And if that doesn't happen, then as soon as we notice the problem, all
> he needs to do is make the statement, and it will be fixed.

But if for example three days pass before the mistake is noticed, there
will be a gap of 3 days between the time the statement made in error is
applied to the gamestate and the time the corrected version is applied.  
If the statement made in error repeals or by other means breaks rule 129,
or allows players to scam the ruleset (actually quite likely) in such a
way that they break rule 129 trying to get a win, the corrected version
will never get through.

Dan

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:34:47 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: Dan <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:36:47 -0500 (EST)
>
>
> > >How s this for a revised draft based strongly on 129/1:
> > >
> > >{{
> > >__Legality of Actions/Statute of Limitations__
> > >
> > >Actions taken in a public forum are assumed to be legal when recognized 
>by
> > >the Administrator.  Otherwise they are assumed to be illegal, therefore
> > >not actions.
> > >
> > >Judgement of a CFJ may correct the recognition of the illegal only if 
>the
> > >CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged illegal recognition.
> > >
> > >Judgement of a CFJ may correct the failure to reconize a legal action 
>only
> > >if the CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged legal action.
> > >
> > >}}
> > >
> > >
> > >Dan
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think this one will actually work.  It does what I think UP wanted to 
>do,
> > and makes it easier.  People are going to make problems about the CFJ 
>system
> > being used here, but we're going to have to fix that too.  I propose 
>that we
> > use this opportunity to plan out how to fix the justice system as 
>well... it
> > is a natural follow-up to the statute being set.
>
>I'm a little concerned that ambiguity might creep in through my use of
>'assumed to be legal' when I subsequently discuss legality later in the
>rule, without actually giving any concrete definition of what legality is.
>Some twisted judge might decide that in the first paragraph I'm defining
>'legal' for use in the second and third.  Do you think this will be a
>problem?
>
>I couldn't find a better way of saying it without cluttering up the rule
>with all sorts of cases and definitions.
>
>Dan
>

I would say that since the administrator must abide by all the rules, his 
actions are assumed to be legal already.  I don't see a problem, but someone 
else might...

-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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:47:01 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan,

>> Because events in the past affect events in the present. If we can't
>> know what the past is, we can't know what the present is. Or,
>> depending on the wording, it wouldn't work because we could just CFJ
>> the parts of the current gamestate which were dependant on the past
>> actions, and thus get ourselves back in the "235 nweeks of
>> recalculation" position. We *need* to, at some point, change the
>> gamestate to what we say, or we'll have to redo all our records
> 
> 
> This is exactly why 129/2 is perilous.  Because until 20 days after an
> action has been taken we have no way of calculating the state the game was
> in at any time after that action.
> 
> OTOH under 129/1 we had a game state at all times.  When an action is
> taken (or recognized) it affects the game state immediately.  CFJs can be
> used to reconstruct the game state if it turns out that the action was in
> error.
> 
> How s this for a revised draft based strongly on 129/1:
> 
> {{
> __Legality of Actions/Statute of Limitations__
> 
> Actions taken in a public forum are assumed to be legal when recognized by
> the Administrator.  Otherwise they are assumed to be illegal, therefore
> not actions.
> 
> Judgement of a CFJ may correct the recognition of the illegal only if the
> CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged illegal recognition.
> 
> Judgement of a CFJ may correct the failure to reconize a legal action only
> if the CFJ is submitted within two nweeks of the alleged legal action.
> 
> }}
> 
> 
> Dan
> 
>

Wasn't that more or less what my 129/1 did, before Uin's clobbered it?

"Actions cannot occur unless they are recognized by the Administrator. When
an Action is recognized by the Administrator, it is treated as if it had
happened at the time when it reached the appropriate Fora. The Administrator
must recognize all actions unless e believes an action is either illegal or
destructive of play. The Admin must recognize 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."

But regardless of that, I like UP's idea of every few weeks having the Admin
declare what the state of the game is, and letting anyone object. I'm not
sure how that would be worded, though....

-- 
Wonko
Recruit today night it feels.

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:17:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: statute of limitations
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > 
> >
> 
> Wasn't that more or less what my 129/1 did, before Uin's clobbered it?
> 

Yes.  They are working in the same direction.  I would be happy if 129/1
were reinstated.  

I think my version is less vulnerable to tricks of the same sort that have
been applied so far.  But 129/1 would work just fine.

Dan

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:13:59 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/15/02 at 2:05 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>But, what sorts of things should I be doing? What do you want to see when
>the new-and-improved B Nomic Web site rolls out next week?

Were I to be greedy...

I'd want more intrapage links, so that if r123 references r234, the reference to r234 would be a link to r234, so that I can flip back and forth between the two rules.

Maybe an alphabetized rule name index at the beginning of the rule list.

Definitely a place for Limbo above or below the Grid, because, thanks to football, things being in (1,1) may become an issue.

BTW, a thought about the database...Do you store the actual text of objects in the database, or is that stored in files that are referenced by the database?  Which do you think would be less of a resource drain: hauling lots of text out of the database, or opening several text files in succession?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:54:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Were I to be greedy...

Indeed. ;)

> I'd want more intrapage links, so that if r123 references r234, the
> reference to r234 would be a link to r234, so that I can flip back and
> forth between the two rules.

I'd want something like that too, actually. :-)

I'm a bit short for good ideas on how to implement it, though.

There are two really obvious ideas:

* Go through the whole ruleset and edit everything by hand. I don't really
want to do that, because the ruleset is up to about 40 pages. (Yeah, I
printed it out.)

* Find a way to do it at runtime. Really tricky... It's hard for software
to distinguish between "Rule 100" and "starts with 100 points" in any
meaningful way.

If you're just looking for meaningful groupings of rules, just suggest
more keywords. Since I now have the authority to add Keywords to the
database more-or-less at my discretion, and since it's really really easy
to do, that may have to suffice as a stopgap.

> Maybe an alphabetized rule name index at the beginning of the rule list.

That would be relatively easy to do... I'll try to bang one out.

> Definitely a place for Limbo above or below the Grid, because, thanks
> to football, things being in (1,1) may become an issue.

Definitely in the queue.

I may end up re-doing the whole Grid system again at some point. The
system I've got now is fairly good for most things that occur
infrequently, but moving those Gremlins around for GremBall is frankly a
pain in the ass.

> BTW, a thought about the database...Do you store the actual text of
> objects in the database, or is that stored in files that are
> referenced by the database?  Which do you think would be less of a
> resource drain: hauling lots of text out of the database, or opening
> several text files in succession?

The rules are stored in one big database table.

Though I haven't formally benchmarked anything like this, I imagine the
"lots of text files" would be more draining. PHP and MySQL offer lots of
stuff to make database use reasonably efficient - persistent connections,
a fair amount of internal caching, etc. And there's the less-tangible
benefit of the fact that everything is already IN the database.

Rules, proposals, and CFJs are all stored in one big table that has the
object number and revision number, object type, title, text, other stuff
(nweek of origin, "owner" for proposals, and so on). Since every revision
of every object is stored as a separate row, there's a total of 557 items
already in there.

If you want to look at the current rules, you can either:
* Make a couple quick queries and iterate through the result set
or
* Open up several hundred text files and start parsing like a madman.
(There's 217 items in the database with type "rule", but that includes all
previous revisions of rules. I'm too tired to count up all the current
revisions right now.)

The database also has tables for players, the grid, dimensions, and
keywords. Most of those are fairly self-explanatory.

...dave

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:14:28 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/19/02 at 5:54 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>I'd want something like that too, actually. :-)
>
>I'm a bit short for good ideas on how to implement it, though.
>
>There are two really obvious ideas:
>
>* Go through the whole ruleset and edit everything by hand. I don't really
>want to do that, because the ruleset is up to about 40 pages. (Yeah, I
>printed it out.)
>
>* Find a way to do it at runtime. Really tricky... It's hard for software
>to distinguish between "Rule 100" and "starts with 100 points" in any
>meaningful way.
>
>If you're just looking for meaningful groupings of rules, just suggest
>more keywords. Since I now have the authority to add Keywords to the
>database more-or-less at my discretion, and since it's really really easy
>to do, that may have to suffice as a stopgap.

Hmm...special delimiters around items that would serve as links, such as "Rule 100", that could be translated at runtime into either same-page anchors or parameterized CGI calls, depending on the type of query done...?  The rule texts would still need to be edited by hand, but that should be significantly less editing...perhaps something like "~Rule 100~r100~" to indicate that the text "Rule 100" should be made into a link to r100, whether r100 is on the same page or not.

>I may end up re-doing the whole Grid system again at some point. The
>system I've got now is fairly good for most things that occur
>infrequently, but moving those Gremlins around for GremBall is frankly a
>pain in the ass.

Is the Grid generated automatically?  It could be...using (x,y) coordinates, with y indicating which <tr> and x indicating which <td>.  That way you never have to change the Grid itself...just the coordinates stored with the object.

>The rules are stored in one big database table.
>
>Though I haven't formally benchmarked anything like this, I imagine the
>"lots of text files" would be more draining. PHP and MySQL offer lots of
>stuff to make database use reasonably efficient - persistent connections,
>a fair amount of internal caching, etc. And there's the less-tangible
>benefit of the fact that everything is already IN the database.
>
>Rules, proposals, and CFJs are all stored in one big table that has the
>object number and revision number, object type, title, text, other stuff
>(nweek of origin, "owner" for proposals, and so on). Since every revision
>of every object is stored as a separate row, there's a total of 557 items
>already in there.
>
>If you want to look at the current rules, you can either:
>* Make a couple quick queries and iterate through the result set
>or
>* Open up several hundred text files and start parsing like a madman.
>(There's 217 items in the database with type "rule", but that includes all
>previous revisions of rules. I'm too tired to count up all the current
>revisions right now.)

Understood.  What I was thinking was that if hauling a lot of text through interprocess communications was bogging the database server down, the text itself doesn't have to be in the database.  Instead of a big block of text in a field, just have the name of a file, so that, as records are retrieved from the database, files are opened at the same time and the text streamed through.  Should get smaller, tighter database tables that way.  Granted, it'd make text searches a pain, but you're not doing those right now anyway, and if you did you could spawn a grep command.  And it seems like it'd be easier to call up a text file with vi than to modify a database record.

But then, I'm not that familiar with how blobs got implemented.  Maybe they store text separate from the main, hard-limit-field data anyway.

						Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:35:59 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

While we're on the subject of improvements, I'm curious about how you've structured the database.  Being a DBA by day, I might be able to offer some suggestions in that area, both to improve performance, and possibly add a handy way to enable the intra-page links.

Can you dump CREATE TABLE scripts for the tables and send them my way?  If you're really feeling the Copious Free Time, a TOP 10 * result set from each table would be handy as well.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Smith [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
> 
> 
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
> 
> > Were I to be greedy...
> 
> Indeed. ;)
> 
> > I'd want more intrapage links, so that if r123 references r234, the
> > reference to r234 would be a link to r234, so that I can 
> flip back and
> > forth between the two rules.
> 
> I'd want something like that too, actually. :-)
> 
> I'm a bit short for good ideas on how to implement it, though.
> 
> There are two really obvious ideas:
> 
> * Go through the whole ruleset and edit everything by hand. I 
> don't really
> want to do that, because the ruleset is up to about 40 pages. (Yeah, I
> printed it out.)
> 
> * Find a way to do it at runtime. Really tricky... It's hard 
> for software
> to distinguish between "Rule 100" and "starts with 100 points" in any
> meaningful way.
> 
> If you're just looking for meaningful groupings of rules, just suggest
> more keywords. Since I now have the authority to add Keywords to the
> database more-or-less at my discretion, and since it's really 
> really easy
> to do, that may have to suffice as a stopgap.
> 
> > Maybe an alphabetized rule name index at the beginning of 
> the rule list.
> 
> That would be relatively easy to do... I'll try to bang one out.
> 
> > Definitely a place for Limbo above or below the Grid, 
> because, thanks
> > to football, things being in (1,1) may become an issue.
> 
> Definitely in the queue.
> 
> I may end up re-doing the whole Grid system again at some point. The
> system I've got now is fairly good for most things that occur
> infrequently, but moving those Gremlins around for GremBall 
> is frankly a
> pain in the ass.
> 
> > BTW, a thought about the database...Do you store the actual text of
> > objects in the database, or is that stored in files that are
> > referenced by the database?  Which do you think would be less of a
> > resource drain: hauling lots of text out of the database, or opening
> > several text files in succession?
> 
> The rules are stored in one big database table.
> 
> Though I haven't formally benchmarked anything like this, I 
> imagine the
> "lots of text files" would be more draining. PHP and MySQL 
> offer lots of
> stuff to make database use reasonably efficient - persistent 
> connections,
> a fair amount of internal caching, etc. And there's the less-tangible
> benefit of the fact that everything is already IN the database.
> 
> Rules, proposals, and CFJs are all stored in one big table 
> that has the
> object number and revision number, object type, title, text, 
> other stuff
> (nweek of origin, "owner" for proposals, and so on). Since 
> every revision
> of every object is stored as a separate row, there's a total 
> of 557 items
> already in there.
> 
> If you want to look at the current rules, you can either:
> * Make a couple quick queries and iterate through the result set
> or
> * Open up several hundred text files and start parsing like a madman.
> (There's 217 items in the database with type "rule", but that 
> includes all
> previous revisions of rules. I'm too tired to count up all the current
> revisions right now.)
> 
> The database also has tables for players, the grid, dimensions, and
> keywords. Most of those are fairly self-explanatory.
> 
> ..dave
> 
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:03:00 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/19/02 at 8:35 AM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>While we're on the subject of improvements, I'm curious about how you've
>structured the database.  Being a DBA by day, I might be able to offer
>some suggestions in that area, both to improve performance, and possibly
>add a handy way to enable the intra-page links.
>
>Can you dump CREATE TABLE scripts for the tables and send them my way?  If
>you're really feeling the Copious Free Time, a TOP 10 * result set from
>each table would be handy as well.
>
>--Scoff!

Or even post them to the mailing list?  Sounds like there's maybe six or seven tables...schemas for those should be shorter than some proposals we've seen. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:47:45 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Two new Proposals.  Gremlins go wild!
  (revised)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/19/02 at 2:31 PM Dan wrote:

>append the following paragraph: 
>
>{{ 
>
>Held gremlins cannot hold anything.  
>
>}}
>
>[[I know recursive gremlins would be fun for us and a nightmare for the
>admin, but it was getting just too annoying to figure out all the possible
>cases.  Sorry.]]

What if a gremlin is holding something when someone wants to pick it up?  Does it drop its stuff, or does the stuff transfer to the picker-upper?  Or...does the stuff get destroyed? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:51:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Two new Proposals.  Gremlins
 go wild!  (revised)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> What if a gremlin is holding something when someone wants to pick it
> up?  Does it drop its stuff, or does the stuff transfer to the
> picker-upper?  Or...does the stuff get destroyed? :)

Arrrh!  too many cases.

I'll fix it.  Give me a day or too to figure out the possible
combinations.

Dan

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:21:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: db schema
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

# I added some comments of my own after each table, so things will make a
# bit more sense. Whee!

CREATE TABLE cache (
  cacheid varchar(16) NOT NULL default '',
  content blob NOT NULL,
  updatesrc varchar(250) NOT NULL default '',
  utime timestamp(14) NOT NULL,
  staletime int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
  PRIMARY KEY  (cacheid),
  UNIQUE KEY cacheid (cacheid)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
# --------------------------------------------------------
# This is for the much-lamented caching system. utime is its last
# update, staletime is how many seconds a page should be considered
# "fresh".

CREATE TABLE dims (
  dimid smallint(6) NOT NULL auto_increment,
  dimname varchar(42) NOT NULL default '',
  PRIMARY KEY  (dimid),
  UNIQUE KEY dim-id (dimid)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
# --------------------------------------------------------
# Just a list of dimensions (score, charm, etc.) Works with "players" and
# "playerdim". My life would be so much easier if MySQL had any sense
# of referential integrity...

CREATE TABLE grid2 (
  xc tinyint(4) NOT NULL default '0',
  yc tinyint(4) NOT NULL default '0',
  contents text NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY  (xc,yc)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
# --------------------------------------------------------
# There was a "grid" but I don't use it no more.
# It's the ultra-simple system - x and y coords, and a text blob.
# (I keep track of shinies and scaries on a Post-It note, because that
# way I don't have to worry about keeping track of which objects are
# visible/invisible to players.)

CREATE TABLE keywords (
  rulenum mediumint(9) NOT NULL default '0',
  keyword tinytext NOT NULL
) TYPE=MyISAM;
# --------------------------------------------------------
# Again, really really obvious. Any DBA that can't figure out how this
# table works is not worthy of the title. :-)

CREATE TABLE nomicrules (
  rulekey int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
  rulenum int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
  rulerev int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
  ruletext text NOT NULL,
  ruletitle varchar(250) NOT NULL default '',
  itemtype enum('rule','motion','cfj','nada') NOT NULL default 'rule',
  nweek mediumint(9) NOT NULL default '0',
  owner mediumint(9) NOT NULL default '0',
  PRIMARY KEY  (rulekey),
  UNIQUE KEY rulekey (rulekey),
  KEY rulenum (rulenum)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
# --------------------------------------------------------
# I've been thinking about adding a "status" column for stuff (i.e.
# 'unrecognized','open','passed','failed','notjudged','judged' etc.)
# owner refers to a player, defaulting to 0 (The Administrator).

CREATE TABLE playerdim (
  player tinyint(4) NOT NULL default '0',
  dim tinyint(4) NOT NULL default '0',
  val float NOT NULL default '0',
  PRIMARY KEY  (player,dim)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
# --------------------------------------------------------
# player/dim cross-references

CREATE TABLE players (
  pid int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
  name varchar(250) NOT NULL default '',
  start datetime default NULL,
  email varchar(250) NOT NULL default '',
  inventory text NOT NULL,
  human enum('y','n') NOT NULL default 'y',
  alive enum('y','n') NOT NULL default 'y',
  PRIMARY KEY  (pid)
) TYPE=MyISAM;

# Again, mostly obvious. I don't use 'start' for anything - it's just a
# record of when an entity was entered. I added it in case someone tried
# some wacky seniority notions (please don't consider this an invitation
# to do so). "inventory" is just a general comments field. "human" is
# obvious, but "alive" isn't -- I had to add that for players that aren't
# on the roster, but who still own stuff (players that have forfeited,
# but still `own' proposals etc.

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:24:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: recognitions etc
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm planning to do a big batch of recognitions sometime tonight or
tomorrow. Technically, none of that stuff will be recognized until the
Clock comes back on, but I hope nobody will be upset if I add it all to
the database early.

I'll do them just like I normally do - I'll go back about a hundred mails
in the "Nomic" folder, and recognize stuff in that order. That means that
revisions will, in fact, be treated as such, complete with incremented
serial numbers.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the downtime. I've
been coding away in my (much-diminished) spare time, and hopefully some
nice stuff, Web site-wise, will be done on-time.

And since I get to make one proposal per nweek now, I've already got a
couple ideas. I'm still trying to decide whether to be patient, or just
toss out an omnibus proposal with a couple unrelated notions.

...dave

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

"There is so much randomness in the world that it's
a dice roll whether I'm happy or depressed." - TMCM

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:39:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nweek 8 gremlin number
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> Mr. A, has the nweek 8 gremlin number been calculated and posted yet?
> I'd like to know before I submit certain proposals.

Yeah, it was in one of the end-of-nweek mails I sent out a while back.

The Gremlin Number for next nweek is 85.

...dave

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nomilogue #1
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:43:25 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Many, Many, MANY Golf Claps... I am impressed.  However, I'm sure I'm 
spending too much time on this game already... :)

-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

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:30:23 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: db schema
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

MySQL actually does have a modicum of referential integrity if you use InnoDB (version 3.23.44 and up), but let's assume that's not available to you for the time being.  I haven't used it myself, anyway, so I'm not sure how well it works.

So, a few early suggestions...

1)  Convert all your int and mediumint columns to smallint.  The realistic chances of our exceeding 32,767 players or nweeks are practically nil.  32,767 rule/CFJ objects and revisions might happen eventually, but not for a long while.  If you really want to be safe, I think mediumint for the rulekey and smallint for the other integers in the nomicrules table should provide sufficient headroom.  That allows 32,767 rules/CFJs with 32,767 revisions each, and 8388607 total unique object/revision iterations.

2)  Use the same name and data type for columns you are joining.  E.g.  playerdim.dim and dims.dimid should share the same data type and column name.  Likewise for playerdim.player and players.pid.  You should get better join performance this way.

3)  Split players into two tables, one fixed-record-length, one dynamic.  Require players with player names longer than 20 characters to declare a short name to be used to represent them on all pages other than the roster.  This one may require a proposal to modify the player name rule, but maybe not, since it does still permit the player's name to actually be up to 255 characters.  

Then you have:

CREATE TABLE players (
   pid smallint(6) NOT NULL auto_increment,
   short_name char(20) NOT NULL default '',
   start datetime default NULL,
   human enum('y','n') NOT NULL default 'y',
   alive enum('y','n') NOT NULL default 'y',
   PRIMARY KEY  (pid)
 ) TYPE=MyISAM;

# This smaller fixed-length table should provide better performance
# at a minimal cost of space for the fixed-length char(20) field.

CREATE TABLE players_roster (
   pid smallint(6) NOT NULL auto_increment,
   name varchar(250) NOT NULL default '',
   email varchar(250) NOT NULL default '',
   inventory text NOT NULL,
   PRIMARY KEY  (pid)
 ) TYPE=MyISAM;

# This dynamic data is really only needed for the roster page.

Yes, it's not 3rd normal form to do this, but that's a rule that's made to be broken when performance demands it.  Besides, 3NF is mostly cosmetic when you don't have relational integrity to enforce it.

That's all I've got for now.  Still banging on some other ideas which I'll post later.

--Scoff!

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (welcome back!)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:04:27 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Baron von Skippy's "I Have Found The Solution!" is 409/0.
"Another Way To Remove A Splinter" is 410/0.

-Um. Is there a way to remove the first one from the ballot? I have to 
replace it, don't I? Wonder what with... The thing is, it doesn't actually 
DO anything.-

Baron von Skippy did not transfer ten points to anyone (for correcting eir 
interpretation that "rule" is a two-syllable word) because I'm not gonna be 
bothered to scour through all those email messages. (I claim that since e 
failed to specify another legal owner of points, per rule 21/3, the transfer 
failed.)
-It doesn't matter a whit, as I have no points.-

There is still one open CFJ: 324. It was assigned to Baron von Skippy well 
more than seven ndays ago, and e hasn't yet rendered an opinion. E is 
penalized ten points (not that e has any...), and is added to the List of 
Misbehaving Judges.
-I had a CFJ? Oops...-

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:26:16 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (welcome back!)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/23/02 at 2:25 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Glotmorf's "Journey of a Thousand Words" is 414/0. And I'd advise Glotmorf
>to lay off the drugs, because every time you drop one of those speedballs
>you were obviously on when you wrote that, you're supporting terrorism.

Uh-huh.  Did you note that the subject of the email was Nomilogue *#1*? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:36:00 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: __Hiding Really Means Hiding__
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/23/02 at 2:25 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>__Hiding Really Means Hiding__
>
>A Gremlin which is Hiding has no location. It is neither on the Grid, nor
>in Limbo. A Gremlin which goes into Hiding for any reason is removed from
>the Grid if it is on the Grid, and is removed from Limbo if it is in
>Limbo. Such Gremlins may not be used in GremBall, and may not vote (if
>another rule specifies that a Gremlin may vote, this rule takes precedence
>over that one).
>
>Newly-created Gremlins, and Gremlins which become Active, have a 50%
>chance of entering Limbo, and a 50% chance of being placed on the Grid at
>a random location determined by the Administrator, unless the starting
>position of said Gremlin is defined elsewhere.
>
>}}

Is a Gremlin in the possession of a Player considered to be where the Player is -- that is, on the Grid or in Limbo?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:04:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: __Hiding Really Means Hiding__
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> >__Hiding Really Means Hiding__
> >
> Is a Gremlin in the possession of a Player considered to be where the
> Player is -- that is, on the Grid or in Limbo?

Whilst common sense would seem to dictate that the answer is "yes", common
sense often doesn't play a role in Nomic.

I also realize that the proposal isn't future-proof: if at some point
there are locations other than the Grid and Limbo, it breaks horribly.

It'll get revised at some point.

...dave

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:54:36 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:46:45AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> > How about a Web-based voting system which outputs a text file that we
> > can attach to an e-mail?
> 
> That doesn't help the vote-fraud option too much. Worst-case: I'd have to
> sort through tens or hundreds of votes to find the dozen legit ones.

How's that? You don't currently get tens or hundreds of votes from
non-players, do you?

I'll clarify: you fill out a form and it outputs a text file. You then
send that file in an e-mail to the Forum. It simply makes formatting the
vote e-mails easier - and it puts them in a consistent format, so that
perhaps a script on your end would be able to process them.

If some random person starts sending too many messages, that's spamming
the Forum, and should be dealt with appropriately.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:02:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> How's that? You don't currently get tens or hundreds of votes from
> non-players, do you?

No, I don't, and I'd rather like to keep it that way.

Perhaps I've spent entirely too much time doing Web development, with an
emphasis on the security aspects thereof.

> I'll clarify: you fill out a form and it outputs a text file. You then
> send that file in an e-mail to the Forum. It simply makes formatting the
> vote e-mails easier - and it puts them in a consistent format, so that
> perhaps a script on your end would be able to process them.

Aha. I was thinking more along the lines of "storing votes online and
automagically counting them".

See, I'm more of a Web person than a text person, so I just sorta filtered
everything through that preconception.

Your idea is intelligent and plausible, whereas mine is just plain goofy
by comparison.

...dave

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:24:06 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: So, what should I be doing?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/25/02 at 12:02 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>> I'll clarify: you fill out a form and it outputs a text file. You then
>> send that file in an e-mail to the Forum. It simply makes formatting the
>> vote e-mails easier - and it puts them in a consistent format, so that
>> perhaps a script on your end would be able to process them.
>
>Aha. I was thinking more along the lines of "storing votes online and
>automagically counting them".
>
>See, I'm more of a Web person than a text person, so I just sorta filtered
>everything through that preconception.
>
>Your idea is intelligent and plausible, whereas mine is just plain goofy
>by comparison.

Actually...why not do both?  Save the votes in a table with player, nweek, prop and vote fields, then report those votes to the forum via email.  Then query a count per prop per vote value at the end of the nweek.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:14:29 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: __Hiding Really Means Hiding__
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/23/02 at 2:25 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>__Hiding Really Means Hiding__
>
>A Gremlin which is Hiding has no location. It is neither on the Grid, nor
>in Limbo. A Gremlin which goes into Hiding for any reason is removed from
>the Grid if it is on the Grid, and is removed from Limbo if it is in
>Limbo. Such Gremlins may not be used in GremBall, and may not vote (if
>another rule specifies that a Gremlin may vote, this rule takes precedence
>over that one).
>
>Newly-created Gremlins, and Gremlins which become Active, have a 50%
>chance of entering Limbo, and a 50% chance of being placed on the Grid at
>a random location determined by the Administrator, unless the starting
>position of said Gremlin is defined elsewhere.
>
>}}

Dude.  Didn't notice this before.  The second paragraph is in conflict with r256's last sentence.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:43:11 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Steven Spielberg Presents...Gremlins
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> {{ _They're not just cute and furry and aerodynamic..._
> 
> [[
> 
> DON'T get them wet!
> DON'T feed them after midnight!
> DON'T take them out into the sun!
> 
> ]]
> 
> Create a new rule:
> 
> {{ _Gremlin Multiplication_
> 
> If a Gremlin should become Wet (as opposed to already being Wet), or if a
> Gremlin is fed something (as explicitly permitted in the rules, and as opposed
> to the Gremlin eating something on its own) between the hours of 00:00:00 and
> 06:00:00 UTC, it will Multiply, causing an additional Gremlin of the same type
> as the first to be created in the same location as the first.  A Gremlin may
> not Multiply more than once per nday.
> 
> The name given to the new Gremlin shall be enumerated for uniqueness, e.g. the
> Second King Gremlin, the Fifth Witch Gremlin, the Eight Hundred and
> Seventy-Third Proposal Ingesting Gremlin, etc.  If a particular enumerated
> Gremlin is referred to by its alias, the enumeration must be included in the
> reference, e.g. Luigi the Twelfth.
> 
> }}
> 
> Add the following paragraph to the end of r345:
> 
> "If more than one Luigi exists at the time a collection is to be made from a
> Player, the Luigi that makes the collection, and thus gets the points, is
> determined randomly by the Administrator.  A Player may make a payment to any
> Luigi."
> 
> }}
> 
> 
Although I do find it interesting to see how people are getting around the
"unique Gremlin names" problem, wouldn't it be vastly simpler just to change
the sentence that requires each Gremlin to have a unique name? Right now,
you say Multiplication will create a new Gremlin of the same 'type' as the
Multiplying Gremlin, but 'type' is undefined....

Speaking of multiple Gremlins, what stops a player who is next to the
Factory from pushing the button 1000 times and chucking the massive numbers
of Swarm Gremlins all over the place? That would get really complicated
really fast... (I catch the twelfth Swarm Gremlin and the two-hundred and
seventy sixth Swarm Gremlin and throw both of them, plus Swarm Gremlins 83
through 95 inclusive, at Wonko. Then I pick up the eight, ninth,
forty-second, seven-hundred and first, and three-hundred ninety-seventh
Swarm Gremlins and throw then at Uin. I also throw the eighty-second Swarm
Gremlin at Dan.) (Imagine what the Grid website would look like... <:O
    -------------------
    |Wonko            |
    |The First Swarm  |
    |Gremlin(airborne,|
    |dest. (7,12))    |
    |The Forty-Third  |
    |Swarm Gremlin    |
    |(airborne, dest. |
    |(9,11))          |
    |The Third Swarm  |
    |Gremlin(airborne,|
    |dest. (18,2))    |
    |The Ninth Swarm  |
    |Gremlin(airborne,|
    |dest. (1,1))     |
    |The Second Swarm |
    |Gremlin(airborne,|
    |dest. (20,17))   |
    |The Twelfth Swarm|
    |Gremlin(airborne,|
    |dest. (15,15))   |
    |etc.             |
    |etc.             |

)

--Wonko

"Nothing is wrong with California that a rise in the ocean level wouldn't
cure. "
- Ross MacDonald

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:45:24 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hannibal Comes to the Mountain
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Donald Whytock,

> {{ _Them's Good Eatin'_
> 
> Create a new rule:
> 
> {{ _The Cannibalistic Gremlin_
> 
> There exists a Gremlin called the Cannibalistic Gremlin, also known as
> Hannibal.  Hannibal is Active if any other Gremlins are Active; otherwise it
> is Hiding.
> 
> Hannibal has an attribute called Hunger.  At the beginning of an nweek,
> Hannibal's Hunger is increased by 1.  If Hannibal eats a Gremlin, its hunger
> is reduced by -1.
> 
> At the beginning of an nday, the following circumstances are evaluated and
> acted upon:
> 
> 1. If Hannibal is in the same location (Grid, Limbo, or in a Player's
> possession) as one or more other Active Gremlins, one of those Gremlins will
> be randomly selected, and Hannibal will eat it; the eaten Gremlin is
> destroyed.  Hannibal will then take no further actions that nday.
> 
> 2. If Hannibal is airborne, i.e. thrown at a Player and not yet caught or
> impacted, it takes no action that nday.
> 
> 3. If Hannibal is in the possession of a Player, it will Kick that Player,
> causing damage equivalent to being hit by a flying Gremlin, and drop out of
> the Player's possession into the Player's location.
> 
> 4. If Hannibal is in Limbo, and there are no Active Gremlins in Limbo, but
> there are Active Gremlins on the Grid, it will perform an
> Elbonian-Airways-style Throw on itself at one of those Gremlins, randomly
> selected.
> 
> 5. If Hannibal is on the Grid, and not in the same location as another Active
> Gremlin, and there are Active Gremlins on the Grid, it will move one Grid
> location closer to the nearest (or one of the nearest, randomly selected)
> Gremlin.
> 
> 6. If Hannibal is in Limbo, and there are no Active Gremlins in Limbo or on
> the Grid, but there are Players on the Grid carrying Active Gremlins, it will
> perform a GremBall-style throw on itself at one of those Players, randomly
> selected.
> 
> 7. If Hannibal is on the Grid, and there are no Active Gremlins on the Grid,
> but there are Players on the Grid or in Limbo carrying Active Gremlins, it
> will perform a GremBall-style throw on itself at one of those Players,
> randomly selected.
> 
> A Player can feed a Gremlin to Hannibal, either by possessing Hannibal or
> being at its location and giving it a Gremlin that e possesses or that is at
> its location, or by throwing a Gremlin at Hannibal, who will then catch and
> eat the Gremlin.
> 
> If Hannibal's Hunger reaches -3, it will explode, and be destroyed.
> 
> If more than one Hannibal exists, random selection of all Hannibals'
> consumption targets will occur before the actual consumption.  The Hannibals
> will then be randomly sequenced and perform their consumption in turn.  If a
> Hannibal is eaten by another Hannibal before it gets to do its own eating, its
> consumption target isn't eaten.  If one Hannibal's consumption target is eaten
> by another Hannibal, the first Hannibal doesn't eat.
> 
> }}
> 
> }}
> 
> 
> 
Doesn't that require a lot of work for the Admin? Hannibal would have to be
recalculated and updated every single nday...

--Wonko

"I would have made a good Pope. "
- Richard M. Nixon

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Steven Spielberg Presents...Gremlins
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:21:32 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

(I catch the twelfth Swarm Gremlin and the two-hundred and
seventy sixth Swarm Gremlin and throw both of them, plus Swarm Gremlins 83 
through 95 inclusive, at Wonko. Then I pick up the eight, ninth,
forty-second, seven-hundred and first, and three-hundred ninety-seventh
Swarm Gremlins and throw then at Uin. I also throw the eighty-second Swarm 
Gremlin at Dan.) (Imagine what the Grid website would look like... <:O

-Sounds like airborne swarms... That'd be nifty. "I pick up the 256th 
(airborne Gremlin) squadron and throw it at The Voice, who'll get the 
reference..."-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:17:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Multiple Gremlins
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/25/02 at 10:04 PM Wonko wrote:

>Say, Gremlin multiplicity could have some disastrous repercussions... If
>we
>get 2 PIGs, for instance, they both simultaneously eat the same proposal.
>Then what happens? Also, it could cause problems with the Scoring Gremlin 
>there are a number of rules that refer to it specifically, and if there are
>2 of it, then it's inherent shutoff (when the lowest player ties someone
>else) might never occur. Also, imagine the chaos with 50 Scoring Gremlins 
>Whenever a prop is recognized, the lowest scoring player gets 50 points?!?
>And what about the Bandwidth Gremlin? You could have a player end up with
>50
>or 60 Proposal Tokens!
>
>Is it just me, or is that bad?
>
>--Wonko

Well, that IS why I proposed a predator...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:34:52 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hannibal Comes to the
  Mountain
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/25/02 at 7:45 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Donald Whytock,
>
>> {{ _The Cannibalistic Gremlin_
>> 
>Doesn't that require a lot of work for the Admin? Hannibal would have to be
>recalculated and updated every single nday...
>
>
>--Wonko

>From a programming standpoint, doing the evaluations isn't that hard, though I'm not sure about the legality of the dice-rolling mechanism.  Given random numbers, though, it's pretty much some database fetches and a little array manipulation in Perl, which can be stuck in a crontab.

Here's a thought: a rule that requires proposal submitters to supply code that allows an Admin to actually be able to administer the new rule being proposed...

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:32:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Steven Spielberg Presents...Gremlins
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Speaking of multiple Gremlins, what stops a player who is next to the
> Factory from pushing the button 1000 times and chucking the massive numbers
> of Swarm Gremlins all over the place? That would get really complicated
> really fast...

You must have misread my proposal.  The factory will only produce one
swarm grelin per day.  Here's the proposed rule again:
______
There Exists a Factory.  The Factory is an immovable, impassable object.
A Player who is adjacent to the Factory on the Grid may press the purple
button on the Factory.  The first time this is done on any nday the
Factory shall create a Swarm Gremlin.  The Administrator shall place the
newly created gremlin on the Grid at the location of the player who was
responsible for its creation.
______

Dan

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:46:39 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Hannibal Comes to the Mountain
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> If Hannibal eats a Gremlin, its hunger is reduced by -1.
>
Surely you can't be serious.

uin.
-- 

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

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:54:31 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Hannibal Comes to the Mountain
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Problems here...

> Hannibal has an attribute called Hunger.  At the beginning of 
> an nweek, Hannibal's Hunger is increased by 1.  If Hannibal 
> eats a Gremlin, its hunger is reduced by -1.

A reduction of -1 is the same as an addition of 1.  Do you really intend for Hannibal to become ever more ravenous each time e eats a Gremlin?

> If Hannibal's Hunger reaches -3, it will explode, and be destroyed.

Never happen, due to the situation noted above.

--Scoff!

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:00:29 -0600
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Multiple Gremlins
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's not just you.

While the allusion to the Spielberg Gremlins franchise was good for a brief chuckle, I think the gameplay implications of multiplying Gremlins are very ill-advised.

Very, very bad.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wonko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:04 PM
> To: Business Nomic
> Subject: spoon-business: Multiple Gremlins
> 
> 
> Say, Gremlin multiplicity could have some disastrous 
> repercussions... If we
> get 2 PIGs, for instance, they both simultaneously eat the 
> same proposal.
> Then what happens? Also, it could cause problems with the 
> Scoring Gremlin 
> there are a number of rules that refer to it specifically, 
> and if there are
> 2 of it, then it's inherent shutoff (when the lowest player 
> ties someone
> else) might never occur. Also, imagine the chaos with 50 
> Scoring Gremlins 
> Whenever a prop is recognized, the lowest scoring player gets 
> 50 points?!?
> And what about the Bandwidth Gremlin? You could have a player 
> end up with 50
> or 60 Proposal Tokens!
> 
> Is it just me, or is that bad?
> 
> --Wonko
> 
> "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
> - Napoleon Bonaparte
> 
> 
> 

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:24:44 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Hannibal Comes to the
  Mountain
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/26/02 at 11:46 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> If Hannibal eats a Gremlin, its hunger is reduced by -1.
>>
>Surely you can't be serious.

I can, but I can also pretend to type correctly at 3:00 am.  Thanks for pointing out a need for correction.

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:34:47 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Proposal 412
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/26/02 at 11:47 AM Dan wrote:

>I revise proposal 412 as follows: 
>
>{{
>
>replace the last instance of: 
>
>{{ append the following paragraph: }}
>
>with: 
>
>{{ append the following: }}
>
>replace: 
>
>{{ Held gremlins cannot hold anything. }}
>
>with: 
>
>{{ Held gremlins cannot hold anything.  If the holder of an object (this
>includes gremlins and anything else that can be held) ever ceases to be
>allowed to hold that object, the new location of the held object is the
>drid location (or limbo) of its former holder.}}
>
>}}

Sorry, I don't remember if this was asked before...On Players, Score is a Dimension, but I don't believe there's anything in the rules about Gremlins having Dimensions.  If a Gremlin has X points, are those points something the Gremlin is "holding"?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:31:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revision of Proposal 412
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Sorry, I don't remember if this was asked before...On Players, Score
> is a Dimension, but I don't believe there's anything in the rules
> about Gremlins having Dimensions.  If a Gremlin has X points, are
> those points something the Gremlin is "holding"?
> 

Thanks for pointing that out.  I think there is enough distinction between
'holding' and 'owning', so I don't think that it will be a problem.
Dimensions are a subset of numerical attributes, one of which is score.
There is nothing that prevents a Gremlins from having a numerical
attribute.

If I am wrong, however, it is a problem that has to be tackled from
the other side.  More work would need to be done that is outside the scope
of my proposal, to create either a distinction between 'owning' and
'holding' or a sensible way to unify them.  This would also mean going
through all the rules that deal with anything that can be owned (mostly
just points but also things like the immunity idol, etc.) and govern how
they behave on the Grid.

Dan

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Entropy
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:20:13 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In honor of my AP Chemistry class, I hereby propose the following rule:

{{ _Second Law of Thermodynomics_

[[

Nomiverses are
very confusing places
due to Entropy.

]]

Create a new rule known as _Entropy_ with the following -0- delimited text:

-0-
Players have an attribute called Entropy.  Entropy is a Dimension.  At the
end of each nweek, each player's Entropy shall increase by an amount equal
to the sum of the increase in eir charm for that nweek and 1/2 the number of
game actions (movements, purchases, throws, etc.)taken during that nweek.

The game state shall have a property known as Universal Entropy.  The value
for Universal Entropy is always equal to the sum of all players' Entropy
values.  If Universal Entropy is ever greater than 500, the Clock will be
turned off until the Watch reads 3 wdays, and the following actions will
occur in order immediately: 1)All sirens, big rocks, shields, big sticks,
and balls of wax are destroyed.  2)All players are placed into Limbo.  3)All
properties of grid squares [[such as Wet or Frozen]] are removed.  4)The
Yeti is moved to a random square on the grid.  5)All Gremlins go into
Hiding.  6)All players receive 10 points.   7)All players' Entropy values
are set to 0.
-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.*

-Lift pen. Drop pen. Contribute to rising entropy of universe. Lift pen. 
Drop pen. Repeat as necessary. "In other words, damn that rising entropy!"-

                                           -BvS-
                               Making life a little more surreal

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:33:21 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Wind
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/26/02 at 10:28 PM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>I promised I'd add more, so here goes:
>
>{{ _No, YOU'RE a Blowhard!_
>
>[[
>
>Watch out where you aim!
>The wind is blowing hard and
>you may miss your goal.
>
>]]
>
>Append the following -0- delimited text to the end of rule 405/0:
>
>-0-
>Wind is a Characteristic.
>
>Wind has two sub-characteristics, Speed (S) and Direction (D).  All
>objects 
>which are thrown on the Grid (gremlins, players via E.A., etc.) behave in 
>the following manner: If 5<S<10, the thrown object falls 1 square away
>from 
>the intended target in the direction of D (north, west, southeast, etc.).  
>If 10<S<20, the thrown object falls 2 squares away from the intended
>target 
>in the direction of D.  If 20<S<30, the thrown object falls 3 squares away 
>from the intended target in the direction of D.  If 30<S<40, the thrown 
>object automatically falls into Limbo.  If an object is in flight when S
>and 
>D are updated, its target is changed relative to its once-adjusted
>position.
>-0-
>}}
>
>My values for S are based in mph, if you (dave) have values in kph more 
>easily accessible, I give you permission to rectify this proposal in order 
>to give comparable values for S.  Also, that last sentence is kinda badly 
>phrased.  If anyone has any suggestions on how to phrase that better, feel 
>free to put them on discuss and I will implement them.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Does wind apply for objects entering the Grid from Limbo?

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Wind
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:51:19 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Does wind apply for objects entering the Grid from Limbo?

-That would be interesting, if you were to miss your target... what happens 
if you miss and hit a Big Rock, though? That could hurt.-

						Glotmorf

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Wind
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:27:45 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >I promised I'd add more, so here goes:
> >
> >{{ _No, YOU'RE a Blowhard!_
> >
> >[[
> >
> >Watch out where you aim!
> >The wind is blowing hard and
> >you may miss your goal.
> >
> >]]
> >
> >Append the following -0- delimited text to the end of rule 405/0:
> >
> >-0-
> >Wind is a Characteristic.
> >
> >Wind has two sub-characteristics, Speed (S) and Direction (D).  All
> >objects
> >which are thrown on the Grid (gremlins, players via E.A., etc.) behave in
> >the following manner: If 5<S<10, the thrown object falls 1 square away
> >from
> >the intended target in the direction of D (north, west, southeast, etc.).
> >If 10<S<20, the thrown object falls 2 squares away from the intended
> >target
> >in the direction of D.  If 20<S<30, the thrown object falls 3 squares 
>away
> >from the intended target in the direction of D.  If 30<S<40, the thrown
> >object automatically falls into Limbo.  If an object is in flight when S
> >and
> >D are updated, its target is changed relative to its once-adjusted
> >position.
> >-0-
> >}}
> >
> >My values for S are based in mph, if you (dave) have values in kph more
> >easily accessible, I give you permission to rectify this proposal in 
>order
> >to give comparable values for S.  Also, that last sentence is kinda badly
> >phrased.  If anyone has any suggestions on how to phrase that better, 
>feel
> >free to put them on discuss and I will implement them.
> >
> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
>Does wind apply for objects entering the Grid from Limbo?
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>

No, I always assumed that objects entering the Grid from Limbo just sorta 
teleported there, that they didn't fly there.  Maybe this was a conceptual 
problem on my part...  Do I need to say that objects entering aren't 
affected, or is that understood? (dave?)

-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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:48:31 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Nomilogue
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Say, doesn't the Nomilogue proposal need the words "Create the following
rule" or something like that?

--Wonko

"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to
dance."
- George Bernard Shaw

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:04:04 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Nomilogue
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 07:48 PM 2002-02-27 -0500, you wrote:
>Say, doesn't the Nomilogue proposal need the words "Create the following
>rule" or something like that?

Not according to "Standard delimeters" it doesn't.

Bean

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: The following message
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:40:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey, all.
      I need to alter my rule "a flaming Gremlin named Bruce"s (You're 
right, uin, "proosal" IS better than "proposal"), and wish to do that 
without any massive argument over the legality of my finding underhanded 
ways to speak around the Sushi. So, I found an underhanded way to speak 
around the Sushi long enough to get rid of the accursed thing. What follows 
will be the un-sushiied text of the message I will post immediatly after 
this one. Interpret the next message to mean this:

      "I give the Cursed Sushi of Babel to The Voice, because everyone 
flying needs an appropriate in-flight meal. I hope e enjoys having it as 
much as I did. Goodbye, foul raw fish."

      I hope this doesn't confuse anybody. If it does, please refer to my 
other Nomic game's Help Page at 
http://www.geocities.com/rfrongil/Nomic/help.html . Thank you.

                                          Cheers,
                                            BvS

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:46:06 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Tactic the message which it does 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 09:42 PM 2002-02-27 -0500, you wrote:
>... to acoustic ...

Looks like we've got a nickname for The Voice too....

Bean

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: The sushi is good, it eats, 
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:41:43 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It goes out and in order to talk real anything it does not have and and 
when, well, I am going from here giving my inauguration sushi message. Easy 
sushified, that the right side must do, it is vivid? I will hold one will 
do, having more and going until an end from first it coh Oh percentage theyn 
the place. The Anyway, to it it gets lately, it is like that all there is a 
good day/night.

-0- to be like this Spake acoustic -0-
* ignore the signature: 1) that will wind in you and
3) your you whom it does not manufacture did not read lastly of this roster 
and in order to manufacture the thing criticisming
4 which they poke fun at) the impression old-fashioned thing which moves
2) by it seems.
It will be extensive, it thanks, the work which is good. Have *

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:01:17 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Nomilogue
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/27/02 at 8:04 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>At 07:48 PM 2002-02-27 -0500, you wrote:
>>Say, doesn't the Nomilogue proposal need the words "Create the following
>>rule" or something like that?
>
>Not according to "Standard delimeters" it doesn't.
>
>Bean

"Elimination of Boilerplate," actually, combined with "Standard Delimiters."  Mind you, amendments to existing rules will be tricky, but I have a couple ideas.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:05:52 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Nomilogue
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 11:01 PM 2002-02-27 -0500, you wrote:
>On 2/27/02 at 8:04 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
> >At 07:48 PM 2002-02-27 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Say, doesn't the Nomilogue proposal need the words "Create the following
> >>rule" or something like that?
> >
> >Not according to "Standard delimeters" it doesn't.
> >
> >Bean
>
>"Elimination of Boilerplate," actually, combined with "Standard 
>Delimiters."  Mind you, amendments to existing rules will be tricky, but I 
>have a couple ideas.

True, true.  Though you can ammend just by saying so... It's not that 
tricky :)  I keep the boilerplate to avoid confusion... but that's just me.

Bean

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:41:46 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: First Limerick Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/26/02 at 3:15 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>__There Was A Young Siren From Nantucket...__
>
>{{
>
>Sirens are sexy and sweet.
>By Big Rocks they cannot be beat.
>Change Rule 346
>In which sentence? Six!
>'Tween the deuce and trey commas, delete.
>
>}}
>
>[[ To clarify, although it should be pretty plain, this removes the clause
>"as well as anything sitting on the original Big Rock" from rule 346. 
>It's no fun if you can just buy your way out of a Siren problem.  Big
>Rocks still destroy other Big Rocks, but anything else in the space stays
>there.
>
>I'll gladly vote this clause back in if we ever get bored of Sirens, but I'd really like to see the rule in action first, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of points buying Big Rocks if everyone else is just going to buy the Sirens into oblivion. ]]

Hmm...Sirens were proposed, and voted in.  The clause that allows falling Rocks to destroy Sirens was proposed, and voted in.  So if this proposal that removes that clause passes, Jonathan and I would both have gotten points for a net change of zero.

Besides, take out that one clause, and that leaves "both Big Rocks are destroyed and the location becomes vacant."  If the location is vacant, where's the Siren?  If both Big Rocks are destroyed, what's left for the Siren to sit on?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:05:39 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Gnomes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/27/02 at 7:45 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__They're everywhere too!__
>
>Create:
>{{
>__Gnomes__
>
>There exist objects called Gnomes. Each Gnome has a type. Gnome types may
>only exist as defined by the rules. Each Gnome can be either at a Grid
>Location, in Limbo, or in the possession of a Player. Gnomes may be picked
>up and thrown as if they were Gremlins. Each Gnome has two Hit Points. If a
>Gnome is Thrown at a player but not caught, it loses one Hit Point. If a
>Gnome has less than 1 Hit Point, it crumbles to dust and is destroyed.
>Whenever a Gnome type is defined, a single Gnome of that type shall be
>placed in the same manner as a Gremlin would be placed when it is first
>defined.
>This rule defers to all rules which define types of Gnomes.
>}}
>
>Create:
>{{
>__Basic Gnomes__
>
>There exist Gnomes of type Basic.
>}}
>
>Amend rule 406 to read:
>{{
>__Yoyo Gnomes__
>
>There exist Gnomes of type Yoyo. When a Yoyo Gnome is Thrown at a player
>and
>is not caught, it returns to the possession of the player who threw it, if
>one exists. Yoyo Gnomes have 3 Hit Points.
>}}
>}}
>
>Popular opinion seems to be that having "Gremlins" that can multiply would
>be cool. This is similar to the Gremlin Multiplicity thing, except without
>the need to rewrite most Gremlin rules. Basic Gnomes are just Gnomes. The
>Yoyo Gremlin I think might be better as a Gnome than a Gremlin, 'cause it
>won't be screwed up by multiplicity.
>
>
>--Wonko

So basically a Gnome is a porcelain Gremlin that easily breaks?  Let's rename the Grid into the Garden before we toss porcelain Gnomes into it. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:09:12 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Game Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/27/02 at 7:53 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Tyler Crosby,
>
>> In this order,
>> 
>> I move to 6,6.
>> 
>> I fly Elbonian Airways, and my destination is the bottom central station.
>> 
>> I place myself on the roster for Team Crimson.
>> 
>> Here I come, Bean.
>> 
>
>Actually, I'm afraid you don't. The move works fine, but it won't take
>effect until the end of the nweek. Next nweek, you'll be able to fly
>Elbonian, but not yet. (that's one reason I think moves should happen
>immediately, not at the end of the nweek).
>
>Since you did everything in that order, I assume you also failed to place
>yourself on Crimson, bcs you haven't flown Elbonian yet.
>
>On a related note, I move to (18,6).
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Actually, the Elbonian Airways rule doesn't say that flying EA counts as a move...so perhaps the Throw and the adding to the Crimson Roster will count as actions this nweek that'll just happen after the Grid move?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:19:14 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Immunity Idol/ Respect
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/27/02 at 4:54 PM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>{{ _Mommy, my Idol's broken!_
>
>Replace the second paragraph of rule 293/0 with the following -0-
>delimited 
>text:
>
>-0-
>The player who holds the Immunity Idol:
>1)May hold any gremlin for any amount of time.  If a player loses the Idol 
>while they are holding a gremlin, the time limit starts from the point at 
>which they lost the Idol.
>2)May be "hit" by any gremlin without a point loss.  If a gremlin hits the 
>player with the Idol, e immediately goes into Hiding.
>3)May forego making debt payments to Luigi without penalty.
>4)May NOT curse any other player or be cursed emselves.
>5)May NOT recieve the Token of Proposals.
>6)May NOT Climb Through the Window.
>7)May NOT have any of eir proposals eaten by the PIG.
>
>Any rule which creates a gremlin which directly affects players must also 
>amend this rule to specify how that gremlin would affect the player with
>the 
>Idol.
>-0-
>
>Also, give said rule a chutzpah of 2. [[Easier than going through and 
>writing down all the rules this rule now has to take precedence over...]]
>}}

Rather than requiring "any rule which creates a gremlin" to modify your new rule, how about "any proposal creating a rule which creates a gremlin", so that instead of trying to handle conflicting rules, the act that doesn't comply is cut off at the root.  Even if it's passed without a CFJ, it wasn't a valid proposal in the first place, and CFJing it later can still knock out the rule.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:16:49 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, guys, I'm seeing fairly polarized opinions on the whole Gremlin Multiplication thang.  Can I get a quickish straw poll on the idea?  I can, if need be, replace the Spielberg proposal with little trouble.

BTW, it's a relief to see the old familiar traffic on the fora.  It was godawful quiet at first when the clock went back on.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:30:17 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:16:49AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Okay, guys, I'm seeing fairly polarized opinions on the whole Gremlin Multiplication thang.  Can I get a quickish straw poll on the idea?  I can, if need be, replace the Spielberg proposal with little trouble.

I would quite vehemently protest against it, since it could break the
game in so many ways. In short, no no no.

> BTW, it's a relief to see the old familiar traffic on the fora.  It was godawful quiet at first when the clock went back on.

Like I said, the Nomic ceased to exist then. We were just stumbling to
find our way back into it. I suggest that the Clock never be turned off
again.

Anything which prevents proposals from being passable (A Nomic's
"quorum" rule, for example) is hazardous to a Nomic's health.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:17:30 -0500
From: "Donald Whytock" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Heat Death of the Nomic
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 2/28/02 at 1:51 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>Since I am afraid that thomehow, in the future, the Clock may get turned
>off and become impothible to turn on again, or some other disathter along
>those lines might occur, I propose:
>
>__Nomic Revival__
>{{
>
>Create a rule with a Chutzpah of 3:
>__Nomic Revival__
>{{
>
>  In any 21-day span of time, there must be at least one opportunity to
>  change the ruleset. It is not necessary that the ruleset actually
>  change as a result of this opportunity, only that there was a
>  plausible way for it to change. [[For example, a proposal that is
>  voted down counts as an opportunity.]]
>
>  If such an opportunity would not otherwise exist, then on the 18th day
>  without opportunities to change the ruleset, the Administrator shall
>  release an Extra Ballot containing any proposals recognized since the
>  previous Ballot. Proposals on this Ballot may be voted on as usual in
>  the 72 hours following its release, and then proposals which pass,
>  according to normal voting rules, are implemented.
>  
>  If the Extra Ballot still does not create an opportunity to change the
>  rules [[ for example, if it is impossible to make proposals ]], then
>  on the 21st day the Administrator shall change the game state in the
>  way e deems best.
>
>}}
>}}
>
>[[ Yeth, thath right. There are no references to ndays or nweeks in
>thith proposal. ]]
>-- 
>Rob Thpeer

First off, there's an awful lot of un-lisped text in this...:)

Secondly, why not just call such a situation an emergency and invoke r0?  I myself would prefer that to leaving it solely to the Administrator to decide what to do.  You may THINK that what the Administrator will do is turn the Clock back on, but that ain't what it says; this gives him limitless power.  This is not to say that I distrust Mr. A or fail to love him as a long-lost brother; the concern simply has to be voiced.

Third...as the game progresses in its complexity, the effort required to administrate it will only continue to grow.  This will involve either additional programming or additional gruntwork.  Therefore, one of three circumstances will very likely come up:

- The length of a nweek will increase, or there will be pauses between nweeks, in order to allow Mr. A to catch up on his coding; or

- The length of a nweek will increase, or there will be pauses between nweeks, in order to allow Mr. A to catch up on his gruntwork; or

- Mr. A will go bugfuck.

Having myself brushed against such an experience as the third possibility in the past, I would not wish it on anyone -- not Mr. A, who would be experiencing it, and not the Players, who would be inconvenienced by it.  Assuming we are trying to avoid the third possibility, it's possible that the 21-day limit would eventually be hit.

To crystallize: Needs thought.

						Glotmorf

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:25:08 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Okay, guys, I'm seeing fairly polarized opinions on the whole Gremlin 
>Multiplication thang.  Can I get a quickish straw poll on the idea?  I can, 
>if need be, replace the Spielberg proposal with little trouble.
>
>BTW, it's a relief to see the old familiar traffic on the fora.  It was 
>godawful quiet at first when the clock went back on.
>
>						Glotmorf
Umm... Me it it does not like to be special... I like the gnome thing. It is 
to be opened us el for a E for be latent loopholes inside future, it does 
not leave. From that place percentage language is one Curt enormous one 
thing sees more but only? This that time of what it happens, me? And, I 
agree wholeheartedly in you regarding a forum. It is good to be after.

-0-Umm... I don't particularly like it... I prefer the gnome thing.  It 
doesn't leave us open for some potential loopholes in the future.  Say there 
is more than one Curt but only one Rod?  What happens then?  Also, I 
wholeheartedly agree with you about the fora.  It's good to be back.-0-  
[[I'm just getting my use out of the sushi. :) ]]

-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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:47:56 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I gotta say, Glotmorf, I'm also anti.  It's a great idea in theory, but I 
can envision too many practical problems.

Bean

P.S.  I, for one, enjoyed the break.... :P  However it is good to be going 
strong again.

At 01:16 AM 2002-02-28 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay, guys, I'm seeing fairly polarized opinions on the whole Gremlin 
>Multiplication thang.  Can I get a quickish straw poll on the idea?  I 
>can, if need be, replace the Spielberg proposal with little trouble.
>
>BTW, it's a relief to see the old familiar traffic on the fora.  It was 
>godawful quiet at first when the clock went back on.
>
>                                                 Glotmorf

From: "Jonathan Van Matre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:07:15 -0600
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've already noted my objection previously, but here's a suggestion for an alternative.  Feel free to use this yourself -- it's a friendly amendment instead of a proposal of my own because I did like the spirit of the idea, if not its effect.

Instead of multiplying Gremlins, create Mogwai entities.  Dump x number of Mogwais on the Grid every nweek.  If a Mogwai gets wet, it becomes a Proto-Gremlin.  No player may propose a rule or amendment that creates a new Gremlin except when in possession of a Proto-Gremlin.

Spielberg homage intact, but with a bit less mayhem, plus it gently but not unreasonably limits the number of new Gremlins we'll have meandering around.

--Scoff!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
> 
> 
> Okay, guys, I'm seeing fairly polarized opinions on the whole 
> Gremlin Multiplication thang.  Can I get a quickish straw 
> poll on the idea?  I can, if need be, replace the Spielberg 
> proposal with little trouble.
> 
> BTW, it's a relief to see the old familiar traffic on the 
> fora.  It was godawful quiet at first when the clock went back on.
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:08:58 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Okay, guys, I'm seeing fairly polarized opinions on the whole Gremlin 
> Multiplication thang.  Can I get a quickish straw poll on the idea?  I 
> can, if need be, replace the Spielberg proposal with little trouble.

Have to agree with the others.  I was really amused by the 
proposal at first, but I can see the difficulties...

-Congenital Optimist

-- 
[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, 28 Feb 2002 11:08:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm also against gremlin multiplication.  There are Gremlins that do all
sorts of neat things and we don't want them to multiply.  The potential
for loopholes is too large.

I encountered some of this when I was writing my gremlin bribery proposal.
That proposal may yet set a record for the number of revisions.  Things
get Waaay too complicated and if we let gremlins multiply, especially in
ways not easily controlled by the Players, we are going to have all sorts
of trouble.

On the other hand, having a variable number of gremlins is perhaps not so
bad.  To be able to create and destroy certain gremlins, within reasonable
limits, might be interesting.  But I'd rather not let our game get
cluttered up with self-multiplying creatures.  And I'd rather not dump
that much work on the Administrator.

Dan

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:00:37 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Let's go with making Gnomes multiplicable, and forget multiple Gremlins.

                                               BvS

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

From: "Tyler Crosby" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: translation --yoyo gremlin
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:37:35 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ahem...

While e still exists, I place the yoyo gremlin on the Grid at whichever 
square I happen to be at, (6,5) or (6,6), pick em up and throw em at 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.*

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:58:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: don't break out the emergency rules just yet...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

... I'm still here.

No, really.

Sometime tomorrow, I promise to get caught up with everything for this
nweek to date (including mid-nweek weather changes - right now, it's 46
degrees Fahrenheit outside, according to my weather applet, but it'll
probably be chilly tomorrow when I do the official weather calculation),
proosals, any GremBall silliness I've missed, whatever whatever whatever.

I'm working on a new Grid system right now (hopefully the last one -- I'm
getting tired of having to re-enter all the Grid data every time I realize
how badly broken my system is).

...dave

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

"There is so much randomness in the world that it's
a dice roll whether I'm happy or depressed." - TMCM

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:33:58 -0500
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: translation --yoyo gremlin
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Blobman: 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Tyler Crosby,

> Ahem...
> 
> While e still exists, I place the yoyo gremlin on the Grid at whichever
> square I happen to be at, (6,5) or (6,6), pick em up and throw em at bean.
> 

Place the Yoyo Gremlin on the Grid? You can't do that unless you're with it
in Limbo, can you? *Players may not change the Gamestate*, right?

Although if someone up in Limbo there wants to chuck it down, that would be
cool...

On the multiple Gremlin issue, I think multiple Gremlins would leave a
number of loopholes open for abuse. That's why I made the Gnome proposal, so
we could have a special type of Gremlin-like object for all the Gremlins for
whom multiplication isn't a problem.

I do like Scoff!'s Mogwai idea, though...

--Wonko

"640K ought to be enough for anybody. "
    - Bill Gates, in 1981

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:41:13 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Straw Poll?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 09:07:15AM -0600, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
> Instead of multiplying Gremlins, create Mogwai entities.  Dump x number of Mogwais on the Grid every nweek.  If a Mogwai gets wet, it becomes a Proto-Gremlin.  No player may propose a rule or amendment that creates a new Gremlin except when in possession of a Proto-Gremlin.

How would you implement that?

Any rule which says "proposals can't do X" only increases the
machinations necessary for a proposal to do X. At best, it would be a
social convention to reject proposals which work around the Mogwai rule
(by taking precedence over it or some other method).

-- 
Rob Speer