________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 9:51:24) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: LET THE GAME BEGIN! Preperations for the first game of Nomic are complete, and proposals are now being accepted. The current rules and other miscellaneous information can be found at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman. Rule 203 requires that proposals be passed unanimously during the first two rounds of play -- keep in mind that anyone whose proposal is defeated loses 10 points. Suggestions for proposals: 1. our nomic needs a name 2. additional ways to earn points 3. a better system for turns so we can consider multiple proposals concurrently Everyone can submit only one proposal per turn (201 & 202), and everyone must submit a proposal (202). Send all proposals and debate to the mailing list (nomic@iastate.edu) so everyone can see what is being proposed and take part in the discussion. I will post all new proposals on the web page under (who would've thunk it?) "New Proposals" as soon as I can. Voting can technically begin as soon as we all receive a proposal from the first player in order of play (Ben Byrne), but as Judge for the first turn (see 212, as the last player I immediately preceed the first player; the order comes from 201), I would invoke rule 111 to allow for debate before votes are accepted. To prevent e-mail congestion, send your votes to me (uckelman@iastate.edu) instead of the list. I will post the results of the voting to the web page as soon as all of the votes are in. LET THE GAME BEGIN! ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 10:23:16) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic - new player A new player, Chris Mayfield, was added to the list this morning, but will not begin to get mail from it until tomorrow. Please send any correspondence over the list today to Chris (camfield@iastate.edu) as well. Thanks. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 11:16:42) From: Silent Bob Subject: First Rule Proposal I propose the following rule, which under current rules would be rule 214: All votes must consistent of "yes," "no," or reasonable english synonyms thereof. Any player voting in a manner inconsistent with this rule, including but not limited to votes of "abstain" or of nonsense, shall lose five points. That player's particular vote shall not be considered to exist when tabulating the final vote count for the given rule change. --- Hope this makes sense to everyone. A sample scenario: Say a rule change proposal needs to be unanimous to pass, that anyone voting against a rule change loses ten points, and that I don't want to vote for a bill. Instead of voting no, which would cost me ten points, I might submit a vote of "socket wrench" so that the bill doesn't pass but I don't lose any points. By passing the above rule, were I to attempt such a tactic, I would lose five points, and the bill would pass unanimously (assuming everyone else voted yes). Another matter: our nomic name. Joel suggested someone propose a rule that would give our nomic a name, but none of the games I've looked at had the name determined in the rules: they just decided to call it something. Might I suggest Isunomic, AstroNomic, ErgoNomic, and Comic Nomic as potential names for our game? We can discuss this howevr we like; it's not a rule proposal. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 11:57:51) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: First Rule Proposal A question for Joel: your earlier message seems to imply that we should proceed to comment, etc., on proposed rule changes immediately. Is this true, or would you like to require a formal "begin discussion" announcement? >I propose the following rule, which under current rules would be rule 214: > > All votes must consistent of "yes," "no," or reasonable english >synonyms thereof. Any player voting in a manner inconsistent with this >rule, including but not limited to votes of "abstain" or of nonsense, shall >lose five points. That player's particular vote shall not be considered to >exist when tabulating the final vote count for the given rule change. A suggested amendment of this proposal: 214. All votes will be _counted_ as either "yes" or "no" for purposes of determining the passage of the proposal on which is being voted. This tabulation does not place restrictions on the actual allowed content of a lodged vote, i.e. votes are not required to be "yes" xor "no". It is suggested that, for the purposes of tabulation, any non-"yes" vote be counted as a "no" vote. This means that abstains are allowed, and should be recorded as abstains - but they would count as "no" votes. It is not clear to me at present whether or not this second suggestion could indeed be a part of my proposed amendment, or whether it would require a separate rule, as per the section "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" of rule 111. Perhaps the Judge can offer commentary on this rule interpretation. >--- >Hope this makes sense to everyone. A sample scenario: Say a rule change >proposal needs to be unanimous to pass, that anyone voting against a rule >change loses ten points, and that I don't want to vote for a bill. Instead >of voting no, which would cost me ten points, I might submit a vote of >"socket wrench" so that the bill doesn't pass but I don't lose any points. >By passing the above rule, were I to attempt such a tactic, I would lose >five points, and the bill would pass unanimously (assuming everyone else >voted yes). I recommend that if you're looking for a way to remove or decrease penalties due to voting against the majority, you propose a rule (next time around) that instead changes the magnitude or process of assignment for penalties due to such voting. > Another matter: our nomic name. Joel suggested someone propose a >rule that would give our nomic a name, but none of the games I've looked at >had the name determined in the rules: they just decided to call it >something. Not in the games I've seen. It's usually passed in an early proposal, at the stage when people would just like to pass some proposals. > Might I suggest Isunomic, AstroNomic, ErgoNomic, and Comic Nomic as >potential names for our game? We can discuss this howevr we like; it's not >a rule proposal. Common sentiment on the net seems to be that "nomic" is pronounced with a long "o." Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 13:37:37) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: First Rule Proposal At 11:57 AM 3/12/98 CST, you wrote: > >A question for Joel: your earlier message seems to imply that we should >proceed to comment, etc., on proposed rule changes immediately. Is this >true, or would you like to require a formal "begin discussion" announcement? > >Josh > As per rule 111, the proposer determines when there has been sufficient debate and calls for a vote, unless the judge has been asked to do so. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 13:50:20) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: scoring There seems to be some confusion about points when voting against proposals which pass: the 10 points are a bonus, not a penalty as Ben and subsequently Josh intimated (204). Joel ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 13:55:0) From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: First Rule According to Rule 201/0 Chapman (I believe) will have to propose the first rule (until that is changed), but I would like to suggest a rule that we have talked about for a while to convert the game to a more e-mail based system. It would have the general idea of having everyone propose their rules until a certain daily time, and then giving a window for voting to occur. The exact wording can be worked out later. Another possiblity is this: All things governed by the rules can only be modified as according to the rules. willow ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 14:42:49) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: First Rule At 01:55 PM 3/12/98 -0600, you wrote: >According to Rule 201/0 Chapman (I believe) will have to propose the first >rule (until that is changed). > > willow As per Rule 201, play proceeds in alphabetical order. As B comes before C, Ben Byrne gets to submit the first rule. Joel ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 14:52:58) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: nomic My friends, my enemies, and my indifferents: We, in just a few short minutes have reached a crisis situation. In but the opening move of the game, we are presented with a enigma that threatens to destroy everything we, collectively, as a group of conscious beings bound together with the duct tape of fate, do or do not stand for. And so, presented with such an insidious dilemma as Prop 214 presents, I would like to let my voice be heard above the rising din and cacophony of approaching chaos. I would humbly ask that you, my readers and fellow members in good standing and with good intent consider the following points: 1.) The proposed rule bears the ordinal 214. According to rule 108/0, the first proposed rule must be numbered 301. This might or might not present a problem, but rule 101/0 expressly prohibits breaking the rules, and rule 108/0 is certainly a rule. I hate to appear petty and didactic, but if we are going to do this, we may as well do it right. 2.) More fundamentally, and getting right down to the rotting core of the issue, I am indubitably opposed to the assault the spirit of this proposed rule has upon my perceived insatiable rights and liberties. I find both frightening and appalling the notion that this fundamental right, the right of silence, will ever be taken away. I realize the rule was proposed with no ill intent, but only in the interests of fair game play, but I do not believe this justifies the proposal nor does it resolve the deeper issues. I for one choose to take a stand at this critical early juncture, and will oppose this proposal with every weapon available to me at this time. I think you can predict what my vote will be. Comrades! I thank you for upholding the right and the just. Protect the workers! Kill the imperialist pig-dogs! And forever let our cry be "Down with processed ham!" Mike Jensen alias Subcomandte Marcos (Leader, Chiapas Indians Revolution of) ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 16:18:42) From: Silent Bob Subject: Hypothetical Guys, The example I gave was a hypthetical scenario. I didn't think anyone would actually make the mistake of thinking the rules currently have a penalty like I mentioned, okay? beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 20:21:29) From: Silent Bob Subject: Formal Proposal Here it is. After much deliberation I have decided to put the following proposal to a vote: (expected to be rule 301) All votes must consist of either "yes," "no," "abstain," or reasonable english synonyms thereof. Any vote cast in a manner inconsistent with this rule shall immediately cause the player who cast the vote to lose fifteen points. --- There. That's my rule proposal. As far as I know, all votes should be emailed to Joel, mailto:uckelman@iastate.edu. Enjoy! beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 12, 1998 (Thu, 21:33:32) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: new player We have yet another new player: Adam Haar. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 13, 1998 (Fri, 2:23:44) From: Allan M Dudding Subject: Clarification. Just a little clarification, I was talking about Mike's little rant, not any of the other fine postings that have existed in the short time this excellent mailing list has been around. Not that I don't like refined bullshit, since i am a conniseur (Brynne's spelling) of bullshit. Also, before you vote, consider this: what if you want to vote "big fat wanker" I personally think that if I want to say "big fat wanker" instead of the institutionalized "yes" or "no". Cya, Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 13, 1998 (Fri, 11:9:31) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Clarification. The most obvious parallel to consider here is, of course, mathematical logic: Every vote which is a "yes" or equivalent (NOT necessarily an English synonym thereof) contributes toward the passage of a proposal. Any vote which is NOT one of the afforementioned yes votes (say they all fall into the class of Y votes) cannot, by definition, contribute to the passage of proposals. Therefore, the means by which one lodges a vote in the N ("no," or equivalents) need not be restricted. Then, the only restriction on any voting need be that if a person wishes to abstain, they must make it clear (and the rules must) that such abstaining is not an assent or dissent for the proposal. Something similar from programming applies here, I think: in languages like C or perl, anything which evaluates to 0 evaluates to false. Anything else (except undef in perl, which is a special case and pretty much like false) evaluates to true - including 1, "true," 'sTaNkMoNkEy,' and 666. Not that I'm advocating that anything but a "no" vote be evaluated as "yes" for the purposes of our game, but I think it illustrates my point. Josh _______________________________________________ -(p ^ q) <=> (-p v -q); -(p v q) <=> (-p ^ -q) >Just a little clarification, I was talking about Mike's little rant, not any o f the other fine >postings that have existed in the short time this excellent mailing list has b een around. Not >that I don't like refined bullshit, since i am a conniseur (Brynne's spelling) of bullshit. > >Also, before you vote, consider this: what if you want to vote "big fat wanke r" I personally >think that if I want to say "big fat wanker" instead of the institutionalized "yes" or "no". > >Cya, >Allan. > ________________________________________ Date: Mar 13, 1998 (Fri, 11:11:7) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: nomic I am the winner of this game. Now for those of you who might take issue at that, let me present a legal argument. The mechanics of my victory are as follows. I am breaking rule 101/0, which prohibits me from breaking the rules. Having broken this rule, I am free to break any other rules, including those regarding order of play and winning conditions(specifically, I am breaking rule 201, playing out of turn, then breaking rule 104, creating a new rule which abolishes rule 106 and creates new winning conditions, i.e. belonging to the class of things known as "Mike Jensen" {this also violates rule 109}. So, by virtue of this new rule, I am the winner of the game. Now, clearly all of this hinges on my ability to break rule 101, which I argue I have a legal right to do. Rule 101 is what I would call a self referential rule. Now, clearly, rule 115 allows for the legality of such rule. But rule 107 forbids retroactive applications of rules. The wording is as follows: No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application. Notice there are two parts to this rule, which may at first seem redundant. However, it is clear that the first part refers to rules that are adopted by a vote. The second part must then refer to all rules made by any other method. This clearly includes those rules found in the initial set. So, it seems that rules 107 and 115 are now in conflict with each other. Rule 211 provides for just such an instance and states that the rule with the lower ordinal must take precedence. This is rule 107, which forbids retroactive application of rules. Therefore, rule 115 cannot allow self reference for rules 101 - 114. Rule 101 is included in this set. Therefore, rule 101 cannot legally apply to itself or any other rules before it (of which there are none), so breaking rule 101 cannot be legally forbidden given the current set of rules. Anything not forbidden is permissible (rule 116), so I can break rule 101 and become the winner of this game. Thank You and Viva la Revolucion Mike "Subcomandante Marcos" Jensen ________________________________________ Date: Mar 13, 1998 (Fri, 11:41:26) From: Silent Bob Subject: Re: Clarification. Josh, What was it in my previoues messgae that made you think my proposal was still open to discussion? As far as I know, when something is put to a vote, discussion might as well stop. Not a rules thing really, but just sort of common sense that when a formal proposal is issued and put to a vote that offering further advice might not be an effective use of time. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 13, 1998 (Fri, 11:57:35) From: Silent Bob Subject: Re: nomic Mike, I believe the case exists that your interpretation of rule 107 may not be correct. To quote you email: >No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of >the vote that adopted >it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may >have retroactive application. > >Notice there are two parts to this rule, which may at first seem redundant. > However, it is clear that the first part refers to rules that are adopted >by a vote. The second part must then refer to all rules made by any other >method. In no way does this rule's phrasing imply that the second part refers to rules not adopted by a vote. Rather, it is a clarification of the previous sentence,What leads me to the conclusion that second sentence is not dealing with a separate and independent jurisdiction is the word "retroactive." "Retroactive" is defined in my dictionary as "effective as of a past date." There is no evidence to suggest that the rules were actually written in the order in which they are numbered. In fact, rule 101 may have been written after rules 107 and 115. Additionally, the use of the term "ordinal value" in rule 211 would suggest that a distinction between ordinal value and order of creation exists. This is just my interpretation. I would like at this time to Invoke Judgement as per rule 212. beN byrNe 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:06:14 -0600 (CST) From: Silent Bob Subject: Hey Joel It would be helpful if an email was sent to the group whenever a judgement is made. I realize there is a news page for such occurencs, but I would appreciate it if in the future mention of a judgement was sent to the list. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:18:11 -0600 From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Judgment 2 Judgment 2 on whether or not Mike wins the game will be delayed due to the fact that I'm going home in a few minutes. I can probalby upload the decision to the web page once I have it written. Also, keep in mind that per the judiciary rule (the number escapes me right now), a vote must be taken to move to the next player's turn in any turn which contains judgments. Joel ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:20:22 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Are we playing over break? Willow ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:27:02 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Clarification. Ben, a few comments: Nothing in your message (regarding the final form of 301, and your CFV) made me think that your proposal was still open to discussion. However, though it may be "common sense" to you that discussion might as well stop once a CFV, there is no reason discussion should not stop. The further "discussion" I sent to the list was mostly intended as commentary on (I think) Alan Dudding's post about your proposal. His post, if I remember it correctly, contained a comment about how your proposal was unnecessarily arbitrary in its restriction of castable votes (without penalty). My commentary was meant to expand on Alan's point, in the hopes that it might futher convince people who had not yet lodged votes. Also, regardless of the voting process, I think my commentary was valid and thus a useful thing to see on the list. Perhaps offering further advice might not be an effective use of MY time (from your perspective), but I found it to be so. :) The use of others' time is irrelevant, as it was a mail message which could have taken, at most, less than a second to dispose of. Josh _______________________________________________ -(p ^ q) <=> (-p v -q); -(p v q) <=> (-p ^ -q) >Josh, > What was it in my previoues messgae that made you think my proposal >was still open to discussion? As far as I know, when something is put to a >vote, discussion might as well stop. Not a rules thing really, but just >sort of common sense that when a formal proposal is issued and put to a >vote that offering further advice might not be an effective use of time. > >beN > >0411.78 > >what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? > >find the answer > >http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 > > > ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:39:49 CST From: Josh Kortbein I will be able to play over break. Josh _______________________________________________ -(p ^ q) <=> (-p v -q); -(p v q) <=> (-p ^ -q) >Are we playing over break? > >Willow ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:31:53 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: nomic >I am the winner of this game. > >Now for those of you who might take issue at that, let me present a legal >argument. > >The mechanics of my victory are as follows. I am breaking rule 101/0, >which prohibits me from breaking the rules. Having broken this rule, I am >free to break any other rules, including those regarding order of play and >winning conditions(specifically, I am breaking rule 201, playing out of >turn, then breaking rule 104, creating a new rule which abolishes rule 106 >and creates new winning conditions, i.e. belonging to the class of things >known as "Mike Jensen" {this also violates rule 109}. So, by virtue of >this new rule, I am the winner of the game. > >Now, clearly all of this hinges on my ability to break rule 101, which I >argue I have a legal right to do. Rule 101 is what I would call a self >referential rule. Now, clearly, rule 115 allows for the legality of such >rule. But rule 107 forbids retroactive applications of rules. The wording > is as follows: > >No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of >the vote that adopted >it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may >have retroactive application. As Ben has already pointed out, your reading of "retroactive" is bogus. Get a dictionary. >Notice there are two parts to this rule, which may at first seem redundant. > However, it is clear that the first part refers to rules that are adopted >by a vote. The second part must then refer to all rules made by any other >method. This clearly includes those rules found in the initial set. > >So, it seems that rules 107 and 115 are now in conflict with each other. >Rule 211 provides for just such an instance and states that the rule with >the lower ordinal must take precedence. This is rule 107, which forbids >retroactive application of rules. Therefore, rule 115 cannot allow self >reference for rules 101 - 114. Rule 101 is included in this set. See above re: Ben. Also: consider the fact that, as the players are able to see it, the initial ruleset "came into effect" simultaneously, as game-time seems to start only once the game does. Before the game has started, we can say nothing about the chronological order in which rules were passed. (Or otherwise formed.) Not that that matters anyway, with regards to your argument, as your interpretation of "retroactive" is, again, fucked up and bogus. Or should I say bogus and fucked up? >Therefore, rule 101 cannot legally apply to itself or any other rules >before it (of which there are none), so breaking rule 101 cannot be legally >forbidden given the current set of rules. Anything not forbidden is >permissible (rule 116), so I can break rule 101 and become the winner of >this game. Josh who has a dictionary, but didn't even need to use it to unravel this meager little tangle of yarn _______________________________________________ -(p ^ q) <=> (-p v -q); -(p v q) <=> (-p ^ -q) ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 20:56:44 -0600 From: Adam Haar Subject: Discussion and Jensen First, if I recall, any activity not expressly prohibited by the rules is allowed. Also if I recall, lobbying, and even proxy voting are not prohibited. It is quite reasonable to attempt to persuade voters in a legislative (but not electoral) proccess right up until they cast their votes. Any discussion occuring after a CFV should have no effect on the form of the amendment or proposal. As for Mr. Jensen, even I, Haar, the cheating, underhanded, rules-lawyer, bastard that I am wouldn't have tried to pull something that lame. I commend your moxy, if not your thought process. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:20:56 -0600 (CST) From: Silent Bob Subject: Haar's post Haar, You said >First, if I recall, any activity not expressly prohibited by the rules is >allowed. Also if I recall, lobbying, and even proxy voting are not >prohibited. It is quite reasonable to attempt to persuade voters in a >legislative (but not electoral) proccess right up until they cast their >votes. Any discussion occuring after a CFV should have no effect on the >form of the amendment or proposal. It says in rule 110 that "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote." While I fully admit that I did not say it was time to end the debate, had I done so, Josh would be in violation of the rules. It makes a little more sense when you enivison the game being played real-time by people around a table or something, that when voting occurs discussion does not. Just for future reference, really. beN the guinea pig 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:32:21 -0600 From: Rita Uckelman Subject: playing over break It isn't really a question of whether some of us can play over break, but a question of whether everyone will finish voting on Ben's proposal. I only have 9 of 16 votes in right now, and without all of them, play cannot proceed. Also, I will probably post Judgment 2 to the web site tomorrow sometime. I ruled that Mike does not win, but just haven't gotten to posting the completed decision. Joel ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:38:50 -0600 From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Haar's post At 12:20 AM 3/14/98 -0600, you wrote: > >It says in rule 110 that "The proponent decides the final form in which the >proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, >also >decides the time to end debate and vote." > >While I fully admit that I did not say it was time to end the debate, had I >done so, Josh would be in violation of the rules. It makes a little more >sense when you enivison the game being played real-time by people around a >table or something, that when voting occurs discussion does not. > >Just for future reference, really. > > But after a CFV is called substantive debate on the rule has ended and any further discussion is simply lobbying. According to rule 210: 210. Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future rule-changes unless they are team-mates. The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or COMPUTER. In a real life game lobbying during voting would be difficult if not impossible because of the system of voting (going around the circle). But in a computer game, when voting can take several hours if not days, lobbying and further discussion should not be prohibited. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding.________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:26:09 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Judgement posted I didn't see any announcement of this, but judgement #2 is up. One small comment on it: In examining the claim dealing with the right to violate rule 101, it can be seen that the key issue is the definition of retroactive. The claimant's remarks presuppose retroactive is indicative of a spatial ^^^^^^^ as well as a temporal relationship; however, upon consulting Webster's and Black's Law Dictionary, no such relationship was found. Because retroactive refers only to time and (as Josh Kortbein noted) all of the original rules were adopted simultaneously, rules 107 and 115 are not in conflict and rule 101 remains binding. The claimant made no such claim, AFAIK. I believe the word you want here is not "spatial," as the ordinal numbers of the rules need not be mapped to a certain spatial arrangement. Perhaps "ordinal" would in fact be the better word here, but as I don't have a good dictionary (or even a bad one) handy I can't verify that. Josh nit-picking _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:20:39 -0600 (CST) From: Silent Bob Subject: voting >in a computer game, when voting can take several hours if not days, No shit! Hello? How long does it take you people to vote? This game is going to last into the 21st century if people don't get off their asses to vote once in a while. Consider this email a gesture of unwavering support for proposals which limit the allowed time for casting a vote. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:22:33 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subjece: Re: voting Yes - consider that, barring out-of-town weekends or somesuch, computerized voting should take NO LONGER than 24 hours, since everyone should be checking their mail once per day, like good supergeeks. Josh _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas >>in a computer game, when voting can take several hours if not days, > > No shit! Hello? How long does it take you people to vote? This game >is going to last into the 21st century if people don't get off their asses >to vote once in a while. > Consider this email a gesture of unwavering support for proposals >which limit the allowed time for casting a vote. > >beN > >0411.78 > >what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? > >find the answer > >http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:45:20 CST From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: voting When using "spatial," I was refering to the ordinal arangement of the rules as presented on the page, which would be a spatial arrangement. In any case, my meaning was clear. In regard to voting, I just realized that some of the votes are in Eudora on my computer in Ames, so I can't actually count the votes until we return anyway. :) Joel ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:06:40 -0600 From: Adam Haar Subject: Re:Voting >Yes - consider that, barring out-of-town weekends or somesuch, >computerized voting should take NO LONGER than 24 hours, since everyone >should be checking their mail once per day, like good supergeeks. But what about the 10 hour work shifts, followed by 5 hours of bar time, and then 9-10 hours of unconciousness some of us call a daily schedule? Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 05:41:29 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: voting Clear, but not as crystal. :) But doesn't this proposal require a unanimity to pass? If so then you should be able to declare passage or non-passage immediately, as ANY no votes cause non-passage. Josh _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas >When using "spatial," I was refering to the ordinal arangement of the >rules as presented on the page, which would be a spatial arrangement. In >any case, my meaning was clear. > >In regard to voting, I just realized that some of the votes are in Eudora >on my computer in Ames, so I can't actually count the votes until we >return anyway. :) > >Joel ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 05:47:14 CST From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Voting Let's try to make this a little more clear for the folks at home: I'll assume this is one of your 11:00 AM start work days we're talking about here - otherwise, adjust accordingly. 10:30 AM Wake up, run into wall, urinate, shower and dress 11:00 AM Start work, cursing cruel fate for leaving you there 9:00 PM Stumble down Pizza Pit stairs to Welch Ave. Station 2:00 AM Stumble out of Welch Ave. Station, find way home This seems to me to present two alternatives: a) Drink less, nomic more b) Nomic at 2 AM - you've only been awake for 11.5 hours anyway, which doesn't warrant immediate unconsciousness. Unless, of course, it's the booze making you sleepy. In which case, see (a). Josh _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas >>Yes - consider that, barring out-of-town weekends or somesuch, >>computerized voting should take NO LONGER than 24 hours, since everyone >>should be checking their mail once per day, like good supergeeks. > >But what about the 10 hour work shifts, followed by 5 hours of bar time, >and then 9-10 hours of unconciousness some of us call a daily schedule? > > >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:47:51 CST From: Joel D Uckelman Sbuject: counting votes Even if I already do know the outcome of the voting since it requires unanimity, we still can't move on until everyone has voted, since there's a rule requiring everyone to vote and Ben's turn can't end before voting does. In any case, I think a 48 hour turn system would work well -- during a 48 hour period, a certain number of people would make proposals (maybe 3-5), and the proposals from the last 48 hour period would be voted upon. Thoughts? Joel ________________________________________ Date: Mar 20, 1998 (Fri, 19:21:9) From: Adam Haar Subject: 48 hour cycle I think a minimum 24/max 36 hour voting period would be good. With a 12-24 hour debate period sufficient time would be given for most opposing viewpoints and alterations to be proposed. while this does end up lasting a couple of days I think at least here at the beginning when alot of people's proposals might be influenced by recently enacted rules. I know my first proposal is going to depend heavily on what happens up until my turn. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 22, 1998 (Sun, 20:48:41) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: rule 108 and rule numbering As per rule 108, any proposals that are enacted to ammend or transmute existing rules will cause a number change in the rule being altered. In the event that this happens, multiple links on the web page will no longer work, nor will the numbers refered to in the judgments be correct. I strongly suggest (for my sake, and from an organizational standpoint) that rule 108 be transmuted and ammended so that rule numbers do not change unless specifically stated in proposals. The only substantive change this would have would be in regard to rule 211 (numerical precedence of rules). What are your thoughts on this? If people are in favor of this, I would appreciate it if someone would propose it soon (like next, maybe). Moreover, I am of the opinon that Carthage be destroyed. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 22, 1998 (Sun, 21:31:5) From: "Leonardo DiCaprio's Hairstylist" Subject: Re: Nomic and stupidity >No offense, Ben, but you're seeming more and more irritable as you wait >for things to happen. True. See, when I heard about this game, I was really excited to play it. However, I'm finding it very difficult to be excited about something that is in stasis. Austin Powers wouldn't have been nearly as funny if Dr. Evil had remained frozen, y'know? I've noticed that there's nothing in the rules preventing Joel from publicly annoucing who has yet to vote... and anything not prohibited is allowed... beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 22, 1998 (Sun, 22:7:26) From: "Matthew G. Potter" Subject: Re: Vote already... > No shit! Hello? How long does it take you people to vote? This game >is going to last into the 21st century if people don't get off their asses >to vote once in a while. > This game is seeming more and more stupid as I continue to wait for >things to happen. > hey guess what? some of us don't have a shweet computer setup at home to check our email off of over Spring Break. Yes, Virginia, some people live without Internet access; and not all of them live in North Dakota. Pardon if I offended Your Sancitimoniousness--you may now Bite Me. I have no problem with the 24/36 hour deadline or any similar arrangement in the FUTURE (pending, of course, proposal of such an arrangement); but may I politely suggest that think ahead of our mouth in the future. Matt ________________________________________ Date: Mar 22, 1998 (Sun, 23:11:5) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic and stupidity >>No offense, Ben, but you're seeming more and more irritable as you wait >>for things to happen. > > True. See, when I heard about this game, I was really excited to >play it. However, I'm finding it very difficult to be excited about >something that is in stasis. Austin Powers wouldn't have been nearly as >funny if Dr. Evil had remained frozen, y'know? It seems that your problem with becoming excited is linked to the amount of attention you're devoting to the game. Why not just pay less attention to it until it gets moving more quickly, and then be excited about it? If you're not paying it much attention, it surely can't disappoint you as much. > I've noticed that there's nothing in the rules preventing Joel from >publicly annoucing who has yet to vote... and anything not prohibited is >allowed... I do agree with this, though, as I also think it's taking too long. I'd like to know who has been slow in voting, so that I may castigate them. > >beN > Josh _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas ________________________________________ Date: Mar 22, 1998 (Sun, 23:17:16) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Vote already... >> No shit! Hello? How long does it take you people to vote? This game >>is going to last into the 21st century if people don't get off their asses >>to vote once in a while. > >> This game is seeming more and more stupid as I continue to wait for >>things to happen. >> > >hey guess what? some of us don't have a shweet computer setup at home to >check our email off of over Spring Break. Yes, Virginia, some people live >without Internet access; and not all of them live in North Dakota. As this was directed toward Ben's comment about the long time people are taking to submit their votes, I think it's kind of off-base. My mail from Ben re the call for votes, as well as the web page, shows ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:21:29 -0600 (CST) so there was plenty of time to vote before spring break, assuming you didn't skip out on your Friday classes. If you [anyone, not just Matt] did, then you shouldn't be complaining about not begin able to read mail over break (as it pertains to voting on Ben's proposal). Cheers, Josh ___________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas ________________________________________ Date: Mar 23, 1998 (Mon, 16:37:13) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn The last vote was received, and there was much rejoycing... Prop. 301 failed 7-7-1. Rule 212 states that a new turn cannot begin without the consent of a majority of the players if a Judgment has been passed in that turn. I'll assume the tacit consent of everyone unless someone protests, so it's now Dave Chapman's turn. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 23, 1998 (Mon, 17:47:17) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: correction The vote on 301 was 8-7-1, not 7-7-1. Joel ________________________________________ Date: Mar 23, 1998 (Mon, 20:26:43) From: Peter Suber Subject: Re: new nomic game Joel, >A group of us at Iowa State University set up a game of nomic you could add >to your list. Our official web page is >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/homepage.html. We are currently not >accepting new players due to the fact that we do not yet have a procedure >for doing so; however, this may soon change. Thanks for bringing your site to my attention. I'll add a link at the next revision, which should be within the next few days. Best wishes in your game, Peter -------------------------------------------------- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374-4095 Voice (765) 983-1214, Email peters@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/hometoc.htm -------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 11:1:24) From: Andrew Palecek Subject: Re: correction At 05:47 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >The vote on 301 was 8-7-1, not 7-7-1. would that be in the order of yes-no-abstain/other? ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 12:54:36) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: correction At 11:01 AM 3/24/98 -0600, you wrote: >At 05:47 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote: >>The vote on 301 was 8-7-1, not 7-7-1. > > >would that be in the order of yes-no-abstain/other? > yes-no-candy bar :) ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 15:51:6) From: David H Chapman Subject: Here it is, 302! Greetings Sorry it took so long. Well here it is: I propose that rule 108 be transmuted. I beileive this would change 108's number to 302. I seems to me that transmuting rules would be much more simple if 108 was changed. So let's transmute it! Dave --- David H Chapman dchapman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 16:14:35) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Prop. 302 The second paragraph of rule 108 deals with changing the numbering of transmuted and amended rules -- removing this section (at least the last 2 sentences of it) would have several benefits: 1. preventing the confusion which would accompany frequent number changes in the rules 2. maintaining the continued correctness of links to numbered rules on the web page 3. ensuring that past Judgments remain intelligible, as they rely on rule numbers when refering to rules. 4. eliminating now-needless work caused by 1-3. Because 108 is immutable, these problems cannot be remedied unless it is first transmuted. This proposal (and the one which would be needed to actually affect the changes) neither limit anyone's freedoms (as was argued against 301) nor grant unfair advantages to anyone. Proposal 302 helps solve a problem before it becomes serious (which it certainly has the potential to do). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 16:35:52) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: scoring correction All scoring information and the exact times of events can be found in the Event Log on the web page. Ben is actually at -5 points rather than -10. He loses 10 for the failure of prop 301, but gains 5 due to rule 202 ((310-291)*(8/16)=5). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 16:37:34) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: math error (301-291)*(8/16)=5, not (310-291)*(8/16). :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 21:55:8) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Here it is, 302! Fellow Nomic-players, Dave's proposal is sound and worthwhile. Plus, changing rule 108 (and enabling such a change, naturally) will keep Joel from taking drastic measures in protest, and as Joel has made a few useful contributions to our game, let's let him have this one... ...or let us at least forego further debate and take a vote on the proposal. It would be nice if we could finish the first round of play before school ends (which will be questionable if proposals take 3 days or more to pass). Thank you all. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 23:4:8) From: "Leonardo DiCaprio's Hairstylist" Subject: Hmmm.... I must admit I don't really see why this proposal is particularly necessary. I'm also having trouble understanding why I'm supposed to vote for a proposal issued by someone who's vote contributed to me losing five points. If someone could explain to me why it tactically makes sense to reward those who have, intentionally or otherwise, done harm to oneself, I'm all ears. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 23:16:4) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: voting I'm not sure why I'm receiving votes already... To the best of my knowledge, Dave has not called for a vote yet. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 24, 1998 (Tue, 23:50:35) From: "Leonardo DiCaprio's Hairstylist" Subject: Re: voting >I'm not sure why I'm receiving votes already... To the best of my >knowledge, Dave has not called for a vote yet. Well, better to have this problem than the opposite, no? :) beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 0:4:32) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Hmmm.... > I must admit I don't really see why this proposal is particularly >necessary. First, take a look at rule 108: 108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment. Now, Joel has some kind of compelling reasons (related to bookkeeping, etc.) for switching the rule. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they're not shabby. However, one of the last things he mentions is "rules that reference other rules by their rule numbers." This is actually a vital reason for passing Chapman's proposal. Let's say, for example, that rule 1001 says something like "Every time rule 114 is invoked, Ben Byrne loses five points." If rule 114 is transmuted, it receives (currently, according to #108) the number of the transmutation proposal. Implicit in this notion of "receives" is that rule 114 is then GONE - absent from the list of rules. Situations like this cause major interpretation problems for the rules, because a rule which references a non-existent rule number is, strictly speaking, meaningless. If you care to argue that a transmuted rule somehow keeps its old number, so that it has two, I'd like to hear it. But otherwise, this seems like a useful proposal, if only for the reason that it will allow us to (in the next turn) delete the part which governs rule-numbering for transmuted rules. Note that I may be sticking my neck out too far in giving this analysis, as by the final rule a player wins if he is unable to complete his turn due to a move which appears equaly legal and illegal. This means that a coming player - Nate, I think - has the opportunity to make a move which takes advantage of the rule 108 which will be missing if we pass Chapman's proposal. Such a move seems to be a prime opportunity for making such a paradoxical move. Now, I hear you [the reader] saying: so why vote for Chapman's proposal at all, then, if it gives Nate a good chance to win? Because, if I see things correctly, Nate would have to get his paradoxical proposal passed in order to win - and we can easily prevent that now that I've warned us. So we're free to vote for Chapman's proposal, thus preventing future rule-number exploitation. > I'm also having trouble understanding why I'm supposed to vote for >a proposal issued by someone who's vote contributed to me losing five >points. If someone could explain to me why it tactically makes sense to >reward those who have, intentionally or otherwise, done harm to oneself, >I'm all ears. That seems to be a personal problem. Perhaps if you think about it for a little bit, you'll see that this game (yes, game) is complex enough that choosing how to vote is not as simple as the eye-for-an-eye thing you seem to be implying. If that were the case, then perhaps this is some sort of iterated prisoner's dilemma type situation (eh, Joel?). If that's so, then I guess you'll just have to vote against everyone who voted against you (if you can figure out who they all are). That seems to make prospects grim for you in the future, though. Let's say that you'll vote with someone again after they've demonstrated some sort of alliance with you, by voting for you next time around. Or perhaps for the next couple-few times. That would be good and fine for you, perhaps, except that those other players are free to adopt similar strategies. If you and your proposal-voter-downers all did so, you would simply keep voting each other down (until the unanimity requirement is dropped), causing each other to lose more points, and just generally keep losing and having less and less fun. So what I'm saying is, there are plenty of good reasons for not simply stabbing out in anger at whoever voted "no" to your proposal, the best (for you, maybe) possibly being that they could do the same to you out of spite, and you would never win the game. >beN Josh _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 0:10:0) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: voting For the benefit of those who didn't hear this earlier tonight: Such votes, cast before Dave has called for a vote, should not count - because, according to 111: 111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Seems to me that if voting time has not been called, then assents, dissents, or whatever that are sent to the vote-taker don't yet count as votes. Simply opinions, or whatever. It's possible that one could send an opinion in to the vote-taker, and then have it counted as their vote after vote-taking commences, but there are problems there in terms of whether or not the actual casting of the vote is required during voting time, etc. Josh semantics are cool _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas >I'm not sure why I'm receiving votes already... To the best of my >knowledge, Dave has not called for a vote yet. > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 2:29:54) From: Adam Haar Subject: Mr. Chapman's Proposal In addition to the bookkeeping problems that will be experienced by my Distinguished Opponent Mr. Uckleman we must also realize that letting Rule 108 stand will cause we, the players, undue amounts of trouble. For those of us Nomic-geek enough to have memorized the rules so far, changing Rule Ordinals on the regular basis that Rule 108 could require will cause a good deal of confusion, frustration, mistakes, and general fnord. Also, for those players not so geeked, Rule 108 will require the regular re-download of rules after many, if not all, proposals. I feel my Distinguished Opponent Mr. Chapman has made an excellent proposal. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 2:46:37) From: Adam Haar Subject: Proposal 302 I call for JUDGEMENT! If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. To quote Mr. Kortbein: "Implicit in this notion of "receives" is that rule 114 is then GONE - absent from the list of rules." Must the Proposal be passed to effect the change of Rule Number? If not then is, according to Josh's theory, Rule 108 no longer in existence? If Rule 108 is no longer in existence, then is Proposal 302, "I propose that rule 108 be transmuted", meaningless? And, if Rule 108 is no longer in existence then we need no longer debate the issue, Mr. Chapman has handed the game to Mr. Ellefson by making the game unplayable (Rule 213). >213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. Am I making any sense, or is the Guiness taking over my mind? Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 10:24:43) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Proposal 302 >I call for JUDGEMENT! > >If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal >to amend or transmute it. > >To quote Mr. Kortbein: >"Implicit in this notion of "receives" is that rule 114 is then GONE - >absent from the list of rules." > >Must the Proposal be passed to effect the change of Rule Number? If not >then is, according to Josh's theory, Rule 108 no longer in existence? If >Rule 108 is no longer in existence, then is Proposal 302, "I propose that >rule 108 be transmuted", meaningless? And, if Rule 108 is no longer in No, this is NOT what would happen, IMO. If proposition 302 is voted in, then as SOON AS IT IS, it becomes rule 302, and rule 108 has ordinal number 302. The transmutation "clause" of Chapman's proposal is then lost, apparently - anyone know of a rule that says so, or otherwise? >existence then we need no longer debate the issue, Mr. Chapman has handed >the game to Mr. Ellefson by making the game unplayable (Rule 213). If rule 108 is no longer in existence, the game does not immediately become unplayable - it's only if Nate can come up with a move, and "make" that move, that is both legal and illegal, that the game becomes unplayable. > >>213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if >the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the >Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and >illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. > >Am I making any sense, or is the Guiness taking over my mind? Sounds like Guinness to me. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 14:7:53) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re:Proposal 302 My basis for saying Nate would win in the absence of a rule determining Ordinal Numbers is simply that in such absence we would have no reference system to keep track of rules, everyone could call any rule they wanted any Number they wanted, leading to an unplayable game. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 14:44:51) From: "Leonardo DiCaprio's Hairstylist" Subject: official judgement Okay, here is my judgement on Haar's issue: Adam Haar's Guinness is indeed messing with his head, and the relevance of rule 114 to this situation is basically nil as far as I can tell. I see no problems or conflicts with the rule numbering system as it currently exists. However, I believe a clarification of rule 108 may be in order. Rule 108 states "Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted." It the goes on to say, "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it." This means that Dave's proposal, when it becomes a formal proposal, will be numbered 302. If his proposal passes, rule 108 will become rule 302. Regardless of passage, Allan Dudding's proposal shall be numbered 303. When a proposal fails, it is not added to the rulebook, but the next rule number is incremented regardless. Thus, since proposal 301 failed, there will never be a rule 301 (barring a change to 108). One thing about this numbering thing that I'm not certain of, however, is why on the rules page every rule number is followed by "/0" such as "213/0." Perhaps Joel could tell us what that second number is for? BTW, Joel, don't forget to add this judgement to the web site. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that sort of access.... I hope this resolves the issue. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what Josh's quote "Implicit in this notion of "receives" is that rule 114 is then GONE - absent from the list of rules." has to do with the situation at all. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 15:39:42) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: /0 after rule numbers The /0's have no significance now, but if rule 108 is changed so rule numbers don't change, I was planning on using that number to keep track of rule versions, e.g. arule which was amended would have it's version number incremented. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 17:23:25) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: official judgement > Okay, here is my judgement on Haar's issue: > >Adam Haar's Guinness is indeed messing with his head, and the relevance of >rule 114 to this situation is basically nil as far as I can tell. > >I see no problems or conflicts with the rule numbering system as it >currently exists. However, I believe a clarification of rule 108 may be in >order. > >Rule 108 states "Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for >reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed >in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not >the proposal is adopted." It the goes on to say, "If a rule is amended or >transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it." > >This means that Dave's proposal, when it becomes a formal proposal, will be >numbered 302. If his proposal passes, rule 108 will become rule 302. >Regardless of passage, Allan Dudding's proposal shall be numbered 303. When >a proposal fails, it is not added to the rulebook, but the next rule number >is incremented regardless. Thus, since proposal 301 failed, there will >never be a rule 301 (barring a change to 108). > >One thing about this numbering thing that I'm not certain of, however, is >why on the rules page every rule number is followed by "/0" such as >"213/0." Perhaps Joel could tell us what that second number is for? > >BTW, Joel, don't forget to add this judgement to the web site. I'd do it >myself, but I don't have that sort of access.... > >I hope this resolves the issue. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what >Josh's quote "Implicit in this notion of "receives" is that rule 114 is >then GONE - >absent from the list of rules." has to do with the situation at all. You're partly right above that rule 114 has nothing to do with the judgement - if you'd read more carefully, you'd see that I was just using it in a (hypothetical) example. If a transumted rule's number changes, let's say from 108 -> 302, then there are semantic problems created in every rule which makes references to 108. For example: say that rule 500 says 500. No proposal may earn more than 50 points due to rule 108. [Yes, rule 500 makes no sense - for the purposes of this example, assume that it does.] If rule 108 is transmuted, so that it becomes 302, there is no longer a rule 108 in the list. This means that, literally, rule 500 references a NON-EXISTENT entity. We could just as well write, after the transmutation, 500. No proposal may earn more than 50 points due to rule pan-galactic gargle- blaster. where the string "pan-galactic gargle-blaster" is substituted for the free symbol (free because it is no longer formally linked to the former "rule 108" in our list) "108" in my first statement of rule 500 above. Another example: suppose we have, in some formal mathematical system, a rule that says 1 + 1 = 2 a set of symbols M = {1, 2}, and a relation +: M x M -> {T, F}. If we try to make a statement like 1 + 3 = 4 it makes no sense in our little model universe because the symbols 3 and 4 are not defined - they're not even members of the model set, so there can't be any meaning assigned to them. Another example: suppose we have a linked list (computer-science style) of pointers. A---> B ---> C ---> D | v (null pointer) Let's suppose now that we somehow destroy C, so that it does not exist. A---> B ---> D | v (null pointer) Without some rule for what to do in such a case (like re-pointing B at D), D is then LOST unless we have some other way to access it (but we don't, since the reason for a linked list is to be able to step through the list with the root note, A here, as the sort-of-static thing to talk about). This example isn't as relevant as my first two, but I think it certainly gives a good impression of what I'm talking about. Thus, the reason my statement was relevant is that rule transmutations will possibly introduce meaningless symbols into otherwise meaningful rules (or rather, change formerly meaningful symbols into meaningless symbols, thus rendering the rules which house such symbols meaningless). This is under, as I said, a STRICT interpretation of the rules. You might very well choose to say that, "yes, the number of the rule changed, but we still know which rules reference it." The best thing to do there seems to be, bookkeeping-wise, to go through all remaining rules (the ones that weren't affected by the transmutation proposal) and correct the mis-references in every rule in which one appears. Problem with this being that such re-referencings are DEFINITELY changes of the texts of the rules, and should not be permissible except through passed proposals, one for each re-referencing. NOW do you understand what I'm saying? Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 17:48:25) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: official judgement >Thus, the reason my statement was relevant is that rule transmutations >will possibly introduce meaningless symbols into otherwise meaningful rules >(or rather, change formerly meaningful symbols into meaningless symbols, >thus rendering the rules which house such symbols meaningless). > >This is under, as I said, a STRICT interpretation of the rules. You >might very well choose to say that, "yes, the number of the rule changed, >but we still know which rules reference it." The best thing to do there >seems to be, bookkeeping-wise, to go through all remaining rules (the >ones that weren't affected by the transmutation proposal) and correct >the mis-references in every rule in which one appears. > >Problem with this being that such re-referencings are DEFINITELY changes >of the texts of the rules, and should not be permissible except through >passed proposals, one for each re-referencing. > >NOW do you understand what I'm saying? > >Josh > I can't find any rules that we have now that reference other rules by number. Does that make the introduction of meaningless symbols moot at present, since it wouldn't be possible? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 18:33:44) From: "Leonardo DiCaprio's Hairstylist" Subject: Judgement Josh, I didn't pay much attention to your email. Why? Because the judgement was initiated by Haar. He speicifcally stated the questions up for judgement in his email. Since there are currently no rules which reference another rule by number, the issue is a hypthetical one, which is why judgement ruled that there's nothing wrong. Were there to be such a rule, and the rule it referred to be renumbered, the judgement may have been different. I realize that you're a mathematician and a computer programmer, but I would like to remind you that Nomic is not programming. Nor, for that matter, is it a legal system. It's a game. Generally I find that arguments such as "anything that is not specifically yes is a no, because that's how it works in programming" or relations to legal rules systems not particularly valid. Don't get me wrong: I found your explanation using null pointers highly entertaining. The reason for the judgement system is that much in this game is not explicitly defined, as we've all noticed! Since it isn't legalese or programming, I am of the opinion that every that not everything needs to be explicitly set forth. Generally, though, we're all very left-brained thinkers, or right-brained, or whichever one's the logic one, so we're seeing at least for the time being more judgements than proposals. Why I don't have a problem with this in the slightest, and actually think it's kind of fun, I wonder how long we can sustain constantly challenging how the game works. These very interesting loopholes like you've discovered are very cool. Frankly, though, I think it would be even cooler if you had found some way to use this little conundrum to your advantage, gotten a rule passed, and then explained to us that we unwittingly passed a rule that has given you a great advantage. "You've been had!" is healthier for the game than "Hypothetically, this could be messed up." Don't you think? Um... yeah. I would highly recommend that we as voters pay close attention to rules that mention other rules by number, now that Josh has brought it to our attention. He's right: we could run into some troubles by doing so. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 18:38:1) From: "Leonardo DiCaprio's Hairstylist" Subject: judgement statement Joel, Here's the statement: The current ruleset does not render the game unplayable. 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 19:13:23) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: official judgement >I can't find any rules that we have now that reference other rules by >number. Does that make the introduction of meaningless symbols moot at >present, since it wouldn't be possible? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu Moot with regards to the current ruleset, yes. It's still, I think, something to keep in mind for future rules. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 25, 1998 (Wed, 19:27:58) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Judgement >Josh, > I didn't pay much attention to your email. Why? Because the >judgement was initiated by Haar. He speicifcally stated the questions up >for judgement in his email. Since there are currently no rules which >reference another rule by number, the issue is a hypthetical one, which is >why judgement ruled that there's nothing wrong. Were there to be such a >rule, and the rule it referred to be renumbered, the judgement may have >been different. Certainly, that is clear - I just wanted to expand on my point, since you mentioned it at the end of the mail which contained your judgement, and it seemed as if you didn't understand it. My comments were not really intended to apply directly to Haar's problem - they were just related to it due to the discussion of rule numbers. > I realize that you're a mathematician and a computer programmer, ... and an English major. >but I would like to remind you that Nomic is not programming. Nor, for that >matter, is it a legal system. It's a game. Generally I find that arguments >such as "anything that is not specifically yes is a no, because that's how >it works in programming" or relations to legal rules systems not >particularly valid. Don't get me wrong: I found your explanation using null Why is it that you reject them outright, then? Nomic was designed as a game, yes, but it was designed to mimic legal systems, as its creator writes: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#intro >pointers highly entertaining. The point you seem to be making is that ideas from math, programming, or law are interesting though ultimately unimportant to the game. As they're all different ways of dealing with formal systems of meaning, though, I think they're very relevant to Nomic. > The reason for the judgement system is that much in this game is >not explicitly defined, as we've all noticed! Since it isn't legalese or >programming, I am of the opinion that every that not everything needs to be >explicitly set forth. Generally, though, we're all very left-brained Things need not be explicitly set forth, but then you suffer the consequences when it turns out that some of those things would have been nice, had they been set forth earlier. :) >thinkers, or right-brained, or whichever one's the logic one, so we're >seeing at least for the time being more judgements than proposals. Why I >don't have a problem with this in the slightest, and actually think it's >kind of fun, I wonder how long we can sustain constantly challenging how >the game works. That is, I think, one of the major parts of the game - otherwise, we're just playing some stupid "earn points before someone else" game. Yeah, it's in there, but only so that the game has an obtainable terminating condition. If that was really all I wanted I'd play Euchre. > These very interesting loopholes like you've discovered are very >cool. Frankly, though, I think it would be even cooler if you had found >some way to use this little conundrum to your advantage, gotten a rule >passed, and then explained to us that we unwittingly passed a rule that has >given you a great advantage. "You've been had!" is healthier for the game >than "Hypothetically, this could be messed up." Don't you think? Sure, I would have liked to do that, but seeing as how my turn doesn't come up for a while, and there are certainly plenty of competent players between Champan and me, I decided to leak my information and try to prevent someone before me from taking advantage of it. It is kind of tricky, so perhaps no one would have come up with it, but at this point I thought it was more useful to leak. Besides, while it would be nice to snooker you all before a whole round is finished, I would much rather see the game get much more complicated. Can't do that if I win it right away! > Um... yeah. I would highly recommend that we as voters pay close >attention to rules that mention other rules by number, now that Josh has >brought it to our attention. He's right: we could run into some troubles by >doing so. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 26, 1998 (Thu, 11:28:6) From: David H Chapman Subject: CALL FOR A VOTE! As of Wednesday March 26 at 11:14 AM I call that voting on proposal 302 begin. I feel that transmution in a simple way is a good thing. 1) Joel has to change all the number's when a transmution takes place, 2) I don't think he WANTS to make that change every time and 3) As the rules stand it take a unanimous vote to make a transmution (rule 109). It isn't hard to see that not transmuting rule 108 may make future transmutions very difficult or even impossible. Your call, Yes or No! Dave C. --- David H Chapman dchapman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 26, 1998 (Thu, 14:12:35) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Who receives the votes (302)? Is it Ben? Chris ________________________________________ Date: Mar 26, 1998 (Thu, 14:30:55) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Who receives the votes (302)? At 02:12 PM 3/26/98 CST, you wrote: >Is it Ben? > >Chris I guess I'm the de facto vote taker, since I've already received 5 of the votes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 27, 1998 (Fri, 12:29:10) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: 302 passes! Proposal 302 has passed unanimously. Allan's turns begins... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 27, 1998 (Fri, 13:16:42) From: Allan M Dudding Subject: prop. 303 Well, now that we made 108 (or 302) mutable, lets change it. Proposal 303 Remove the second paragraph of rule 302 (108). Change the number of rule 302 (108) back to 108. since the rule was voted to mutable, I figure that all of you were planning on doing this, too. Therefore, there probably won't be much time until I call for a vote... Until then, Allan Dudding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 27, 1998 (Fri, 13:29:9) From: Allan M Dudding Subject: lets vote. I think five minutes is enough time. I call proposal 303 to a vote. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 1:29:10) From: Adam Haar Subject: Prop 302 Ramrod While I support the Proposee's right to call a vote at any time I find Mr. Dudding's lack of patience appalling. Thirteen minutes to discuss/debate and offer amendments is insufficient, especially when that 13 minutes is given at 13:15 hours, a time most people are otherwise engaged. I see one glaring amendment that deserved at least passing consideration, namely keeping the sentence, "A rule repealed and reenacted shall recieve the number of the proposal to reenact it." Unfortunately since the vote has been called the proposal cannot be amended and must be voted as is. Therefore, I vote NO, and will similarly vote no on any proposal not given at least a reasonable time to be discussed. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 18:7:40) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Prop 302 Ramrod Regarding debate: While I respect Haar's dedication to the idea of open debate and thoughtful consideration, I believe that the negligable debate time was not a sufficient reason to vote against Dudding's proposal in this case. I say this because we are in the first round, and currently a unanimous vote is required to pass any proposal. Therefore, if any player is against a proposal, they need only vote against it to prevent its becoming a rule. There is no need for them to try to convince others to oppose the proposal unless they are really vindictive and hope to minimalize the score of the proposal's sponsor. As for Haar's would-be amendment, I personally don't think we would need it, as I can think of no problem that would result from a reenacted rule receiving its original number. However, if Haar considers this a truly essential ammendment I cannot blame him for voting against Dudding's proposal in this case. But please keep in mind the point I made about debate. I think all involved in this game would like to keep time spent on proposals as little as possible at this point, so let's not automatically demand long debate on every proposal, at least until passage is majority-based. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 18:43:33) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Prop 302 Ramrod >Regarding debate: > >While I respect Haar's dedication to the idea of open debate and >thoughtful consideration, I believe that the negligable debate time was >not a sufficient reason to vote against Dudding's proposal in this case. > >I say this because we are in the first round, and currently a unanimous >vote is required to pass any proposal. Therefore, if any player is >against a proposal, they need only vote against it to prevent its >becoming a rule. There is no need for them to try to convince others to >oppose the proposal unless they are really vindictive and hope to >minimalize the score of the proposal's sponsor. > >As for Haar's would-be amendment, I personally don't think we would need >it, as I can think of no problem that would result from a reenacted rule >receiving its original number. Chris Mayfield has already uncovered a possible problem with Dudding's proposal, one which may allow Dudding to win. Luckily, he can't it the proposal is not passed. I daresay that if there had been more time for discussion, Chris would have been able to warn us all of this possibly impending doom. However, he fucked up and sent his analysis straight to Dudding, who (it seems) has wisely not chosen to forward that mail on to the list, as Chris sheepishly requested. > >However, if Haar considers this a truly essential ammendment I cannot >blame him for voting against Dudding's proposal in this case. > >But please keep in mind the point I made about debate. I think all >involved in this game would like to keep time spent on proposals as >little as possible at this point, so let's not automatically demand long >debate on every proposal, at least until passage is majority-based. > That seems to be a piss-poor reason, if I do say so myself. It's not that debate MUST occur for each proposal, but rather that we should allow enough time in which to roll each proposal around in our collective mouth, in order to determine if it's a tasty chewy nugget, or an attractive- looking-but-skanky-on-the-inside turd. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 18:45:10) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Prop 302 Ramrod At 06:43 PM 3/28/98 CST, you wrote: >That seems to be a piss-poor reason, if I do say so myself. It's not >that debate MUST occur for each proposal, but rather that we should allow >enough time in which to roll each proposal around in our collective mouth, >in order to determine if it's a tasty chewy nugget, or an attractive- >looking-but-skanky-on-the-inside turd. > >Josh > Haar could have protested that there was not enough time for debate rather than voting down the proposal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 18:46:48) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: votes Still waiting for votes from Chris, Dave, Allan!!!, and Ben. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 18:51:44) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Prop 302 Ramrod >At 06:43 PM 3/28/98 CST, you wrote: >>That seems to be a piss-poor reason, if I do say so myself. It's not >>that debate MUST occur for each proposal, but rather that we should allow >>enough time in which to roll each proposal around in our collective mouth, >>in order to determine if it's a tasty chewy nugget, or an attractive- >>looking-but-skanky-on-the-inside turd. >> >>Josh >> > >Haar could have protested that there was not enough time for debate rather >than voting down the proposal. True - but I don't really hold an opinion on that one way or another, as (as I mentioned earlier in my message, in a part you didn't quote) there are other reasons for voting no to Dudding's proposal, the most convincing of which is that he may have a game-breaker there. So even if Haar was possibly misguided in using his vote - which remains to be seen - then it still went to good use, in that it kills 303 (302? The subject says 302, but I think this is 303.). Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 19:17:22) From: Nick Osborn i wish to protest. even though i already voted, i dont think there was time for sufficeint(?) time for debate. i am particularly interested in mr mayfields thoughts on the possible results of this proposition passing. n ________________________________________ Date: Mar 28, 1998 (Sat, 21:48:49) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: time for debate It seems to me that in casting a vote, the player implicitly agrees with the proposer's decision to end debate and call a vote. As such, the only person not to have voted yet (Dave Chapman) should be the only one retaining the right of protest in regard to the lack of time for debate. Since Mr. Chapman is also judge during this turn, if he wants to extend time for debate, he should rule against Mr. Osborn -- who has already cast his vote -- and lodge a protest himself. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 2:50:48) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: protest While I acknowledge that the power is vested in Dave to carry out such action, I don't really think a judgment against Allan is appropriate. We might be irritated by what he did, but it's not like he broke any rules. And as we all know, if there's nothing prohibiting it, it's allowed. I realize of course that a decision rendered against Allan, however ill-advised, won't be overturned by popular vote, but that doesn't mean Dave should go ahead with the decision. At this point I believe very little would be served by such an actiona, anyhow. We've made it quite clear that leaving such liitle time for conversation is highly undesirable, which is really all we need to do as far as I'm concerned. Extending discussion time may cause some votes to be changed, I suppose, but is unlikely to affect passage of the proposal. Therefore in the interest of keeping the game moving unless there's a good reason not to, I feel we should just keep playing and nother bother with judgment. Just my 2 cents worth. beN 0411.78 what's that mean? what is it? what are those numbers for? find the answer http://www.byrneweb.com/0411.78 ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 9:4:30) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: debate I have to agree with Ben here. The rules simply do not stipulate how much time must be allowed for debate on a bill that has been proposed. Therefore, how can there be any judgement against Allan calling for the vote? It is, and should be, up to the person proposing the bill to decide when debate is concluded. Nathan ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 11:56:59) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: debate Simple - the rules state that a "reasonable" amount of time must be allowed for debate. If we don't think the time allowed has been reasonable, we judge his ass. _________________________________________________________________________ I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas >I have to agree with Ben here. The rules simply do not stipulate how much >time must be allowed for debate on a bill that has been proposed. >Therefore, how can there be any judgement against Allan calling for the >vote? It is, and should be, up to the person proposing the bill to decide >when debate is concluded. > >Nathan > ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 13:47:1) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: debate At 11:56 AM 3/29/98 CST, Josh Kortbein wrote: > >Simple - the rules state that a "reasonable" amount of time must >be allowed for debate. If we don't think the time allowed has been >reasonable, we judge his ass. > Well, it's not a question of US as a group deciding to call for a judgment, since Nick has already done so. Ben indicated that the whole matter should be dropped, as the precedent of people voting against something which has not had sufficient debate has been set; however, since a judgment has been asked for, a judgment must be delivered before we can continue. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 14:3:42) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: debate AUGH! Don't you people know how to quote? Check this out: ----------- Simple - the rules state that a "reasonable" amount of time must be allowed for debate. If we don't think the time allowed has been reasonable, we judge his ass. >I have to agree with Ben here. The rules simply do not stipulate how much >time must be allowed for debate on a bill that has been proposed. >Therefore, how can there be any judgement against Allan calling for the >vote? It is, and should be, up to the person proposing the bill to decide >when debate is concluded. ----------- This was me, replying to Nate. My statement was a general one, a comment on whether or not the proposer has complete power to end debate, as Nate implied. The "we" was anyone among the non-proposers who chooses to call for judgement. Josh Joel said: >At 11:56 AM 3/29/98 CST, Josh Kortbein wrote: >> >>Simple - the rules state that a "reasonable" amount of time must >>be allowed for debate. If we don't think the time allowed has been >>reasonable, we judge his ass. >> > >Well, it's not a question of US as a group deciding to call for a judgment, >since Nick has already done so. Ben indicated that the whole matter should >be dropped, as the precedent of people voting against something which has >not had sufficient debate has been set; however, since a judgment has been >asked for, a judgment must be delivered before we can continue. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 15:7:18) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re:Debate The rules require the proposee to allow a "reasonable" time for debate before calling a vote. As Mr. Dudding said, "I think five minutes is enough time." Therefore Mr. Dudding as the arbiter of reasonable in this case has fulfilled his responsibilities. This is the reason I did not call for Judgement and instead canned his ass. As no time is required for debate due to the ambiguous interpretation of the word "reasonable" a Proposee may call the vote as soon as his Proposal becomes available. I simply put forth the warning that anyone attempting to do the same will meet the same fate. Adam Haar Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting through life without ever succeeding. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 15:21:33) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Debate >The rules require the proposee to allow a "reasonable" time for debate >before calling a vote. As Mr. Dudding said, "I think five minutes is >enough time." Therefore Mr. Dudding as the arbiter of reasonable in this >case has fulfilled his responsibilities. This is the reason I did not call There are two parties to whom the amount of time allowed for debate could be considered "reasonable," each of whom could have differing views: the proposee, and the rest of the players. It seems to me that it is in the best interests of the proposee to let the rest of the group determine how much time is reasonable - especially if the proposee wants to do somthing like call for a vote after five minutes of a discussion. Consider it this way: suppose that Alan had proposed a normal, most-likely non-threatening proposal. If there are one or two things that someone thinks require discussing, then a longer discussion time would allow them to discuss, and propose amendments to Alan's proposal. This is in Alan's interests, because presumably those amendments would be more likely to make people vote "yes." This is especially true if the amendments rise out of some form of consensus. But, if Alan does the same thing and gives five minutes for discussion, then if any single person doesn't like any single part of the proposal, it will probably get voted down - thus losing Alan points that he may have otherwise earned if he had been more patient. Of course, there is now the concern that if you call for votes too quickly, you will simply be voted down on general principles. So why not let discussion brew a little bit?? :) >for Judgement and instead canned his ass. As no time is required for >debate due to the ambiguous interpretation of the word "reasonable" a >Proposee may call the vote as soon as his Proposal becomes available. I >simply put forth the warning that anyone attempting to do the same will >meet the same fate. > >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 17:54:44) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: debate to save time on judging my ass, my girlfriend thinks my ass is pretty nice. you could argue that that is a baised opinion... Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 17:59:41) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Re:Debate well, as for canning my ass, i think its well enough preserved as is. sorry, im a little loopy from KQ still. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 18:38:9) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: sequence of events Damon and I have had a series of interesting conversations about the mechanics of rule changes. He is of the opinion that everything associated with a rule change occurs instantanously and simultaneously upon completion of the vote, and that the rule set is static until the entire rule change is completed (Is this a correct synopsis of your view, Damon?). I differ with him on this issue on all of these counts. The renumbering due to a rule change is a cause of a successful proposal, and as such, cannot occur simultaneously with the adoption of the text of the proposal. Effects must follow causes for these words to mean anything -- its is simply impossible for them to be concurrent. Since the proposal goes into effect immediately upon passage, it can legally modify anything connected with a rule change that is caused by its passage. Thus in the case of Dudding's proposal, there should be no problem with the renumbering, because the renumbering section would be gone by the time renumbering would normally occru. I'm not sure if this directly rebuts any of what Chris sent to Allan, but I have a suspicion that it may in part. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 29, 1998 (Sun, 23:48:20) From: David H Chapman Subject: Judgement..after the fact. Personally, I agree with Joel. I don't think there is any reason why a cause and an effect can not happen at the same time especailly in this game. I think that the real question is if a rule change and a number change together counts as one proposal or two. But I am just chasing the wind here. I voted 15 minutes ago causing my position of judge to be removed. So the real question is does this judgement count as a judgement? That's not my place to decide. Dave --- David H Chapman dchapman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 1:5:9) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: sequence of events >Damon and I have had a series of interesting conversations about the >mechanics of rule changes. He is of the opinion that everything associated >with a rule change occurs instantanously and simultaneously upon completion >of the vote, and that the rule set is static until the entire rule change >is completed (Is this a correct synopsis of your view, Damon?). The best way to defend this position seems to be: Is there a rule which says, explicitly, when the number-change for a rule takes place? If not, then we must assume that all events associated with the passage of a rule, which are not otherwise stated to occur in a certain order with respect to other events, occur simultaneously. To do otherwise would be basically inventing a rule which does not exist, and that's not legal unless said rule is passed via the normal method. > >I differ with him on this issue on all of these counts. The renumbering due >to a rule change is a cause of a successful proposal, and as such, cannot Can you quote a rule which states clearly this causal relationship? >occur simultaneously with the adoption of the text of the proposal. Effects >must follow causes for these words to mean anything -- its is simply >impossible for them to be concurrent. Since the proposal goes into effect >immediately upon passage, it can legally modify anything connected with a >rule change that is caused by its passage. > >Thus in the case of Dudding's proposal, there should be no problem with the >renumbering, because the renumbering section would be gone by the time >renumbering would normally occru. I'm not sure if this directly rebuts any >of what Chris sent to Allan, but I have a suspicion that it may in part. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 1:12:55) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Judgement..after the fact. >Personally, I agree with Joel. I don't think there is any reason why a >cause and an effect can not happen at the same time especailly in this Agree with Joel? This seems to agree with Damon, and disagree with Joel. Care to elucidate? >game. I think that the real question is if a rule change and a number >change together counts as one proposal or two. But I am just chasing the >wind here. I voted 15 minutes ago causing my position of judge to be >removed. So the real question is does this judgement count as a Why is this? Were you the last person left who had not voted? You should still be judge, for the reasons below, and because the turn has not officially ended yet. We haven't even seen the vote results, and Dudding's score has not been modified, if necessary. >judgement? That's not my place to decide. If there is a call for judgement, the turn does not end, and you are not ousted as judge, until that judgement has been made (moreover, it doesn't end until we vote to do so after the judgement has been made). > >Dave > >--- >David H Chapman >dchapman@iastate.edu Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 11:44:3) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: sequence of events At 01:05 AM 3/30/98 CST, Josh wrote: >>I differ with him on this issue on all of these counts. The renumbering due >>to a rule change is a cause of a successful proposal, and as such, cannot > >Can you quote a rule which states clearly this causal relationship? Rule 302 states, in part, "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it." The IF construct definately implies that amendments cause rules to be renumbered. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 11:49:10) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Judgement..after the fact. At 11:48 PM 3/29/98 CST, you wrote: >Personally, I agree with Joel. I don't think there is any reason why a >cause and an effect can not happen at the same time especailly in this >game. You are confusing my position with Damon's. >I think that the real question is if a rule change and a number >change together counts as one proposal or two. But I am just chasing the >wind here. That was not the subject of the currrent protest. Nick wanted an extension of debate. >I voted 15 minutes ago causing my position of judge to be >removed. You are still judge until Allan's turn ends. >So the real question is does this judgement count as a >judgement? That's not my place to decide. > >Dave > Becuase you are the judge, you have to specify what your judgment is. I don't see the topic addressed here, so I suspect that you may still be working on your actual judgment on Nick's protest. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 20:41:19) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: sequence of events >At 01:05 AM 3/30/98 CST, Josh wrote: >>>I differ with him on this issue on all of these counts. The renumbering due >>>to a rule change is a cause of a successful proposal, and as such, cannot >> >>Can you quote a rule which states clearly this causal relationship? > >Rule 302 states, in part, "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives >the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it." The IF construct >definately implies that amendments cause rules to be renumbered. Look at the general form: if p, then q The form implies no temporal causality between p or q - the causality comes in our evaluation of p and q, for purposes of determining the truth value of the implication. Thus, the if construct does NOT definitely imply that amendments cause rules to be renumbered. > > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 23:11:38) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: sequence of events At 08:41 PM 3/30/98 CST, you wrote: > >>At 01:05 AM 3/30/98 CST, Josh wrote: >>>>I differ with him on this issue on all of these counts. The renumbering due >>>>to a rule change is a cause of a successful proposal, and as such, cannot >>> >>>Can you quote a rule which states clearly this causal relationship? >> >>Rule 302 states, in part, "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives >>the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it." The IF construct >>definately implies that amendments cause rules to be renumbered. > >Look at the general form: > >if p, then q > >The form implies no temporal causality between p or q - the causality >comes in our evaluation of p and q, for purposes of determining the >truth value of the implication. > >Thus, the if construct does NOT definitely imply that amendments cause >rules to be renumbered. > Somehow, I just knew you'd make this objection, but I felt lazy and just didn't feel like answering it before you made it. Normally, "if p then q" does not have to imply causality. HOWEVER, when p and q are game events and: 1. p always preceeds q 2. q is a quantifiable change 3. there are no other conditions coupled with q, ergo it effectively reads "if and only if p then q" there is a very strong argument for causality, which is what I meant in the first place. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 30, 1998 (Mon, 23:19:32) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: sequence of events >At 08:41 PM 3/30/98 CST, you wrote: >> >>>At 01:05 AM 3/30/98 CST, Josh wrote: >>>>>I differ with him on this issue on all of these counts. The renumbering >due >>>>>to a rule change is a cause of a successful proposal, and as such, cannot >>>> >>>>Can you quote a rule which states clearly this causal relationship? >>> >>>Rule 302 states, in part, "If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives >>>the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it." The IF construct >>>definately implies that amendments cause rules to be renumbered. >> >>Look at the general form: >> >>if p, then q >> >>The form implies no temporal causality between p or q - the causality >>comes in our evaluation of p and q, for purposes of determining the >>truth value of the implication. >> >>Thus, the if construct does NOT definitely imply that amendments cause >>rules to be renumbered. >> > >Somehow, I just knew you'd make this objection, but I felt lazy and just >didn't feel like answering it before you made it. Normally, "if p then q" >does not have to imply causality. HOWEVER, when p and q are game events and: > >1. p always preceeds q >2. q is a quantifiable change >3. there are no other conditions coupled with q, ergo it effectively reads >"if and only if p then q" > >there is a very strong argument for causality, which is what I meant in the >first place. There is a strong argument for it, but I believe there is also a strong argument AGAINST it, in that there is no rule explicitly governing the situation, and attempting to settle it in this manner seems to be, in effect, creating such a "rule." The strongest reason you seem to have is "that's the order we do it in, so that's the way the causality works." > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mar 31, 1998 (Tue, 13:26:14) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: sequence of events At 11:19 PM 3/30/98 CST, you wrote: >> >>Somehow, I just knew you'd make this objection, but I felt lazy and just >>didn't feel like answering it before you made it. Normally, "if p then q" >>does not have to imply causality. HOWEVER, when p and q are game events and: >> >>1. p always preceeds q >>2. q is a quantifiable change >>3. there are no other conditions coupled with q, ergo it effectively reads >>"if and only if p then q" >> >>there is a very strong argument for causality, which is what I meant in the >>first place. > >There is a strong argument for it, but I believe there is also a strong >argument AGAINST it, in that there is no rule explicitly governing the >situation, and attempting to settle it in this manner seems to be, in >effect, creating such a "rule." The strongest reason you seem to have >is "that's the order we do it in, so that's the way the causality works." > >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu > >Josh > But there is a rule explicitly governing the situation -- the rule we are examining. Can you present some alternate cause for renumbering? Someting must be the immediate cause of it -- what would if be if it's not the rule change caused by the passage of a proposal? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 31, 1998 (Tue, 18:6:12) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Judgment 4 Judgment 4 has been issued, reopening debate on proposal 303 and invalidating all of of the votes I have received. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mar 31, 1998 (Tue, 21:31:25) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: Judgment 4 i continue to vote no "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Mar 31, 1998 (Tue, 21:33:17) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: READ THIS ONE FIRST wait, nevermind. I guess voting hasn't opened yet. "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Mar 31, 1998 (Tue, 23:49:20) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: READ THIS ONE FIRST Mainly because I feel that for simplicity's sake, all rules in the 100's should be immutable. If alan had proposed to call it 2XX, I would be in favor of his proposal. beN "Spice Girls aren't porno. Porno has much better music." -Phil Spector, in response to someone's complaint that the Spice Girls' videos bordered on porn. Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ