________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 0:14:58) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: voting ...but that doesn't mean you should put it off until then! "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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 9:55:41) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn Assuming that the mail system isn't being gimpy and I have gotten all of the votes sent at or before 9:45 AM, Proposal 308 fails 7-7-0-1 (yes-no-abstain-auto abstain). Had Kuhns only voted for his own proposal... It is now Damon Luloff's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 10:50:0) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Hee hee hee This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. I love it when people act in their own best interests rather than in the interests of the group. Wouldn't you agree, Matt? :) beN (Just trying to capture second place in the most-posts category) "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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 11:3:40) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Hee hee hee Ben Byrne is a goddamn smartass! Worse, he's a smug smartass. Well, smartass, at least you didn't get 10 free points, and I'm still ahead of you, so Hahah! :P And what's up with this "I love it when people act in their own best interests rather than in the interests of the group?" Since when did you consider my proposal to be in the best interests of the group? And to be perfectly clear, I don't blame myself for my proposal's failure, despite Joel's implications. The vote was 7-7-0-1 (yes-no-abstain-auto abstain). Had everyone voted, I would have felt responsible for my proposal's failure (although there were definitely other people out there who also voted against it despite having expressed no objections, thank you so much!) but since some HOSER TO THE NTH POWER failed to vote at all, I blame him. Fortunately it's way to soon to start playing for spite. Probably. >=) --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 11:4:4) From: Original Flavor Subject: Proposal #Whatever New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: 1. A new player must be represented by a real life meat box. 2. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must not already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. 3. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must be represented in the game by his/her real surname. 4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. 5. To be accepted into the game an informal proposal (not someone's turn) must be made and voted on. The player will be accepted if a simple majority of the players vote to accept the player. (The third part in conjuction with the first two parts is to prevent someone from quitting as, for instance, Jim Babcock and then entering immediately again as Jim Babcomb, then quitting and entering again as Jim Babcork, Jim Babcorn, Babcorpse, Babcorpusle, Babcorstein, Babcort, Baccone, Bacon, Bacone, Baconne, Bacom - you get the idea.) Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 11:33:8) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Proposal #Whatever I heartily endorse any proposal containing the words "meat box," especially in repetition! Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: > >1. A new player must be represented by a real life meat box. >2. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must not > already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. >3. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must be > represented in the game by his/her real surname. >4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. >5. To be accepted into the game an informal proposal (not someone's > turn) must be made and voted on. The player will be accepted if a > simple majority of the players vote to accept the player. > >(The third part in conjuction with the first two parts is to prevent >someone from quitting as, for instance, Jim Babcock and then entering >immediately again as Jim Babcomb, then quitting and entering again as >Jim Babcork, Jim Babcorn, Babcorpse, Babcorpusle, Babcorstein, Babcort, >Baccone, Bacon, Bacone, Baconne, Bacom - you get the idea.) > >Damon > >__________ > > > I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. > Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows > tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes > go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and > I won't change my mind. > > - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 14:13:6) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Proposal #Whatever I think I would prefer a 2/3 majority in favor of adding more players. This would make it more difficult for people to add persons to the game for their own purposes. Such as, trying to increase their voting power by adding persons friendly to their causes. Thoughts? Andy At 11:04 AM 5/1/98 CDT, you wrote: > >New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: > >1. A new player must be represented by a real life meat box. >2. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must not > already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. >3. A meat box submitting the request to become a new player must be > represented in the game by his/her real surname. >4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. >5. To be accepted into the game an informal proposal (not someone's > turn) must be made and voted on. The player will be accepted if a > simple majority of the players vote to accept the player. > >(The third part in conjuction with the first two parts is to prevent >someone from quitting as, for instance, Jim Babcock and then entering >immediately again as Jim Babcomb, then quitting and entering again as >Jim Babcork, Jim Babcorn, Babcorpse, Babcorpusle, Babcorstein, Babcort, >Baccone, Bacon, Bacone, Baconne, Bacom - you get the idea.) > >Damon > >__________ > > > I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. > Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows > tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes > go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and > I won't change my mind. > > - Pearl Jam > ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 15:16:35) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: no, this is not stupid, Nate! Hah! (ok, maybe the last part) In regards to Damon's proposal; where would new players added in this fashion be inserted into the order of play? Appropriate alphabetical position might be a good default, but even this might cause problems with game play (for instance, a judgement is in the process of being made when a new player is added who falls alphabetically immediately before the current player. Who is the judge? Is it undecidable? I think the proposal should state specifically where the new player will go, and what will resolve any foreseen complications. That is all. By the way, my revolutionary duties are back in full force. The following is not a message for not Matt Kuhns because I am not a shadowy underworld figure whose dubious schemes were not integral to his rise to power. There is no connection to myself and other underground militants to the current administration. The message is not "The eagle strikes back at midnight" That is all. Viva la Revolucion Anonymous "Subcomandate Marcos" Anonymous ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 16:27:53) From: Original Flavor Subject: Mike Mike is a fucking looney, but some of his ideas are reasonable. Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 19:41:14) From: Adam Haar Subject: Prop #Who_Cares Why not drop them into the normal alphebetical order, allow them to vote, but not make proposals or judgements until the current cycle of players is through (they don't get to do neat stuff until after Uckelman's coming 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: May 1, 1998 (Fri, 23:59:50) From: Original Flavor Subject: Revision of Proposal How about this? New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: 1. A new player must be represented by a real person. 2. A person submitting the request to become a new player must not already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. 3. A person submitting the request to become a new player must be represented in the game by his/her real surname. 4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. 5. A new player will be alphabetically placed in the list of order according to his/her surname. 6. A new player will have the status 'new player' when he/she begins. 7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for the right to make a formal proposal. 8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has been skipped once. 9. To be accepted into the game, an informal proposal must be made by a any player currently in the game by announcing it to everyone and calling for a vote. A player need not use his/her turn make the proposal. 10. To be accepted into the game, a two-thirds majority is needed. (I know the his/her, he/she thing isn't really appropriate at this time, but come on; a guy can hope, can't he? Chicks rule! No offense to the homosexual men out there.) Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:0:54) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Revision of Proposal I am very distraught at the exclusion of the phrase "meat box." Josh who is serious ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >How about this? > >New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: > >1. A new player must be represented by a real person. >2. A person submitting the request to become a new player must not > already have a player representing himself/herself in this game. >3. A person submitting the request to become a new player must be > represented in the game by his/her real surname. >4. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. >5. A new player will be alphabetically placed in the list of order > according to his/her surname. >6. A new player will have the status 'new player' when he/she begins. >7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for > the right to make a formal proposal. >8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has > been skipped once. >9. To be accepted into the game, an informal proposal must be made by a > any player currently in the game by announcing it to everyone and calling > for a vote. A player need not use his/her turn make the proposal. >10. To be accepted into the game, a two-thirds majority is needed. > > >(I know the his/her, he/she thing isn't really appropriate at this time, >but come on; a guy can hope, can't he? Chicks rule! No offense to the >homosexual men out there.) > >Damon > >__________ > > > I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. > Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows > tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes > go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and > I won't change my mind. > > - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:32:1) From: Nick Osborn Subject: current proposal it would be much easier to deal with this proposal if we already had a rule concerning active and inactive players, which we will need for the summer. damon seems to be tripping over definitions of "player" and "person" as if they had legal meaning, which they dont. by passing a rule dealing with active and inactive players, the current proposal would be easier to formulate. i suggest damon amend his proposal to address the active/inactive issue, facilitating his current intentions at a later date. n ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:35:36) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: current proposal Plus the re-addition of "meat box." ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >it would be much easier to deal with this proposal if we already had a rule >concerning active and inactive players, which we will need for the summer. >damon seems to be tripping over definitions of "player" and "person" as if >they had legal meaning, which they dont. by passing a rule dealing with >active and inactive players, the current proposal would be easier to >formulate. > >i suggest damon amend his proposal to address the active/inactive issue, >facilitating his current intentions at a later date. > >n ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:43:52) From: Original Flavor Subject: Remo I don't think it is necessary to do anything first. My proposal stands alone. I am not tripping over the definitions of person and player. If you read the rules, a player is clearly defined. A player has certain rights. A person, on the other hand, is a living breathing human being. Changing is different from amending. What you want me to do is completely change, not revise. I refuse. In fact, I call for a vote. Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 0:44:44) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Remo GODDAMNIT, WHAT ABOUT MEAT BOXES? Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >I don't think it is necessary to do anything first. My proposal stands >alone. I am not tripping over the definitions of person and player. If >you read the rules, a player is clearly defined. A player has certain >rights. A person, on the other hand, is a living breathing human being. > >Changing is different from amending. What you want me to do is completely >change, not revise. I refuse. > >In fact, I call for a vote. > >Damon > >__________ > > > I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. > Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows > tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes > go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and > I won't change my mind. > > - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 1:8:34) From: Original Flavor Subject: Resignation I officially resign my duties as PLAYER 'Damon Luloff' in this nomic game. (I quit.) Damon __________ I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm. Oh, I'll keep taking punches till their will grows tired. Oh, I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind. And, hey, I won't change direction and I won't change my mind. - Pearl Jam ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 11:31:10) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: resignation What do we do now that Damon has quit in the middle of his turn? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 11:39:27) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: resignation At 11:31 AM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >What do we do now that Damon has quit in the middle of his turn? call him names? ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 12:20:41) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Resignation I would say we continue the voting process, with the mechanisms already in place. Any points accumulated by Damon in this turn are forfeited and any points gained by other players are accrued as normal. 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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 12:58:44) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: resignation Assuming that this proposal passes, I think we should add Damon to the game again. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 13:3:32) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: resignation Unless he, the meat box, has agreed, then that seems to be fairly futile. You can add him, but unless he wants to play you'll just have a "player" who slows up the game, by requiring enforcement of the automatic abstention, and more importantly, not proposing proposals (we currently don't have a rule for that, note). Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >Assuming that this proposal passes, I think we should add Damon to the game >again. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 14:25:45) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: Damon's quitting >What do we do now that Damon has quit in the middle of his turn? > >J. Uckelman Well, first we need to elect a dictator for the purposes of holding elections. Then, once the dictator holds elections, the consuls who hold imperium can then deal the the problem. Cristus Quintius Agerus ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 16:1:59) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: ? Does anyone know WHY Damon quit? --in the middle of his turn? "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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 16:2:56) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: ? He's become fed up with the social system and has gone off to find a rich mentor that will pay him to write _Das Kapital_ and the Communist manifesto. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl > Does anyone know WHY Damon quit? --in the middle of his turn? > >"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: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 16:5:33) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: At 04:01 PM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: > Does anyone know WHY Damon quit? --in the middle of his turn? > >"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 > Damon quit due to a misunderstanding we had last evening. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 20:53:53) From: "J. Uckelman" Voting is still open on this proposal until 12:45 PM tomorrow. Right now I only have about 5 votes... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 2, 1998 (Sat, 21:13:47) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: proposal? I don't recall having ever heard Damon CFV... and if he left before he called for one, wouldn't we just move on to the next person? Oh well, whatever. "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: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 0:12:12) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: proposal? At 09:13 PM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: > I don't recall having ever heard Damon CFV... and if he left before >he called for one, wouldn't we just move on to the next person? Oh well, >whatever. > >"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 > > Damon did call for a vote before he quit. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 0:18:21) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: proposal? > I don't recall having ever heard Damon CFV... and if he left before >he called for one, wouldn't we just move on to the next person? Oh well, He called for a vote in his post entitled "Remo." >whatever. > >"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: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 0:52:22) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: my mistake Okay, yeah, you're right. Sorry. You don't expect me to read email all the way to the end? :) "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: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 12:54:43) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn In an amazing outpouring of voter apathy, Proposal 309 passed 5-3-1-6. Next up is Chris Mayfield. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:35:59) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: My platform Since I don't believe that there's anything against airing multiple proposals (so long as I limit myself to one when it comes time to vote), here are some things that have been running through my head. Let me know what you think, since I'll probably make a decision in 24 hours as to which proposal to call, then call for a vote roughly 24 hours after that. Possible Tyranny of Immutible rules: Since (I believe) it only requires a simple majority to make a mutable rule into an immutable one, a small clique with just enough supporters could establish an immutable rule that would be nearly impossible to repeal. Therefore, I suggest beginning a slate of proposals that would a) Rule 109 be made mutable (this would be mine) b) Any rule made immutable can be made mutable by a vote with the same or greater majority that made the rule immutable in the first place c) For the purposes of b), all initial rules are considered unanimously immutable Ex. Rule 501 is made immutable by a vote of 7-2-1. To make it mutable again would require a 70% or greater majority of votes. Since this course of action involves the first step of getting a unanimous vote to transmute 109, I'm not going to propose it if people think this is a bad idea. New Opposed Minority Scoring Take the total number of point possible (assuming unanimous approval) and cut in half. That number is the new value for minority scoring. This has the advantage of keeping the opposed scoring scaled to the current proposal rather than falling behind and becoming less of a motivation to squeeze the vote. Modifications on 309 7. A new player will be afforded all the rights of a player except the right to hold judgment (including the right to vote and score points). 8. A new player will be awarded status after the completion of the first proposal to be proposed and voted on after the new player's admission to the game. The exception to this is if the new player's turn would be the first proposal to fit the above qualifications. This fixes something I didn't see addressed by Damon's proposal: that someone could try to rig the jury in their favor by proposing a new player (as hard as it might be to find someone with the right alphabetic placement). Also, by making a new player wait until their first chance to propose a rule change is passed, the new player will have to wait between 15 and 30 rounds or so (depending on where they come in) before they get the right to propose. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:53:26) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: notes on summer -- EVERYONE READ THIS 1. We currently have no rule to allow turns to be skipped if players have no e-mail access for the summer. If we do not pass such a rule before we leave, play will halt until August. This will probably be the last (or second to last) turn where we are all here and playing, so if Chris Mayfield does not propose such a rule, there is a decreased likelihood of further play until August. 2. The mailing list averages 5 messages a day. Over the course of a summer, that would come to around 500 messages waiting for you when you return. If you aren't playing over the summer and don't want this, remove yourself from the mailing list before you leave. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:55:55) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: new player proposal I propose that Damon Luloff be added to the game and call for a vote on the matter. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 13:57:6) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: My platform >>Possible Tyranny of Immutible rules: >> Since (I believe) it only requires a simple majority to make a >>mutable rule into an immutable one, a small clique with just enough >>supporters could establish an immutable rule that would be nearly >>impossible to repeal. > >This is not true. Any transmutation requires unanimity, regardless of the >direction. --- Rule 109 states only that immutable rules need a majority to become mutable. Neither it, nor any of the other rules, as far as I can see, state anything about the requirements of mutable into immutable. Therefore I assume that this requires the default number of votes required of a proposal to pass, i.e. a simple majority as of right now. Clarifications welcomed, but I believe this is the way it stands. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 14:22:24) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 01:57 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>>Possible Tyranny of Immutible rules: >>> Since (I believe) it only requires a simple majority to make a >>>mutable rule into an immutable one, a small clique with just enough >>>supporters could establish an immutable rule that would be nearly >>>impossible to repeal. >> >>This is not true. Any transmutation requires unanimity, regardless of the >>direction. > >--- > >Rule 109 states only that immutable rules need a majority to become >mutable. Neither it, nor any of the other rules, as far as I can see, >state anything about the requirements of mutable into immutable. >Therefore I assume that this requires the default number of votes >required of a proposal to pass, i.e. a simple majority as of right now. > >Clarifications welcomed, but I believe this is the way it stands. > >Chris > Transmutation is a rule change. There is no explicit method for transmutation from mutable to immutable stated in 109, but 102 explicitly states that it can be done in either direction. Rule 116 states: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." The last clause of this rule prevents such assumptions as Mr. Mayfield makes above -- the general voting rules contain no such permission to transmute rules based only on a majority. Because 109 is the only rule specifically dealing with voting on transmutations, it is singled out as a special case of voting. Transmutation of mutable to immutable is more similar to this special case than the general case of voting. We have no grounds for likening the case at hand to an unlike general case if a closer match is available. If any implication is present in 109, it is that unanimity is required in the other direction as well. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 14:58:29) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: new player proposal This is the second time you've said this, but you still haven't said what you're going to do if he is added. Enough with the not talking. I certainly won't vote for your proposal without a good reason, and neither should anyone else. Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >I propose that Damon Luloff be added to the game and call for a vote on the >matter. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 15:26:59) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: new player proposal I don't follow. What do you mean "what am I going to do if he's added"? I have already discussed it with him and he wants to be added to the game. In any case, there's no reason to vote against this unless you really don't want Damon to play -- it's an informal proposal, so no points are awarded or lost due to its outcome. At 02:58 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >This is the second time you've said this, but you still haven't >said what you're going to do if he is added. Enough with the not >talking. I certainly won't vote for your proposal without a good reason, >and neither should anyone else. > > >Josh > >____________________________________________________________ >"I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both > very interesting numbers." > - Larry Wall, creator of perl > >>I propose that Damon Luloff be added to the game and call for a vote on the >>matter. >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 18:35:16) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Original Flavor Damon wants to rejoin the current game, or so most sources indicate. Thus there shouldn't be concern about the effects of adding a player to the game without their consent. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 21:0:59) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: voting Everyone does need to vote on the proposal to reinstate Damon. As of now, I only have 2 of 14 votes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 21:2:35) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: voting Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you want to take your chances? Josh ____________________________________________________________ "I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers." - Larry Wall, creator of perl >Everyone does need to vote on the proposal to reinstate Damon. As of now, I >only have 2 of 14 votes. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 21:18:8) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >Transmutation is a rule change. There is no explicit method for >transmutation from mutable to immutable stated in 109, but 102 explicitly >states that it can be done in either direction. Rule 116 states: "Whatever >is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with >the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a >rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." The last clause >of this rule prevents such assumptions as Mr. Mayfield makes above -- the >general voting rules contain no such permission to transmute rules based >only on a majority. The last clause in Rule 116 states that CHANGING THE RULES is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. The "changing the rules" in this case is governed by 103/0. Definition of Rule Change (immutable) A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ versa. ^^^^^ (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You're correct that the rules contain no provision for making mutable-> immutable changes via majority votes. However, there is no prohibition against it, either, and rule 103 firmly establishes that simply transmuting the rule (by unspecified means) is allowed. >Because 109 is the only rule specifically dealing with voting on >transmutations, it is singled out as a special case of voting. >Transmutation of mutable to immutable is more similar to this special case >than the general case of voting. We have no grounds for likening the case >at hand to an unlike general case if a closer match is available. If any >implication is present in 109, it is that unanimity is required in the >other direction as well. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for immutable->mutable changes; it stands to reason that if the rule were meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule 103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. Josh NP: King Crimson, _Red_ ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 22:34:59) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >immutable->mutable changes; Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? >it stands to reason that if the rule were >meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. > >Josh >NP: King Crimson, _Red_ > Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 22:47:35) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: voting At 09:02 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. >I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you >want to take your chances? > What is it that is not clear? Damon wants to rejoin the game. I proposed it under Rule 309 so he could. I am simply trying to fix a mistake I made. Since this is an informal proposal, no points will be transacted. If you have someting specific in mind, ask it so I have some idea what you are getting at. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:14:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: voting >At 09:02 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. >>I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you >>want to take your chances? >> > >What is it that is not clear? Damon wants to rejoin the game. I proposed it >under Rule 309 so he could. I am simply trying to fix a mistake I made. >Since this is an informal proposal, no points will be transacted. If you >have someting specific in mind, ask it so I have some idea what you are >getting at. As far as I know, Damon is thinking of rejoining the game "eventually" - with no provision made for when. Until he is definitely set on rejoining, your proposal may cause a player who is not represented by a human to be added. This is technically not a problem until his turn, due to automatic abstention, but it would require each auto-abstain period to be enforced - and simply waiting until Damon says "I want to play now" seems wiser. Has he done so, over there in Harwood-land, where we electronic players might not know? Josh NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:20:9) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: voting At 11:14 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>At 09:02 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>> >>>Hey, Mr. Sex Machine - I said I'd vote no unless you offer some explanation. >>>I'm giving you a chance to explain before I cast my vote. Or do you >>>want to take your chances? >>> >> >>What is it that is not clear? Damon wants to rejoin the game. I proposed it >>under Rule 309 so he could. I am simply trying to fix a mistake I made. >>Since this is an informal proposal, no points will be transacted. If you >>have someting specific in mind, ask it so I have some idea what you are >>getting at. > >As far as I know, Damon is thinking of rejoining the game "eventually" - >with no provision made for when. Until he is definitely set on rejoining, >your proposal may cause a player who is not represented by a human to >be added. This is technically not a problem until his turn, due to >automatic abstention, but it would require each auto-abstain period to >be enforced - and simply waiting until Damon says "I want to play now" >seems wiser. Has he done so, over there in Harwood-land, where we electronic >players might not know? > >Josh >NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ > Yes, I've already said this. Damon does want to rejoin now. We talked about this. Ask him if you don't believe me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:30:38) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >>immutable->mutable changes; > >Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY >immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for >mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, >neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse >from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while >the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? >If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? Allow me to clarify - what I intended to mean was that the rule places requirements on I->M changes, and otherwise places no requirements. >>it stands to reason that if the rule were >>meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >>so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >>103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >>of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >>changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >>immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. >> >>Josh >>NP: King Crimson, _Red_ >> >Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the >intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The >game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such >study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical >simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots >of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are >perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The >Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have >the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring >states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this >is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an >intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. As I've said in an earlier post, given the careful distinction Suber made in other rules wrt I->M and M->I, I think we should take this "oversight" as intentional. It is in the interests of simplicity to do so; otherwise, we will be setting a rules-precedent which will not always be enforceable, as it's not written into the rules. If I wanted an M->I proposal for a given rule to pass, and it didn't because of your unanimity requirement, I would certainly call for a judgement - every single time such a failure of passage occurs. Perhaps you cannot think of systems in which immutability actions are not symmetrical, but I believe that's because those systems contain "rules" which make it so. You're arguing against the wording of our rule simply because of a similarity to real-world systems. This is NOT a real-world system, though, and I think rather than shoehorning it into that mold it would be more interesting to deal with it as written. Question: what's so wrong with allowing M->I changes with a majority vote? "Because it's not symmetrical" is not a good reason. Josh NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ ________________________________________ Date: May 3, 1998 (Sun, 23:55:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 11:30 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>> >>>The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >>>immutable->mutable changes; >> >>Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY >>immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for >>mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, >>neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse >>from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while >>the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? >>If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? > >Allow me to clarify - what I intended to mean was that the rule places >requirements on I->M changes, and otherwise places no requirements. Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in previous posts with the same subject. >>>it stands to reason that if the rule were >>>meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >>>so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >>>103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >>>of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >>>changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >>>immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. >>> >>>Josh >>>NP: King Crimson, _Red_ >>> >>Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the >>intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The >>game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such >>study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical >>simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots >>of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are >>perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The >>Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have >>the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring >>states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this >>is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an >>intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. > >As I've said in an earlier post, given the careful distinction Suber made >in other rules wrt I->M and M->I, I think we should take this "oversight" >as intentional. It is in the interests of simplicity to do so; otherwise, >we will be setting a rules-precedent which will not always be enforceable, >as it's not written into the rules. If I wanted an M->I proposal for a >given rule to pass, and it didn't because of your unanimity requirement, >I would certainly call for a judgement - every single time such a failure >of passage occurs. > >Perhaps you cannot think of systems in which immutability actions are >not symmetrical, but I believe that's because those systems contain "rules" >which make it so. You're arguing against the wording of our rule simply >because of a similarity to real-world systems. This is NOT a real-world >system, though, and I think rather than shoehorning it into that mold >it would be more interesting to deal with it as written. > >Question: what's so wrong with allowing M->I changes with a majority vote? >"Because it's not symmetrical" is not a good reason. > >Josh >NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ > "Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: 1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. 2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is the case. 3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing rules. 4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 8:55:22) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Nomic II: The Next Mutation (And Call for Judgment!!) Uckleman sez: >Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit >restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in >previous posts with the same subject. Rule 116 states: Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. Thus 116 requires that rules governing rule changes (of which transmutation is a part) to be explicitly stated. No guesswork. I don't want this to become an ad hominem, but it seems that your arguments against this are primarily aesthetic ones, which, though nice, have exactly zippo to do with what's legal. Since there seems (as of right now) to be little chance in either side (Josh & Chris vs. Joel) convincing the other, I HEARBY CALL JUDGMENT AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR!! Have a nice day. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 9:24:6) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >At 11:30 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>>At 09:18 PM 5/3/98 CDT, you wrote: >>>> >>>>The rule is quite explicit about requiring unanimous votes ONLY for >>>>immutable->mutable changes; >>> >>>Not true. If it does state that unanimity is required for ONLY >>>immutable->mutable changes, it does not exclude unanimity for >>>mutable->immutable changes: i.e. while M->I does not follow from I->M, >>>neither does it exclude it. Simple omission does not prevent the reverse >>>from being true as well. You are making a case for I->M & ~(M->I), while >>>the ~(M->I) part is not even present. Are we simply to suppose it is there? >>>If so, what else are we to SUPPOSE exists in the rules? >> >>Allow me to clarify - what I intended to mean was that the rule places >>requirements on I->M changes, and otherwise places no requirements. > >Exactly. When no explicit restrictions are placed on rule changes, implicit >restrictions take over. I've already stated what I think these are in >previous posts with the same subject. > >>>>it stands to reason that if the rule were >>>>meant to govern changes in the opposite direction, it would have said >>>>so (i.e., "immutable rules into mutable rules, and vice versa," as rule >>>>103 does) explicitly. Because this is not made explicit, and the wording >>>>of 109 is very clear, I don't believe anything about mutable->immutable >>>>changes is implied. You're merely finding the "implication" because >>>>immutable->mutable is semantically similar to mutable->immutable. >>>> >>>>Josh >>>>NP: King Crimson, _Red_ >>>> >>>Not only is the similarity a completely valid one, speculation as to the >>>intent of the game creator might shed some more light on this subject. The >>>game was intended to be a simulation of self-modifying systems -- for such >>>study, it would make no sense to have an operation that was not symmetrical >>>simply because there is no compelling reason to do so. I can think of lots >>>of systems in which actions which essentially create an immutable rule are >>>perfectly symmetrical, but none in which such actions are not. The >>>Constitution and virtually every state and organizational constitution have >>>the feature of symmetry in amending them -- it took just as many concurring >>>states to start Prohibition as it did to end it, for instance. I think this >>>is merely an oversight on the part of the designer rather than an >>>intentional subtlety, and should be treated as such. >> >>As I've said in an earlier post, given the careful distinction Suber made >>in other rules wrt I->M and M->I, I think we should take this "oversight" >>as intentional. It is in the interests of simplicity to do so; otherwise, >>we will be setting a rules-precedent which will not always be enforceable, >>as it's not written into the rules. If I wanted an M->I proposal for a >>given rule to pass, and it didn't because of your unanimity requirement, >>I would certainly call for a judgement - every single time such a failure >>of passage occurs. >> >>Perhaps you cannot think of systems in which immutability actions are >>not symmetrical, but I believe that's because those systems contain "rules" >>which make it so. You're arguing against the wording of our rule simply >>because of a similarity to real-world systems. This is NOT a real-world >>system, though, and I think rather than shoehorning it into that mold >>it would be more interesting to deal with it as written. >> >>Question: what's so wrong with allowing M->I changes with a majority vote? >>"Because it's not symmetrical" is not a good reason. >> >>Josh >>NP: Pink Floyd, _Pulse_ >> > >"Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a >good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: >1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to >ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. This is a shitty reason, because there's a very simple reason to "ignore" this - we are stuck in this non-real-world-system, and it's currently set up to lack symmetry. >2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is >the case. This is a shitty reason, because there is likewise no logical preclusion for the lack of symmetry, IN THE CURRENT RULES. >3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply >here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing >rules. Yes, it requires us to look for implicit meanings - but it does not give us free reign to make up whatever meanings we wish, and then apply them whilst waving our hands and yelling "implicit meaning, implicit meaning!" I prefer my "implicit meanings" to be grounded in the text, which yours are not. >4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. >What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily >created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? Perhaps as a "lesson," since this game has didactic purposes? Perhaps because Suber considered it important for I->M changes to be difficult, AND THAT'S ALL? Perhaps because he wanted to safeguard against the initially immutable rules being transmuted, but did not otherwise wory about the sanctity of immutable rules? And, again, the most "rational reason" there is for the relation not to be symmetrical: in the most basic sense possible, that's what the rules say. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 9:30:43) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: Doh!! Somebody or some_thing_ claiming to be me wrote: Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or _implicitly_ permits it. Heh. Heh. Didn't see that. Still, everything I said before still stands (including the call for judgment), in that I think Joel is reaching for implicit meanings. Just because it ain't mentioned don't mean it's implied. Chris (slinking back under his rock) ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 10:17:58) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: Platform Ok boys here's the deal, I->M transmutes are a bitch because Immutable rules, in this game, simulate a constitiution. Just as with our Federal Constitution it ain't supposed to be fucked with alot. Also let's remember the lawyer's pot of gold, it's the letter of the law that must be followed, not the spirit. Therefore "implicit meaning" don't mean shit, if it don't say it, it don't fly. 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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 10:39:35) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: My platform At 09:24 AM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >>"Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a >>good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: >>1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to >>ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. > >This is a shitty reason, because there's a very simple reason to "ignore" >this - we are stuck in this non-real-world-system, and it's currently set >up to lack symmetry. > You are assuming that it lacks symmetry, and are basing your argument that it lacks symmetry on your assumption that it lacks symmetry. Circular, don't you think? >>2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is >>the case. > >This is a shitty reason, because there is likewise no logical preclusion for >the lack of symmetry, IN THE CURRENT RULES. > I agree that there is no logical preclusion for either interpretation. I made this argument because you (or Chris, I don't remember) stated that symmetry was precluded. >>3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply >>here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing >>rules. > >Yes, it requires us to look for implicit meanings - but it does not give >us free reign to make up whatever meanings we wish, and then apply them >whilst waving our hands and yelling "implicit meaning, implicit meaning!" >I prefer my "implicit meanings" to be grounded in the text, which yours >are not. Stop making up meanings, then. I've already stated several times where the meaning I favor is drawn from, and I think it is supportable. If you don't agree, then I guess we've just found one more thing on which our opinions diverge. >>4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. >>What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily >>created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? > >Perhaps as a "lesson," since this game has didactic purposes? Perhaps >because Suber considered it important for I->M changes to be difficult, >AND THAT'S ALL? Perhaps because he wanted to safeguard against the initially >immutable rules being transmuted, but did not otherwise wory about the >sanctity of immutable rules? Again, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Is it supposed to be a good thing for us to be stuck with immutable rules we can't get rid of because there was never a consensus that we should have them in the first place? This is exactly the situation we would have if your interpretation is correct. >And, again, the most "rational reason" there is for the relation not to >be symmetrical: in the most basic sense possible, that's what the rules >say. > >Josh > I certainly don't perceive the rules that way. Once again, you're attempting to use your assumption to prove itself. In any case, I don't see either of us convincing the other (not that I ever do...), so further discussion is pointless. I intend to protest each and every mutable->immutable transmutation attempted in this way. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 10:45:32) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Damon and next proposal A few people (like 6 or 7) haven't voted yet on reinstating Damon in the game. Please do so. Chris Mayfield has not yet made a proposal. It would be appreciated if he did so, as we must be able to finish at least one more turn after his before everyone leaves if he doesn't propose something concerning skipping the turns of individuals who can't play during the summer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 11:12:24) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: My platform >At 09:24 AM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >>>"Because it's not symmetrical" in your interpretation of the rules IS a >>>good reason for us to assume it cannot be that way, because: >>>1. Symmetry is consistent with real-world systems. There's no reason to >>>ignore this just because it would supposedly be "more interesting" to do so. >> >>This is a shitty reason, because there's a very simple reason to "ignore" >>this - we are stuck in this non-real-world-system, and it's currently set >>up to lack symmetry. >> > >You are assuming that it lacks symmetry, and are basing your argument that >it lacks symmetry on your assumption that it lacks symmetry. Circular, >don't you think? If I give you a statement: P: I->M changes require a unanimity then the statement most certainly does not say P: I<->M changes require a unanimity and thus it should be quite clear, unless you are TRYING to read other things into the statement, that symmetry is not present. > >>>2. There is no logical preclusion for symmetry. We both agree that this is >>>the case. >> >>This is a shitty reason, because there is likewise no logical preclusion for >>the lack of symmetry, IN THE CURRENT RULES. >> > >I agree that there is no logical preclusion for either interpretation. I >made this argument because you (or Chris, I don't remember) stated that >symmetry was precluded. > >>>3. Rule 116 requires us to look for any implicit meanings which could apply >>>here. I believe I have sufficiently pointed out such clauses in existing >>>rules. >> >>Yes, it requires us to look for implicit meanings - but it does not give >>us free reign to make up whatever meanings we wish, and then apply them >>whilst waving our hands and yelling "implicit meaning, implicit meaning!" >>I prefer my "implicit meanings" to be grounded in the text, which yours >>are not. > >Stop making up meanings, then. I've already stated several times where the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Making up" is incorrect, as I am merely reading exactly what is written in the rules. "Letter of the law," as Haar says. >meaning I favor is drawn from, and I think it is supportable. If you don't >agree, then I guess we've just found one more thing on which our opinions >diverge. > >>>4. There is no rational reason for this relation not to be symmetrical. >>>What purpose could it possibly serve to allow immutable rules to be easily >>>created while at the same time extremely difficult to eliminate? >> >>Perhaps as a "lesson," since this game has didactic purposes? Perhaps >>because Suber considered it important for I->M changes to be difficult, >>AND THAT'S ALL? Perhaps because he wanted to safeguard against the initially >>immutable rules being transmuted, but did not otherwise wory about the >>sanctity of immutable rules? > >Again, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Is it supposed to be a >good thing for us to be stuck with immutable rules we can't get rid of >because there was never a consensus that we should have them in the first >place? This is exactly the situation we would have if your interpretation >is correct. If we had a consensus to pass rules via a simple majority, then it ultimately seems to have been due to consensus that any further rules were passed. If you don't like it you shouldn't have voted for simple majority passage. If you don't like the lack of symmetry, then propose something to fix it on your turn. I'm not opposed to fixing it; I'm just opposed to you taking liberties with the letter of the law. > >>And, again, the most "rational reason" there is for the relation not to >>be symmetrical: in the most basic sense possible, that's what the rules >>say. >> >>Josh >> > >I certainly don't perceive the rules that way. Once again, you're >attempting to use your assumption to prove itself. My argument is not circular; I am merely reading the current rules literally, which is the only thing we CAN do. Josh viva la literalism ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 11:17:24) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal >A few people (like 6 or 7) haven't voted yet on reinstating Damon in the >game. Please do so. > >Chris Mayfield has not yet made a proposal. It would be appreciated if he >did so, as we must be able to finish at least one more turn after his >before everyone leaves if he doesn't propose something concerning skipping >the turns of individuals who can't play during the summer. Since Chris has called for judgement in a matter related to a proposal he is interested in making, it doesn't seem very sporting to expect him to make a proposal before judgement is cast. It is, after all, his turn to do with as he pleases within the constraints of the rules. Will we have a simple majority of voting players able to vote after finals? If so then we can always run through a proposal dealing with the absent players, as their votes will be auto-abstained and thus will not matter. Howzabout people send information to Joel regarding whether or not they will be able to read mail over the summer, and how often? Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 11:23:14) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal A few people (like 6 or 7) haven't voted yet on reinstating Damon in the game. Please do so. Chris Mayfield has not yet made a proposal. It would be appreciated if he did so, as we must be able to finish at least one more turn after his before everyone leaves if he doesn't propose something concerning skipping the turns of individuals who can't play during the summer. J. Uckelman --- The way I see this summer is this: If you don't got email, by the time you get back to school there will be one of two situations a) The game is over. b> The game is not over. After running all summer though, all the spring people will be incredibly far behind in points with little or no chance of getting caught up. My pragmatic suggestion (NOT A PROPOSAL) is that if you don't got email, quit. Other people may disagree with this. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 12:23:30) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal At 11:23 AM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >The way I see this summer is this: > >If you don't got email, by the time you get back to school there will be >one of two situations >a) The game is over. I certainly don't intend to let that happen. There are no procedures for ending the game even in the event of a win. Someone would get a win, and then we would keep going. >b> The game is not over. After running all summer though, all the spring >people will be incredibly far behind in points with little or no chance >of getting caught up. True, it nothing is done to prevent that. I suggest that they either receive the average points earned over the summer, or have some system of betting to determine points so they don't fall behind. >My pragmatic suggestion (NOT A PROPOSAL) is that if you don't got email, >quit. Other people may disagree with this. > >Chris > I disagree completely, for the reason stated above. It seems we agree on very little... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:0:52) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Damon and next proposal How 'bout if those of us who can get e-mail start a new game, because if i wasn't able to get mail, i still wouldn't want to quit. Another thing, most public libraries have internet access that i know of, and if one was willing to make an effort, you could get a hotmail account or something, right?(just another idea) Then the email problem would be mariginally solved. just brainstorming, Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:1:7) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: play over the summer I read through what Josh and Chris had to say and I would like to point out a few things that might not be clear. First of all, play will not automatically continue normally with players unable to play over the summer auto abstaining. I'm not sure about the numbers, but there might be problems. First of all, if a majority of players auto-abstain, then no proposal can be passed, as per Josh's rule (i don't remember the number). This may or may not be the case, I don't know. If it is not, then there still might be another problem. Players who cannot communicate cannot send proposals and thus cannot complete their turns, bringing the game to a screeching halt. This also wouldn't be a problem if a rule was passed before a player in such a position began a turn. Howver, Nick is the next player to play after Chris, and I believe he is going away for the summer and will not have e-mail(a problem). So, the best thing to do would be to take care of this now. I realize that the problem could be solved by having a bunch of people quit, but I don't know if that's the best solution. Things to think about any way. Mike ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:25:44) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic II: The Next Mutation (And Call for Judgment!!) As I see it: Transmutation of mutable rules to immutable rules requires a simple majority of players (as defined by rule 305). Comments: Rule 109 states that rule changes transmuting immutable rules to mutable rules require a unanimous vote. It makes no reference to transmuting mutable rules to immutable rules. Therefore mutable to immutable transmutations are governed by rule 306 (according to rule 103 all transmutations fall into the category "rule-changes" and ought therefore be governed by the rules that govern all rule changes, except when a rule specifically states otherwise, as in the case of transmuting immutable to mutable.) Regarding rule 116, the statement that anything not prohibited by the rules is thus permitted by the rules with the exception of changing the rules, changing of the rules in this case is already permitted. The question at hand deals solely with method of rule-change rather than the permissability of rule-change. Thus the matter of implicit or explicit permission is irrelevant to this judgment. Off-the-record thoughts: I am not happy about the judgment I have issued. I consider the disparity between requirements for trasmutation one way and the reverse transmutation an incredibly screwed-up situation. However, by rule 212, "all decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect." This judgment reflects the current rules as best I can. I strongly favor changing the current rules to make the requirements for transmutations identical. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 14:47:38) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: play over the summer A possible alternative: "fork" the current game so that it is copied wholly, and then let run separate from the original game. Have everyone who's out for the summer quit the second one, and have the first game remain in stasis until fall. Downside: having to play in the shitty old nomic once school starts. Upside: getting to play in the shitty old nomic through the summer Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes > >I read through what Josh and Chris had to say and I would like to point out >a few things that might not be clear. >First of all, play will not automatically continue normally with players >unable to play over the summer auto abstaining. I'm not sure about the >numbers, but there might be problems. First of all, if a majority of >players auto-abstain, then no proposal can be passed, as per Josh's rule (i >don't remember the number). This may or may not be the case, I don't know. > If it is not, then there still might be another problem. Players who >cannot communicate cannot send proposals and thus cannot complete their >turns, bringing the game to a screeching halt. This also wouldn't be a >problem if a rule was passed before a player in such a position began a >turn. Howver, Nick is the next player to play after Chris, and I believe >he is going away for the summer and will not have e-mail(a problem). So, >the best thing to do would be to take care of this now. I realize that the >problem could be solved by having a bunch of people quit, but I don't know >if that's the best solution. Things to think about any way. > >Mike > ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 16:58:7) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: hurrah Kudos to Kuhns for a sensible judgement. Josh-- have you been playing Magic lately? There's a card called "fork" that does what you're suggesting we do, sort of. Say... why don't no-email-during-summer-people just invest $1000 in new computer and another $80 for a few months worth of email? I mean, Nomic is worth such a sacrifice, no? 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 17:57:50) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: hurrah Well, not really, but of course they stole that idea from unix programming concepts... :) Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Kudos to Kuhns for a sensible judgement. >Josh-- have you been playing Magic lately? There's a card called "fork" >that does what you're suggesting we do, sort of. >Say... why don't no-email-during-summer-people just invest $1000 in new >computer and another $80 for a few months worth of email? I mean, Nomic is >worth such a sacrifice, no? > >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 > > ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 18:37:52) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: My Proposal Given the recent debate, and the judgment by Mr. Kuhns, here is my proposal. The transmutation of a mutable rule into an immutable rule shall require unanimity among votes cast (as per definition in 307). If either there is not unanimity or there is not a simple majority voting, the transmutation shall fail. Discussion topic: Should we up the ante? This still allows for a transmutation with less than the complete approval of all members if some members are unable to vote within the required period. However, this likelihood seems trivial. Discuss. I shall most likely, assuming I'm not dead from trying to finish my CS474 project, call for a vote after my Chaucer Final tomorrow (id est, between 12:30 and 2:00). Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:16:54) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: adding players I now have 10 votes in favor of adding Damon as a player. Since 10/14 > 2/3, we shouldn't have to wait for the rest of the votes. Damon is now a player again. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:24:13) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: score change I declare Matt Potter's score to be 200 points, thereby making him the winner and ending the game. Have a nice day. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:53:0) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: i can't help myself Well, Matt, this is a sad state of affairs. It reminds me of a little comment you made to me when I went through all my hullaballoo early in the game involving arbitrary actions. I belive it goes a little like "SHUT THE FUCK UP". I expected this eventually, but it's a surprise from you. Mike ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 21:40:49) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: play over the summer "forking" the game sounds like the best idea ive heard yet. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 19:20:17) From: "Matthew G. Potter" Subject: arbitrary action & subsequent call for judgement I hereby arbitrarily declare that Joel's score is immediately reduced to -10. I do this based on what I will hereafter refer to as the "Uckelman principle," which is an assumption on the meaning of Rule 116. Rule 116, as you may or may not recall, reads: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." The Uckelman principle is as follows: Rule 116 means actions which are not specifically prohibited or regulated in the rules are permissible. Even though a it may regard a mechanism of the game which is regulated by rules, as long as a certain action is specifically neither prohibited nor regulated, it is legal. As an example, even though scoring, the assignation of points, etc. are regulated by the rules, there is no rule regarding an instance where "Matthew Potter arbitrarily reduces Joel Uckelman's score to -10." As such, according to the Uckelman principle, my doing so is legal. Having said that, I realize that this is basically an anal and bass-ackwards way of interpreting a (IMHO) rather straightforward rule. Therefore, I CALL FOR JUDGEMENT. Does Rule 116, as the Uckelman principle suggests, only prohibit actions specifically proscribed by rules; or does it prohibit mucking around arbitrarily with any game mechanism regulated by the rules (i.e. the scoring process)? Matthew Potter [I realize that unlike some people we know, I have not hedged my bet by ascertained the opinion of the judge before making this statement; but hey, it's a game.] ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 20:1:31) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: arbitrary action & subsequent call for judgement Here we go again: The arbitrary re-assignment of any player's score is not permissable. Comments: Rule 116 states that "whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated." Note the presence of the word "regulated." Were that word absent, then the "Uckelman principle" would be in effect. However, the word "regulated" indicates that when a facet of gameplay is addressed in the rules, the area is therefore not totally unregulated beyond specific, literal applications of the rules. In this instance, scoring/allottment of points is regulated by (multiple) rules and as a result anything not specifically addressed by those rules is not necessarilly permitted. Off-the-record Notes: I am not entirely certain why this judgment was called for. It seems that there would have been an easier way to settle a disagreement than by testing the point of contention empirically and then calling for judgment. I may be wrong... but I hope this doesn't become a habit. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 22:37:50) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: arbitrary action & subsequent call for judgement A small point: As soon as Damon was added as a player - which was before Potter's CFJ and Joel's rule-fuckage, he became the judge for the remainder of Chris's turn, as the rule assigning judges says that the judge is the person whose turn comes "before the person moving." Luckily for us, Damon was going to cast the same judgement - almost the same words, even. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Here we go again: > >The arbitrary re-assignment of any player's score is not permissable. > >Comments: > >Rule 116 states that "whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule >is permitted and unregulated." > >Note the presence of the word "regulated." Were that word absent, then >the "Uckelman principle" would be in effect. However, the word >"regulated" indicates that when a facet of gameplay is addressed in the >rules, the area is therefore not totally unregulated beyond specific, >literal applications of the rules. > >In this instance, scoring/allottment of points is regulated by (multiple) >rules and as a result anything not specifically addressed by those rules >is not necessarilly permitted. > >Off-the-record Notes: > >I am not entirely certain why this judgment was called for. It seems that >there would have been an easier way to settle a disagreement than by >testing the point of contention empirically and then calling for >judgment. I may be wrong... but I hope this doesn't become a habit. > >--- > Matt Kuhns > mjkuhns@iastate.edu > http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:3:42) From: Nick Osborn Subject: will the real judge please step forward... i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgement on who holds the judgeship. n ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:7:37) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... According to Mr. Luloff's rule, upon his (re)instatement as a player, he posesses all normal player rights, except the right to make a formal proposal. As he was inserted into the list of players according to alphabetical order of surname, he is the player before Chris in the list. In addition, the rule regarding judging says simply that the player "preceding" the player currently moving is the judge. According to the player order, that player would currently be Damon. Read the rules, Nick. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state >that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it >currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new >player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. >mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during >his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. >kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgement on who holds the judgeship. > >n ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:11:38) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Idea for a proposal I think that someone should write (and subsequently propose) a proposal which does the following: creates a mechanism by which players may give away or accept points from other players creates a mechanism, linked to the previous one, by which players may contract out their votes - including penalties for reneging I intend for this proposal to be used by people like Joel who can't seem to play without having everything happen the way they like - for instance, he could give away points (being in the hole is acceptable) in order to gain acceptance for his future crackpot schemes. This would also be useful, if the economics work out correctly, for people who know their proposals may come up short, and would like a way to provide some incentive (this is most useful when the proposee is more concerned about passage than personal score). Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:15:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Another idea I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanism, formal or informal, for polling the electorate or whatever before CFVs are made. While it's true that players could vote no for personal benefit, at times going against their polled vote, this would provide a way for proposees to spot dissenters that aren't speaking up, and give them a chance to possibly change proposals. Comments? Josh NP: Damon's guitar (he is, not me) ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:18:24) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... Oh, BTW - How can you call for a judgement when it's the judge's identity which is under judgement???? Dumbass. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >i must disagree with mr. kortbeins latest proclamation. the rules state >that the judge is the player who precedes the player whose turn it >currently is. mr. luloff is not a player--by his own rule he is a "new >player"--nor does he precede mr. mayfield. mr. luloff will precede mr. >mayfield in the future, but since mr. luloff did not propose a rule during >his present entrance in the game, mr. kuhns precedes mr. mayfield. mr. >kuhns is the judge. i call for a judgement on who holds the judgeship. > >n ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:35:53) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... >According to Mr. Luloff's rule, upon his (re)instatement as a >player, he posesses all normal player rights, except the right >to make a formal proposal. As he was inserted into the list of >players according to alphabetical order of surname, he is the >player before Chris in the list. In addition, the rule regarding >judging says simply that the player "preceding" the player >currently moving is the judge. According to the player order, >that player would currently be Damon. > >Read the rules, Nick. I respectfully disagree with your admonition of Nick, Josh. Well, sort of. Actually, it seems to me that there's a wee bit of a problem with the rule of Damon's we passed. You see: "7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for the right to make a formal proposal. 8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has been skipped once." here's where I see a problem... Damon is NOT a player, Josh. Damon is quite obviously, according to section 8, a "new player." Section 8 clearly makes a differentiation between the two types of players. Therefore, if he is not a player, he is incapable of being "the player preceding the one moving." The problem is this: section 7 would seem to imply that Damon still has the right to be judge. Assuming, of course, that the ability to be a judge is a right. But the phrasing of section seven doesn't placate my concern. As we knoe from rule 211, >>> If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. <<< Section 7 implicitly grants the ability to be a judge to a "new player." It does NOT "explicitly say of itself that it... takes precedence over another rule." Emphasis on explicitly, of course. And given the first part of 211, it seems to me that rule 212 granting judgship only to "player"s would take precendence over 309. But I'm really not sure. I'm not saying that you're wrong, Josh, but I *AM* saying there's nothing inappropriate about the request for judgement. Of course, I have absolutely no idea who's supposed to decide this matter. If you people hadn't been so eager to reinstate Damon after he acted so rashly, we never would have had this problem. I for one didn't vote for his reinstatement--one of my reasons was that I feared something like this might happen. So anyway, we're in a nasty mess and it sure ain't my fault! :) On another note, I am of the opinion that our construct for deciding passage may need revision. Damon's proposal had a mere 5 people vote for it and it passed. I don't know why this strikes me as uncool, but it does. :) "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: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:42:34) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Another idea At 11:15 PM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: > >I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanism, formal >or informal, for polling the electorate or whatever before CFVs are >made. While it's true that players could vote no for personal benefit, >at times going against their polled vote, this would provide a way >for proposees to spot dissenters that aren't speaking up, and >give them a chance to possibly change proposals. > >Comments? > > >Josh I think if one is a dissenter, the whole point of not speaking up is not to be discovered until it's too late. Such a rule would only encourage duplicity or further silence. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:45:20) From: "Dr. Evil" Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... >Oh, BTW - > >How can you call for a judgement when it's the judge's identity which >is under judgement???? How? Easy! Because the rules permit it! It is sick? YES! Do we know what to do? I dunno. In fact, if it weren't for what I'm about to quote, I'd say that we need to invoke rule 213 on impossibility of play. However, rule 212 states, "Unless a Judge is overruled, ONE Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge." (My emphasis) Matt Kuhns has already issued one judgement this turn. Therefore, he is our "one judge" and it is his job to decide his own legitimacy as Judge. This info might not help Kuhns make his decision, but it seems pretty clear to me that he's in charge of deciding if he ought to be in charge. Otherwise we'd have more than one judge this turn and be in violation of the rules. Once again let me reiterate that we never would have had this problem if most of you hadn't voted to reinstate our bicycling friend immediately. :) ACK! Loops! 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 4, 1998 (Mon, 23:57:30) From: Adam Haar Subject: Letter of the Law Byrne's got it, in making the distinction between New Player and Player (yes this is implied, but in such a way as to make the distinction) Damon has fixed this problem. The rules state ", then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question" Note the PLAYER, not the New Player. Mr. Lulof, being a New Player, does not become a Player until the end of the turn. Therefore Mr. Lulof cannot judge the question. 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: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 1:11:56) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Another idea >At 11:15 PM 5/4/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>I think it would be interesting if there were a mechanism, formal >>or informal, for polling the electorate or whatever before CFVs are >>made. While it's true that players could vote no for personal benefit, >>at times going against their polled vote, this would provide a way >>for proposees to spot dissenters that aren't speaking up, and >>give them a chance to possibly change proposals. >> >>Comments? >> >> >>Josh > >I think if one is a dissenter, the whole point of not speaking up is not to >be discovered until it's too late. Such a rule would only encourage >duplicity or further silence. I don't really care about that; dissenters will dissent. The object of the poll is to air the opinions of those who dissent for ethical/logical/ political reasons, rather than personal gain reasons. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 1:21:13) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... >>According to Mr. Luloff's rule, upon his (re)instatement as a >>player, he posesses all normal player rights, except the right >>to make a formal proposal. As he was inserted into the list of >>players according to alphabetical order of surname, he is the >>player before Chris in the list. In addition, the rule regarding >>judging says simply that the player "preceding" the player >>currently moving is the judge. According to the player order, >>that player would currently be Damon. >> >>Read the rules, Nick. > > > I respectfully disagree with your admonition of Nick, Josh. Well, >sort of. Actually, it seems to me that there's a wee bit of a problem with >the rule of Damon's we passed. You see: > >"7. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for >the right to make a formal proposal. >8. A new player will be awarded the status 'player' when his/her turn has >been skipped once." > >here's where I see a problem... Damon is NOT a player, Josh. Damon is quite >obviously, according to section 8, a "new player." Section 8 clearly makes >a differentiation between the two types of players. Therefore, if he is not >a player, he is incapable of being "the player preceding the one moving." Though it's now a moot point, I think I'll make it anyway because I find it interesting: Damon's rule accords new players with "all the rights of a player, except the right to make a formal proposal." One could submit (as I would have done, prior to Mr. Kuhns' judgement) that the most fundamental right of a player, aside from perhaps existing, is being recognized as a player - otherwise, everything goes to hell. Thus, new players should be equivalent to players, for the purposes of judgeship, or judgeness, or whatever. Just a thought. > The problem is this: section 7 would seem to imply that Damon still >has the right to be judge. Assuming, of course, that the ability to be a >judge is a right. But the phrasing of section seven doesn't placate my >concern. As we knoe from rule 211, >>>> >If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more >immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest >ordinal >number takes precedence. > >If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it >defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another >rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical >method for determining precedence. ><< > > Section 7 implicitly grants the ability to be a judge to a "new >player." It does NOT "explicitly say of itself that it... takes precedence >over another rule." Emphasis on explicitly, of course. And given the first >part of 211, it seems to me that rule 212 granting judgship only to >"player"s would take precendence over 309. But I'm really not sure. I'm not >saying that you're wrong, Josh, but I *AM* saying there's nothing >inappropriate about the request for judgement. > Of course, I have absolutely no idea who's supposed to decide this >matter. If you people hadn't been so eager to reinstate Damon after he >acted so rashly, we never would have had this problem. I for one didn't >vote for his reinstatement--one of my reasons was that I feared something >like this might happen. So anyway, we're in a nasty mess and it sure ain't >my fault! :) > > > On another note, I am of the opinion that our construct for >deciding passage may need revision. Damon's proposal had a mere 5 people >vote for it and it passed. I don't know why this strikes me as uncool, but >it does. Seeing as how you voted for the simple majority rule, I don't see what you have to complain about. I even added the requirement for a simple majority of cast votes, to keep you and Haar (I think) happy! :) I think Damon's proposal may have been a pathological case; hadn't he quit before his proposal's passage had been decided? Perhaps that swayed all those auto-abstain hosers out there, or maybe they were confused about what was going on (that one, I think). You should also consider that not only 5 people voted, as there were no votes. The number of people voting is more important, I think. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 0:21:31) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: will the real judge please step forward... Judgments: you want 'em I got 'em: There can be only one judge per turn; once a player has served as judge he shall remain judge for the remainder of the turn. (Upshot: I remain judge) Comments: Upon first examination the situation at hand appeared to present an unresolvable paradox: If there is no defined judge, no one can pass judgment on who the judge is and thus the game cannot continue because judgment would be forever pending. However, according to rule 212, there can only be one judge per turn. Thus, because I have already been judge I shall continue as judge. Off-the-record notes: What a stinking morass we have landed ourselves in. Rather than let the game go to hell, however, I have made the best effort I could to permit play to continue. The only real issue now is whether or not the players of this game are willing to accept this judgment and continue our efforts to slog through the morass of a simulated legislative process. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 13:27:23) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Another idea >>I don't really care about that; dissenters will dissent. The object >>of the poll is to air the opinions of those who dissent for ethical/logical/ >>political reasons, rather than personal gain reasons. > They have the opportunity to air those if they so choose. They also >have the right to keep them to themselves if they so choose. you can't fore >people to tell you what they think, nor should you want to, as far as I'm >concerned. I got chewed out for trying to limit people's rights with my >yes/no/abstain only proposal, but I think forced or coerced dialogue is far >more absurd. Anyone with any strongly held ELP reasons will air them. Those >that don't have them will form their own opinion come voting time, probably >by looking at the arguments of those who have elected to speak. And some >don't give a shit and will vote for some other reason. Let each act how he >pleases. Oh, well JEE-ZUS, it wasn't intended to be any sort of pissing on players' personal freedoms. I SAID "formal or informal," and even if it were formal, polling need not be required. It's just intended to find out what those people who don't say much (like those with 1%'s on Joel's Uber-geeky messages sent graph) think. It's not as if I intended to hold a gun/guns to the heads of those who didn't want to be polled... Josh NP: Sugar, _Copper Blue_ ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 16:13:50) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: CFV: Mutability->Immutability proposal In hopes of speeding the game along (since no one has said anything about whether they're going to support this or not, and if I wait much longer for any sort of discussion everyone'll be gone), I call for a vote. The proposal: The transmutation of a mutable rule into an immutable rule shall require unanimity among votes cast (as per definition in 307). If either there is not unanimity or there is not a simple majority voting, the transmutation shall fail. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 16:56:10) From: Nick Osborn Subject: mr.mayfield a shot trip to the nomic webpage will reveal that mr. mayfield has voted "no" in fully half of all votes. these include the last three, the only votes on which a player could vote "no" and the proposal could still pass. it would appear that mr. mayfield is trying to take advantage of the rule under which players voting "no" on passing proposals gain points. while i have no problem with this rule, i feel mr. mayfield may be abusing it. i encourage all players to vote "no" on mr. mayfields proposal, regardless of its benefit toward the game. take this as you will, n ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 18:7:44) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: whatever No doubt Chris will say he voted against them on a philosophical basis, of course. In which case he's one of those silent folk that Josh in particular finds irritating. Cool. Nick, thanks for pointing this out! 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 19:11:28) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: whatever Surely you're not happy about this because you intend to chastise Chris? I can't really articulate why right now, but voting no for reasons like that seems incredibly short-sighted. (In other words, it could come back to bite one on the ass.) Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >No doubt Chris will say he voted against them on a philosophical basis, of >course. In which case he's one of those silent folk that Josh in particular >finds irritating. Cool. Nick, thanks for pointing this out! > >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 > > ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 22:25:18) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Opposed Minority Scoring and Pettiness >"You sad, vindictive, pathetic little man." can i add that to treasonous, fuckwad (or head, depending on your preference), and remo? with love, n by the way, isnt it legal for me to vote however i wish, no matter what my motive? ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 22:15:47) From: Adam Haar Subject: Vindictive Bastards The subject says it, that's what you are if you vote against Chris's proposal based on his past voting. Chris can vote any damned way he wants on any proposal put to the group, for ANY REASON! If Chris is trying to score points through a loophole in the rules then I say DO IT! You can do the same any time you want. If you want to try to play the opposed minority game go for it. Yes, politics (and this game) is played on a Quid Pro Quo basis, and Chris has shown his Quid and deserves his Quo. But if you're simply doing it out of spite and not to try for gain get a life. 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: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 22:34:58) From: Adam Haar Subject: Damn Josh's a Geek Hate to be disparaging Josh, but damn that's bad. You must have even less of a life than I do. We need to introduce you to Welch Ave Station and Guiness. 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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 0:0:44) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Damn Josh's a Geek Haar wishes me to let people know that he means "Damn Joel's a Geek," etc., because he constantly mis-names Joel as me. Apparently (since Haar neglected to say why), Haar has chosen to label Joel a geek for his proliferation of nomic-related graphs. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Hate to be disparaging Josh, but damn that's bad. You must have even less >of a life than I do. We need to introduce you to Welch Ave Station and >Guiness. > > >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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 0:46:7) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Vindictive Bastards Geeze everyobdy, settle down. Put some of that aggressive energy into studying or something. Allan "can't we all just get along?" Dudding. ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 0:52:26) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Opposed Minority Scoring and Pettiness At 09:41 PM 5/5/98 CDT, you wrote: >If my proposal fails because people think it's a bad thing, I'll take my >penalty (though somewhat grouchily, since I allowed two days for feedback >and no one said anything about the merits of the rule, only the situation >to which it applied). If my proposal fails because it would have been >close and a couple people guessed wrong about which way it was going to >swing, I can accept my penalty that way too, since it's part of the risks >involved with the game. However, if my proposal fails because someone >thinks I need some sort of come-uppance for trying to maximize my points >*by legal means endorsed by the rules of the game* then all I can say to >those who voted no for reasons of spite are "You sad, vindictive, >pathetic little man. I pity you." > >Chris (If we're penalized for following the rules, what anarchy awaits?) Last time I checked, persuasion was perfectly legal. If someone can persuade people that you deserve to lose points, you should have no extra-game reasons to complain about it. If your retort is meant to be taken entirely within the context of our game, then it's nothing but politics and deserves no moral weight. If it's external in nature, then don't play if you can't live with others' methods. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 5, 1998 (Tue, 21:41:20) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Opposed Minority Scoring and Pettiness a shot trip to the nomic webpage will reveal that mr. mayfield has voted "no" in fully half of all votes. these include the last three, the only votes on which a player could vote "no" and the proposal could still pass. it would appear that mr. mayfield is trying to take advantage of the rule under which players voting "no" on passing proposals gain points. while i have no problem with this rule, i feel mr. mayfield may be abusing it. i encourage all players to vote "no" on mr. mayfields proposal, regardless of its benefit toward the game. --- This has to be one of the more particularly stupid reasons for voting down any proposal which most people (I assume) would think to be a good thing. Voting no on these grounds opens the way to petty infighting which won't get the game anywhere. The Opposed Minority Scoring rule was designed (as I see it) to help cut down on unanimity (so as to put in something of a dampener on the points gotten via winning proposals) and to help put a squeeze on marginal rules. It's a bet: how do you think the other players will vote? If my proposal fails because people think it's a bad thing, I'll take my penalty (though somewhat grouchily, since I allowed two days for feedback and no one said anything about the merits of the rule, only the situation to which it applied). If my proposal fails because it would have been close and a couple people guessed wrong about which way it was going to swing, I can accept my penalty that way too, since it's part of the risks involved with the game. However, if my proposal fails because someone thinks I need some sort of come-uppance for trying to maximize my points *by legal means endorsed by the rules of the game* then all I can say to those who voted no for reasons of spite are "You sad, vindictive, pathetic little man. I pity you." Good night and may God bless. Chris (If we're penalized for following the rules, what anarchy awaits?) ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 9:33:56) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: voting hasn't the voting period ended now? "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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 10:4:49) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: voting At 09:33 AM 5/6/98 -0500, you wrote: >hasn't the voting period ended now? > >"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 > > If voting started at 4:13 PM 5/5/98, then 36 hours later should be 4:13 AM 5/7/98. I think my math is right. If I'm making an error here, please point it out. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 10:13:55) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: nevermind I'm just dumb "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: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 10:20:36) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Game playing and personality >If my proposal fails because people think it's a bad thing, I'll take my >penalty (though somewhat grouchily, since I allowed two days for feedback >and no one said anything about the merits of the rule, only the situation >to which it applied). If my proposal fails because it would have been >close and a couple people guessed wrong about which way it was going to >swing, I can accept my penalty that way too, since it's part of the risks >involved with the game. However, if my proposal fails because someone >thinks I need some sort of come-uppance for trying to maximize my points >*by legal means endorsed by the rules of the game* then all I can say to >those who voted no for reasons of spite are "You sad, vindictive, >pathetic little man. I pity you." > >Chris (If we're penalized for following the rules, what anarchy awaits?) Last time I checked, persuasion was perfectly legal. If someone can persuade people that you deserve to lose points, you should have no extra-game reasons to complain about it. If your retort is meant to be taken entirely within the context of our game, then it's nothing but politics and deserves no moral weight. If it's external in nature, then don't play if you can't live with others' methods. J. Uckelman --- (Nota bene: the "you"s below are non-directed "you"s, so don't take anything personally, Joel.) Certainly one is allowed to do this. One is also allowed to invoke judgment on any action anyone in the game makes, thus grinding the game to a complete halt. However, the fact that one _can_ do something does not make it good gaming strategy. My argument is not that one cannot do such a thing (since they obviously can), but that from a game playing standpoint, such actions are sheer idiocy. In the long run, it is bad strategy since it creates an atmosphere of tit-for-tat which will ultimately lead nowhere except to bruised egos and sore feelings. If we were playing Monopoly and every time you bought a house or hotel I complained because you were taking advantage of the fact that you had more property and money than I, people would a) laugh, b) make me quit since I'm a whiny weiner boy, c) quit since the whiny weiner boy is not making the game fun. So in the end, one is free to vote yes or no for whatever reasons one wants. However, certain reasons are analogous to the little boy who demands to be quarterback or else he'll take his ball inside and no one can play. If we want to be jerks to each other, we can do it without a game. Play the game to play the game and leave personality out of it. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 12:1:40) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Retaliation Unfortunately for those advocating that retaliation against Mayfield would be a silly and childish act, I wonder how they believe problems should be solved, if not by, or threat of, retaliation. So far Mayfield has had far and away the worst record of supporting others. What reason have we to suppose that this will not continue? And what reason would Mayfield have to not continue with this policy? Fear (a bad word, I know, but the only one that really works) of retaliation. It's just that simple. Ultimately, the pros and cons of every situation must be weighed. However, in the case of minority dissention, there cannot really be any cons. Sure, the proposal may fail, but so the hell what? The game won't come to an end. So best case is that you gain points, worst case is that you will stay even and your opponents will lose points becasue the proposal failed. Unless, of course, there is threat of retaliation at a later date, namely those who Mayfield has taken advantage of. I would ask you, when else should said retailation take place? When else should can the incentive to be cooperative be handed out? The only time this is possible is during his turn, which is, of course, now. This is the only time for Mayfield to suffer the consequences of his actions. It is immaterial that minority dissention is in the rules as far as whether or not people *should* use it. People can chose to utalize it if they are willing to suffer the ire and animosity of their peers. And the retaliation and uncooperativeness that could follow. Without such a threat there is no reason *not* to vote agains virtually every proposal that comes up. Perhaps if Mayfield had considered that before casting 50% no votes he wouldn't be in this position. Nate ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 13:21:35) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Retaliation Your thesis of Chris "not supporting others" is flawed; see below. >Unfortunately for those advocating that retaliation against Mayfield >would be a silly and childish act, I wonder how they believe problems >should be solved, if not by, or threat of, retaliation. So far Mayfield >has had far and away the worst record of supporting others. What reason >have we to suppose that this will not continue? And what reason would >Mayfield have to not continue with this policy? > >Fear (a bad word, I know, but the only one that really works) of >retaliation. > >It's just that simple. Ultimately, the pros and cons of every situation >must be weighed. However, in the case of minority dissention, there >cannot really be any cons. Sure, the proposal may fail, but so the hell >what? The game won't come to an end. So best case is that you gain >points, worst case is that you will stay even and your opponents will >lose points becasue the proposal failed. > >Unless, of course, there is threat of retaliation at a later date, namely >those who Mayfield has taken advantage of. I would ask you, when else should >said retailation take place? When else should can the incentive to be >cooperative be handed out? The only time this is possible is during his >turn, which is, of course, now. This is the only time for Mayfield to >suffer the consequences of his actions. It is immaterial that minority >dissention is in the rules as far as whether or not people *should* use >it. People can chose to utalize it if they are willing to suffer the ire >and animosity of their peers. And the retaliation and uncooperativeness >that could follow. Without such a threat there is no reason *not* to >vote agains virtually every proposal that comes up. > >Perhaps if Mayfield had considered that before casting 50% no votes he >wouldn't be in this position. "Casting 50% no votes?" You're talking about something very different from what Nick brought up; some of those no votes occurred before Chris was able to reap the benefit of points. The first two were no votes to proposals the group, as a whole, could obviously not agree were meritorious. In the second case, Chris changed his vote after a judgement was cast ( I should add that you, too, voted no in that case, so I assume YOU must have thought the proposal lacked merit). So there are still only really 3 votes with which you should be able to take issue, at least rationally speaking. A polemic based on three votes seems to veer strongly toward anecdotally obtained evidence, which as we all know is naughty. It's nice that you're so big on cooperation, etc., but you choose to promote it in apparently the first major way you've found resonance with by trying to foster cooperation to poke Chris's eye out. If it works, I certainly hope y'all's efforts usher in a new era of Cooperation. It would definitely be easier to pass proposals that way, with a band of guerilla strongarms standing by, ready to punish any dissenters. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 13:55:22) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: here to help "It would definitely be easier to pass proposals that way, with a band of guerilla strongarms standing by, ready to punish any dissenters." As we all know, I am the fugitive leader of a band of Mexican rebels. I am able to provide trainded guerillas to the higest bidder. Meet me by the rusty shed. Subcomandante Marcos ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 14:13:48) From: ellefson@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Retaliation Kudos and congratualtions, Josh! You have hit upon the first fundamental law of party politics: strong-arm men using guerilla tactics are absolutely the best way there is to get what you and your supporters want! In congresses and parliaments across the world these people who keep the troops in line through threat are called "whips." I don't suppose you can guess where the name comes from? And so I seek to usher in the new era, a "New Nomic Order," as it were, where, together with my compatriots, we shall fight the powers of injustice who would seek to oppose us. I am founding the Oppression Party, due to our opposition of oppression. Yeah, that's the ticket. Not that it will have anything to do with our tactics or policies. So, anyone who wants to join me in creating the best party on Earth can email me after the summer, since I doubt that I will have any access to email over that time. Long live Oppression! Nate, Oppression Party Chairman, Chief Whip, Chief Ideologue, Defender of the Faith ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 15:3:53) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Retaliation My, politics is an odious creation. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes >Kudos and congratualtions, Josh! You have hit upon the first fundamental >law of party politics: strong-arm men using guerilla tactics are >absolutely the best way there is to get what you and your supporters >want! In congresses and parliaments across the world these people who >keep the troops in line through threat are called "whips." I don't suppose >you can guess where the name comes from? > >And so I seek to usher in the new era, a "New Nomic Order," as it were, >where, together with my compatriots, we shall fight the powers of >injustice who would seek to oppose us. I am founding the Oppression >Party, due to our opposition of oppression. Yeah, that's the ticket. >Not that it will have anything to do with our tactics or policies. So, >anyone who wants to join me in creating the best party on Earth can email >me after the summer, since I doubt that I will have any access to email >over that time. > >Long live Oppression! > >Nate, Oppression Party Chairman, Chief Whip, Chief Ideologue, Defender of >the Faith ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 15:44:10) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Politics I donno, I think most politicians shower at least once a week. Can't smell all that bad! ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 21:53:21) From: Nick Osborn Subject: discussion on prop 311(?) the semester is ending down and many of us will be scattering soon. i hope to make a proposal enabling the continuance of the game over the summer. the following is my idea. i will send it out as a formal proposal as soon as the rules, and my circadian rhythms, allow. Players wishing to become inactive for the summer may do so by declaring themselves so to the other players by Saturday, May 9, 1998. These players shall be temporarily removed from the order of play, taking no turns, not serving as judge, and any other applicable measures. They will in no way be figured into voting procedures, either for computing a quorum, delaying votes through automatic abstentions, or any other applicable measures. All players declaring themselves inactive under this proposal shall be replaced in the order of play Wednesday, August 19, 1998. At this time, they will be awarded the mean average of points scored by active players while they were inactive. Also upon reinstatement, reactivated players will be subject to all rules applying to players not deactivated during the summer. Upon passage of this proposal, no points will be rewarded to the proposer or to individuals objecting in the minority. This rule takes precedence over rules 201, 202, and 204. i think thats it. discussion is encouraged so that we can get this through in time for summer. if you have any disagreements, let me know. if i screwed up, let me know, too. with love, n ________________________________________ Date: May 6, 1998 (Wed, 23:37:56) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: nick's pile o' I demand that you take out the reference to opposed minority scoring. I believe that this aspect of the game is good and necessary, and I find your underhanded attempts to weasel your way around it because of some disgruntled "happy shiny people" piece of crap attitude disgusting. Of course, you can do whatever the hell you want, but I just want to say that I don't like it. Thank you, come again. Mike "The not Happy nor Shiny Subcomandante" Jensen ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 0:14:56) From: "Matthew G. Potter" Subject: Re: here to help Can we get Nate to cut a bit more of some kind of inert substance into Mike's daily crack cocaine allowance? I think he's seriously deteriorating. Matt >"It would definitely be easier to pass proposals that way, with a band of >guerilla strongarms standing by, ready to punish any dissenters." > >As we all know, I am the fugitive leader of a band of Mexican rebels. I am >able to provide trainded guerillas to the higest bidder. Meet me by the >rusty shed. > >Subcomandante Marcos > > > ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 0:27:12) From: Nick Osborn Subject: my reasoning at this point in the game, it may be vital that my proposal pass. for this reason, i believe it best that my proposal pass or fail entirely on its own merit. if you notice, i removed any point benefit that i may gain from it, even though it would most certainly pass, finally scoring me some points. with love (because its what the world needs now), n ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 1:13:29) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: points I don't think they should be awarded the mean of points scored. I think they should all be given the same number of points as whoever is in last place. People who have the ability to play the game during the summer should not be penalized--that is, loose ground to those not playing--for doing so. Another option would be to grant reentering players the bottomost score or the score they had when they left, whichever is higher. Yet another aspect to consider is what a player's score was when he left. If Mike Jensen and Matt Kuhns were to leave the game and return in the fall, Mike's lead over Matt would be erased under the current proposal. I do not believe this to be fair. Perhaps palyers should be awarded a score equal to the last place player's score plus or minus some sort of modifier such that relative positions between exiting players at time of departure is maintained upon reentry. Those are my thoughts. The proposal looks good to me outside of this scoring thing. 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 8:25:39) From: ellefson@iastate.edu Subject: Re: nick's pile o' How the hell you can find objection with this is totally beyond me! Unless you're some kind of atomic LOSER!!!! Nick has rather selflessly agreed to lose any benefit he would have received for the bill's passage in order to guarantee this very needed proposal. I think the LEAST you can do is not bitch and moan that you won't be able to get YOUR usual 5 points for opposed minority! Else the Oppression Party may see this as someone attempting to OPPRESS someone else, and may, in future, take action against EL SUBCOMMANDANTE. Consider yourself warned. Nate, Oppression Party Chairman, Chief Whip, Chief Ideologue, and Defender of the Faith ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 8:30:45) From: Michael S Jensen Subject: heightening tensions Alright Nate, I find your tone and vauge threats disturbing. Keep it up and you won't be able to store those missles on my half of the room. Revolution is hell. Viva la revolucion! ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 3:9:53) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: points At 01:13 AM 5/7/98 -0500, you wrote: > I don't think they should be awarded the mean of points scored. I >think they should all be given the same number of points as whoever is in >last place. People who have the ability to play the game during the summer >should not be penalized--that is, loose ground to those not playing--for >doing so. > Another option would be to grant reentering players the bottomost >score or the score they had when they left, whichever is higher. > Yet another aspect to consider is what a player's score was when he >left. If Mike Jensen and Matt Kuhns were to leave the game and return in >the fall, Mike's lead over Matt would be erased under the current proposal. >I do not believe this to be fair. Perhaps palyers should be awarded a score >equal to the last place player's score plus or minus some sort of modifier >such that relative positions between exiting players at time of departure >is maintained upon reentry. -mr. byrne Upon reentering the order of play, reactivated players shall have the fewest points gained by a player active while they were deactivated added to their scores at the time of inactivation. If this would result in a loss of points, they retain the full points they possessed at the time of inactivation. If this would give them a higher score than any other player, they will have the points lost by the player with the highest point total who remained active during their time of inactivity subtracted from their scores. hows this sound? ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 9:21:15) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: next turn.... Proposition 310 failed 4-8-0-3. It's now Nick Osborn's turn... well, it has been since 4:30 AM, but... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 9:45:1) From: Nick Osborn if there is any disagreement over how reactivated players should have their score adjusted, i could probably just leave that line out. that way, we could amend 311 at a later date when we have more time. barring anyone discovering a great flaw in 311 or my simply falling asleep and forgeting about it, i plan to make my formal proposal and call for a vote by noon. i will propose it in its original form unless someone else voices an opinion along the same lines as mr. byrne, in which case i will adjust it in accordance with an earlier post. if there seems to be a general disagreement as to what to do with the reactivated scores, i will follow my intentions as outlined above. bye, bye, n ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 11:42:57) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: going inactive If you do not plan to play over the summer and are going to leave before the voting is over for Nick's proposal (assuming that it passes), please announce your intention to go inactive for the summer to the list. If you forget to do this, the rest of us will have to hunt you down... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 12:10:19) From: Adam Haar Subject: Trade I hereby make a formal offer of 5 of my points to Josh Kortbein. If accepted my score will be lowered by 5 and his raised by 5. I await Josh's response. 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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 12:51:0) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: protest At 12:10 PM 5/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >I hereby make a formal offer of 5 of my points to Josh Kortbein. If >accepted my score will be lowered by 5 and his raised by 5. I await Josh's >response. > >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. I protest Haar's offer of points to Josh. In light of the recent ruling that scores cannot be modified except by the rules, it seems that this too, as a form of score modification, should be illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 12:58:20) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Judgment on Haar's transfer of points My Judgment: 116/0. Permissibility of the Unprohibited (immutable) Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. Exchange of points is not prohibited nor regulated. Exchange of points is different from creation or destruction of points, which are governed by 202, 204, and 206. Thus this situation is different from the situation on which Kuhns ruled. It is my judgment therefore that the exchange of points is neither prohibited nor regulated, and is not the exceptional case of changing the rules; therefore exchange of points is permitted and unregulated. Haar's transfer of points stands. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 12:53:9) From: Adam Haar Subject: Further giving I hereby give Josh Kortbein 200 of my points, giving me a score of -186 and Josh a score of 213. I hereby declare Josh Kortbein winner, and myself the BIG LOSER! 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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:19:15) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: protest At 12:53 PM 5/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >I hereby give Josh Kortbein 200 of my points, giving me a score of -186 and >Josh a score of 213. I hereby declare Josh Kortbein winner, and myself the >BIG LOSER! >Adam Haar > >Laziness is not a sin or a vice, it's just a very easy way of getting >through life without ever succeeding. I protest that Josh does not have nor has ever had exactly 200 points as required by Rule 208, and therefore does not win the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:26:20) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: another protest I'd like to protest Haar's latest transferral of points. I realize Crhis already allowed point exchange, but what Haar has done in givin Josh points is a different matter and calls for judgement. Why? Because Haar has traded points he doesn't have by going negative. Though the total number of points in the game has not changed, Haar has attempted to exchange points which were never earned during the course of the game. Everyone began with zero points, and therefore should not be able to trade points beyond what they have earned during gameplay. Any dipping into the negative constitutes movement of points which don't actually exist. Thus I call for judgement--not for trading points (which has already been declared allowable), but for trading points one doesn't have. 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:28:34) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: additional protest I protest that Haar cannot give Josh 186 points because he does not have 186 points to give. Negative points represent a point debt, not an unlimited supply of points, and as such cannot be given away. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:42:57) From: Nick Osborn Subject: CFV on Prop 311 I call for a vote on proposition 311, as follows. If you don't agree with everything in it, that's fine. It can be fixed over the summer. Please vote early. Time is running slim. Players wishing to become inactive for the summer may do so by declaring themselves so to the other players by Saturday, May 9, 1998. These players shall be temporarily removed from the order of play, taking no turns, not serving as judge, and any other applicable measures. They will in no way be figured into voting procedures, either for computing a quorum, delaying votes through automatic abstentions, or any other applicable measures. All players declaring themselves inactive under this proposal shall be replaced in the order of play Wednesday, August 19, 1998. Upon reentering the order of play, reactivated players shall have the fewest points gained by a player active while they were deactivated added to their scores at the time of inactivation. If this would result in a loss of points, they retain the full points they possessed at the time of inactivation. If this would give them a higher score than any other player, they will have the points lost by the player with the highest point total who remained active during their time of inactivity subtracted from their scores. Also upon reinstatement, reactivated players will be subject to all rules applying to players not deactivated during the summer. Upon passage of this proposal, no points will be rewarded to the proposer or to individuals objecting in the minority. This rule takes precedence over rules 201, 202, and 204. ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:49:7) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Further Judgments I protest that Haar cannot give Josh 186 points because he does not have 186 points to give. Negative points represent a point debt, not an unlimited supply of points, and as such cannot be given away. J. Uckelman --- I'd like to protest Haar's latest transferral of points. I realize Crhis already allowed point exchange, but what Haar has done in givin Josh points is a different matter and calls for judgement. Why? Because Haar has traded points he doesn't have by going negative. Though the total number of points in the game has not changed, Haar has attempted to exchange points which were never earned during the course of the game. Everyone began with zero points, and therefore should not be able to trade points beyond what they have earned during gameplay. Any dipping into the negative constitutes movement of points which don't actually exist. Thus I call for judgement--not for trading points (which has already been declared allowable), but for trading points one doesn't have. beN --- There are no rules against negative points, and the precedent has already been set. As there are no rules against negative points, there is no rule dealing with a limit to the amount of negative points. As for "trading points one doesn't have," this approach views points as some sort of concrete good. This is not so. Points do not have physical representations like apples; nor are they like dollars in that there is a real world implication to having a "debt" of points. Points are a quantity. In this situation, Haar's exchange of points has kept the quantity of points constant as opposed to creating/destroying points (cf. previous ruling). That this has rendered him with a negative scalar representation of points is neither unprecedented (see above) nor is he "trading points he doesn't have" in that points do not exist except in the abstract, as a scalar quantity. My judgment is that Haar's awarding of 200 points to Josh is legal. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:49:21) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: giving away points If Chris Mayfield rules that Josh is indeed the winner of the game: 1. At that exact instant, I hereby grant all other players except Josh, Chris, Haar, and myself 200 points each. 2. Everyone but Chris, Haar, and me will win the game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:1:41) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: giving away points At 01:56 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>If Chris Mayfield rules that Josh is indeed the winner of the game: >> >>1. At that exact instant, I hereby grant all other players except Josh, >>Chris, Haar, and myself 200 points each. > >Please specify more clearly which instant that will be. The instant >at which Chris Mayfield rules that I am the winner? > >If so then I will call for judgement on that action, as I don't think >will know when that instant is, in order to perform your action. There is no rule against specifying when certain actions occur. I don't need to know exactly when it happens, since I know that it will happen at some point and have declared that it is a trigger for my action. >You'll >know after the fact, but then your granting of points would be retroactive, >and though it's not a rule change, game custom has already determined >retroactive things to be disallowed, unless they are retroactive via >the explicit statements of proposals (and your action is not a proposal). >I'm fairly certain the Judge will agree with my reading. > It wouldn't be in accord with game custom, but neither is ignoring a previous judgment (the one made by Kuhns). >Furthermore, I posit that since I have already reached 200 points at >a time in the past, I will have been the first to do so and thus the >most logical choice for winner. When exactly have you ever had 200 points? In any case, I doubt that it matters since you have the judge in your pocket... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 13:56:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: giving away points >If Chris Mayfield rules that Josh is indeed the winner of the game: > >1. At that exact instant, I hereby grant all other players except Josh, >Chris, Haar, and myself 200 points each. Please specify more clearly which instant that will be. The instant at which Chris Mayfield rules that I am the winner? If so then I will call for judgement on that action, as I don't think will know when that instant is, in order to perform your action. You'll know after the fact, but then your granting of points would be retroactive, and though it's not a rule change, game custom has already determined retroactive things to be disallowed, unless they are retroactive via the explicit statements of proposals (and your action is not a proposal). I'm fairly certain the Judge will agree with my reading. Furthermore, I posit that since I have already reached 200 points at a time in the past, I will have been the first to do so and thus the most logical choice for winner. >2. Everyone but Chris, Haar, and me will win the game. Cheers, Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:17:37) From: Allan M Dudding Subject: Fucking Shit Fisrt of all, I apologize to those who haven't been following this travesty asa it happens. I moust say that this is a load of fucking horseshit. What th hell is all of this crap for anyway? I realize that it was just to end the game before the end of the week, but this fucking sucks. Why did you have to abuse the rules to get what you wanted instead of just proposing to end the agme instead of screwing us over? Your arguement os you don''t have to reply: "There's nothing in the rules saying that I couldn't." It shit like that that makes a game no damn fun. Allan "I'm really pissed" Dudding. Sorry about the typos, its hard to type when there are hundres of "you've got mail!" things coming up. What is this fucking AOL?!? ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:19:5) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: or, if you prefer > Okay, so if you're of the opinion that approval of point trading among >the traders is unecessary, I'm trading points with everyone such that >our current scores are maintained. I hereby declare that this trade is >conintuously occurring and refreshing, rather than a one-time instance. >It is a continous process and happens instantaneously. In actuality >everyone's points are fluctuating up and down by one or two points >every instantaneous bit of time, but the average is equal to the point >total they had beofre trading was found to be legal. Isn't it fun, performing game actions in a game that's over? Also, given the complexity of your action, I doubt a Judge would even rule such a thing to be the case, as such a thing could end as soon as a turn ended and a Judge ruled that such a trade was not occurring. That wouldn't happen if your trade occured via a proposal, but of course, it isn't. So even if I had not won and thus ended the game, you'd have to get such a proposal to pass on your next turn for such a trade to continue for any number of turns longer than 1, unless you get EVERY Judge to rule your way. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:25:34) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: End of the Game? You should have explained your actions earlier than now, Josh. As you may have noticed, you didn't make most of the players happy by just acting without explanation. I am less angry now that you _have_ explained your actions, but as I said before, you're just a wee bit late. Sorry about the rant. I meant it, but i apologize. Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:0:8) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Re: giving away points If Chris Mayfield rules that Josh is indeed the winner of the game: 1. At that exact instant, I hereby grant all other players except Josh, Chris, Haar, and myself 200 points each. 2. Everyone but Chris, Haar, and me will win the game. J. Uckelman --- I protest this. 208/0. Winning by Points (mutable) The winner is the first player to achieve 100 (positive) points. In mail and computer games, the winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points. Both the protest earlier that Josh did not have exactly 200 points, and Joel's move to award everyone else points after Josh's victory are moot. As of 208, the willer is the first to achieve 200 points. By having more than 200 points, one has achieved 200 points. Second, the winner is the _first_ player to achieve 200 points. Therefore, Joel's move to award points is not allowed as it comes after Josh's win, so there can be no additional winners. Joel's comment that he does this "at that exact instance" is null and void. Though not a rule, his action would be retroactive in that the game takes place in real time. His attempt to perform this action retroactively is against "game-custom and the spirit of the game" (212). Therefore his action does not stand. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:2:34) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: hold on here! At this point in the game... A) Chris has yet to rule on Joel's protest that Josh has not scored 200 points, but rather has exceed that amount. B) Josh has not yet accepted any point trades, nor have the rest of us. I hereby ACCEPT the points Joel has offered me. My acceptance comes before Josh's. I am first winner. Have a nice day. 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:4:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: End of the Game? Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and thereby winning the game. If anyone wants to play again, e-mail me to let me know. We can use the current ruleset with a rule added to prevent the transfer of negative points. I'll have the new initial ruleset up in a matter of minutes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:8:13) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: hold on here! > At this point in the game... > >A) Chris has yet to rule on Joel's protest that Josh has not scored 200 >points, but rather has exceed that amount. On the contrary, I scored 200, then 201, 202, ..., up to 213 points. The process of "adding 200" to a number is actually just a shorthand for repeated addition of unity, and thus to get to 213 my score did in fact "hit" 200 on the way up. >B) Josh has not yet accepted any point trades, nor have the rest of us. > >I hereby ACCEPT the points Joel has offered me. My acceptance comes before >Josh's. I am first winner. Have a nice day. Too bad, because I did accept the points. I'll just have to go call Haar and have him find the relevant message. Nobody said I had to accept them in public... Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:9:37) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: hold on here! I accept also, Allan, winner #2 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:11:40) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: or, if you prefer Okay, so if you're of the opinion that approval of point trading among the traders is unecessary, I'm trading points with everyone such that our current scores are maintained. I hereby declare that this trade is conintuously occurring and refreshing, rather than a one-time instance. It is a continous process and happens instantaneously. In actuality everyone's points are fluctuating up and down by one or two points every instantaneous bit of time, but the average is equal to the point total they had beofre trading was found to be legal. This may sound absurd, but I'm not the one who ruled "therefore exchange of points is permitted and unregulated." Have a nicer day. 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:32:36) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Judgments and Musings, Various At 02:11 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and >thereby winning the game. > >--- > >I may remind people that if people disagree with my judgments that there >are rules in place for rectifying this. > There are such rules, but why would Josh or Haar want to overturn a decision which they obviously wanted? It has to be unanimous, remember. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:33:45) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Judgments and Musings, Various >At 02:11 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and >>thereby winning the game. >> >>--- >> >>I may remind people that if people disagree with my judgments that there >>are rules in place for rectifying this. >> > >There are such rules, but why would Josh or Haar want to overturn a >decision which they obviously wanted? It has to be unanimous, remember. Oh, silly, obviously Chris is just toying with you. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:35:8) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: End of the Game? Joel sez: >I am obligated neither to tell you what I think nor to trust your judgment. Then apparently you weren't really all that big on fixing those "major rules problems" in the first place. Cheer up, Joel, it's just a game. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:11:47) From: Christopher A Mayfield Subject: Judgments and Musings, Various It wouldn't be in accord with game custom, but neither is ignoring a previous judgment (the one made by Kuhns). --- Please see my previous judgment on why this situation differs from Kuhns. --- Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and thereby winning the game. --- I may remind people that if people disagree with my judgments that there are rules in place for rectifying this. --- Josh has not yet accepted any point trades, nor have the rest of us. --- Too bad, because I did accept the points. I'll just have to go call Haar and have him find the relevant message. Nobody said I had to accept them in public... Josh I believe this clears up this protest. --- As of this time, I believe Josh is the winner of the game. Should people wish to challenge my judgments, by all means do so. However, I believe the game is won. Chris ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:21:22) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: End of the Game? >Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and >thereby winning the game. > >If anyone wants to play again, e-mail me to let me know. We can use the >current ruleset with a rule added to prevent the transfer of negative >points. I'll have the new initial ruleset up in a matter of minutes. Are you sure you don't want to look over those rules a little more closely? I offered you the chance to chip in, with your big plan, but you were apparently so pissed off that I didn't like your original plan that you refused to even say what you thought was wrong with the rules. Plus, we are aware of some more rules problems, which is why we have allowed me to win the game. Once I return home today, I will send some other, revised rules to the group for perusal, for use in a new nomic game. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:30:30) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: End of the Game? At 02:21 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and >>thereby winning the game. >> >>If anyone wants to play again, e-mail me to let me know. We can use the >>current ruleset with a rule added to prevent the transfer of negative >>points. I'll have the new initial ruleset up in a matter of minutes. > >Are you sure you don't want to look over those rules a little more >closely? I offered you the chance to chip in, with your big plan, but >you were apparently so pissed off that I didn't like your original plan >that you refused to even say what you thought was wrong with the rules. >Plus, we are aware of some more rules problems, which is why we have >allowed me to win the game. Once I return home today, I will send some >other, revised rules to the group for perusal, for use in a new nomic >game. > >Josh > I am obligated neither to tell you what I think nor to trust your judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:32:13) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Fucking Shit >Fisrt of all, I apologize to those who haven't been following this travesty as a it happens. I >moust say that this is a load of fucking horseshit. What th hell is all of th is crap for >anyway? I realize that it was just to end the game before the end of the week , but this >fucking sucks. Why did you have to abuse the rules to get what you wanted ins tead of just >proposing to end the agme instead of screwing us over? Earlier in the week, Joel was completely prepared to end the game or otherwise radically alter it, simply by getting enough players to agree to "restart" with a modified ruleset. This would have been an extra-game action, or at the very least not legal according to the ruleset, without large-scale looking-the-other-way. I proposed that he orchestrate an effort to run through four (4!) proposals that would accomplish what he wanted, which he could have done in one night. After an argument with Potter (which generated the controversy last round), he up and switched his mind. Thus, I decided, in a way consistent with the current holes in the rules, to agree to be part of the plan which arose this week between Chris, Haar, and I (and which was prompted by Joel's rash point-trading actions earlier in the week). I did so because I am not opposed to fixing some rules, but if we do so I want to do so in a way that means we don't (a) end this game prematurely simply because we weren't happy with it, and by end I mean everyone just quits, and (b) simply get enough assent from players to make the changes, extralegally, and proceed as if nothing had happened. I, with the wonderful aid of messers Haar and (the Honorable) Chris Mayfield, have accomplished (a). Now I propose that (once I get home so I can be at my computer) we spend a week or so looking at my proposed rule changes, deciding which ones we want to keep before playing again. That would also provide Joel a chance to contribute his ideas, if he's done sulking. >Your arguement os you don''t have to reply: "There's nothing in the rules say ing that I couldn't." > >It shit like that that makes a game no damn fun. Say that again and then ask yourself: what is the object of this game? As I heard repeatedly from Joel the other night when we were discussing playing without public scores or voting knowledge, he likes to have the scores, etc., because they let him know where he stands, how close he is to winning, etc. I imagine you'd say the same thing. So what happens when someone wins? Does the game instantly become no damn fun? I hope not, otherwise you're playing the wrong game - especially when it's one that can be one either the slow way, plodding along, voting against proposals occasionally and hoping yours pass, or the fast way, trying to find a way to exploit the meant-to-be-exploited rules. Besides, this is the most fun I've had yet in this game. > >Allan "I'm really pissed" Dudding. > >Sorry about the typos, its hard to type when there are hundres of "you've got mail!" things >coming up. What is this fucking AOL?!? Type "zctl cancel" at a Vincent prompt, without the quotes, to temporarily disable zephyrgrams. Type "zctl load" to turn them back on. Cheers, Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:36:15) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: End of the Game? At 02:35 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Joel sez: >>I am obligated neither to tell you what I think nor to trust your judgment. > >Then apparently you weren't really all that big on fixing those "major >rules problems" in the first place. > >Cheer up, Joel, it's just a game. > >Josh > Fuck you. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:37:22) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: End of the Game? >You should have explained your actions earlier than now, Josh. As you may hav e noticed, you >didn't make most of the players happy by just acting without explanation. I a m less angry now >that you _have_ explained your actions, but as I said before, you're just a we e bit late. When was I supposed to explain our master plan? Right before we sprung it? During? Three weeks before? After was the best time. Besides, wasn't it cool to watch, now that you think about it? :) If we would have told we couldn't have put on a good show. :) >Sorry about the rant. I meant it, but i apologize. No harm done - we expected people to be a tad upset. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:38:29) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: End of the Game? >At 02:35 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Joel sez: >>>I am obligated neither to tell you what I think nor to trust your judgment. >> >>Then apparently you weren't really all that big on fixing those "major >>rules problems" in the first place. >> >>Cheer up, Joel, it's just a game. >> >>Josh >> > >Fuck you. I'm going to save this one and hang it on my wall for when my relatives visit. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:40:8) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: End of the Game? At 02:38 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>At 02:35 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: >>> >>>Joel sez: >>>>I am obligated neither to tell you what I think nor to trust your judgment. >>> >>>Then apparently you weren't really all that big on fixing those "major >>>rules problems" in the first place. >>> >>>Cheer up, Joel, it's just a game. >>> >>>Josh >>> >> >>Fuck you. > >I'm going to save this one and hang it on my wall for when my relatives >visit. > >Josh > Gee, do I get to meet them too? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:41:25) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Official Thanks I'd like to officially thank Adam Haar and Chris Mayfield, without whom it would not have been possible to win the game. Haar gave selflessly of himself in a way that should touch all our hearts. A statue of this fine martyr should be erected as soon as possible. Chris Mayfield acted in a fair and equitable manner, as any good Judge should. It's only a shame that his tenure ends with the game, else we could look forward to many more consecutive judgements from him. Ah, well, we can always hope he'll come up again in another game. Josh ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:46:8) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Fuck's sake, 21 messages... ...inside of 15 minutes? Ye gods... That being the case, though, will one more really hurt? Nah. Whether or not the game is over, I am officially out. It has certainly been fun, though, and no small source of amusement. I would like to try it again. Perhaps I shall attempt to organize a new game next fall, possibly titled "Kortbein Can Account For No More Than 9% Of All Messages Sent Nomic." =) Anyone interested? --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:46:49) From: "Dr. Demento" >> At this point in the game... >> >>A) Chris has yet to rule on Joel's protest that Josh has not scored 200 >>points, but rather has exceed that amount. > >On the contrary, I scored 200, then 201, 202, ..., up to 213 points. >The process of "adding 200" to a number is actually just a shorthand for >repeated addition of unity, and thus to get to 213 my score did in fact >"hit" 200 on the way up. You haven't provided any proof of this. I'm not saying you haven't won the game, because as far as I care you have (well, actually, you Haar and Chris have in all honesty), but I'm saying that you have not offered any evidence that this is the case. Either the trade involverd simultaneous switching points, or Haar would need to propose trades for each point. Because if your score is incremented then more than one trade has taken place, in my opinion. For someone arguing about the timing of events, simultanaeity, etc, you've made a pretty piss-poor case here. Try justifying which such a trade is incremental before you go about declaring it to be true. BTW, the fact that this is how you were taught math works is not adequate justification. It's a moot point, but I'm just curious how you'll demonstrate this to be true. just out of curiousity, 1234 Michiganders: why? and why now? Why Josh and not Haar? 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:34:18) From: Adam Haar Subject: Point Trade Josh and I made our agreement on Tuesday evening, he then agreeing to accept my points. The action was made public (posted to the list) this morning (Thursday) due to conflict with other activities on Wednesday. Therefore my offer on the list this morning was accepted the MOMENT it was made. At that moment Josh gained 200 points putting him over the 200 point bar. This is not darts, you don't have to hit 200 on the dot. All subsequent moves are allowed at Josh's sufferance. Judgement has been made, there are rules to overturn judgements, if you dispute the ruling excercise your right to review, if Josh allows it. I believe Josh will be willing to allow the Player Review of Judgement. 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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:49:37) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: Re: hold on here! >>I hereby ACCEPT the points Joel has offered me. My acceptance comes before >>Josh's. I am first winner. Have a nice day. > >Too bad, because I did accept the points. I'll just have to go call >Haar and have him find the relevant message. Nobody said I had to accept >them in public... > Huh. Well, funny, because Joel and I traded points early this morning beofre any of this occurred. Of course, he never made the trade public, and I never made my acceptance public. He hadn't had a chance to update the website before you embarked on your actions, so you didn't know that I had won. Sorry to disappoint you. Joela nd I were worried that our actions would be declared illegal but fortunately a judgement was issued realted to the wholly-unregulated matter of trading points, so we were vindicated. I'd like to commend you on your effort, Josh, but I had the game won hours before you. I just never mentioned it. Don't you wish you had done this earlier? 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:39:6) From: Adam Haar Subject: Re: End of the Game? At 02:38 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: > >>At 02:35 PM 5/7/98 CDT, you wrote: >>> >>>Joel sez: >>>>I am obligated neither to tell you what I think nor to trust your judgment. >>> >>>Then apparently you weren't really all that big on fixing those "major >>>rules problems" in the first place. >>> >>>Cheer up, Joel, it's just a game. >>> >>>Josh >>> >> >>Fuck you. > >I'm going to save this one and hang it on my wall for when my relatives >visit. > >Josh > > I take it, Joel, that this means you don't accept Chris's offer of a cheap summer room? 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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:53:7) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: hold on here! At 02:49 PM 5/7/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>>I hereby ACCEPT the points Joel has offered me. My acceptance comes before >>>Josh's. I am first winner. Have a nice day. >> >>Too bad, because I did accept the points. I'll just have to go call >>Haar and have him find the relevant message. Nobody said I had to accept >>them in public... >> > Huh. Well, funny, because Joel and I traded points early this >morning beofre any of this occurred. Of course, he never made the trade >public, and I never made my acceptance public. He hadn't had a chance to >update the website before you embarked on your actions, so you didn't know >that I had won. Sorry to disappoint you. Joela nd I were worried that our >actions would be declared illegal but fortunately a judgement was issued >realted to the wholly-unregulated matter of trading points, so we were >vindicated. > >I'd like to commend you on your effort, Josh, but I had the game won hours >before you. I just never mentioned it. Don't you wish you had done this >earlier? > >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 > > I believe that Ben misspoke here. We did this early this WEEK, not this morning . I don't know what Ben was thinking... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:55:32) From: Josh Kortbein >>> At this point in the game... >>> >>>A) Chris has yet to rule on Joel's protest that Josh has not scored 200 >>>points, but rather has exceed that amount. >> >>On the contrary, I scored 200, then 201, 202, ..., up to 213 points. >>The process of "adding 200" to a number is actually just a shorthand for >>repeated addition of unity, and thus to get to 213 my score did in fact >>"hit" 200 on the way up. > You haven't provided any proof of this. I'm not saying you haven't >won the game, because as far as I care you have (well, actually, you Haar >and Chris have in all honesty), but I'm saying that you have not offered >any evidence that this is the case. Either the trade involverd simultaneous >switching points, or Haar would need to propose trades for each point. Ben, Ben, Ben Haar may specify a number of points which he wishes to trade. Those points are then subtracted off, one by one, from his score, and then added, one by one, to mine. The splitting up of the sum occurs in a theoretical sense, when the recordkeeper manipulates the scores. In essence, the "addition of 200 points" to my score, which is an atomic game action, occurs as follows: for (i = 1; i <= 200; i++) { joshScore++; } (in C-like pseudocode) >Because if your score is incremented then more than one trade has taken >place, in my opinion. For someone arguing about the timing of events, >simultanaeity, etc, you've made a pretty piss-poor case here. Try >justifying which such a trade is incremental before you go about declaring >it to be true. BTW, the fact that this is how you were taught math works is >not adequate justification. I'm sure that if you ask any other person who knows how math works they'd tell you something similar. > It's a moot point, but I'm just curious how you'll demonstrate this >to be true. If you don't find it to be true then I'd appreciate another explanation of how arithmetic is performed. You can try to refer to the "rules" you learned in grade school, but those are simply algorithmic crutches, just like "shifting to the left" when dividing by 10 in decimal. > just out of curiousity, 1234 Michiganders: why? and why now? Why >Josh and not Haar? (See reply to Allan's post.) I'm not really sure why me instead of Haar. I'll have to ask him. I think maybe he just made a better martyr. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:57:56) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: hold on here! >>>I hereby ACCEPT the points Joel has offered me. My acceptance comes before >>>Josh's. I am first winner. Have a nice day. >> >>Too bad, because I did accept the points. I'll just have to go call >>Haar and have him find the relevant message. Nobody said I had to accept >>them in public... >> > Huh. Well, funny, because Joel and I traded points early this >morning beofre any of this occurred. Of course, he never made the trade >public, and I never made my acceptance public. He hadn't had a chance to >update the website before you embarked on your actions, so you didn't know >that I had won. Sorry to disappoint you. Joela nd I were worried that our >actions would be declared illegal but fortunately a judgement was issued >realted to the wholly-unregulated matter of trading points, so we were >vindicated. > >I'd like to commend you on your effort, Josh, but I had the game won hours >before you. I just never mentioned it. Don't you wish you had done this >earlier? Hmmmm, I certainly hope the Judge sides with you. I don't think he will, though. Cheers, Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:58:27) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: how kind How kind of Haar to say, "I believe Josh will be willing to allow the Player Review of Judgement." Not that Josh has ANY say in allowing or disallowing player review. of course, it doesn't matter, and we all know that. In fact, it was the unanimity clause in overruling that I intended to propose a change to during my turn. Of ocurse, that was BEFORE I got points from Joel and won. Finals week really has messed with my head. Last week I wrote a check and put the month as 6/98 rather than 5/98, no kidding. Anyway, I mistakenly said I got the points this morning when in actuality I got them well before that. 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 15:2:0) From: Nick Osborn Subject: Re: End of the Game? At 02:04 PM 5/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >Congratulations to Josh Kortbein for corrupting the legal system and >thereby winning the game. > >If anyone wants to play again, e-mail me to let me know. We can use the >current ruleset with a rule added to prevent the transfer of negative >points. I'll have the new initial ruleset up in a matter of minutes. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > Count me in. Maybe I'll try using capitilization and puctuation this time around. ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:49:6) From: Adam Haar Subject: How We Won Ok, everybody, here's the story. Tuesday night sitting around the table here at 1234 I was attempting to find a way to implement an economic system in the game. I wanted it to start as soon as possible and therefore not wait for my next proposal (which would have cannonized my desires). Therefore I took the next best way, pulling judgement. I had intended to give Josh just 5 points, in effect forcing a protest, and take my chances. It then was made known to me that certain players, including the inestimable Mr. Uckleman, were unhappy with the current ruleset and wanted to change some things. Seeing that the game would be changing in such a way as to make it nearly a brand new game I decided to end it so we could start fresh. Therefore Josh and I engineered the method used. Realizing a judge other than Chris might not be as understanding we waited til he became judge and I pulled our ploy. I HAVE NOT WON ANYTHING! In fact I am the last place player at the end of this game. I agreed that we needed a new base ruleset and that we were in a pivotal time. We tried to do this in a manner so as to reduce the anger of other players so as to continue in a new game (we didn't want to be the guy with the football that nobody wants to play with). I hope this explains our reasons and methods. 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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 14:50:46) From: Adam Haar Subject: Byrne's Bullshit Sorry Ben, had you made your trade public before us I'd bow to you and your foresight. However we came out first and so win. 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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 15:46:55) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Fucking Shit >Did Josh win? Yes. >Did he do so in a legal fashion--one which did not violate the current >rules? Yes. >Did he do so in an unsportsmanlike fashion--requiring the previous consent >of a compliant judge to make any and all judgements in his favor, no matter >how nonsensical? Also yes. I don't take any of this personally, FYI. I'd appreciate it if you consider this at greater length, and also after you've put some time between you and this game. What does "sportsmanlike" mean, in a game in which the ways to win are explicitly a) attain 200 points b) manipulate the rules? I claim that basically ANYTHING which works "legally," and by that I mean truly within the rules, in the conventional sense, and through consequences which grow out of those rules, which may or may not be conventionally legal, is allowable as a way to win the game. If you don't think so, then what sort of things do you think should be legal? Furthermore, if you've seen any information on other nomic games, you'd know that they often end or are changed in dramatic ways via "coups" of this sort, which exploit loopholes in the rules. If you didn't know that, and there is no way you can be at peace with that, then I'm sorry you were participating without that knowledge. >Will he, along with Mr. Harr and Mr. Mayfield, participate in any future >(though probably unlikely) games of Nomic we initiate? No. That seems childish, and that's all I have to say about that. Any new games are by their very nature open for anyone to win, and if you or anyone else were to win in a manner similar to ours, I would not have a problem with it. It's all part of the game. >No matter how legal your actions, what you did was sufficiently dupicitious >and arrogant to piss the rest of us off. It's lamentable that we aren't >purely logical automatons, which would be required to ever participate in a >Nomic game with you again, but instead make some judgements based on >emotion and gut reaction. Congratulations, we currently hate your guts. Duplicitous? Yes, but in what way is that a bad thing, within the constraints of the game? If we're playing poker, and I bluff, is that considered "sufficiently duplicitous" to piss you off? If so then you shouldn't be playing poker, and similarly, you shouldn't be playing a game in which people can be duplicitous. I'd even argue that conspiracy requires duplicity, and as the rules state, there are no constraints (in email games) on conspiracy. >If the fashion in which you won wasn't enough, your pissy, arrogant >attitude after the fact was certainly enough to drive public opinion over >the edge. Have a nice day. If I have seemed pissy after the fact, I apologize, but y'all have acted similarly pissy in your attempts to foil our plans, and just in reacting in general to the situation. I hope that in retrospect you'll realize my comments, when questionable, were intended to be humorous. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 16:13:8) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: Re: >Haar may specify a number of points which he wishes to trade. Those >points are then subtracted off, one by one, from his score, and then >added, one by one, to mine. The splitting up of the sum occurs in >a theoretical sense, when the recordkeeper manipulates the scores. Well, I have different theories. I theorize that the way scores are kept in nomic is discreet rather than continuous, and such imcrementation, if it exists, gets ignored. In >essence, the "addition of 200 points" to my score, which is an atomic >game action, occurs as follows: > >for (i = 1; i <= 200; i++) { > joshScore++; >} > >(in C-like pseudocode) > >>Because if your score is incremented then more than one trade has taken >>place, in my opinion. For someone arguing about the timing of events, >>simultanaeity, etc, you've made a pretty piss-poor case here. Try >>justifying which such a trade is incremental before you go about declaring >>it to be true. BTW, the fact that this is how you were taught math works is >>not adequate justification. > >I'm sure that if you ask any other person who knows how math works they'd >tell you something similar. I'm curious then, Josh, how addition of non-rational numbers occurs, because as far as I can tell, mathematicians have declared that addition takes place integer-by-integer. How do you add pi to something? Or even a decimal like .5, for example? Does addition occur by single integers and then decimals added afterwad, or what? 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 ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 16:15:12) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Fucking Shit >Did Josh win? Yes. >Did he do so in a legal fashion--one which did not violate the current >rules? Yes. >Did he do so in an unsportsmanlike fashion--requiring the previous consent >of a compliant judge to make any and all judgements in his favor, no matter >how nonsensical? Also yes. Also, I think I should point out, in case Ben and Joel are still hopeful (as Joel seems to be, viz. his "Josh Kortbein has probably won the game" in the news), or in case anyone else is: All further debate about whether or not we've won, unless Chris has a strong change of heart (perhaps someone out there can bribe him with large quantities of avant-garde postmodern literature), is moot. Even if Chris makes decisions counter to the rules, as he is instructed not to do by the judging rule, there's nothing the game at large can do about it under the current rule, since basically the only thing to do is overturn him (which requires a unanimous vote of everyone but Chris, which obviously won't happen) - which can't happen. The best thing to do is consider how to fix the judging rule for another game. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 16:29:13) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: [I realize I've stated that no one else can possibly win, but I am now interested in this discussion, re how addition works, in a theoretical sense.] >>Haar may specify a number of points which he wishes to trade. Those >>points are then subtracted off, one by one, from his score, and then >>added, one by one, to mine. The splitting up of the sum occurs in >>a theoretical sense, when the recordkeeper manipulates the scores. > > Well, I have different theories. I theorize that the way scores are >kept in nomic is discreet rather than continuous, and such imcrementation, >if it exists, gets ignored. If it's "discreet," whatever that means, then how do you change a person's score? > In >>essence, the "addition of 200 points" to my score, which is an atomic >>game action, occurs as follows: >> >>for (i = 1; i <= 200; i++) { >> joshScore++; >>} >> >>(in C-like pseudocode) >> >>>Because if your score is incremented then more than one trade has taken >>>place, in my opinion. For someone arguing about the timing of events, >>>simultanaeity, etc, you've made a pretty piss-poor case here. Try >>>justifying which such a trade is incremental before you go about declaring >>>it to be true. BTW, the fact that this is how you were taught math works is >>>not adequate justification. >> >>I'm sure that if you ask any other person who knows how math works they'd >>tell you something similar. > >I'm curious then, Josh, how addition of non-rational numbers occurs, >because as far as I can tell, mathematicians have declared that addition >takes place integer-by-integer. How do you add pi to something? Or even a >decimal like .5, for example? Does addition occur by single integers and >then decimals added afterwad, or what? Luckily for me, since the scores are all (currently) integers, addition takes place in the ring of integers and thus concerns about adding irrational numbrs, etc., are not really concerns. As to adding real numbers, let's say represented in decimal, you know full well that that works in a more complicated way than integer addition. As for adding pi to something: Suppose that pi is 3.1415926..., out infinitely many digits. If you're adding pi to a rational number, the arithmetic only matters in as many places as the rational number is not trivially 0, like let's say 0.011100 + 3.1415926... ________________ 3.1526926... pi can change in only the first four places since that's in how many places 0.0111 is not trivially 0 (or 5, if you count the integer part). As for adding irrationals - that requires more work than I think is necessary here. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 18:5:21) From: "Matthew G. Potter" Subject: sportsmanship, definition of sportsmanship does have nothing to do with winning or not. This isn't under discussion--I accept that you won and did so legally. For those of you out there who've never participated in group competitive activities, however, sportsmanship IS the way you act regarding the game. It has to do with whether people will put up with you. It's wonderful for you that you can look at things purely mathematically; that W=200 points regardless of the circumstances, ok let's start again, but the rest of us happen to be human. (Well, maybe not Joel, but that's another topic.) The pure and simple fact is that of the players I've talked to so far--admittedly only half dozen or so--none of us wish to include you in any future game of Nomic. Not because you won, or did so in a sneaky underhanded move, but because of the way you've consistently behaved of late concerning the rest of us. You're the Deion Sanders of Nomic, and we don't have to put up with it. Matt ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 18:9:9) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: sportsmanship, definition of >sportsmanship does have nothing to do with winning or not. This isn't >under discussion--I accept that you won and did so legally. > >For those of you out there who've never participated in group competitive >activities, however, sportsmanship IS the way you act regarding the game. >It has to do with whether people will put up with you. It's wonderful for >you that you can look at things purely mathematically; that W=200 points >regardless of the circumstances, ok let's start again, but the rest of us >happen to be human. (Well, maybe not Joel, but that's another topic.) The >pure and simple fact is that of the players I've talked to so >far--admittedly only half dozen or so--none of us wish to include you in >any future game of Nomic. Not because you won, or did so in a sneaky >underhanded move, but because of the way you've consistently behaved of >late concerning the rest of us. You're the Deion Sanders of Nomic, and we You still haven't said what it is about my behavior that you find so reprehensible. Perhaps you'd like to use your English-major skills and dig up some citations? >don't have to put up with it. > >Matt Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 18:30:53) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: sportsmanship, definition of >If you need it explained to you why so many people consider you are >unpopular among so many of the nomic players, then you will never, ever >understand. > >'nuff said. I take it as an insult to my intelligence, as you should to yours, that you refuse to attempt to form a cogent reply to my query. If there really is something you find odious about the way I play Nomic, then you should be able to articulate it. Or is it simply that you're still pissed off about the win we orchestrated? Potter concedes that it was not the win, etc., but rather my "behavior," so if you are of the same opinion then you should in fact be able to articulate your concerns. Give it a try, Kuhns. What is it you're opposed to? My stance toward literalist interpretations of the rules? Why, you did the same thing in your judgements during Chris's turn. My revolutionary activities? I didn't hear anyone speak out against Mike in this way when he attempted to win via direct rules-hole manipulation. My voting? I think I've been consistent in voting; for the most part, I've voted yes on proposals I agreed with, and voted no to proposals which I (publicly) disagreed with. The one anomaly was your proposal, which I voted against in order to gain points - which you did as well, so hopefully you find no major fault there. My mathematical outlook on things? Why is that so much worse than prefering analogies in politics, or constitutional law, etc.? Well? What is it??? If you still refuse because you think I will "never, never understand," then I must say that you have a pretty bleak outlook on life - not able to believe in a person's capacity for change. People place more hope in a convict's potential to reform than that - and this is just a game, in which you claim you don't like my personality. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 19:13:17) From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Winning There is nowhere in the rules that defines what results in the game when a winner is found. Let's say that Josh won (has that been determined in the 50 messages I got?). So what? The game can go on if we so wish it. The rules don't say that the game halts when a winner is found. What does everyone else think? jeff ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 19:24:23) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: complaints against Josh There's more to playing a game than actual actions. If I had to guess why so many people object to your playing, I'd say it has to be not the content of your posts to the group, but the tone in which they are typically phrased. Actually I know few people who would say the tone shows up in a lot more than just your talking about nomic, but that's a different matter. Basically, if I didn't know you, I'd probably assume that you're a jerk because most of what you say seems to have a tone in it along the lines of "I'm better than you." The tone probably appears in subtleties which are hard to quote one or two of to prove the point, hence Matt's problem. Rarely do your posts contain phrases likes "It's my opinion that..." or "My interpretation, which could be wrong, is that..." Basically, I'd imagine many feel that your phatic communication sucks, which is why they might not enjoy playing nomic with you. So anyway, if people don't want to play with you anymore, that's my guess why. Of course, I wasn't one of the people Matt polled so I'm not speaking for myself. Frankly I think the game would've sucked without you playing. Listening to you and Joel has been fascinating. I think that maybe I don't ever want to play nomic again, however. It's an experimental game and I think I may have experimented enough. I dunno, I'm not sure yet. Hope this email helps explain things, Josh. Try to not to take it too personally, and don't get too defensive. Hey Haar, why hand it to Josh rather than him hand it to you? He didn't know why he was selected, do you? beN (who has the balls to say what others wouldn't, which is of course made easier by the fact that I don't feel the way they seem to) "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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 19:26:55) From: "Dr. Demento" Subject: Re: Winning >There is nowhere in the rules that defines what results in the game when a >winner is found. Let's say that Josh won (has that been determined in the >50 messages I got?). So what? The game can go on if we so wish it. The >rules don't say that the game halts when a winner is found. What does >everyone else think? I think this statement came from the same person who earlier in the game voted "candy bar" on my proposal, that's what I think! :) "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: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 21:40:55) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Winning >There is nowhere in the rules that defines what results in the game when a >winner is found. Let's say that Josh won (has that been determined in the >50 messages I got?). So what? The game can go on if we so wish it. The >rules don't say that the game halts when a winner is found. What does >everyone else think? Lest I bother anyone by continuing the discussion about it on this list, anyone who wants to discuss the forthcoming nomic game, which I have tentatively called novanomic, is free to join the list. I intend (but do not demand) that novanomic begin with the modified rules I sent out earlier. If you didn't read them, they are (were) an exact copy of this nomic's current rules, with a couple modifications and a couple new rules (like a no point altering rule). I'm even amenable to starting out with a different order, because people at the end of the old nomic list never got to propose. To add yourself to novanomic, type "chlist -add username novanomic" tomorrow or next time you have access. It might work tonight, but the ways of the chlist server are mysterious, so you might have to wait for the list creation to finish processing. [Or, alternatively, just ask me to add you.] I realize there are some upset people out there, and possibly some who simply can't stand me as a human being, but hopefully there are parties interested enough in nomic to swallow their pride and simply play the game. Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 21:49:36) From: Matthew J Kuhns Subject: Apologies I apologize for my previous message. I don't know whether Josh took it personally or not (I read his response about as closely as I read any of his messages) but I did catch that he found something offensive. In any event, it should be obvious that no personal criticism was meant. In a more broad sense, I apologize for once again saying something when I ought have simply left well enough alone. Josh obviously has a need to respond to every statement on just about anything (which is his right) and I should have taken that into account given that it was not my intent to drag on something that might otherwise have died on its own. Thank you and goodnight. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: May 8, 1998 (Fri, 1:55:2) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: sportsmanship, definition of > late concerning the rest of us. You're the Deion Sanders of Nomic, and we > don't have to put up with it. Does that mean we get to call him "Neon?" ________________________________________ Date: May 8, 1998 (Fri, 2:29:32) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: sportsmanship, definition of I can help on this one: I personally, have never met you, Josh. I never try to judge people until I meet them, and always try to give them a second or third chance to prove themselves to be good people. That is one of the most important rules in my life. Another is that I always try ot see both sides of an arguement. That said, I'll try to alleviate your confusion as best I can. In your emails over the past weeks, you have almost always, um, been kinda snooty. All of your arguments have been very sound, and most of the time I have agreed with you. But when you phrased the agruments, or responded to others, your emails usually had an overtone of superiority. Your math, er, tech-talk, was always more than a little boring to a person who doesn't like math very much, and I felt that you were trying to prove your arguments by confusing the other debater. To relate this anecdotally, my father once told me he did a report once on hydrostatic transmissions. He recieved and A just because he sounded well-informed and not because he had good factual information, just because his teacher knew nothing about hydrostatic transmissions. He did that report knowing that that would be the result. Your math information was usually read by me in the wee hours of the morning, when I just wasn't able to handle anything more than 2+2=4. I just passed it over and moved on, assuming your equations were correct. Also, your emails yesterday were extremely condescending. What you said after the fact showed that you were trying to be funny. You failed miserably. Instead, your (comically to you) condescending comments served to incite more anger towards you. I admit there was more reacting than acting here on HArwood, but, as soon as you saw the anger apparent in our responses, you should have show us what you were doing, instead of keeping the wool over our eyes for a few crucial hours longer. Those hours were the difference between a good laugh and, well, hatred. As for the sportmanship thing... Do you remembeer the little things after teh GI Joe cartoon? One of them was about sportmanship. In this little life lesson brought to you by Quick-Kick I think, some boys are playing baseball. The losing team walked off the field, heads hanging low, while the winning team ranted nearby about the amazing way they beat the pants off of the other team. This starts a fight, and Quick-Kick breaks it up explaining that winning with grace is better than winning rauciously. Your comments this afternoon had the underlying message, not really said but readable nonetheless, that "aren't I cool? I went ahead and did something else you guys didn't think of first!" I don't even know what you look like but I had a smug smile in my mind that I imagined belonged to you all picked out. Sure, you're not disallowed to gloat a little, if I said that, I'd be a hypocrite. If I remember right, you didn't once say, "good game" or something to that effect. (I may be wrong, since I was fuming at the time.) Right now, I'm not sure if I want to play with you again. On one hand, your proposal and suggestions were valuable ones, contributing much. On the other hand, you math stuff bored the pants off me. (but then again, my anecdotes probably do to you, so...) Anyway, those are the reasons I see that half of the players at least dislike you and will never play with you again. Anecdotal Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 8, 1998 (Fri, 2:32:18) From: adudding@iastate.edu Subject: Re: complaints against Josh well, that was a little more brief than mine. Thanks, Ben. Anecdotal Allan. ________________________________________ Date: May 8, 1998 (Fri, 9:27:36) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: sportsmanship, definition of Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease excuse the sarcasm within, but I find it difficult to contain myself when your main reasons for "hating" me are a) you talk funny b) you took sooooooooooooo long to uncover the conspiracy! >I can help on this one: > >I personally, have never met you, Josh. I never try to judge people until I m eet them, and >always try to give them a second or third chance to prove themselves to be goo d people. That >is one of the most important rules in my life. Another is that I always try o t see both sides >of an arguement. That said, I'll try to alleviate your confusion as best I ca n. > >In your emails over the past weeks, you have almost always, um, been kinda sno oty. All of your >arguments have been very sound, and most of the time I have agreed with you. But when you >phrased the agruments, or responded to others, your emails usually had an over tone of >superiority. Your math, er, tech-talk, was always more than a little boring t Up until this debacle, with all the slanderous things being said about me, there's been not an ounce of snot, promise. What you read as "overtone of superiority" is simply someone who writes in a different style than you - and if you read it as "superiority," then I'd argue that there is also a problem inside you. You're at a university. There are people here, as Ben will surely tell you, who are learning how to communicate in different ways. I'm one of them. o a person who >doesn't like math very much, and I felt that you were trying to prove your arg uments by >confusing the other debater. To relate this anecdotally, my father once told "Trying to confuse the other debater." Hmm, let's consider that for a moment. Sorry to say so, but from my point of view, all I was doing was simply providing reasonable analogies, examples, etc., to support my opinions. There was no intent to prove my arguments by confusion; indeed, that seems to be a poor strategy, since if I confuse you then you have no good reason to support my ideas. It simply seems to be the case that you're not comfortable with technically oriented talk. Whatever - to each his own. I don't appreciate (though they may sound trivial) email that's oddly formatted (like yours), email lacking capitalization, or email lacking basic grammar, coherency, etc. But that's a personal choice. I don't take it as a game tactic, etc. me he did a >report once on hydrostatic transmissions. He recieved and A just because he s ounded >well-informed and not because he had good factual information, just because hi s teacher knew >nothing about hydrostatic transmissions. He did that report knowing that that would be the >result. Your math information was usually read by me in the wee hours of the morning, when I >just wasn't able to handle anything more than 2+2=4. I just passed it over an d moved on, >assuming your equations were correct. Also, your emails yesterday were extrem Yes, there were SOOO many "equations" floating around in my messages. See re tech talk above. ely >condescending. What you said after the fact showed that you were trying to be funny. You >failed miserably. Instead, your (comically to you) condescending comments ser ved to incite Comic to me, to Chris, to Haar, and probably to plenty of the other nomic players capable of understanding the tone (i.e., Potter and Kuhns, cynics if there ever were, and I actually do mean that in a good way, and Ben, who wrote an entire article claiming that he was an artificial human being), if they had not let anger blind them. >more anger towards you. I admit there was more reacting than acting here on H Arwood, but, as >soon as you saw the anger apparent in our responses, you should have show us w hat you were >doing, instead of keeping the wool over our eyes for a few crucial hours longe r. Those hours >were the difference between a good laugh and, well, hatred. As for the sportm A few crucial hours? You couldn't wait while I took a final? As soon as that test was over, in a matter of an hour (indeed, pretty much continuously over that hour), we revealed everything. If those three extra hours were too much for you, here are some things to consider: a) it's just a game b) people ARE trying to be funny sometimes; read their writing a little more closely sometime and try to figure it out c) three hours isn't even as long as some movies you'd probably sit through - why is it too long to find out what's going on? anship thing... >Do you remembeer the little things after teh GI Joe cartoon? One of them was about >sportmanship. In this little life lesson brought to you by Quick-Kick I think , some boys are >playing baseball. The losing team walked off the field, heads hanging low, wh ile the winning >team ranted nearby about the amazing way they beat the pants off of the other team. This >starts a fight, and Quick-Kick breaks it up explaining that winning with grace is better than >winning rauciously. Your comments this afternoon had the underlying message, not really said >but readable nonetheless, that "aren't I cool? I went ahead and did something else you guys >didn't think of first!" I don't even know what you look like but I had a smug smile in my mind >that I imagined belonged to you all picked out. Sure, you're not disallowed t o gloat a little, >if I said that, I'd be a hypocrite. If I remember right, you didn't once say, "good game" or >something to that effect. (I may be wrong, since I was fuming at the time.) What is this, little league? Should I also be forced to tramp across the field, only after my coach has checked my hand for spit? Not once in YEARS have I heard someone say "good game" or anything similar after any sort of indoor game - and that's not saying I've just been playing with assholes, because I've played games with some of you. I THOUGHT it was quite clear to most people who choose to play games that THEY'RE JUST GAMES. THEY DON'T MATTER. MOST PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO COMPETE IN THINGS LIKE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD CHECK THEIR PRIDE AT THE DOOR, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN A GAME JUST HAPPENS IN THE GAME. That said, I will in fact congratulate you on a game well played, because it seems to matter so much to you. >Right now, I'm not sure if I want to play with you again. On one hand, your p roposal and >suggestions were valuable ones, contributing much. On the other hand, you mat h stuff bored the >pants off me. (but then again, my anecdotes probably do to you, so...) Anywa On the contrary, I found it very entertaining that someone would remember Quick-Kick. My youngest days were lost in a blur of sugar and naptimes, so I don't remember much about cartoons up until Ducktales, Darkwing, etc. y, those are the >reasons I see that half of the players at least dislike you and will never pla y with you >again. > >Anecdotal Allan. Now that I've probably gone and pissed you off to no end now, Cheers and sincerest apologies for making you feel sad and winning your game and for that pet that probably died when you were a kid, Josh ________________________________________ Date: May 8, 1998 (Fri, 9:58:3) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: starting anew For those of you who still want to play over the summer, I'll post a slightly revised ruleset to the list over the weekend for discussion. I don't plan to make any major changes, except maybe to the legal system. Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. If you do want to play in this game, let me know so we can have a rough estimate of the number of people we would have. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: May 7, 1998 (Thu, 15:57:4) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Proposed changes Below are the rules, current as of the end of the first game, with modifications by me. I don't claim that these modifications are or should be the final word, and I have problems with some of the other rules, and there are probably plenty of other problems which I have not addressed. Of special note is the judging rule, which as fixed below would MOSTLY solve the problem of collusion with judges, in the manner that we 1234ers have exploited it. There is still a chance, of course. :) Initially we discussed making clear when a conflict of interest was present, and requiring the overturn votes to be made by those without conflicts of interest, but that seems to be an intensely problematic rule to write and enforce. FWIW, the best idea I have so far for a way to obtain random numbers is to set up a simple perl script (simple enough that people who can't read perl or program should still be able to understand it, i.e. detect any duplicity) as a mail reflector - probably at my work or Ben's, since such capabilities are not as readily available via PV. The mail reflector would take any request containing the current number of players (you send "14" to the reflector), and bounce back, to the group, a random number from 1-14. Please consider these changes and comment on them - we are still interested in playing nomic with all who are willing, and think that with these changes we'll guard against future coups like ours. We'd like to start with the ruleset below, modified so as to fit most people's comments. Probably also a good idea would be a players-gone rule, unless people are satisfied to simply join up in the fall since this game would be "new." Josh ------- 001 Nomic (immutable) Hereafter, Nomic shall refer to the specific instance of a Nomic game which posesses the body of rules containing this definition, unless it is made clear, whether explicitly or via the context, that Nomic refers to something else. To this end, all permutations of letter case of Nomic shall be considered equivalent. 002 Player (immutable) A player shall be defined as a game entity who is represented by one and only one real, living human being who consents to said representation. In Nomic, a player shall be identified by his or her corresponding real human's surname. 003 Majority (immutable) For a given r, an r-majority shall be defined as a function from the positive integers to the positive integers, whose value for an argument N is the smallest integer m such that m is greater than r multiplied by N. A simple majority shall be defined as a 0.5-majority. 101 Binding Nature of Rules (immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 001Ð116 (immutable) and 201Ð213 (mutable). 102 Immutable and Mutable Rules (immutable) Initially rules in the 100`s are immutable and rules in the 200`s are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. 103 Definition of Rule Change (immutable) A ruleÐchange is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) 104 Voting and Adoption of RulesÊ(immutable) All ruleÐchanges proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes. 105 Franchise (immutable) Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on ruleÐchanges. 106 RecordÐkeeping (immutable) All proposed ruleÐchanges shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on. 107 Retroactive Application of Rules (immutable) No ruleÐchange may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No ruleÐchange may have retroactive application. 108 Numbering of Proposals (mutable) Each proposed ruleÐchange shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each ruleÐchange proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. 109 Transmutation of Rules (immutable) RuleÐchanges that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules, or mutable rules into immutable rules, may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. 110 Primacy of Immutable Rules (immutable) In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule. 111 Debate and Alteration of Proposals (immutable) If a ruleÐchange as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more ruleÐchanges 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. 112 Winning (immutable) The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed. 113 Forfeit (immutable) A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. 114 Existence of Mutable Rules (immutable) There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of ruleÐchanges must never become completely impermissible. 115 SelfÐreference or SelfÐapplication (immutable) RuleÐchanges that affect rules needed to allow or apply ruleÐchanges are as permissible as other ruleÐchanges. Even ruleÐchanges that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No ruleÐchange or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the selfÐreference or selfÐapplication of a rule. 116 Permissibility of the Unprohibited (immutable) Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. 201 Order of Play (mutable) Players shall alternate in alphabetical order by surname, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points. 202 Parts of a Turn and Scoring (mutable) One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one ruleÐchange and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal, multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes the proposal received, rounded to the nearest integer, and then adding the result to the player's score. 203 Necessary Votes for Rule Changes (mutable) A ruleÐchange is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority. 204 Opposed Minority Scoring (mutable) If and when ruleÐchanges can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive a number of points equal to 10 times the fraction of favorable votes received. 205 Immediate Effectiveness (mutable) An adopted ruleÐchange takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. 206 Defeated Proposals Scoring (mutable) When a proposed ruleÐchange is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. 207 One Vote (mutable) Each player always has exactly one vote. 208 Winning by Points (mutable) The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points. 209 Maximum Mutable Rules (mutable) At no time may there be more than 50 mutable rules. 210 Conspiracy (mutable) Players may not conspire or consult on the making of future ruleÐchanges unless they are teamÐmates. The first paragraph of this rule does not apply to games by mail or computer. 211 Numerical Precedence of Rules (mutable) If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. 212 Judiciary Process (mutable) ---cut If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment. ----cut If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then a player chosen at random, who is not the player who called for judgement, shall be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment. When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a simple majority of the other players. The Judge`s Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge`s Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a teamÐmate. Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge. New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider gameÐcustom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. 213 Winning through Impossibility of Further Play (mutable) 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. This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner. 305 Abstentions (mutable) When the votes cast are considered, only votes equivalent to "yes" or "no" are counted toward the passage or nonÐpassage of a proposal. Thus, "abstain" votes do not go toward the total actual "votes cast." If a simple majority of the votes cast are "abstain" votes, then a proposal cannot pass. Such proposals are not explicitly "defeated" in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish to denote this. 306 Majority Voting A proposal will become a rule if it receives a simple majority of votes cast.Ê "Votes cast" is defined as per Rule 305. This rule takes precedence over Rule 203. 307 Voting Time Limit For a given proposal, the voting period is hereby defined to end 24 hours after the call for votes is made. A voteÐcasting entity`s "participation" in a vote shall be fulfilled in either (but not both, for a single instance of "participation") of the following two ways: 1. The entity shall cast a vote during the voting period. 2. The entity shall fail to cast a vote during the voting period. In such a case, said entity`s vote shall be automatically cast as an "abstain" vote. For recordkeeping purposes, these abstentions shall be recorded as "automatic voting period abstain," to distinguish them from true abstentions. At least a simple majority of votes (out of the total number of votes castable by voteÐcasting entities) must be cast during the voting period, else the voting period shall be extended until such time as a simple majority of total possible votes sufficient to accept or reject the proposal have been cast. If the voting period is extended in such a way, no automatic abstentions shall be cast, as in the second means of "participation" above, until such time as a simple majority of votes (with respect to the total number of vote-casting entities) are cast. 309 Adding Players New players may be admitted to the game as denoted by the following criteria: 1. A new player must satisfy the definition of a player in rule 002. 2. A person submitting the request to become a new player must be represented in the game by his/her real surname. 3. A new player will have zero points upon entry into the game. 4. A new player will be alphabeticallyÊ placed in the list of playing order according to his/her surname. 5. A new player will have the status `new player` upon his/her addition to the game. 6. A new player will be afforded all of the rights as a player except for the right to make a formal proposal. These rights shall include the right to act as judge. 7. A new player will be awarded the status `player` when his/her turn has been skipped once. 8. To be accepted into the game, an informal proposal must be made by a any player currently in the game by announcing it to everyone and calling forÊvote. A player need not use his/her turn make the proposal. 9. To be accepted into the game, a twoÐthirds majority assent is required in the voting on the informal acceptance proposal. 310 Score Alteration Players' scores may not be altered except in accordance with the rules. This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with scores, or the permissability of actions. ______________________________________________________________________ "Since using my Fernandes Sustainer, I have become the life and soul of any and every party. Guys look at me anxiously from corners of the room, while fawning bimbettes seek my opinions on the fetishings of music's inherent and delineated meanings." - Robert Fripp, in an advertisment for Fernandes ________________________________________ Date: May 13, 1998 (Wed, 17:23:15) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: modified rules Due to complications with moving, I haven't had time to post a revised ruleset for discussion. I'll probably do that tonight. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu