________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 9:26:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Let the game begin! Our second game of Nomic has officially commenced. It is currently Nick Osborn's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 11:42:32) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Site improvements The following pages were added to the Nomic site: 1. Ruleset Index 2. Logical Ruleset: a categorically arranged ruleset 3. Voting: a tabular summary of past voting 4. Articles: writings on the game by our players 5. Links Note that the Statistics page has not been recently updated, as updates are dependent upon the generation of new statistics, of which we currently have none. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 14:44:53) From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Name the Game Hello, It is my pleasure to introduce the first proposal to this game of nomic. I wish to propose a contest to name our game that would take place while the turns continued after the completion of my turn. The submitter of the winning name, as chosen by ourselves, will receive a nominal points award. Proposal 312: Each player has the opportunity to submit one name to a pool from which the name of our Nomic game will be chosen, using the same voting procedure as a vote on a proposal, except that players will vote for their name of preference, not "yes" or "no". In case of a tie, a revote shall immediately commence between the names which received the most votes. Voting shall take place at the same time as the regular turn progression. The name receiving the most votes shall replace the first occurence of "Nomic" in Rule 001. The player submitting this name shall receive a five point award. If this rule becomes impossible to carry out, it shall be considered void. ----- Please make any suggestions you believe would improve this proposal. Discussion is encouraged. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 15:33:54) From: mjkuhns@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game Players- I like this proposal, but Joel brought up a good point when discussing it earlier... if the goal of this proposal is, indeed, to produce the best possible name for our game, then would providing points for the winning entry serve that interest? Or would it throw off the results? I think the bottom line to keep in mind is a goal of not having our game stuck with a gimpy name. In that vein, Joel also recommended having each player rank the names in order of preference so he could use some form of analysis and determine the best name according to most players in that way. I'm pretty sure this would work better than everyone simply voting for one favorite. --- Matt Kuhns mjkuhns@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mjkuhns ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 16:13:45) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game At 02:44 PM 8/22/98 CDT, you wrote: > >The name receiving the most votes shall replace the first occurence of >"Nomic" in Rule 001. > You probably want to replace the third and fourth occurences of Nomic in Rule 001 as well. Also, this proposal is 312. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 16:22:18) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Re: Name the Game Why not let players submit more than one name? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 16:26:53) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game mjkuhns@iastate.edu writes: >Players- > >I like this proposal, but Joel brought up a good point when discussing it >earlier... if the goal of this proposal is, indeed, to produce the best >possible name for our game, then would providing points for the winning >entry serve that interest? Or would it throw off the results? In what way? Everyone voting for his or her own name (Nick Nomic!)? >I think the bottom line to keep in mind is a goal of not having our game >stuck with a gimpy name. > >In that vein, Joel also recommended having each player rank the names in >order of preference so he could use some form of analysis and determine >the best name according to most players in that way. I'm pretty sure this >would work better than everyone simply voting for one favorite. I would prefer some sort of system like that as well, and I have another suggestion: The online game "Advocacy" is one in which a person proposes an idiotic engineering or design decision, and the rest of the players submit fanciful reasons why such a decision is better. The winner is chosen by collecting sets of rankings from all of the players (except the proposer). Instead of straight first, second, third rankings, players may specify something like any rational number for each eligible reason. In the scoring process, these scores are normalized, so that someone who votes 1000000000000 for their first-place pick doesn't trounce all over someone who voted 14 for their first-place pick. The advantage is that this lets voters specify how much better certain reason are than others. So, for example, if I submit "Fuckweasel Nomic 2000", and Joel submits "Fenestra Nomic", players may value my entry at 1/1000th the value of Joel's, so that Joel gets like a 1 and I get a 0.001. Josh -- We often hear that mathematics consists mainly of "proving theorems." Is a writer's job mainly that of "writing sentences?" - Gian-Carlo Rota ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 16:27:43) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game "J. Uckelman" writes: >At 02:44 PM 8/22/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>The name receiving the most votes shall replace the first occurence of >>"Nomic" in Rule 001. >> > >You probably want to replace the third and fourth occurences of Nomic in >Rule 001 as well. Maybe he doesn't. You're trying to pull a fast one on us already, aren't you, Nick?!? Josh :) -- This paper contains much that is new and much that is true. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new and that which is new is not true. - Anonymous Referee's report ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 22:38:50) From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Name the Game Thanks for the suggestions. I'm pressed for time, so please allow me to simply list the changes I would like to make. No points awarded to submitter of winning name. Unlimited submissions. Each player has a number of votes equal to the number of total players (I believe 17) with which to distribute as they wish among as many submissions as they wish. NO NEGATIVE VOTES! The submission shall replace the first, third, and fourth occurences of "Nomic" in Rule 001. Are there any other thoughts on the matter? Nick ________________________________________ Date: Aug 22, 1998 (Sat, 23:10:20) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: new player I'll just cut in at this point with news that I am sponsoring one Thomas Plagge, currently residing in 303 Harwood, for entry into the game. Bearing in mind that this is not a proposal as such, I see no particular reason to vote against this non-proposal, which can earn you no points for voting against it if it is successful. Unless you simply hate his guts. Near as I can figger, that would be the only reason for opposing this non-proposal. LET THE VOTING COMMENCE!!! Nate PS Joel is reminding me to remind everyone to send the votes to him. Joel. Uckelman. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 0:27:0) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game Nicholas C Osborn writes: >Each player has a number of votes equal to the number of total players (I >believe 17) with which to distribute as they wish among as many >submissions as they wish. NO NEGATIVE VOTES! Are votes to be distributed in integral numbers? I assume not since you disallow negative votes, which only makes sense if you're already not thinking of the votes like standard "votes". If so wouldn't it make more sense to give us a number of votes equal to the number of proposed names, since you apparently intend the multiple votes to be a way for us to specify relative strengths of preference for names? This doesn't matter as much if the "votes" don't have to be integers. I don't really mind too much which way you specify, it just seems that it could be slicker. Josh NP: Tortoise, s/t ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 1:32:35) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game At 12:27 AM 8/23/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>Each player has a number of votes equal to the number of total players (I >>believe 17) with which to distribute as they wish among as many >>submissions as they wish. NO NEGATIVE VOTES! If everyone only gets as many votes as players, and there could be well more than 17 submissions, many submissions will necessarily be given equal rankings -- something we probably want to avoid when determining preference among multiple items. The system proposed by Josh seems unnecessarily complicated, in that the strength of a given prefernece is irrelevant to chosing: Choice Rank Preference Strength A 1 1000000000 B 2 1 C 3 0.1 We don't need to know that A is vastly prefered to B to make a determination here -- A is still the obvious choice. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 2:27:34) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game "J. Uckelman" writes: >At 12:27 AM 8/23/98 CDT, you wrote: >> >>Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>>Each player has a number of votes equal to the number of total players (I >>>believe 17) with which to distribute as they wish among as many >>>submissions as they wish. NO NEGATIVE VOTES! > >If everyone only gets as many votes as players, and there could be well >more than 17 submissions, many submissions will necessarily be given equal >rankings -- something we probably want to avoid when determining preference >among multiple items. > >The system proposed by Josh seems unnecessarily complicated, in that the >strength of a given prefernece is irrelevant to chosing: > >Choice Rank Preference Strength >A 1 1000000000 >B 2 1 >C 3 0.1 > >We don't need to know that A is vastly prefered to B to make a >determination here -- A is still the obvious choice. The strength of a given preference is irrelevant as far as determining which option a PLAYER liked best. But as for the entire group... Let's say there are 10 players, 15 names. Each player votes a 1.0 for one of names 1-10. Each player also votes a .6 for name 11. IMO this makes 11 the best choice, as it was the most pleasing to the group. Similar things should happen with less-balkanized first-pick votes. Unless you have another plan for dealing with #1, #2, #3 rankings, it seems to me that you'll just end up doing something like weighting the first rank choices as (for example) 17 times as much as the #17 rank choices. So if you do that, it's the same sort of relative-ranking deal, with less flexibility of choice for the voters. The bit with normalizing just makes this group-max determination work fairly. What were you thinking of doing if you just got votes as ranked (1-N) lists? Of course, this is all irrelevant anyway since it's clear that "Fuckweasel Nomic 2000" will be the hands-down winner. Josh -- The mathematician`s patterns, like the painter`s or the poet`s must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colors or the words must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in this world for ugly mathematics. - G.H. Hardy ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 10:13:53) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game At 02:27 AM 8/23/98 CDT, you wrote: >Let's say there are 10 players, 15 names. Each player votes a 1.0 for >one of names 1-10. Each player also votes a .6 for name 11. IMO this >makes 11 the best choice, as it was the most pleasing to the group. >Similar things should happen with less-balkanized first-pick votes. The problem here is that players would be allowed to give equal rank to two (or more names). We can only have one name, so players should be forced to choose among several that appear equal to them. Think of my system as a fast method of comparing each possible pair of names and choosing one of each pair, until only one is left. If we want a name for the game, you can't have no preference between the last two. >Unless you have another plan for dealing with #1, #2, #3 rankings, >it seems to me that you'll just end up doing something like weighting >the first rank choices as (for example) 17 times as much as the >#17 rank choices. So if you do that, it's the same sort of >relative-ranking deal, with less flexibility of choice for the >voters. > >The bit with normalizing just makes this group-max determination work >fairly. > >What were you thinking of doing if you just got votes as ranked (1-N) >lists? Adding the numbers for each, dividing by the number of names. The one with the lowest average wins. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 13:43:25) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Name the Game "J. Uckelman" writes: >The problem here is that players would be allowed to give equal rank to two >(or more names). We can only have one name, so players should be forced to >choose among several that appear equal to them. Think of my system as a True, we can only have one name, but that doesn't imply that players should be forced to choose amongst similarly ranked choices. Maybe in the worst case, or one of the worser (!) cases, where everybody votes "1" for each name, or "1" for the first 10 and "2" for the second 10. In most other cases, though, the average rank for a rule would make any one player's personal ranks irrelevant, as it seems unlikely that a large number of similarly apathetic choices would be made across the board. You could do it this way: a voter ranks his/her choices 1-N. If two or more choices share a rank, like 1. Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 2. tri repetae++ 2. Telefunken U-47 then the #3 choice is used up, and both of the #2 choices get ranks of 2.5, for the purposes of scoring. Of course, this is all irrelevant anyway since "Fuckweasel Nomic 2000" is clearly the best choice. Josh -- In mathematics you don`t understand things. You just get used to them. - Johann von Neumann ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 15:38:32) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: I agree This discussion IS all irrelevant because Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 is clearly the best choice. Anyway, I don't really think it matters which way we do the scoring. Either way will most likely come up with the same name. In that case, I prefer Joels only because I understnad it better and it seems easier. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Josh's way, it's just that I think we should make a decision and get on with the game. Really either system will be sufficient. Everyone please give me two cents next time you see me, or is that the other way around? Damon __________ I also don't understand this talk of Coltrane being difficult to understand. What he does, for example, is to play five notes of a chord and then keep changing it around, trying to see how many different ways it can sound. -- Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Aug 23, 1998 (Sun, 20:31:36) From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop312 Alright... Let's go with a ranking system for the voting, as described by Joel. If I receive no other comments or suggestions, I will CFV tomorrow morning. Thanks for the suggestions. Nick ________________________________________ Date: Aug 24, 1998 (Mon, 22:9:14) From: Nathan D Ellefson Subject: Nomic: Uh, guys... In case some of you didin't realize or forgot, I did call for a vote on my motion to bring Tom into the game. Thusfar participation in the vote has been quite poor. So if ya'll could just email yer votes to Joel, why, that'd be nifty! Nate ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 0:20:28) From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Prop 312 This is a formal CFV on Prop312, which follows. Players have the opportunity to submit names to a pool from which the name of our Nomic game will be chosen. Players will place the names in their order of preference, assigning the names placement values. Their favorite name shall receive one vote, the second two votes, the third three votes, and on until their least favorite receives a number of votes equal to the total number of submissions. Voting shall take place at the same time as the regular turn progression. The name receiving the most votes shall replace the first, third, and fourth occurences of "Nomic" in Rule 001. If there is a tie between names, a randomly chosen player from an alphabetical list of players shall choose between the names tied with the most votes. If this rule becomes impossible to carry out, it shall be considered void. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 0:46:31) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 312 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >This is a formal CFV on Prop312, which follows. > >Players have the opportunity to submit names to a pool from which the >name of our Nomic game will be chosen. Players will place the names in >their order of preference, assigning the names placement values. Their >favorite name shall receive one vote, the second two votes, the third >three votes, and on until their least favorite receives a number of votes >equal to the total number of submissions. > >Voting shall take place at the same time as the regular turn progression. > >The name receiving the most votes shall replace the first, third, and fourth >occurences of "Nomic" in Rule 001. > >If there is a tie between names, a randomly chosen player from an >alphabetical list of players shall choose between the names tied with the >most votes. > >If this rule becomes impossible to carry out, it shall be considered void. This statement of the rule seems to make least-favorite choices most likely to be chosen as the new name. Are you sure that's what you want? Josh -- The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a convenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. - St. Augustine ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 0:48:29) From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: CFJ 13 I wish to place a formal CFJ, which follows. Proposals containing unintentional errors in typography, editing, or the like may be fixed if done so in a timely fashion. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 0:54:37) From: "J. Uckelman" Andy Palecek has been selected as judge for Nick Osborn's RFJ. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 1:1:45) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: CFJ 13 Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I wish to place a formal CFJ, which follows. > >Proposals containing unintentional errors in typography, editing, or the >like may be fixed if done so in a timely fashion. Slick one, calling for the CFJ like that. :) Some discussion: The two things really at stake here are 1. ... whether or not we want to protect people from needless penalties (like having their proposals voted down, and losing points) incurred accidentally. 2. ... whether or not we're more interested in building up a complex, mature Nomic, than in being nice to proposees. Since the change Nick needs to make wouldn't harm anyone else, would prevent him from incurring needless penalties, and would help build a better Nomic (since otherwise we shouldn't vote for it, unless we all conspire to invert our rankings), this judgement should come out TRUE unless the judge is particularly in to tough love, or screwing Nick. I prefer TRUE myself, tough love or screwing Nick not being particularly appealing. Nick, shouldn't you also make the change right away, just in case anyone out there's feeling snippy and votes "no"? Josh -- Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. - Rene Descartes ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 1:12:10) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: I think proof-reading should be encouraged from now on, before official submissions are made. I will say, for the record, that I am in principle against the revision of formal proposals as this action could be abused in the future. It encourages carelessness in the submission of proposals. The idea is, in my opinion, that the formal proposal be a perfectly worded, nit-picked composition. No offense, Nick. Just thinking about the future. Anyway, because this is the notorious Fuckwad writing the proposal, I am in favor of the objection being sustained. Damon __________ I also don't understand this talk of Coltrane being difficult to understand. What he does, for example, is to play five notes of a chord and then keep changing it around, trying to see how many different ways it can sound. -- Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 1:36:31) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Nomic: Thoughts Is there any reason that the directions in Nick's propsal need to be followed? Couldn't everyone simply vote such that their "least favorite" would actually be their favorite such that it received the most votes. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 1:44:43) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts Andrew J Palecek writes: >Is there any reason that the directions in Nick's propsal need to be >followed? Couldn't everyone simply vote such that their "least favorite" >would actually be their favorite such that it received the most votes. Rule 101 states that all players must abide by the rules then in effect. So I guess it depends on whether or not one counts lying about one's favorite name as a violation of rule 101. Josh -- I am the author of all tucks & damask piping I am the Chrome Dinette I am the Chrome Dinette I am the eggs of all persuasion ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 8:39:55) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts At 01:44 AM 8/25/98 CDT, you wrote: >Andrew J Palecek writes: >>Is there any reason that the directions in Nick's propsal need to be >>followed? Couldn't everyone simply vote such that their "least favorite" >>would actually be their favorite such that it received the most votes. > >Rule 101 states that all players must abide by the rules then in effect. > >So I guess it depends on whether or not one counts lying about one's >favorite name as a violation of rule 101. > >Josh Since the text of Proposal 312 only becomes directions for changing Rule 001 if it passes, and we currently have no rule about lying, Rule 101 doesn't apply here and the current text of the proposal would be ok if everyone agreed to reverse their rankings; however, I do believe that altering the text of a proposal after a CFV would be a violation of the rules. Rules 104, 106, and 111 seem to imply that the proposer has control over the content of the proposal up to and until a CFV is made, and after that the proposal becomes "public property." J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 10:59:26) From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: judgement 13 I agree with Andy. It would be easiest and safer for the future if we all lied. Let's get this over with. Nick ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 12:50:1) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Sorry everyone I'm all about Kantian ethics and I believe it is wrong to lie in all circumstances. Being the moral citizen I am, I must always tell the truth about everything. I never lie, unless I get money or something. I think you are probably all like me. It is Nick's moral duty to give us money so that we may feel "clean" after lying. Any objections? Damon __________ I also don't understand this talk of Coltrane being difficult to understand. What he does, for example, is to play five notes of a chord and then keep changing it around, trying to see how many different ways it can sound. -- Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 13:47:57) From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: Sorry everyone I'd have no problem with giving you money to lie, but to uphold my moral standard I would have to include this in my proposal. Could I possibly add that at this point? Andy, how about a judgement? Ain't life grand, Nick > > I'm all about Kantian ethics and I believe it is wrong to lie in all > circumstances. Being the moral citizen I am, I must always tell the truth > about everything. I never lie, unless I get money or something. I think > you are probably all like me. It is Nick's moral duty to give us money so > that we may feel "clean" after lying. > > Any objections? > > > Damon > > __________ > > > I also don't understand this talk of Coltrane > being difficult to understand. What he does, for > example, is to play five notes of a chord and > then keep changing it around, trying to see > how many different ways it can sound. > > -- Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 16:18:38) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Nomic: Behold, my judgement! At 12:48 AM 8/25/98 CDT, you wrote: >I wish to place a formal CFJ, which follows. > >Proposals containing unintentional errors in typography, editing, or the >like may be fixed if done so in a timely fashion. > Based upon the rule set at this time, I must decline Nick's request. The rules specifically state that the author of a proposal may make changes to it up until the time that a final version of his/her proposal is submitted for voting. Even though judgements do not need to be followed in the future, I do not want to see a precedence set of changing proposals after they are submitted for voting. I would recommend that future proposals be submitted in final draft form, but not with a call for a vote until any such "typographical" errors can be found and corrected. For me to pass judgement to allow changes to proposal after a vote is called would directly violate the (current) rules. As I see it, Proposal 312 is still a usable proposal, assuming it passes. Since the voting is based completely upon personal preference, no one can accuse anyone of putting their least favorite proposed name at the top of their list and their favorite at the bottom. Thus, rule #101 is not violated. Judgement is passed; let the voting upon Proposal 312 commence. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 16:24:13) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Behold, my judgement! Andrew J Palecek writes: >As I see it, Proposal 312 is still a usable proposal, assuming it passes. >Since the voting is based completely upon personal preference, no one can >accuse anyone of putting their least favorite proposed name at the top of >their list and their favorite at the bottom. Thus, rule #101 is not violated. What about those of us who have made our preferences clearly, publicly known? :) Josh vote Fuckweasel Nomic 2000 -- Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. - R.A. Heinlein ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 16:46:22) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts "J. Uckelman" writes: >Since the text of Proposal 312 only becomes directions for changing Rule >001 if it passes, and we currently have no rule about lying, Rule 101 >doesn't apply here and the current text of the proposal would be ok if >everyone agreed to reverse their rankings; however, I do believe that >altering the text of a proposal after a CFV would be a violation of the >rules. Rules 104, 106, and 111 seem to imply that the proposer has control >over the content of the proposal up to and until a CFV is made, and after >that the proposal becomes "public property." Please clarify: why should rule 101 not apply to 312? If 312 passes, and we hold the naming contest, then we are obliged to hold that contest according to the rules in 312, since we must obey 312 because of 101. Lying about one's favorite names, by reversing one's ranking list, is an action counter to the listing of favorite names required by 312. Josh -- A true Zen saying, nothing is what I want. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 17:37:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts At 04:46 PM 8/25/98 CDT, you wrote: >"J. Uckelman" writes: >>Since the text of Proposal 312 only becomes directions for changing Rule >>001 if it passes, and we currently have no rule about lying, Rule 101 >>doesn't apply here and the current text of the proposal would be ok if >>everyone agreed to reverse their rankings; however, I do believe that >>altering the text of a proposal after a CFV would be a violation of the >>rules. Rules 104, 106, and 111 seem to imply that the proposer has control >>over the content of the proposal up to and until a CFV is made, and after >>that the proposal becomes "public property." > >Please clarify: why should rule 101 not apply to 312? If 312 passes, >and we hold the naming contest, then we are obliged to hold that >contest according to the rules in 312, since we must obey 312 because >of 101. Lying about one's favorite names, by reversing one's ranking >list, is an action counter to the listing of favorite names required >by 312. 1. Proposal 312 does not create a rule, only a method for amending 001. 2. Can you prove that I'm not telling the truth in selecting my favorite name? If not (which you shouldn't be able to do), then everything should work fine. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 19:45:2) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: Behold, my judgement! At 04:24 PM 8/25/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Andrew J Palecek writes: >>As I see it, Proposal 312 is still a usable proposal, assuming it passes. >>Since the voting is based completely upon personal preference, no one can >>accuse anyone of putting their least favorite proposed name at the top of >>their list and their favorite at the bottom. Thus, rule #101 is not violated. > >What about those of us who have made our preferences clearly, publicly >known? :) > > Then you can make yourself out to be a liar i guess ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 19:46:7) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts At 04:46 PM 8/25/98 CDT, you wrote: > >"J. Uckelman" writes: >>Since the text of Proposal 312 only becomes directions for changing Rule >>001 if it passes, and we currently have no rule about lying, Rule 101 >>doesn't apply here and the current text of the proposal would be ok if >>everyone agreed to reverse their rankings; however, I do believe that >>altering the text of a proposal after a CFV would be a violation of the >>rules. Rules 104, 106, and 111 seem to imply that the proposer has control >>over the content of the proposal up to and until a CFV is made, and after >>that the proposal becomes "public property." > >Please clarify: why should rule 101 not apply to 312? If 312 passes, >and we hold the naming contest, then we are obliged to hold that >contest according to the rules in 312, since we must obey 312 because >of 101. Lying about one's favorite names, by reversing one's ranking >list, is an action counter to the listing of favorite names required >by 312. > If that is the way you feel, you will have to vote against proposal #312. As judge, I had little choice in the ruling. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 19:46:34) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts > >1. Proposal 312 does not create a rule, only a method for amending 001. >2. Can you prove that I'm not telling the truth in selecting my favorite >name? If not (which you shouldn't be able to do), then everything should >work fine. Exactly my reasoning. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 20:20:34) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts Andrew J Palecek writes: >If that is the way you feel, you will have to vote against proposal #312. >As judge, I had little choice in the ruling. We'll see how I voted shortly. I don't fault your judgement of Nick's statement - I'm simply interested in the ramifications of 312's passage, wrt a strict reading of the rules. Here's something to consider: what parts of judgments guide the game as if they were rules? The (Statement, TRUE | FALSE) pairs, or those along with the included judges' comments? What about judgments such as Andy's, in which the judge comments on some other matter, hopefully related to the statement posed in the CFJ? Do or should those comments also carry the force of law? The judiciary rules seem to indicate that judges are indeed obligated to provide a TRUE or FALSE judgment on the statement made in the CFJ, so long as the statement is clearly able to be judged in such a manner. The rules are not clear on what to do about any additional decisions made by judges, because they do not specifically confine "judgments" to consist of solely the TRUE or FALSE decisions. The closest thing is the requirement that judges issue rulings on only the questions submitted for judgment, but that requirement says that such rulings consist of "TRUE or FALSE rulings, plus analysis." "Analysis" is ambiguous, and nothing else comments about whether or not the analysis is to be considered part of the legally binding part of a judgment. I would prefer that just statements and their truth values comprise the portions of judgments which carry the force of law. It seems to me, though, that if one wanted one could read things the other way. Thoughts? Josh -- I might be movin' to Montana soon Just to raise me up a crop of Dental Floss ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 20:30:53) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Thoughts "J. Uckelman" writes: >1. Proposal 312 does not create a rule, only a method for amending 001. But if it passes, 312 IS a rule, and we are obliged to obey it, which in this case means properly following the instructions it specifies. If I'm misreading some portion of the rules that governs law-abidingness, please point it out. >2. Can you prove that I'm not telling the truth in selecting my favorite >name? If not (which you shouldn't be able to do), then everything should >work fine. What if, as Damon suggested, I just can't bring myself to lie? Others are not the only ones capable of not following the rules. [And yes, I know that the only practical consequence would be that I would contribute little to nothing to getting my favorite name passed. The question is merely a hypothetical one.] Josh -- A linguist would be shocked to learn that if a set is not closed this does not mean that it is open, or again that "E is dense in E" does not mean the same thing as "E is dense in itself". - J.E. Littlewood ________________________________________ Date: Aug 25, 1998 (Tue, 23:48:55) From: "Joe 'He's Lying' Isuzu" Subject: Nomic: questions.... Um.... despite the rather lengthy amount of discusson surround this rather innocuous propsal, we seem to have forgotten some details. How long do we have to submit ideas for names? To whom do we send them? How long we have to vote? beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 0:4:27) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: questions.... "Joe 'He's Lying' Isuzu" writes: > Um.... despite the rather lengthy amount of discusson surround this >rather innocuous propsal, we seem to have forgotten some details. How long >do we have to submit ideas for names? To whom do we send them? How long we >have to vote? I've been assuming that we'd use something like the setup for proposal voting. If we don't then we have to come up with something and be explicit about it (fuck!), because otherwise the vote could drag on until winter break. Of course, since these things aren't discussed in the proposal, it's anyone's guess. I assume Joel is the de facto choice for vote-counter, unless one is really worried about Joel somehow attempting to munge the results. Since everyone will vote "Fuckweasel Nomic 2000" anyway, it will be pretty obvious if Joel doesn anything. :) I'd like to submit a CFJ, on the following statement: If proposal 312 passes, the votes made as a part of its name-determination process shall be made in a manner consistent with the rule governing the voting period for proposal votes. and also on this one, separately: If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, in which names may be suggested. Any name suggested on the nomic mailing list is eligible to receive votes. The voting period shall begin immediately after the three day period has expired. and on this one, separately (ain't I a stinker?): If proposal 312 passes, the votes shall be collated and counted by player Joel Uckelman. Josh -- Now I will have less distraction. - Leonhard Euler, upon losing the use of his right eye ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 0:18:27) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Jeff Schroeder is judge for RFJ 14: If proposal 312 passes, the votes made as a part of its name-determination process shall be made in a manner consistent with the rule governing the voting period for proposal votes. Joel Uckelman is judge for RFJ 15: If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, in which names may be suggested. Any name suggested on the nomic mailing list is eligible to receive votes. The voting period shall begin immediately after the three day period has expired. Ben Byrne is judge for RFJ 16: If proposal 312 passes, the votes shall be collated and counted by player Joel Uckelman. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 0:43:50) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Judgment 15 RFJ 15 is dismissed on the grounds that a single statement was not presented for Judgment. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 1:14:14) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: more CFJs [Fine, Joel, be that way :P] I request judgment on the following statement: If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, during which names may be suggested, and immediately after which the voting period shall begin. I also request judgment on the following statement: If proposal 312 passes, any name which is both suggested before the voting period for the naming contest begins, and suggested on the nomic mailing list, is eligble to receive votes during the voting period. Josh caller of much judgment -- P.S. Perl's master plan (or what passes for one) is to take over the world like English did. Er, *as* English did... - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 8:36:11) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: further judge selections Joel Uckelman has been seleceted to Judge RFJ 17: If proposal 312 passes, there shall be a period of three days after its passage, during which names may be suggested, and immediately after which the voting period shall begin. Nick Osborn has been selected to Judge RFJ 18: If proposal 312 passes, any name which is both suggested before the voting period for the naming contest begins, and suggested on the nomic mailing list, is eligble to receive votes during the voting period. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 10:11:55) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Judgment 17 FALSE This statement would create something in Proposal 312 that currently does not exist therein. While such ammendment may be expedient and possibly even necessary for the execution of Proposal 312 should it pass, the statement must, nonetheless, be ruled FALSE in accordance with the precedent set in Judgment 13 of disallowing alterations to proposals after CFV's. Moreover, it is in doubt whether this is a rules-related question (q.v. Rule 216/1), as it deals only with a hypothetical situation. Finally, using RFJ's to rectify deficiencies in proposals not yet passed seems to me to be an abuse of the Judiciary system. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 11:18:56) From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: further judge selections > Nick Osborn has been selected to Judge RFJ 18: > > If proposal 312 passes, any name which is both suggested before the voting > period for the naming contest begins, and suggested on the nomic mailing list, > is eligble to receive votes during the voting period. TRUE Proposal 312 creates no structure for receiving submissions. Because of this, the statement in RFJ 18 is a practical summation of the default process. It may also be noted that the submission period, since every player may submit as many names as he wishes, is not closed until all players agree that it should be so. However, to quote Mr. Uckelman, "Moreover, it is in doubt whether this is a rules-related question (q.v. Rule 216/1), as it deals only with a hypothetical situation." I would discourage further RFJ concerning proposals which have not passed, unless said RFJs are worded so as to be a statement relating to existing rules Judge Osborn ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 11:57:5) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: This right here is ... FUCKED UP! I am discouraging everyone from voting yes on this proposal. If I recall correctly, last time we tried to rush a decision ended up being one of the longest turns in our short history. I'm not necessarily suggesting that this was rushed, but it kind of feels like it. I think we should stop debating and vote, dammmit. We can't change a thing at this point. It says so clearly in the rules, Judge Andy said so, and all this calling for judgment, which I agree with Judge Joel is an abuse of the judicial system, is looking to be very counter-productive. I think we should just vote "no" and try it again on the next turn, Andy Palecek willing. Damon __________ "Half fish," he said. "Fish that you were. I am sorry that I went too far out. I ruined us both." -- Ernest Hemingway ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 12:7:53) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: This right here is ... "Abyss of ..." writes: >I think we should just vote "no" and try it again on the next turn, Andy >Palecek willing. Those who haven't voted yet have little time left to have their say, anyway - voting ends in about 15 minutes. Josh -- Anyone who slaps a "this page is best viewed with Browser X" label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. [Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996] ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 12:30:20) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgment 17 "J. Uckelman" writes: >FALSE > >This statement would create something in Proposal 312 that currently does >not exist therein. While such ammendment may be expedient and possibly even >necessary for the execution of Proposal 312 should it pass, the statement >must, nonetheless, be ruled FALSE in accordance with the precedent set in >Judgment 13 of disallowing alterations to proposals after CFV's. Moreover, >it is in doubt whether this is a rules-related question (q.v. Rule 216/1), >as it deals only with a hypothetical situation. Finally, using RFJ's to >rectify deficiencies in proposals not yet passed seems to me to be an abuse >of the Judiciary system. I hereby file an appeal regarding Judgment 17. My justifications (not necessary for the appeal process, but included in order to explain my reasons for appealing) follow. Judge Uckelman's ruling claims that a true judgment on the statement in RFJ 17 would "create something in Proposal 312 that currently does not exist therein." While judgments carry the force of rules, they do not explicitly modify rules, and specifically, the statement in RFJ 17 does not explicitly modify the hypothetical rule 312. Thus, the precedent set by Judgment 13 is irrelevant. I make this appeal because I strongly disagree with the precedent which would be set by an otherwise unappealed Judgment 17. Judgments can change rule interpretation and usage implicitly, but they should not be considered to modify rules in the explicit sense in which proposals may modify rules. Josh -- Homer: So you're selling what? Apu: Karmic realignment. Homer: You can't sell that. Karma can only be apportioned by the universe. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 13:20:25) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: appellate judge assignments and voting The voting period is being extended until sufficient votes to pass or fail Prop 312 have been received, as per Rule 307. The Appellate Court for the Appeal of Judgment 17 shall consist of: Allan Dudding, Andy Palecek, Rich Peters. Please review Rule 219/0 so you know what to do. You need to decide whether you as a Court want to hear the case -- at least 2 of you must decide to hear it, else it dies. If you decide to hear it, either you must all issue opinion, or decide to hand it off to another lower court judge. All decisions of the court are made by majority vote. Handle all of this amongst yourselves, I don't want to see any of it until you have the results. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 26, 1998 (Wed, 18:17:57) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Dismissal of Appeal 17 The Appeals Court has dismissed Josh Kortbein's Appeal of Judgment 17; therefore, Judgment 17 stands as delivered. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 27, 1998 (Thu, 3:12:1) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: Hey. Please vote if you have not so that the game may continue forward - not backward, but always spinning, spinning. or something like that. Damon __________ "Half fish," he said. "Fish that you were. I am sorry that I went too far out. I ruined us both." -- Ernest Hemingway ________________________________________ Date: Aug 27, 1998 (Thu, 15:37:12) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: voting To those who have not already voted on Proposal 312: Because the voting period expired without a majority of Players casting votes, the voting period has been extended until enough votes to pass or fail the proposal are received. Thus, nine votes in favor or nine votes against is currently necessary to end the voting period. I currently have eight votes TOTAL. If you planned to auto-abstain, it might be a good idea to send in an actual absention vote instead, as that will also lower the number of votes needed to end voting. Play cannot continue until this condition is met, so if you don't vote, we're going to be stuck here forever. Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you, please vote. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 28, 1998 (Fri, 14:32:21) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: Judgments yet to be presented I say this not just for Ben and Jeff's benefits, but for all those who haven't read the new rules thoroughly. Did you know there's a 10 point penalty for being chosen as a judge, and then not posting a judgment in the time alotted, or dismissing? And then we have to reassign, and wait again for judgments. Just wondering. Josh -- I read in the proof sheets of Hardy on Ramanujan: "As someone said, each of the positive integers was one of his personal friends." My reaction was, "I wonder who said that; I wish I had." In the next proof­sheets I read, "It was Littlewood who said..." - J.E. Littlewood ________________________________________ Date: Aug 28, 1998 (Fri, 17:24:46) From: "Joe 'He's Lying' Isuzu" Subject: Nomic: My judgement Okay, so I have a confession: I haven't read the rules at all. Until our DSL is installed (next week), connecting is a long-distance call so I haven't been surfing at all. Anyway, I judge on 16: FALSE. SImpyl because I don't know what I'm being asked to judge. i don't see a question, just a statement. What am I judging, the truthfullness of the statement? Well last I checked the proposal says nothing about the vote-counter, so I unfortunately must say the statement is untrue. Bascially it amounts to a textual amendment to the bill-- not, in my opinion, a clairification. beN byrNe --------- "Why am I so fond of inactivity?" -Evan Wyse Looking for unique quotes? Visit http://www.byrneweb.com/BUQ ________________________________________ Date: Aug 28, 1998 (Fri, 17:29:58) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: new player Tom Plagge is now a player in our game. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 28, 1998 (Fri, 23:45:3) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: prop 312 failed Prop 312 failed (3-9-0-5); however, Andy Palecek's turn cannot begin until Judgment 15 is delivered. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 29, 1998 (Sat, 0:16:31) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: new judge selection Nick Osborn has been reassigned to RFJ 14: If proposal 312 passes, the votes made as a part of its name-determination process shall be made in a manner consistent with the rule governing the voting period for proposal votes. Jeff Schroeder has been removed due to time lasped and fined 10 points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 29, 1998 (Sat, 3:10:39) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Re: Nomic: My judgement "Joe 'He's Lying' Isuzu" writes: > Okay, so I have a confession: I haven't read the rules at all. >Until our DSL is installed (next week), connecting is a long-distance call >so I haven't been surfing at all. > >Anyway, I judge on 16: FALSE. SImpyl because I don't know what I'm being >asked to judge. i don't see a question, just a statement. What am I >judging, the truthfullness of the statement? Well last I checked the >proposal says nothing about the vote-counter, so I unfortunately must say >the statement is untrue. Bascially it amounts to a textual amendment to the >bill-- not, in my opinion, a clairification. I am calling for an appeal of this judgment. Comments: I am not vastly concerned with the outcome of the judgment, since Nick's proposal didn't pass. I am concerned with receiving a reasonable judgment, which this one doesn't seem to be. The judge, as he says, didn't read the rules at all - rules which include the most crucial ones here, the rules governing the judiciary. Rules which state the ways in which calls for judgment must be made, and which specify the content and form of such calls. Essentially, I would simply like the court's formal assent that this ruling is fucking dumb. It behooves us as a Nomic to work at setting a high quality standard for judgments. Remember, someday it could be you up against the wall, when Judge X is selected. I would like to exclude Alan Dudding, Jeff Schroeder, and Rich Peters from the pool of those available to be selected as appelate judges. Josh -- Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. - G.K. Chesterton ________________________________________ Date: Aug 29, 1998 (Sat, 3:23:20) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Appeal 14 selections Jill Wittrock, Damon Luloff, and Joel Uckelman have been chosen for the Court to hear the Appeal of Judgment 14. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 29, 1998 (Sat, 21:30:3) From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: new judge selection Judgement 14 Josh Kortbein, complainant Nick Osborn, judge If proposal 312 passes, the votes made as a part of its name-determination process shall be made in a manner consistent with the rule governing the voting period for proposal votes. The complaint is dimissed. Proposal 312 has failed. Any CFJs relating to proposal 312 "do not address a rules-related matter" and must be dismissed, per rule 216. Judge Osborn ________________________________________ Date: Aug 29, 1998 (Sat, 22:12:10) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: Andy Palecek's turn Nick Osborn's turn ended with the issuance of Judgment 14. It is now Andy Palecek's turn. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 12:43:38) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: repeal of Rule 221/0 As per the third paragraph of Rule 221/0, it repealed itself as of the start of Andy's turn. Kudos to Damon for pointing this out to me. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 15:58:22) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: CFJ CFJs including theoretical conditions must be dismissed by judges, no matter how probable. Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 15:58:46) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: CFJ If the sun collapses then I win the game. Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 15:59:55) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: CFJ If the Nomic page needs to be updated, Joel Uckelman should do make the necessary changes. Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 16:0:57) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: CFJ If Andy doesn't get his ass in gear and make a proposal, we should all formally urge him to do so. Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 16:2:8) From: "Abyss of ..." Subject: Nomic: CFJ If anyone abuses the judicial system like this, we should kick their ass. Damon __________ The very stone one kicks with one's boot will outlast Shakespeare. -- Virginia Woolf ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 19:1:14) From: Andrew J Palecek Subject: Nomic: proposal 313 Each player shall have 48 hours from the time this proposal becomes effective to submit up to 5 names to replace the current name of this game of "Nomic." After the 48 hours have expired, all names submitted shall be compiled into a list. Submissions shall be received and tabulated by Joel Uckelman. Each player shall then vote on each name, assigning it a value greater than or equal to 0 but less than or equal to 10. Numbers with decimal points may be used at the players discretion. For bookeeping purposes all numbers will be truncated to two decimal places, should any player feel the need to vote pi or other such numbers. If any proposed name is given anything other than a number between 0 and 10, that ballot shall be void and the player who submitted it shall not vote over. Votes shall be sent to and tabulated by Joel Uckelman. From the time that the list of proposed names is sent, players shall have 48 hours to submit their votes. At that time, the proposed name receiving the most points shall replace all instances of the word "Nomic" in all rules especially including rule #1. Joel Uckelman shall make all necessary changes. In the event of a tie, the two tied proposed names shall be sent to all players to be voted upon again in the same manner as described above. ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 19:54:6) From: nosborn@iastate.edu Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal 313 >At that time, the proposed name receiving the most points shall replace >all instances of the word "Nomic" in all rules especially including rule #1. The second occurence of "Nomic" in Rule 001/0 should not be changed by this rule. Also, if this passes, players must refer to the game by its new name in any official documents. Nick ________________________________________ Date: Aug 31, 1998 (Mon, 23:9:47) From: "J. Uckelman" Subject: Nomic: new judge assignments Ben Byrne has been assigned to RFJ 19: If the sun collapses then I win the game. Adam Haar has been assigned to RFJ 20: If the Nomic page needs to be updated, Joel Uckelman should do make the necessary changes. Rich Peters has been assigned to RFJ 21: CFJs including theoretical conditions must be dismissed by judges, no matter how probable. Matt Kuhns has been assigned to RFJ 22: If anyone abuses the judicial system like this, we should kick their ass. Chris Mayfield has been assigned to RFJ 23: If Andy doesn't get his ass in gear and make a proposal, we should all formally urge him to do so. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu