________________________________________ Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 19:46:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 393 revision ------------------- Amend Rule 309, paragraph 1, section 3 to read: "3. The informal proposal must receive a two-thirds majority of favorable votes from eligible voters if any player requests a vote on the matter. If no such request is made within 36 hours of the informal proposal, said proposal is considered to have passed automatically." ------------------- This waives the requirement of voting on new players unless someone actually wants to take a vote on the matter. Based on past experience, I don't think we're likely to reject anyone (although it should be kept as an option), and if no one objects, there seems to be little reason to vote on the matter. Not only will this streamline the addition of new players by requiring votes only when there is some contention, it will also make relentlessly pestering players to vote on adding new players unnecessary. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 19:59:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: revision on P388 At 12:19 AM 12/31/98 , you wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>At 01:39 AM 12/28/98 , you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>------- >>>>Players sending votes on Proposals to nomic@iastate.edu shall be fined 10 >>>>points upon doing so. >>>>------- >>> >>>I am in favor of making this fine dependent on the number of individual >>>proposals' votes screwed up as a result of the vote-sending-to-list-ness. >> >>further revision: >> >>Players sending votes on Proposals to nomic@iastate.edu shall be fined >>(4(ln x) + 1) points, rounded to the nearest point, where x is the number >>of proposals on which votes were sent to the list. >> >>----------------------------------- >> >>1. The fine climbs rapidly, but then levels off at 10 on 10 proposals, and >>only climbs to 13 for 20 proposals. >> >>2. It contains a natural log, which I'm sure makes Josh like it more. > >While appreciating the careful calibration of this penalty, I'm not so sure >the basic premise is good. > >The idea here is that how we vote can be "contaminated" and such >contamination is bad. I think that the information of who voted how is >properly owned by the vote caster. If they would like to strategically >deploy this information (or even sell it) they should be able to. > >If this changes how people vote, all the better: value recieved for valued >released to the public domain. > >Tom Mueller Hmmm. I want to think about this some more. I'm setting P388 to inactive for now. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 10:57:29 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting reminder Voting on all active proposals begins at 23:31 CST tomorrow. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 16:49:11 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Setting 391, 392 inactive I'm setting 391, 392 inactive for now. -- The best material model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat. - A. Rosenblueth ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 16:51:07 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Revision The Uckelman amendment (to whatever prop this was): Upon a Case becoming unappealable, Judges having ruled in accord with the final ruling on the case shall each receive 3 points iff the final ruling is either TRUE or FALSE. 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: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 19:45:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: faq I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that anyone asks any particular questions frequently... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 19:50:57 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: faq Joel D Uckelman writes: >I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that >anyone asks any particular questions frequently... Does anybody ask ANY questions frequently? -- By all means, please tell. I can name 4 famous Dutch lensgrinders, but only one qualifies as a philosopher. Not sure if more than one were Jewish. - R. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:06:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: faq At 07:50 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that >>anyone asks any particular questions frequently... > >Does anybody ask ANY questions frequently? No. Maybe I'm experiencing FAQ envy. I see that some other nomics have them. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:18:17 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: faq Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:50 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that >>>anyone asks any particular questions frequently... >> >>Does anybody ask ANY questions frequently? > >No. Maybe I'm experiencing FAQ envy. I see that some other nomics have them. It seems sort of pointless to have a faq for such a well-organized nomic. -- Since when the fuck was a long only two fucking bytes? I crap bigger than 16 bits. - Jon ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:22:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: faq At 08:18 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 07:50 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that >>>>anyone asks any particular questions frequently... >>> >>>Does anybody ask ANY questions frequently? >> >>No. Maybe I'm experiencing FAQ envy. I see that some other nomics have them. > >It seems sort of pointless to have a faq for such a well-organized >nomic. I was thinking it would be directed at the I-followed-a-link-to-this-website-and-maybe-this-looks-interesting crowd, stuff like "What is Berserker Nomic?" and "How do I join?". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:31:00 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: faq Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 08:18 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>At 07:50 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: >>>> >>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that >>>>>anyone asks any particular questions frequently... >>>> >>>>Does anybody ask ANY questions frequently? >>> >>>No. Maybe I'm experiencing FAQ envy. I see that some other nomics have them. >> >>It seems sort of pointless to have a faq for such a well-organized >>nomic. > >I was thinking it would be directed at the >I-followed-a-link-to-this-website-and-maybe-this-looks-interesting crowd, >stuff like "What is Berserker Nomic?" and "How do I join?". Surely there's room for nekkid pictures in such a faq. -- "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." - Albert Camus ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 21:05:32 CST From: "Mr. Grinch" Subject: Nomic: FAQs I've got a frequently asked question: Where's all the nudey pictures on this damn site? Damon __________ The glazed eye of the tired reader resting for a second on the above title will presume it to be merely metaphorical. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 23:09:29 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: FAQs At 09:05 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: > >I've got a frequently asked question: > >Where's all the nudey pictures on this damn site? > > >Damon Yes, but that's a question asked with frequency by only you and Josh. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 00:26:05 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: FAQs Joel D Uckelman writes: >Yes, but that's a question asked with frequency by only you and Josh. A FAQ's a FAQ. Give us FAQs and nothing but. -- Abstractness, sometimes hurled as a reproach at mathematics, is its chief glory and its surest title to practical usefulness. It is also the source of such beauty as may spring from mathematics - E.T. Bell ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 09:11:16 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: faq At 07:50 PM 1/2/99 CST, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I was just thinking that we should have a Berserker Nomic FAQ. Not that >>anyone asks any particular questions frequently... > >Does anybody ask ANY questions frequently? Does anybody ask _any_ questions frequently? And will this be included in the FAQ as quite possibly the only actual frequently asked question? And has this joke ever been done on any FAQ before? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 10:52:29 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: FAQs Where's all the nudey pictures on this damn site? At 11:09 PM 1/2/99 -0600, you wrote: >At 09:05 PM 1/2/99 , you wrote: >> >>I've got a frequently asked question: >> >>Where's all the nudey pictures on this damn site? >> >> >>Damon > >Yes, but that's a question asked with frequency by only you and Josh. > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:43:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Subers Does anyone remember what the rationale was for new players receiving only 500 Subers upon joining the game instead of the 1000 Subers that the rest of us have? (q.v. R347/1) I keep thinking that this doesn't seem fair to our soon-to-be player Tom Knight, especially since we haven't done anything with our Subers yet. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 15:17:25 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Subers Joel D Uckelman writes: >Does anyone remember what the rationale was for new players receiving only >500 Subers upon joining the game instead of the 1000 Subers that the rest >of us have? (q.v. R347/1) Because we are the fortunate sons (with apologies to Lisa). Josh -- ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 16:08:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal 389 revision 1. Add "Foreign Minister" after "Administrator" to the set of Offices in Rule 229. 2. Create the following rule from the V.M.MOLOTOV delimited text: V.M.MOLOTOV The Foreign Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: 1. Representing Berserker Nomic in dealings with other nomics and in metanomics and nomic organizations of which Berserker Nomic is a member. 2. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. 3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. V.M.MOLOTOV J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 16:11:36 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Subers At 03:17 PM 1/3/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Does anyone remember what the rationale was for new players receiving only >>500 Subers upon joining the game instead of the 1000 Subers that the rest >>of us have? (q.v. R347/1) > >Because we are the fortunate sons (with apologies to Lisa). > >Josh Which reminds me -- I wonder how many of those in Limbo are still playing. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:31:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting has begun. The ballot will be mailed shortly. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:41:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot P383 Amend Rule 222/2 to read: Proposers receive (20)(favorable votes on the Proposal/total non-neutral votes on the Proposal) points, rounded to the nearest integer, for each adopted Proposal. ------------------------------------- P384 There exists a homunculus, hereafter known as Osborn's Demon, which posesses the right to vote, during the ordained voting period, for any and every proposal up for voting. Osborn's Demon shall vote in the following manner: If there is a single player whose score in points is strictly less than those of every other player, then Osborn's Demon shall vote as that single player does. If there are two or more players whose scores are equal, while still less than those of every other player, then Osborn's Demon shall vote as do a simple majority of those players whose scores are minimal. If those players do not vote in such a way as to determine a simple majority of any one vote, then Osborn's Demon shall vote with the plurality of those players. If all players' scores are equal, Osborn's Demon shall vote as in the previous paragraph. Players in limbo shall not be considered eligible when determining minimal scores in the paragraphs above. Osborn's Demon shall vote in a manner consistent with these rules, on every proposal up for vote. The Demon's votes shall be considered as cast immediately after the player or players posessing minimal score cast their vote(s). If there is one player with minimal score, and that player auto-abstains, the Demon shall also auto-abstain. If there is more than one player with minimal score, the Demon shall vote as above as soon as a plurality among those with minimal score is determined. If no such plurality is determined before such time as auto-abstentions are cast, the Demon shall auto-abstain. For the purposes of vote tabulation and voting period length determination, Osborn's Demon is considered an "eligible voter." This rule takes precedence over all rules concerned with voting. ---------------------------------- P385 Proposals that, should they pass, would reward or penalize players voting on them, are prohibited. ---------------------------------- P386 The following characters: [ ] { } are considered "reserved characters" when appearing in proposals and rules in ways defined below. Brackets: Excepting any text prior to and including this sentence in this rule, any text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of rule; its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative. Braces: Excepting any text prior to and including this sentence in this rule, any text appearing within double braces ("{{" and "}}") shall be considered "self-deleting" text. As soon as a proposal containing self-deleting text is passed into rule, the following shall happen, in the following order: (1) Any self-deleting text in the rule shall have its effect. (2) Any self-deleting text, along with its respective braces, shall be deleted from the rule. [[This provides a regular way in which to add self-removing clauses to rules.]] This rule takes precedence over all other rules governing the texts of rules. -------------------------------- P387 Replace "impossiblity" in Rule 317/1 with "impossibility". Replace "privelaged" and "direcly" in Rule 326/2 with "privileged" and "directly", respectively. Replace "posess" in Rule 346/1 with "possess". Replace "compontent" in Rule 347/1 with "component". ------------------------------------ P389 1. Add "Foreign Minister" after "Administrator" to the set of Offices in Rule 229. 2. Create the following rule from the V.M.MOLOTOV delimited text: V.M.MOLOTOV The Foreign Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: 1. Representing Berserker Nomic in dealings with other nomics and in metanomics and nomic organizations of which Berserker Nomic is a member. 2. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. 3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. V.M.MOLOTOV ----------------------------- P390 Upon a Case becoming unappealable, Judges having ruled in accord with the final ruling on the case shall each receive 3 points iff the final ruling is either TRUE or FALSE. ----------------------------- P393 Amend Rule 309, paragraph 1, section 3 to read: "3. The informal proposal must receive a two-thirds majority of favorable votes from eligible voters if any player requests a vote on the matter. If no such request is made within 36 hours of the informal proposal, said proposal is considered to have passed." ------------------------------ P394 Elected Offices shall be filled by an election to be held concurrently with the voting period of every fifth turn, or by a special election in the case that an elected Office becomes vacant before then. Players may publicly nominate any consenting Player, including him/herself, for any elected Office. Nominations close with the start of the election, either at the start of the Proposal voting period of every fifth turn, 48 hours after an office becomes vacant, or 48 hours after an Officeholder loses a Vote of Confidence, as appropriate. If no nominations are received for an elected Office by the time nominations have closed, the current Officeholder retains the position. In the absence of a current Officeholder for an elected Office, the Administrator fills the Office until the next scheduled election. The nominee receiving a majority of votes for each elected Office shall hold that Office during the next term. If no nominee for an elected Office receives a majority of votes cast, the nominee (or nominees, in the case of a tie) receiving the fewest votes is removed from the ballot, unless so doing would leave fewer than two remaining nominees, and a new vote is taken to fill that elected Office using standard Proposal voting procedures. This process is repeated until the elected Office is filled. ------------------------------- P395 Add as paragraph 2 to Rule 229: “Players may resign from any Offices they hold at any time.” ------------------------------- P396 Any player may call for a Vote of Confidence on any elected Official at any time except a) during an election to fill the Office in question, and b) during another Vote of Confidence on the same Official. Votes of Confidence are conducted using standard Proposal voting procedures. If a simple majority of votes cast are negative, the Players have lost confidence in the Officeholder and an election is immediately called to fill the elected Office. --------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:53:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: whitespace I just noticed that there were some problems with whitespace in the ballot. Disregard all strange gaps therein. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 10:59:45 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: My Votes to the List 383 No 384 Yes 385 No 386 Yes 387 Abstain 388 No 389 Abstain 390 No 393 Yes 394 Abstain 395 No 396 Abstain Damon __________ A certain sweetness of temperament was uppermost on his list, a flexible mind (though not one incapable of holding a firm opinion), and perhaps a sense of mankind's insignificance in the totality of the universe. The ability to apply order to the world would also be handy in a wife. -- George Harrar ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:17:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: My Votes to the List At 10:59 AM 1/4/99 , Damon wrote: >388 No P388 wasn't up for voting. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 09:29:54 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting is still open for another 2 hours, so vote if you haven't. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:00:02 CST From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: one less I wish to remove myself from Berserker Nomic. The game has been great, but I've lost track with what's going on. Maybe I'll get back in some other time. I sincerely hope that I have left a legacy of absurdity that will be carried on by other Players. My regards, n P.S. Does this mean that Osborn has to move out of the Black Box? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:20:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results Here's the voting results: P383 passed (3-1-0-2). P384 passed (4-0-0-2). P385 passed (3-1-0-2). P386 passed (3-1-0-2). P387 passed (3-0-1-2). P389 passed (2-1-1-2). P390 passed (2-1-1-2). P393 passed (4-0-0-2). P394 passed (2-1-1-2). P395 passed (3-1-0-2). P396 passed (2-1-1-2). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:33:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new player Tom Knight is now officially a player of Berserker Nomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:53:12 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Here's the scoring breakdown: +109 Joel Uckelman (+15 [P383], +20 [P387], +13 [P389], +20 [P393], +13 [P394], +15 [P395], +13 [P396]) +63 Josh Kortbein (+20 [P384], +15 [P385], +15 [P386], +13 [P390]) +31 Damon Luloff (+8 [P383], +8 [P385], +7 [P390], +8 [P395]) +29 Ed Proescholdt (+8 [P386], +7 [P389], +7 [P394], +7 [P396]) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 13:37:40 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: my bad ed, not tom. i can't believe tom's not voting. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 13:35:08 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Wowie Four people voting. Would that be Josh Joel Me Tom by chance? Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:29:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie At 01:35 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: > >Four people voting. Would that be > >Josh >Joel >Me >[Ed] > >by chance? > >Damon Yep. Tom Plagge is away skiing. I'm not sure why Mueller hasn't voted the last two times. Schroeder probably didn't wake up in time or something. Nick just quit, and everyone else is in Limbo. The voting breakdown is now on the page under "Voting". J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:32:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: election time Nominations are now open (for the next 48 hours) for the office of Foreign Minister. See Rule 389 for more details on the position; see Rule 394 for how elections are to be conducted. I nominate Tom Mueller as a candidate for Foreign Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:40:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: thoughts Does anyone other than me think the second paragraph of Rule 305 is a bad idea? "If a simple majority of the votes for a proposal are abstentions, including automatic abstentions, then the proposal fails. Such proposals are not explicitly "defeated" in the normal sense, and bookkeepers may wish to note this." We almost had this situation during the last voting period. The only way this is likely to come into effect is through a combination of abstentions and auto-abstentions. In this case, yes - 3 no - 0 abstentions - 1 a-abstentions - 3 the proposal would fail. However, if the person who abstained had voted AGAINST the proposal, it would have passed! Changing a vote to a "no" should never cause a proposal to pass. Does anyone else find this disturbing? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 16:13:08 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie J. Uckelman wrote: >At 01:35 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >> >>Four people voting. Would that be >> >>Josh >>Joel >>Me >>[Ed] >> >>by chance? >> >>Damon > >Yep. Tom Plagge is away skiing. I'm not sure why Mueller hasn't voted the >last two times. Schroeder probably didn't wake up in time or something. >Nick just quit, and everyone else is in Limbo. It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a week to vote). Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:29:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie At 03:13 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >J. Uckelman wrote: >>At 01:35 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >>> >>>Four people voting. Would that be >>> >>>Josh >>>Joel >>>Me >>>[Ed] >>> >>>by chance? >>> >>>Damon >> >>Yep. Tom Plagge is away skiing. I'm not sure why Mueller hasn't voted the >>last two times. Schroeder probably didn't wake up in time or something. >>Nick just quit, and everyone else is in Limbo. > >It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already >over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a >week to vote). Would it be better if it were more like 48 hours? >Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions >for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do >anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be >counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and >significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. Rule 113 (?) allows him to quit -- by my reading, it shouldn't be a problem. What does everyone else think? >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 16:37:05 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie At 03:29 PM 1/5/99 -0600, you wrote: >At 03:13 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >>J. Uckelman wrote: >>>At 01:35 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >>>> >>>>Four people voting. Would that be >>>> >>>>Josh >>>>Joel >>>>Me >>>>[Ed] >>>> >>>>by chance? >>>> >>>>Damon >>> >>>Yep. Tom Plagge is away skiing. I'm not sure why Mueller hasn't voted the >>>last two times. Schroeder probably didn't wake up in time or something. >>>Nick just quit, and everyone else is in Limbo. >> >>It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already >>over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a >>week to vote). > >Would it be better if it were more like 48 hours? > >>Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions >>for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do >>anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be >>counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and >>significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. > >Rule 113 (?) allows him to quit -- by my reading, it shouldn't be a >problem. What does everyone else think? > >>Tom Mueller >>mueller4@sonic.net > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > Maybe he should be credited with a loss, or a negative win, or something like that. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:43:21 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results Joel D Uckelman writes: >Here's the voting results: > >P383 passed (3-1-0-2). >P384 passed (4-0-0-2). >P385 passed (3-1-0-2). >P386 passed (3-1-0-2). >P387 passed (3-0-1-2). >P389 passed (2-1-1-2). >P390 passed (2-1-1-2). >P393 passed (4-0-0-2). >P394 passed (2-1-1-2). >P395 passed (3-1-0-2). >P396 passed (2-1-1-2). I think we should call this the Era of Good Feelings. Josh -- Now I will have less distraction. - Leonhard Euler, upon losing the use of his right eye ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:42:35 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie Mueller writes: >It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already >over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a >week to vote). > >Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions >for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do >anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be >counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and >significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. As in, for example, divvying up his Subers? Once our economy gets going it would be a shame to destroy them, since we will presumably have a system for creating them that's non-inflationary. We should at least give them back to me or the government or something. I'm not sure what else to do with exiting players. There's not much else we can do except not allow them back within X time units. Josh -- How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality? - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 19:44:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie At 05:42 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >Mueller writes: >>It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already >>over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a >>week to vote). >> >>Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions >>for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do >>anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be >>counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and >>significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. > >As in, for example, divvying up his Subers? Once our economy gets going >it would be a shame to destroy them, since we will presumably have >a system for creating them that's non-inflationary. We should at >least give them back to me or the government or something. There are no provisions in the rules for what happens to the Subers. In abscence of any directives and in light of what we intend to use them for, I don't think they should be destroyed. But who owns them, then? Any solution is going to be somewhat arbitrary. My suggestion is that 500 of them be given to Tom Knight so he can start with 1000 like everyone else, but then I don't know what to do with the other 500. Of course, someone could just claim them as salvage (or something similar) and take them. I see litigation on the horizion... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 19:54:15 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 05:42 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >>Mueller writes: >>>It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already >>>over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a >>>week to vote). >>> >>>Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions >>>for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do >>>anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be >>>counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and >>>significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. >> >>As in, for example, divvying up his Subers? Once our economy gets going >>it would be a shame to destroy them, since we will presumably have >>a system for creating them that's non-inflationary. We should at >>least give them back to me or the government or something. > >There are no provisions in the rules for what happens to the Subers. In >abscence of any directives and in light of what we intend to use them for, >I don't think they should be destroyed. But who owns them, then? Any >solution is going to be somewhat arbitrary. My suggestion is that 500 of >them be given to Tom Knight so he can start with 1000 like everyone else, >but then I don't know what to do with the other 500. > >Of course, someone could just claim them as salvage (or something similar) >and take them. I see litigation on the horizion... You surely will because that sounds stinky. -- The more I see of men, the better I like my dog. - Blaise Pascal ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:05:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie At 07:54 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 05:42 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >>>Mueller writes: >>>>It just happens too fast. I sat down to vote and oops... it was already >>>>over. I guess I just have bad habits from other nomics (where you've got a >>>>week to vote). >>>> >>>>Meanwhile, in another part of the forest: Do we actaully have provisions >>>>for leaving Berserker? While its certain that Nick doesn't have to do >>>>anything ever again, will eventaully go into Limbo, and thereby not be >>>>counted for much of anything, I don't believe there is a more formal and >>>>significant system in place that would permit his actual removal. >>> >>>As in, for example, divvying up his Subers? Once our economy gets going >>>it would be a shame to destroy them, since we will presumably have >>>a system for creating them that's non-inflationary. We should at >>>least give them back to me or the government or something. >> >>There are no provisions in the rules for what happens to the Subers. In >>abscence of any directives and in light of what we intend to use them for, >>I don't think they should be destroyed. But who owns them, then? Any >>solution is going to be somewhat arbitrary. My suggestion is that 500 of >>them be given to Tom Knight so he can start with 1000 like everyone else, >>but then I don't know what to do with the other 500. >> >>Of course, someone could just claim them as salvage (or something similar) >>and take them. I see litigation on the horizion... > >You surely will because that sounds stinky. Now that I think about it, it is important what happened to the Subers, because I need to know how many Subers there are total to calculate scores. I assumed that they were destroyed when Nick quit, but by no means does it have to be that way. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:12:04 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie Joel D Uckelman writes: >Now that I think about it, it is important what happened to the Subers, >because I need to know how many Subers there are total to calculate scores. >I assumed that they were destroyed when Nick quit, but by no means does it >have to be that way. Do the rules make any provision for Subers existing outside of their ownership? Josh -- Mathematics is not a deductive science ­ that's a cliche. When you try to prove a theorem, you don't just list the hypotheses, and then start to reason. What you do is trial and error, experimentation, guesswork. - Paul Halmos ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:28:01 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Idea: cycles This is an idea stolen from other net nomics. In these nomics, play proceeds much like ours in that wins don't end the game, just reset it a little bit, then keep moving on. The terminology used is: "game" - the entire string of wins and the play involved in reaching them. That is, what we've been playing one of since we first started. "cycle" - the interval of time between one win and another, which changes when someone wins. Anyone interested in changing the terminology in the rules some? Fun possibilities include naming these cycles. 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: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:47:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie At 08:12 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Now that I think about it, it is important what happened to the Subers, >>because I need to know how many Subers there are total to calculate scores. >>I assumed that they were destroyed when Nick quit, but by no means does it >>have to be that way. > >Do the rules make any provision for Subers existing outside of their >ownership? > >Josh Sort of. Rule 346 states in part: "Only rules may create and destroy Subers." Now the question is whether or not things are destroyed if they are possessed by a forfeiting player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:59:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Proposal 397 Proposal 397 ----------- Strike paragraph 2 of Rule 305/1. ----------- This fixes the wierd abstention thing I mentioned before. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 22:01:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: withdrawing P388 At least two players (Damon and Mueller) feel strongly about retaining the right to vote to the list unhindered, so I am withdrawing Proposal 388. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:49:28 -0600 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 22:59:35 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Can I make a proposal at any time, or do I have to wait for my turn? What's the latest proposal number, anyway? And why do you call it *berserker* nomic? No offence, but I fail to see what's so berserk about it :-). ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 09:52:46 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: New Guy >Can I make a proposal at any time, or do I have to wait for my turn? What's >the latest proposal number, anyway? And why do you call it *berserker* >nomic? No offence, but I fail to see what's so berserk about it :-). I don't know about the new guy. He asks a lot of questions. Already he's trying to reform the system. I say we take him out. :) Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:50:13 CST From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: My legacy I am pleased to see that even after my passing I have continued to fowl up the game in new and interesting ways. I believe that even Berserker Nomic would follow the last wishes of a departed game entitiy, so I submit the following: I grant 500 Subers to the new guy (And when I die, and when I'm gone, there'll be one child born, and this world will carry on.) and return the remaining Subers to Berserker. They are not destroyed; they exist and shall be accounted for. If you do not follow my last wishes, I shall be compelled to haunt berserker, as the game entity Osborn continues to reside in the Black Box, tormenting the quick game entities. Godspeed, n ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:52:13 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: nominations Nominations for Foreign Minister are open until 11:31 CST tomorrow. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 10:49:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Political Go Did you ever propose Political Go as a GWIB? I thought you did, but I can't seem to find it in the message logs. Anyway, I'd like to play. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:06:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals At 07:57 AM 1/6/99 , you wrote: >Can I make a proposal at any time, or do I have to wait for my turn? Turns are just an artifact left from earlier in the game -- their only purpose now is to determine who wins if the game is unable to continue. Proposals can be made at any time, with two exceptions: 1) no proposals may be made during voting, and 2) new players may not make proposals until they've been players for one full turn, i.e. you won't be able to propose until this turn is over (~ 10 days), but you can do almost everything else. >What's the latest proposal number, anyway? 397. The next proposal will be 398. The only significance the numbers currently have is for recordkeeping purposes -- they used to be involved in scoring as well. You can find all live proposals under "Live Proposals" on the page. Active proposals will be voted upon at the end of the 8.5 day debate period, while inactive proposals will not. Players may change the activity state of their proposals at any time during the debate period. Players may also withdraw proposals entirely. And why do you call it *berserker* >nomic? No offence, but I fail to see what's so berserk about it :-). We had a contest to name the game. BN was the name that won. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:17:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Idea: cycles At 09:28 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: > >This is an idea stolen from other net nomics. > >In these nomics, play proceeds much like ours in that wins don't >end the game, just reset it a little bit, then keep moving on. >The terminology used is: > >"game" - the entire string of wins and the play involved in reaching >them. That is, what we've been playing one of since we first started. > >"cycle" - the interval of time between one win and another, which >changes when someone wins. > >Anyone interested in changing the terminology in the rules some? >Fun possibilities include naming these cycles. > > >Josh Are you thinking about seeking corporate sponsorship for the cycles? Like Cycle of the Depend Adult Undergarment? (a joke that only those who have read _Infinite Jest_ and maybe Damon because we've told him about it, would understand). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:14:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: My legacy At 10:50 AM 1/6/99 , you wrote: >I am pleased to see that even after my passing I have continued to fowl >up the game in new and interesting ways. I believe that even Berserker >Nomic would follow the last wishes of a departed game entitiy, so I >submit the following: I grant 500 Subers to the new guy (And when I die, >and when I'm gone, there'll be one child born, and this world will carry >on.) and return the remaining Subers to Berserker. They are not >destroyed; they exist and shall be accounted for. > >If you do not follow my last wishes, I shall be compelled to haunt >berserker, as the game entity Osborn continues to reside in the Black Box, >tormenting the quick game entities. > >Godspeed, >n Is this legal? I suppose I won't complain about it, but it seems wierd for someone who's no longer with us to be able to affect the game. Is anyone going to protest this? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:23:40 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Protest? >Is this legal? I suppose I won't complain about it, but it seems wierd for >someone who's no longer with us to be able to affect the game. Is anyone >going to protest this? Of course it's not legal. I recall nothing in the rules that allows for such actions. Even if Nick was in the game he could do all that stuff. We should disregard anything he says from this point on, except for its comedic value. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:46:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Protest? At 12:23 PM 1/6/99 , you wrote: > >>Is this legal? I suppose I won't complain about it, but it seems wierd for >>someone who's no longer with us to be able to affect the game. Is anyone >>going to protest this? > >Of course it's not legal. I recall nothing in the rules that allows for >such actions. Even if Nick was in the game he could do all that stuff. We >should disregard anything he says from this point on, except for its >comedic value. > >Damon Yes, but there's nothing in the rules that DISALLOWS Nick from determining the disposition of his wealth. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 12:55:06 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Implicit >Yes, but there's nothing in the rules that DISALLOWS Nick from determining >the disposition of his wealth. There's nothing in the rules that disallows anyone who's not a player in the game to do anything, but I think we have been acting on the assumption that if you aren't a player in the game then you have no power over it. Otherwise I could quit and say that the new guy should get all of the subers form everyone. There's nothing that disallows it directly, I think. Isn't it implicit that if you aren't part of the game that you can't effect the game by way of commandment? Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:09:33 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Implicit At 12:55 PM 1/6/99 , you wrote: >>Yes, but there's nothing in the rules that DISALLOWS Nick from determining >>the disposition of his wealth. > >There's nothing in the rules that disallows anyone who's not a player in >the game to do anything, but I think we have been acting on the >assumption that if you aren't a player in the game then you have no power >over it. Otherwise I could quit and say that the new guy should get all >of the subers form everyone. There's nothing that disallows it directly, I >think. > >Isn't it implicit that if you aren't part of the game that you can't >effect the game by way of commandment? > > >Damon What, then, happens to Nick's Subers? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:29:25 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: My legacy Nope. :) ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:28:26 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Implicit Joel D Uckelman writes: >What, then, happens to Nick's Subers? The way you ask this seems to imply that you think Nick's answer is as good as any, despite the fact that it is fundamentally hosed. You would be wrong, there. Very wrong. Josh -- If it sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchen; and if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:33:23 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Political Go Joel D Uckelman writes: >Did you ever propose Political Go as a GWIB? I thought you did, but I can't >seem to find it in the message logs. Anyway, I'd like to play. "You?" It's Tom M.'s GWIB. He's even got a web page for it. Josh -- Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - David Hilbert ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:32:58 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Idea: cycles Joel D Uckelman writes: >Are you thinking about seeking corporate sponsorship for the cycles? Like >Cycle of the Depend Adult Undergarment? (a joke that only those who have >read _Infinite Jest_ and maybe Damon because we've told him about it, would >understand). I have wide-ranging plans for these things you humans call "cycles." -- Absence of proof is not proof of absence. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:35:01 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: A Clever Plan: Okay, I'll give 250 of my lovely shiney Subers to the first person to propose a repeal of the law that states that newbies have to wait a whole turn before proposing. Also, I'll give 50 to anyone who votes for it. I give the administrator the right to enforce my promises. This is legal, right? :) P.S., I wish to abstain from the voting on the postion of the forigen minister. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:34:06 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals RJ KNIGHT writes: >Can I make a proposal at any time, or do I have to wait for my turn? What's >the latest proposal number, anyway? And why do you call it *berserker* >nomic? No offence, but I fail to see what's so berserk about it :-). You're not the only one that thinks it's a stupid name. Josh -- Mr. Sparkle: Get out of my way, all of you. This is no place for loafers. Join me or die. Can you do any less? Japanese women: What a brave corporate logo! I accept the challenge of "Mr. Sparkle." ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:32:20 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Protest? Joel D Uckelman writes: >Yes, but there's nothing in the rules that DISALLOWS Nick from determining >the disposition of his wealth. There are a few things, actually: 1) Nick is not a player. As such, by game custom, he may take no game actions. 2) Subers are owned by players. As there is no player named Nick Osborn, it does not make sense to talk about Nick Osborn owning Subers. 3) Because Nick is not a player and it does not make sense to talk about Nick Osborn owning Subers, it does not make sense for Nick Osborn to trade (and this should be construed as a trade) Subers to another player. I present a statement for judgment: When the rules are silent, the only right and proper thing to do with a departed player's Subers is to destroy them. Josh -- "Fuck you," whispers Slothrop. It's the only spell he knows, and a pretty good all-purpose one at that. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:46:18 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Not much good >Okay, I'll give 250 of my lovely shiney Subers to the first person to >propose a repeal of the law that states that newbies have to wait a whole >turn before proposing. Also, I'll give 50 to anyone who votes for it. I >give the administrator the right to enforce my promises. This is legal, >right? :) I think it's legal, but it won't do you much good since by the time the proposl would pass you would be able to propose anyway. However I think it would make sense to repeal it anyway. But you probably won't have to offer any Subers for it. They don't really do much in the game right now anyway. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:42:45 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: A Clever Plan: RJ KNIGHT writes: >Okay, I'll give 250 of my lovely shiney Subers to the first person to >propose a repeal of the law that states that newbies have to wait a whole >turn before proposing. Also, I'll give 50 to anyone who votes for it. I >give the administrator the right to enforce my promises. This is legal, >right? :) > >P.S., I wish to abstain from the voting on the postion of the forigen >minister. I propose: Strike the following sentence from rule 309. 2. New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for the entirety of one turn. Also, I accept Mr. Knight's 250 subers. Too bad this rule won't pass until the turn's over. Josh -- I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art. - G.H. Hardy ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 15:59:18 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Political Go Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Did you ever propose Political Go as a GWIB? I thought you did, but I can't >>seem to find it in the message logs. Anyway, I'd like to play. > >"You?" It's Tom M.'s GWIB. > >He's even got a web page for it. > I never actually did propose it as a GWIB. If there's interest in it I can do some rewrites (there were typos back then) and turn it into a GWIB... Anyone other than Joel interested in playing? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 15:19:12 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A Clever Plan: At 02:35 PM 1/6/99 , you wrote: >Okay, I'll give 250 of my lovely shiney Subers to the first person to >propose a repeal of the law that states that newbies have to wait a whole >turn before proposing. Also, I'll give 50 to anyone who votes for it. I >give the administrator the right to enforce my promises. This is legal, >right? :) > >P.S., I wish to abstain from the voting on the postion of the forigen >minister. This may do you less good than you think. By the time the rule could be repealed, you'd already be able to propose anyway. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 15:25:18 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Ed Proescholdt has been assigned (randomly, in case TK was wondering) to judge CFJ 53: When the rules are silent, the only right and proper thing to do with a departed player's Subers is to destroy them. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:42:02 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Here are the batch of proposals to establish an economic system. Suggestions are very welcome. I can already hear some one saying "But I don't like spam!" My reply, of course, is to tell that person to try the "spam, spam, spam, baked beans, and spam," because it hasn't got much spam in it, as the Vikings begin chanting "spam, spam, spam, spam" in the background. You'll see why this is relevant when you get to Prop. 403. --------------------------------------- Proposal 399 {{Add property as a Player attribute.}} Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable. All game entities, including the game itself, may possess property. Public property consists of property owned by Berserker Nomic rather than any individual Player. Auctions may be held to sell property. Players wishing to bid on auctioned property must submit bids within 48 hours of the start of the auction. Possession of auctioned property is transferred to the highest bidder upon receipt of payment. Any game entity may auction any or all of its property at any time, and may set the starting price. If a starting price is not specified, the starting price will be 0.01 Subers. ------------------------------- Proposal 400 The Treasury holds all public property and funds, including, but not limited to, the proceeds collected from fines, taxes, tariffs, the sale of land, and the creation of new Subers. The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses. ------------------------------ Proposal 401 Berserker Nomic takes place on a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid with the grain running north-south and the first column superior. Hexes are numbered xxyy where xx is the column number and yy is the row number, running from 00 in the west and south to 49 in the north and east. [[Thus, 2314 would be hex 14 in column 23.]] Each hex represents 1 unit of land. A hex may be owned by only one entity at a time. All land is initially public property. At least 50 hexes must remain public property at all times. ------------------------------ Proposal 402 The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: 1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. 2. Purchasing sufficient spam to support non-player game entities. 3. Purchasing sufficient muskets so as to replenish those expended for defense. 4. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. 5. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: 1. Auction public lands. 2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. 3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury. The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, may: 1. Purchase lands from other game entities with funds from the Treasury. 2. Purchase commodities with funds from the Treasury. 3. Sell commodities held by the Treasury. The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. ---------------------------- Proposal 403 Enterprises are non-moveable property, that given certain inputs will produce certain outputs, as defined below. Commodities are moveable property and are inputs and outputs for enterprises. The the set of enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel mill, power plant, supermarket, arsenal, construction yard} , and the set of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, spam, muskets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in integer quantities. Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in possession of the enterprise's owner: Forests convert 5 energy into 10 wood. Farms convert 5 energy into 10 livestock. Mines convert 10 energy into coal and ore, such that no more than 10 total units are produced. Lumber mills convert 40 wood and 15 energy into 10 lumber. Slaughterhouses convert 20 livestock and 15 energy into 10 meat. Steel mills convert 40 ore and 30 energy into 10 steel. Power plants convert 40 coal into 200 energy. Supermarkets convert 5 meat and 20 energy into 4 spam. Arsenals convert 15 steel and 15 energy into 10 muskets. Construction yards convert one of the following : 100 Subers, 5 lumber, and 5 energy into 1 forest. 25 Subers, 50 lumber, 5 steel, and 25 energy into 1 farm. 50 Subers, 50 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 mine. 100 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 lumber mill. 100 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 slaughterhouse. 100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 steel mill. 100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 power plant. 25 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 25 energy into 1 supermarket. 50 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 arsenal. 200 Subers, 50 lumber, 50 steel, and 50 energy into 1 construction yard. Upkeep for each enterprise costs 5 Subers per turn. An enterprise for which its owner does not pay upkeep is destroyed. If insufficient commodities are available to operate an enterprise or the owner chooses not to do so, it produces no output and consumes no commodities. Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which they do not consume spam. The game expends 3 muskets per player per turn for game defense. If the Treasury possesses insufficient muskets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. Payment of upkeep, consumption of spam, and expenditure of muskets occur at the beginning of each turn. Production of commodities and construction occur during dead time. At the beginning of each game, Players begin with the enterprise of their choice and one randomly selected hex of public land. {{Upon passage, all players receive the enterprise of their choice and one randomly selected hex of land.}} New Players receive the same, unless there is no public land. ----------------------------------- Proposal 404 The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained. {{Initial prices use the following averages: wood - 2 livestock - 3 ore - 3 coal - 3 energy - 0.5 lumber - 13 meat - 6 steel - 14 spam - 10 muskets - 22 }} ------------------------------ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 23:12:54 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: Judgement When the rules are silent, the only right and proper thing to do with a departed player's Subers is to destroy them. Ruling: False Commentary: Rule 346 states "Only rules may create and destroy Subers." I haven't seen a rule that authorizes the destruction of Subers when I player leaves the game, so it is against the rules for them to be destroyed. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 23:23:29 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement Andrew Proescholdt writes: >When the rules are silent, the only right and proper thing to do with a >departed player's Subers is to destroy them. > >Ruling: False > >Commentary: > >Rule 346 states "Only rules may create and destroy Subers." I haven't seen >a rule that authorizes the destruction of Subers when I player leaves the >game, so it is against the rules for them to be destroyed. OK, new statement for judgment: It is not legal to reapportion or redistribute, in any way, a departed player's Subers unless the rules say so. Josh -- "All synthesizers are programmed white." - Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 02:49:41 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: 398 I withdraw prop 398. Thanks for doing business with me, Tom. 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 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 02:40:27 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >Here are the batch of proposals to establish an economic system. >Suggestions are very welcome. > >I can already hear some one saying "But I don't like spam!" My reply, of >course, is to tell that person to try the "spam, spam, spam, baked beans, >and spam," because it hasn't got much spam in it, as the Vikings begin >chanting "spam, spam, spam, spam" in the background. You'll see why this is >relevant when you get to Prop. 403. > >--------------------------------------- >Proposal 399 > >{{Add property as a Player attribute.}} > >Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable. All >game entities, including the game itself, may possess property. Public Since you were a little nit picky on "hearing" I'm afraid I must voice my irritation at this use of the word "property." While it's not too much of a stretch to say that the game (since it's sort of like a nation or some such) can posess property, ANY game entity posessing property sounds a little fishy. It's contrary to my anthropomorphic and/or organizationomorphic tendencies. >property consists of property owned by Berserker Nomic rather than any >individual Player. > >Auctions may be held to sell property. Players wishing to bid on auctioned >property must submit bids within 48 hours of the start of the auction. >Possession of auctioned property is transferred to the highest bidder upon >receipt of payment. Any game entity may auction any or all of its property >at any time, and may set the starting price. If a starting price is not >specified, the starting price will be 0.01 Subers. > >------------------------------- >Proposal 400 > >The Treasury holds all public property and funds, including, but not >limited to, the proceeds collected from fines, taxes, tariffs, the sale of >land, and the creation of new Subers. > >The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to >cover the game's expenses. > >------------------------------ >Proposal 401 > >Berserker Nomic takes place on a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid with the grain >running north-south and the first column superior. Hexes are numbered xxyy >where xx is the column number and yy is the row number, running from 00 in >the west and south to 49 in the north and east. [[Thus, 2314 would be hex >14 in column 23.]] Each hex represents 1 unit of land. > >A hex may be owned by only one entity at a time. > >All land is initially public property. At least 50 hexes must remain public >property at all times. The stuff about moveability and such below should go up here somewhere, I think. >------------------------------ >Proposal 402 > >The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: > >1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. >2. Purchasing sufficient spam to support non-player game entities. >3. Purchasing sufficient muskets so as to replenish those expended for defense >. >4. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. >5. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. > >The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per >turn, may: > >1. Auction public lands. >2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. >3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury. > >The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, may: > >1. Purchase lands from other game entities with funds from the Treasury. >2. Purchase commodities with funds from the Treasury. >3. Sell commodities held by the Treasury. > >The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >he/she holds Office. I think that some notion of the rate at which subers may be minted, etc., is in order. Also, this office really should be called Greenspan. > >---------------------------- >Proposal 403 > >Enterprises are non-moveable property, that given certain inputs will >produce certain outputs, as defined below. Commodities are moveable >property and are inputs and outputs for enterprises. The the set of >enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel >mill, power plant, supermarket, arsenal, construction yard} , and the set >of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, >spam, muskets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in integer >quantities. Nonnegative? Or is it even necessary? > >Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in >possession of the enterprise's owner: > >Forests convert 5 energy into 10 wood. >Farms convert 5 energy into 10 livestock. >Mines convert 10 energy into coal and ore, such that no more than 10 total >units are produced. >Lumber mills convert 40 wood and 15 energy into 10 lumber. >Slaughterhouses convert 20 livestock and 15 energy into 10 meat. >Steel mills convert 40 ore and 30 energy into 10 steel. >Power plants convert 40 coal into 200 energy. >Supermarkets convert 5 meat and 20 energy into 4 spam. >Arsenals convert 15 steel and 15 energy into 10 muskets. >Construction yards convert one of the following : > >100 Subers, 5 lumber, and 5 energy into 1 forest. >25 Subers, 50 lumber, 5 steel, and 25 energy into 1 farm. >50 Subers, 50 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 mine. >100 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 lumber mill. >100 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 slaughterhouse. >100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 steel mill. >100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 power plant. >25 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 25 energy into 1 supermarket. >50 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 arsenal. >200 Subers, 50 lumber, 50 steel, and 50 energy into 1 construction yard. > >Upkeep for each enterprise costs 5 Subers per turn. An enterprise for which >its owner does not pay upkeep is destroyed. If insufficient commodities are >available to operate an enterprise or the owner chooses not to do so, it >produces no output and consumes no commodities. > >Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 >point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which >they do not consume spam. > >The game expends 3 muskets per player per turn for game defense. If the >Treasury possesses insufficient muskets to meet these demands, an automatic >Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. Hmmm? Why do we need defense expenditures, until we have something against which to defend? > >Payment of upkeep, consumption of spam, and expenditure of muskets occur at >the beginning of each turn. Production of commodities and construction >occur during dead time. > >At the beginning of each game, Players begin with the enterprise of their >choice and one randomly selected hex of public land. {{Upon passage, all >players receive the enterprise of their choice and one randomly selected >hex of land.}} New Players receive the same, unless there is no public land. > >----------------------------------- >Proposal 404 > >The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities 15% >below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the >previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities >15% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth. If a >commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated >average is retained. > >{{Initial prices use the following averages: > >wood - 2 >livestock - 3 >ore - 3 >coal - 3 >energy - 0.5 >lumber - 13 >meat - 6 >steel - 14 >spam - 10 >muskets - 22 }} > >------------------------------ > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu -- I knew I'd hate COBOL the moment I saw they'd used "perform" instead of "do". - Larry Wall on a not-so-popular programming language ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:35:15 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Political Go I'd be interested. Where are the rules posted? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:33:15 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: A Clever Plan: Bugger. Looks like Josh's outsmarted me. Oh well, the rest of the offer still stands. Is the first time that blatant bribery has been tried? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:03:10 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: proposal Sounds good, but I feel you're trying to do too much at once. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:09:55 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: 398 Bugger, bugger bugger bugger. I guess that'll teach me to try and be clever. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 13:11:40 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: A Clever Plan: RJ KNIGHT writes: >Bugger. Looks like Josh's outsmarted me. Oh well, the rest of the offer >still stands. Is the first time that blatant bribery has been tried? Rest of the offer? Which part? No one can vote for my proposal because it's not one any more. If anyone else makes the same proposal, it still won't pass until the turn is over and you won't need it anyway. Save your Subers. Josh -- Any false value is gonna be fairly boring in Perl, mathematicians notwithstanding. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:01:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: foreign minister Since Tom Mueller was the only nominee, he is now our Foreign Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:03:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: updates I won't be able to update the page until Saturday night since I'm leaving shortly. Sorry about that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:01:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignment Damon Luloff has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 54: It is not legal to reapportion or redistribute, in any way, a departed player's Subers unless the rules say so. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:11:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A Clever Plan: At 12:33 PM 1/7/99 , TK wrote: >Bugger. Looks like Josh's outsmarted me. Oh well, the rest of the offer >still stands. Is the first time that blatant bribery has been tried? Yep. This is actually the first _transaction_ of any kind. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:23:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Political Go At 12:35 PM 1/7/99 , you wrote: >I'd be interested. Where are the rules posted? The rules are at Tom Mueller's web page: http://www.sonic.net/~mueller4/tom/nomic/berserker/ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:59:17 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: No Problem >It is not legal to reapportion or redistribute, in any way, a departed >player's Subers unless the rules say so. True Seeing as how it's not legal to do anything with Subers unless the rules say so, deduction tells me that it is not legal to reapportion or redistribute a departed player's Subers. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:30:10 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: foreign minister At 12:01 PM 1/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >Since Tom Mueller was the only nominee, he is now our Foreign Minister. > Hmmmmm.... being the Foreign Minister and all, I decided to actually look up that particular rule... Do you realize the implictions of this rule! Berserker has opened itself up to infection by other nomics (through me) and has placed no restrictions on my actions! I could sell you all into slavery! Legally! Now, that sort of thing is currently not in my plans but consider how much thought and debate went into my election . Did _anyone_ ask what my policy on nomic slavery was? Did anyone ask what ANY of my policies are?!? That said, what sort of goals should I track? Are we isolationists (not likely considering that we bothered to have a Foreign Minster), do we plan on invading other nomics, are we merchant princes with a collective eye on the bounty of other nomics, do we just want to see if we can become entangled in treaties which cause pleasantly interesting logic loops and tangled hierarchies? I am starting two unofficial traditions (which I will eventaully attempt to get justified by rules of some sort) as follows: 1. I will be publishing my weekly reports as a sort of Internomic Relations Journal with each volume being another election cycle and each issue being a weekly address. 2. I will be giving players medals and/or awards for bravery in the greater nomic world. The first of these is the Heroic Ear award which will be given to any player who is subscribed to the INTO (Inter Nomic Treaty Organization) mailing list. Do this by sending mail to Majordomo@muppetlabs.com with a body text of "subscribe internomic" (minus the quotes). I will be reflecting and archiving this sort of information on my berserker web page at http://www.sonic.net/~mueller4/tom/nomic/berserker/ but don't look too quickly because I still have to make the pages. Glory To Berserker! Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister mueller4@sonic.net PS The entire text of this email is my first turnly report. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:53:35 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Me I am in limbo. Talk to y'all in a couple weeks. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:08:45 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Proposals How long is it before I can make proposals again? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 09:02:58 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: foreign minister I think that we should hold a weekly vote on matters of forigen policy. Other proposals will obvioulsy affect ti at other times, but IMHO having a specific point set aside to deal with it will be a good idea. My personal view is that we should be the last nomic standing, dammit! Let's live up to our name and give all those other nomics a kicking. Do unto others before they do unto you! ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 19:05:04 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: foreign minister Mueller writes: >At 12:01 PM 1/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >>Since Tom Mueller was the only nominee, he is now our Foreign Minister. >> > >Hmmmmm.... being the Foreign Minister and all, I decided to actually look >up that particular rule... > > >Do you realize the implictions of this rule! Berserker has opened itself >up to infection by other nomics (through me) and has placed no restrictions >on my actions! I could sell you all into slavery! Legally! > >Now, that sort of thing is currently not in my plans but consider how much >thought and debate went into my election . > >Did _anyone_ ask what my policy on nomic slavery was? Did anyone ask what >ANY of my policies are?!? > > > >That said, what sort of goals should I track? Are we isolationists (not >likely considering that we bothered to have a Foreign Minster), do we plan >on invading other nomics, are we merchant princes with a collective eye on >the bounty of other nomics, do we just want to see if we can become >entangled in treaties which cause pleasantly interesting logic loops and >tangled hierarchies? > This is an interesting problem. I hadn't thought of this. Aside from treaties we sign, which mean nothing as they're not rules, how are we constrained to actually play fair in the extra-nomic world? In this sense, Tom has no power at all, if he chooses to work against us. Suddenly, we're also admitting the existance of all sorts of external things, without them being defined in the rules... Josh -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 19:53:33 -0600 From: "Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador" Subject: Nomic: Out of limbo now I'm out of limbo. I don't know what's going on, though. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 20:01:16 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Out of limbo now "Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador" writes: >I'm out of limbo. I don't know what's going on, though. Well then you're just fucked, aren't you? Josh -- In my experience most mathematicians are intellectually lazy and especially dislike reading experimental papers. - Francis Harry Compton Crick ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 02:19:26 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Wowie I am now trying to figure out what's going on because I was gone during the skiing celebration! as well. I don't know if i am in limbo or not, but if i am i'm now out... jeff At 02:29 PM 1/5/99 -0600, you wrote: >At 01:35 PM 1/5/99 , you wrote: >> >>Four people voting. Would that be >> >>Josh >>Joel >>Me >>[Ed] >> >>by chance? >> >>Damon > >Yep. Tom Plagge is away skiing. I'm not sure why Mueller hasn't voted the >last two times. Schroeder probably didn't wake up in time or something. >Nick just quit, and everyone else is in Limbo. > >The voting breakdown is now on the page under "Voting". > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:47:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposals At 08:08 AM 1/9/99 , you wrote: >How long is it before I can make proposals again? It will be January 15. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:51:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: foreign minister At 02:30 PM 1/8/99 , you wrote: >At 12:01 PM 1/8/99 -0600, you wrote: >>Since Tom Mueller was the only nominee, he is now our Foreign Minister. >> > >Hmmmmm.... being the Foreign Minister and all, I decided to actually look >up that particular rule... > > >Do you realize the implictions of this rule! Berserker has opened itself >up to infection by other nomics (through me) and has placed no restrictions >on my actions! I could sell you all into slavery! Legally! How? We could just ignore it if you did, since agreements you make don't have the force of rule. >Now, that sort of thing is currently not in my plans but consider how much >thought and debate went into my election . > >Did _anyone_ ask what my policy on nomic slavery was? Did anyone ask what >ANY of my policies are?!? > > > >That said, what sort of goals should I track? Are we isolationists (not >likely considering that we bothered to have a Foreign Minster), do we plan >on invading other nomics, are we merchant princes with a collective eye on >the bounty of other nomics, do we just want to see if we can become >entangled in treaties which cause pleasantly interesting logic loops and >tangled hierarchies? > It think we should join INTO. I'm not in favor of invading anything at present. >I am starting two unofficial traditions (which I will eventaully attempt to >get justified by rules of some sort) as follows: >1. I will be publishing my weekly reports as a sort of Internomic Relations >Journal with each volume being another election cycle and each issue being >a weekly address. Good. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 17:17:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: "gimme one of them Heroic Ear thingies" I just subscribed to the internomic list, so I want my Ear. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:39:11 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: "gimme one of them Heroic Ear thingies" Joel D Uckelman writes: >I just subscribed to the internomic list, so I want my Ear. You loser, I get my ear first. I've been on it for longer. -- I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers. :-) - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:35:16 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Question Where's all the nudey pictures on this damn site? ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:38:42 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: "gimme one of them Heroic Ear thingies" At 09:39 PM 1/10/99 CST, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I just subscribed to the internomic list, so I want my Ear. > >You loser, I get my ear first. I've been on it for longer. > A parade marches through Berserker Nomic in a lazy surrealist fashion. Its motion is only apparent by intuition (parades are supposed to move so this one must be moving) as it has no referents to indicate motion by changes of distance between anything. Magic confetti is thrown from non-rule defined buildings. Curiously, both the buildings and confetti move along with the parade so that they don't provide the necessary referents... Whoever designed this place had an odd sense of humor. Oh, and at the front of the parade are BOTH Josh Kortbein and Joel D Uckelman prominently displaying their Heroic Ears. Small non rule defined children that also keep pace with the parade are oohing and aahing and wondering when they will be old enough to subscribe to the INTO mailing list. A band of shrubberies bring up the rear, with signs that variously demand their inclusion in the ruleset for "a more egalitarian shrub-world" and display nekkid pictures of an oddly gender-politics-sensitive nature. Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:50:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Question At 10:35 PM 1/10/99 , you wrote: >Where's all the nudey pictures on this damn site? Yep, this is now definately the all-time FAQ. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:59:39 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments I'm making my way through the digests now, and I feel compelled to formalize the Infinite Jest reference made by Joel. Proposal: Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated "The Cycle of the Tasteful Shrubbery." [[The cycle name should be changed at the beginning of each cycle by proposals.]] ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:11:36 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Ears I subscribed. I want my ear now. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:32:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Re: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 This was bounced for whatever reason: >From: Einsturzende Neubaten > > >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>I subscribed. I want my ear now. > >Better get 'em quick! They're going like candy corn! > >-- >Karma police arrest this man >He talks in maths, he buzzes like a fridge >He`s like a detuned radio J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:03:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 02:40 AM 1/7/99 , Josh wrote: >>--------------------------------------- >>Proposal 399 >> >>{{Add property as a Player attribute.}} >> >>Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable. All >>game entities, including the game itself, may possess property. Public > >Since you were a little nit picky on "hearing" I'm afraid I must voice >my irritation at this use of the word "property." While it's not too much >of a stretch to say that the game (since it's sort of like a nation or >some such) can posess property, ANY game entity posessing property >sounds a little fishy. It's contrary to my anthropomorphic and/or >organizationomorphic tendencies. > >>property consists of property owned by Berserker Nomic rather than any >>individual Player. >> revision: The second sentence of Prop. 399 should be: "Players and the game may possess property." Does this fix the problem? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:15:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: "gimme one of them Heroic Ear thingies" At 10:38 PM 1/10/99 , you wrote: >At 09:39 PM 1/10/99 CST, you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>I just subscribed to the internomic list, so I want my Ear. >> >>You loser, I get my ear first. I've been on it for longer. >> > >A parade marches through Berserker Nomic in a lazy surrealist fashion. Its >motion is only apparent by intuition (parades are supposed to move so this >one must be moving) as it has no referents to indicate motion by changes of >distance between anything. > >Magic confetti is thrown from non-rule defined buildings. Curiously, both >the buildings and confetti move along with the parade so that they don't >provide the necessary referents... > >Whoever designed this place had an odd sense of humor. Oh, and at the >front of the parade are BOTH Josh Kortbein and Joel D Uckelman prominently >displaying their Heroic Ears. > >Small non rule defined children that also keep pace with the parade are >oohing and aahing and wondering when they will be old enough to subscribe >to the INTO mailing list. > >A band of shrubberies bring up the rear, with signs that variously demand >their inclusion in the ruleset for "a more egalitarian shrub-world" and >display nekkid pictures of an oddly gender-politics-sensitive nature. > >Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister >mueller4@sonic.net I like this. There may be a place for it on the Articles page, although it doesn't quite fit with the rest of the content. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:10:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 02:40 AM 1/7/99 , Josh wrote: >>------------------------------ >>Proposal 402 >> >>The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: >> >>1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. >>2. Purchasing sufficient spam to support non-player game entities. >>3. Purchasing sufficient muskets so as to replenish those expended for defense >>. >>4. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. >>5. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. >> >>The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per >>turn, may: >> >>1. Auction public lands. >>2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. >>3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury. >> >>The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, may: >> >>1. Purchase lands from other game entities with funds from the Treasury. >>2. Purchase commodities with funds from the Treasury. >>3. Sell commodities held by the Treasury. >> >>The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>he/she holds Office. > >I think that some notion of the rate at which subers may be minted, etc., >is in order. I thought about this, but I don't have any idea what rate would be appropriate or whether the need for new Subers would fluctuate widely over time. I'd hate to set a rate only to find that it is woefully inadequate. Maybe we could determine this by letting the economy run for a few turns. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:13:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 02:40 AM 1/7/99 , Josh wrote: >>---------------------------- >>Proposal 403 >> >>Enterprises are non-moveable property, that given certain inputs will >>produce certain outputs, as defined below. Commodities are moveable >>property and are inputs and outputs for enterprises. The the set of >>enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel >>mill, power plant, supermarket, arsenal, construction yard} , and the set >>of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, >>spam, muskets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in integer >>quantities. > >Nonnegative? Or is it even necessary? > Yep. Change the last sentence above to: Enterprises and commodities may only exist in non-negative integer quantities. >>Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in >>possession of the enterprise's owner: >> >>Forests convert 5 energy into 10 wood. >>Farms convert 5 energy into 10 livestock. >>Mines convert 10 energy into coal and ore, such that no more than 10 total >>units are produced. >>Lumber mills convert 40 wood and 15 energy into 10 lumber. >>Slaughterhouses convert 20 livestock and 15 energy into 10 meat. >>Steel mills convert 40 ore and 30 energy into 10 steel. >>Power plants convert 40 coal into 200 energy. >>Supermarkets convert 5 meat and 20 energy into 4 spam. >>Arsenals convert 15 steel and 15 energy into 10 muskets. >>Construction yards convert one of the following : >> >>100 Subers, 5 lumber, and 5 energy into 1 forest. >>25 Subers, 50 lumber, 5 steel, and 25 energy into 1 farm. >>50 Subers, 50 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 mine. >>100 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 lumber mill. >>100 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 slaughterhouse. >>100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 steel mill. >>100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 power plant. >>25 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 25 energy into 1 supermarket. >>50 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 arsenal. >>200 Subers, 50 lumber, 50 steel, and 50 energy into 1 construction yard. >> >>Upkeep for each enterprise costs 5 Subers per turn. An enterprise for which >>its owner does not pay upkeep is destroyed. If insufficient commodities are >>available to operate an enterprise or the owner chooses not to do so, it >>produces no output and consumes no commodities. >> >>Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 >>point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which >>they do not consume spam. >> >>The game expends 3 muskets per player per turn for game defense. If the >>Treasury possesses insufficient muskets to meet these demands, an automatic >>Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. > >Hmmm? Why do we need defense expenditures, until we have something >against which to defend? We have to use the output for something. I just wanted to get the military-industrial complex off to a good start. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:25:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO This is what I got when I contacted the INTO moderator (before we had a Foreign Minister): >Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:50:19 +0200 (EET) >From: Uri Bruck >To: Joel D Uckelman >Subject: Re: INTO > > >INTO has not started yet, so Berserker would be the first. >Just post a message to the internomic mailing list, and maybe other nomics >will follow suit. > >Uri > >On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Joel D Uckelman wrote: > >> Berserker Nomic may be interested in joining INTO. Has it started yet? >> >> J. Uckelman >> uckelman@iastate.edu >> J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:26:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 10:59 PM 1/10/99 , you wrote: >I'm making my way through the digests now, and I feel compelled to >formalize the Infinite Jest reference made by Joel. > >Proposal: > >Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has >no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated "The Cycle >of the Tasteful Shrubbery." [[The cycle name should be changed at the >beginning of each cycle by proposals.]] Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal every time? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:23:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 02:40 AM 1/7/99 , Josh wrote: >>------------------------------ >>Proposal 401 >> >>Berserker Nomic takes place on a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid with the grain >>running north-south and the first column superior. Hexes are numbered xxyy >>where xx is the column number and yy is the row number, running from 00 in >>the west and south to 49 in the north and east. [[Thus, 2314 would be hex >>14 in column 23.]] Each hex represents 1 unit of land. >> >>A hex may be owned by only one entity at a time. >> >>All land is initially public property. At least 50 hexes must remain public >>property at all times. > >The stuff about moveability and such below should go up here somewhere, >I think. Add a final paragraph to Prop. 401: Anything built within a hex may not be moved from that hex. Change the first sentence of Prop. 403 to: Enterprises are non-moveable property built within hexes, that given certain inputs will produce certain outputs, as defined below. I think this takes care of the movablility problem that you mentioned before. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:50:26 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: "gimme one of them Heroic Ear thingies" Joel D Uckelman writes: >I like this. There may be a place for it on the Articles page, although it >doesn't quite fit with the rest of the content. Fun, Joel, fun.... -- There is no hell. There is only France. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:52:23 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments Joel D Uckelman writes: >Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >every time? I think we should let winners pick cycle names. Josh -- This is a sacred duty. Please die trying. - R. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:51:36 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >We have to use the output for something. I just wanted to get the >military-industrial complex off to a good start. I don't see any reason to have a defense budget when we don't have anyone against whom to defend. Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:54:14 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >The second sentence of Prop. 399 should be: "Players and the game may >possess property." > >Does this fix the problem? Possession by other entities is not governed by a rule and hence some smartass (me) may choose to claim other entities possess things. -- ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:50:17 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 10:26 AM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >At 10:59 PM 1/10/99 , you wrote: >>I'm making my way through the digests now, and I feel compelled to >>formalize the Infinite Jest reference made by Joel. >> >>Proposal: >> >>Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has >>no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated "The Cycle >>of the Tasteful Shrubbery." [[The cycle name should be changed at the >>beginning of each cycle by proposals.]] > >Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >every time? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu Perhaps, but I hated to see such a blatantly silly proposal become too long and drawn-out. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:53:26 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO Joel D Uckelman writes: >This is what I got when I contacted the INTO moderator (before we had a >Foreign Minister): > >>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:50:19 +0200 (EET) >>From: Uri Bruck >>To: Joel D Uckelman >>Subject: Re: INTO >> >> >>INTO has not started yet, so Berserker would be the first. >>Just post a message to the internomic mailing list, and maybe other nomics >>will follow suit. >> >>Uri >> >>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Joel D Uckelman wrote: >> >>> Berserker Nomic may be interested in joining INTO. Has it started yet? >>> >>> J. Uckelman >>> uckelman@iastate.edu >>> > > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu So... we control INTO? Bitchen. -- ... it seems to me that teaching critical thinking via popular-art examples holds the potential for making people both capable of critical thought and inclined toward it, whereas teaching it through _The Scarlet Letter_ just makes people associate the process with unpleasantness. - Glenn McDonald ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:01:58 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Perhaps, but I hated to see such a blatantly silly proposal become too long >and drawn-out. Fun never really starts until the beauracracy kicks in. -- In my experience most mathematicians are intellectually lazy and especially dislike reading experimental papers. - Francis Harry Compton Crick ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:05:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 12:54 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>The second sentence of Prop. 399 should be: "Players and the game may >>possess property." >> >>Does this fix the problem? > >Possession by other entities is not governed by a rule and hence some >smartass (me) may choose to claim other entities possess things. The second sentence of Prop. 399 should be: "Only Players and the game may possess property." Better? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:04:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>every time? > >I think we should let winners pick cycle names. By cycle, do you mean a game or a turn? I though that cycles were to be a new name for turns, but if a game is meant, then disregard my suggestion. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:08:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO At 12:53 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>This is what I got when I contacted the INTO moderator (before we had a >>Foreign Minister): >> >>>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:50:19 +0200 (EET) >>>From: Uri Bruck >>>To: Joel D Uckelman >>>Subject: Re: INTO >>> >>> >>>INTO has not started yet, so Berserker would be the first. >>>Just post a message to the internomic mailing list, and maybe other nomics >>>will follow suit. >>> >>>Uri >>> >>>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Joel D Uckelman wrote: >>> >>>> Berserker Nomic may be interested in joining INTO. Has it started yet? >>>> >>>> J. Uckelman >>>> uckelman@iastate.edu >>>> >> >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu > >So... we control INTO? > > > >Bitchen. It's rules are more like international relations than the old Internomic rules were, so I don't know that anyone could be said to control it. I guess that we'd be the charter member, though. I suggest that TM declare us a member of INTO if he hasn't already. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:39:25 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO Quick, let's make ourselves Tyrants For Life before anyone else shows up! ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:40:37 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments Well, I like it, but the winner of the last cycle's vote should only be defeatable by a full majority, IMHO. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:11:22 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments RJ KNIGHT writes: >Well, I like it, but the winner of the last cycle's vote should only be >defeatable by a full majority, IMHO. Why's that? Josh -- Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. - Walt Whitman ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:10:15 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>>every time? >> >>I think we should let winners pick cycle names. > >By cycle, do you mean a game or a turn? I though that cycles were to be a >new name for turns, but if a game is meant, then disregard my suggestion. I mean game. -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:22:33 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: "gimme one of them Heroic Ear thingies" I wrote: >At 09:39 PM 1/10/99 CST, you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>I just subscribed to the internomic list, so I want my Ear. >> >>You loser, I get my ear first. I've been on it for longer. >> > >A parade marches through Berserker Nomic in a lazy surrealist fashion. Its >motion is only apparent by intuition (parades are supposed to move so this >one must be moving) as it has no referents to indicate motion by changes of >distance between anything. > >Magic confetti is thrown from non-rule defined buildings. Curiously, both >the buildings and confetti move along with the parade so that they don't >provide the necessary referents... > >Whoever designed this place had an odd sense of humor. Oh, and at the >front of the parade are BOTH Josh Kortbein and Joel D Uckelman prominently >displaying their Heroic Ears. > >Small non rule defined children that also keep pace with the parade are >oohing and aahing and wondering when they will be old enough to subscribe >to the INTO mailing list. > >A band of shrubberies bring up the rear, with signs that variously demand >their inclusion in the ruleset for "a more egalitarian shrub-world" and >display nekkid pictures of an oddly gender-politics-sensitive nature. And what's this! Behind the shrubberies on a sedan chair of the finest Shrubbery weavings carried by rules gnomes Tom Plagge functions as a Master of Ceremonies for this parade with his own Heroic Ear lashed to a staff wrapped in the purest shimmering samite. Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:44:48 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Uckelman wrote: >At 02:40 AM 1/7/99 , Josh wrote: >>>---------------------------- >>>Proposal 403 ... >>>Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in >>>possession of the enterprise's owner: >>> >>>Forests convert 5 energy into 10 wood. >>>Farms convert 5 energy into 10 livestock. >>>Mines convert 10 energy into coal and ore, such that no more than 10 total >>>units are produced. >>>Lumber mills convert 40 wood and 15 energy into 10 lumber. >>>Slaughterhouses convert 20 livestock and 15 energy into 10 meat. >>>Steel mills convert 40 ore and 30 energy into 10 steel. >>>Power plants convert 40 coal into 200 energy. >>>Supermarkets convert 5 meat and 20 energy into 4 spam. >>>Arsenals convert 15 steel and 15 energy into 10 muskets. >>>Construction yards convert one of the following : Perhaps, using the same numbers as muskets we could say that: Ore -> Steel -> Widgets Then say that the "mysterious machinery of the nomic" requires repairs or something. Also allows widgets to be a unit of construction material for the creation of tricky items later. See reasoning below. >>> >>>100 Subers, 5 lumber, and 5 energy into 1 forest. >>>25 Subers, 50 lumber, 5 steel, and 25 energy into 1 farm. >>>50 Subers, 50 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 mine. >>>100 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 lumber mill. >>>100 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 slaughterhouse. >>>100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 steel mill. >>>100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 power plant. >>>25 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 25 energy into 1 supermarket. >>>50 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 arsenal. >>>200 Subers, 50 lumber, 50 steel, and 50 energy into 1 construction yard. >>> >>>Upkeep for each enterprise costs 5 Subers per turn. An enterprise for which >>>its owner does not pay upkeep is destroyed. If insufficient commodities are >>>available to operate an enterprise or the owner chooses not to do so, it >>>produces no output and consumes no commodities. >>> >>>Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 >>>point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which >>>they do not consume spam. >>> >>>The game expends 3 muskets per player per turn for game defense. If the >>>Treasury possesses insufficient muskets to meet these demands, an automatic >>>Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. >> >>Hmmm? Why do we need defense expenditures, until we have something >>against which to defend? > >We have to use the output for something. I just wanted to get the >military-industrial complex off to a good start. Later Josh responded: >I don't see any reason to have a defense budget when we don't have >anyone against whom to defend. I agree with Josh that muskets don't make a whole lot of sense in this context, but Joel's right that we need something to burn the product on. Perhaps widgets would be a happy medium. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:24:25 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: damn. Joel also was correct. Replace every occurance of "cycle" in my proposal with "game." ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:22:52 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>every time? > >I think we should let winners pick cycle names. Good idea. Proposal: Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated &The Cycle of the Iowa Beef Producers.& The winner of each cycle must name the next cycle by publicly decreeing the name that is to replace the ampersand-delimited text. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:14:01 CST From: Einsturzende Neubaten Subject: Nomic: Re: INTO: Starting members Mueller writes in Internomic: >A second treaty (which may be more of a white elephant): I've noticed many >nomics try to develope some sort of economy and recall some attempts by >Internomic to permit entitiy trading. What if we generated treaty based >entities that worked approximately the same in each nomic. A transnomic >currency might facilitate this. > >Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister of Berserker > >AKA >Studge in Ackanomic >Gödel in Axiom I am strongly opposed to this until we have a stable economy of our own. Then I'll consider liking it. -- A true Zen saying, nothing is what I want. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:09:52 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO At 02:39 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >Quick, let's make ourselves Tyrants For Life before anyone else shows up! Right, then! Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war! First Agora, and then the world... By the way, we need a new name. Berserker Nomic sucks, and has always sucked. How can we expect to rule the world with a name like this? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:29:31 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: INTO: Starting members At 12:14 AM 1/12/99 CST, you wrote: > >Mueller writes in Internomic: NOTE: White Elephant is a term an agora person used to describe "a nice structure, fun to make, but hardly ever used and not really necessary for any practical purpose" a while back on the INTO mailing list. >>A second treaty (which may be more of a white elephant): I've noticed many >>nomics try to develope some sort of economy and recall some attempts by >>Internomic to permit entitiy trading. What if we generated treaty based >>entities that worked approximately the same in each nomic. A transnomic >>currency might facilitate this. >> >>Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister of Berserker >> >>AKA >>Studge in Ackanomic >>Gödel in Axiom > >I am strongly opposed to this until we have a stable economy >of our own. Then I'll consider liking it. > The idea was that this would be a mostly separate economy. Like every voting player in every signatory gets five sheckels and there is a "treaty store" with something (no idea what just now) that is useful in all signatories for maybe 15 sheckels. Basically, instead of letting trade occur between nomics using their already existing economies (which we don't really have) we create a larger meta-economy which individual players might gain advantage in by cutting deals within their nomic (or outside it for an even better angle). Again, this is a very "proto" idea that might be fundamentally infeasible. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:48:20 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: a modest proposal I am interested in the recent turn of events within Berserker. The thought of messing up nomics on a grand scale is absolutely delightful. However, this is currently the only part of Berserker Nomic I find of interest. I would not actually have to be a Player within Berserker. That's up to you folks. I could be a seperate nomic, a nomic within Berserker, or a special class of Player Entity within Berserker. I would like to offer my services to Berserker, for a modest compensation which can be discussed at a later date. I think this is probably something that Mueller should handle, but I don't know that the current rules allow him. Join me in a sinister chuckle, n Come to think of it, starting a Mononomic, where I am, by rule, the only Player, could have some delicious implications for a meta-nomic. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:47:39 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >At 02:39 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >>Quick, let's make ourselves Tyrants For Life before anyone else shows up! > >Right, then! Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war! First Agora, and >then the world... > >By the way, we need a new name. Berserker Nomic sucks, and has always >sucked. How can we expect to rule the world with a name like this? > I _told_ you it sucked. -- We are servants rather than masters in mathematics. - Charles Hermite ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:57:44 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I am interested in the recent turn of events within Berserker. The thought >of messing up nomics on a grand scale is absolutely delightful. However, >this is currently the only part of Berserker Nomic I find of interest. > >I would not actually have to be a Player within Berserker. That's up to you >folks. I could be a seperate nomic, a nomic within Berserker, or a special >class of Player Entity within Berserker. > >I would like to offer my services to Berserker, for a modest compensation >which can be discussed at a later date. I think this is probably something >that Mueller should handle, but I don't know that the current rules allow >him. Sorry, the rules don't recognize any "Nick Osborn," except that he seems to be some kind of shrubbery. Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:41:03 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A proposal Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. OLDDUTIES 3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. OLDDUTIES NEWTRICK 3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. 4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. 5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. Further it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow these Awards of the appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may not be a recipient of any Awards. The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. NEWTRICK Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. AWARDS When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is immortalized as a recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same type as the Award. Medals are tradeable and sellable if both parties agree publicly to such a thing. If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to the Foreign Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests such a sale. It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting this sacred patriotic duty. AWARDS ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:37:35 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments So the winner gets some kind of definite perk, but can still be over-ruled if they come up with a really lame idea. - A.I.N.O.M. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:46:07 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: INTO: Starting members You mean an overall currency that isn't necessarily compatable with each individual Nomics' economy? ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:50:07 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: a modest proposal Hey, sparkey. I can start one of those little separte games, right? If so, I'm starting up theOfficial Bezerker 0.5-a-side Football League . With only me in it. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:50:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: BOUNCE nomic@iastate.edu: Admin request The majordomo server has been gimpy lately. Here's another bounce: >Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:45:01 -0600 (CST) >To: owner-nomic@iastate.edu >From: owner-nomic@iastate.edu >Subject: BOUNCE nomic@iastate.edu: Admin request > >>From uckelman@iastate.edu Tue Jan 12 16:45:00 1999 >Received: from pop-4.iastate.edu (pop-4.iastate.edu [129.186.6.64]) by >majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id QAA15511 for >; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:45:00 -0600 (CST) >Received: from hil-img-1.compuserve.com (hil-img-1.compuserve.com >[149.174.177.131]) > by pop-4.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25178 > for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:44:58 -0600 (CST) >Received: (from root@localhost) > by hil-img-1.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id RAA00600 > for nomic@iastate.edu; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:44:58 -0500 (EST) >Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:44:36 -0500 >From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Re: INTO >Sender: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> >To: N >Message-ID: <199901121744_MC2-6666-20C3@compuserve.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Disposition: inline >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by majordomo.iastate.edu >id QAA19827 > >I vote for calling us Special Circumstances. Pretty good even if you don't >get the reference. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:04:26 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: INTO: Starting members At 05:46 PM 1/12/99 -0500, you wrote: >You mean an overall currency that isn't necessarily compatable with each >individual Nomics' economy? > Yes, I've sense begun thinking of them as INTO Action Tokens or something along those lines (considering the discussion of value and currencies on that list). Initally my basic idea was: come up with things that are usefule across many nomics, define those things NOT in the nomics' rules but in a treaty then have a similarly defined store use currency that people in any nomic signed on the treaty could use. This currency would be like a gold standard for each nomic. Perhaps Berserker could have point/INTO and Suber/INTO musket/INTO exchange rates and someone who also played in Agora might convert some P-Notes into INTOs and truck them over here for an emergency lumber shortage. And the "intrinsic value" of INTOs would be described by whatever it was that everyone could turn them into at the INTO defined store. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:07:26 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments RJ KNIGHT writes: >So the winner gets some kind of definite perk, but can still be over-ruled >if they come up with a really lame idea. That could be seen as part of the privelige. Josh -- Prosecutors will be violated. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:08:04 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: INTO: Starting members RJ KNIGHT writes: >You mean an overall currency that isn't necessarily compatable with each >individual Nomics' economy? Ci. -- "Kill them all, God will know His own." - Bishop of Angouleame, when asked how to tell 'true believers' from 'heretics', during the Albigensian Crusades ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:11:47 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal RJ KNIGHT writes: >Hey, sparkey. I can start one of those little separte games, right? If so, >I'm starting up theOfficial Bezerker 0.5-a-side Football League Christanthium Society rules>. With only me in it. Er... unless you're going to point out the reference you're making, you haven't yet defined the procedures of play for this game. Josh -- How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality? - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:13:28 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal Mueller writes: >Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. > >OLDDUTIES >3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. > >The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >he/she holds Office. >OLDDUTIES > >NEWTRICK >3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. > >4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. > >5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. > >It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award >Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. Further >it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow these Awards of the >appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may not be a recipient >of any Awards. > >The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >he/she holds Office. >NEWTRICK > >Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. > >AWARDS >When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is >immortalized as a recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same >type as the Award. Medals are tradeable and sellable if both parties agree >publicly to such a thing. > >If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister >shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. > >If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not >given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to the Foreign >Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests such a sale. > >It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to >languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some >Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting >this sacred patriotic duty. >AWARDS I will vote no for this in this form, as award-keepership is not the providence of the Foreign Minister (at least, according to the "conventional meaning" [shut your mouth, Joel]). If you want that create a separate office. I'd vote for that, and you as officeholder. Josh -- I have no lid / Upon my head But if I did / You could look inside and see what's on my mind - DMB ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:39:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal At 06:13 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. >> >>OLDDUTIES >>3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. >> >>The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>he/she holds Office. >>OLDDUTIES >> >>NEWTRICK >>3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. >> >>4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. >> >>5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. >> >>It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award >>Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. Further >>it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow these Awards of the >>appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may not be a recipient >>of any Awards. >> >>The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>he/she holds Office. >>NEWTRICK >> >>Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. >> >>AWARDS >>When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is >>immortalized as a recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same >>type as the Award. Medals are tradeable and sellable if both parties agree >>publicly to such a thing. >> >>If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister >>shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. >> >>If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not >>given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to the Foreign >>Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests such a sale. >> >>It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to >>languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some >>Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting >>this sacred patriotic duty. >>AWARDS > >I will vote no for this in this form, as award-keepership is not >the providence of the Foreign Minister (at least, according to >the "conventional meaning" [shut your mouth, Joel]). If you want >that create a separate office. I'd vote for that, and you as officeholder. > >Josh I agree with Josh (especially the conventional meaning part). I don't know if I'd vote for TM for another office right now, though. Soon he'll try to become Princeps and Pontifex Maximus, and then the rest of us will be defeated and have to fall on our swords. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:44:42 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >I agree with Josh (especially the conventional meaning part). I don't know Shut your mouth Joel. Josh -- "You've been had!" is healthier for the game than "Hypothetically, this could be messed up." Don't you think? - B. Byrne ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:15:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 07:22 PM 1/11/99 , Plagge wrote: >At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>>every time? >> >>I think we should let winners pick cycle names. >Good idea. > >Proposal: > >Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has >no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated &The Cycle >of the Iowa Beef Producers.& The winner of each cycle must name the next >cycle by publicly decreeing the name that is to replace the >ampersand-delimited text. Is this another proposal, or is it just a revision of the last one? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:14:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 05:44 PM 1/11/99 , it was written: >Later Josh responded: >>I don't see any reason to have a defense budget when we don't have >>anyone against whom to defend. > >I agree with Josh that muskets don't make a whole lot of sense in this >context, but Joel's right that we need something to burn the product on. >Perhaps widgets would be a happy medium. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net I'm not set on muskets -- I just tend to gravitate towards military hardware (you're lucky that I didn't make the output of the armory PzKfw VI's [i.e. Tiger tanks]). Widgets are fine, too. Thus, change all occurances of "armory" and "musket" (or other forms thereof) in my proposals to "widget factory" and "widget", respectively (or to their plural forms, as appropriate). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:25:12 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal At 04:50 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >Hey, sparkey. I can start one of those little separte games, right? If so, >I'm starting up theOfficial Bezerker 0.5-a-side Football League Christanthium Society rules>. With only me in it. Sure. You need to specify how many Subers you're putting in to start it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:26:16 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 05:44 PM 1/11/99 , it was written: > >>Later Josh responded: >>>I don't see any reason to have a defense budget when we don't have >>>anyone against whom to defend. >> >>I agree with Josh that muskets don't make a whole lot of sense in this >>context, but Joel's right that we need something to burn the product on. >>Perhaps widgets would be a happy medium. >> >>Tom Mueller >>mueller4@sonic.net > >I'm not set on muskets -- I just tend to gravitate towards military >hardware (you're lucky that I didn't make the output of the armory PzKfw >VI's [i.e. Tiger tanks]). Widgets are fine, too. Thus, change all >occurances of "armory" and "musket" (or other forms thereof) in my >proposals to "widget factory" and "widget", respectively (or to their >plural forms, as appropriate). > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu I like "frombozzle," or any of the syntactic metavariables (foo, bar, baz, ...). 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 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:59:13 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting Voting starts tomorrow at 21:31 CST. I guess that would be at 4:30 on the 14th for TK, but at 19:31 on the 13th for TM. Our game spans nine time zones... Does the fact that I use GMT -6 for everything terribly inconvenience anyone? I could see how it might be confusing with players in GMT -8, GMT -6, GMT -5, and GMT. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:02:34 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 07:15 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >At 07:22 PM 1/11/99 , Plagge wrote: >>At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>>>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>>>every time? >>> >>>I think we should let winners pick cycle names. >>Good idea. >> >>Proposal: >> >>Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has >>no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated &The Cycle >>of the Iowa Beef Producers.& The winner of each cycle must name the next >>cycle by publicly decreeing the name that is to replace the >>ampersand-delimited text. > >Is this another proposal, or is it just a revision of the last one? A new one. Sorry. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:04:43 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 07:26 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 05:44 PM 1/11/99 , it was written: >> >>>Later Josh responded: >>>>I don't see any reason to have a defense budget when we don't have >>>>anyone against whom to defend. >>> >>>I agree with Josh that muskets don't make a whole lot of sense in this >>>context, but Joel's right that we need something to burn the product on. >>>Perhaps widgets would be a happy medium. >>> >>>Tom Mueller >>>mueller4@sonic.net >> >>I'm not set on muskets -- I just tend to gravitate towards military >>hardware (you're lucky that I didn't make the output of the armory PzKfw >>VI's [i.e. Tiger tanks]). Widgets are fine, too. Thus, change all >>occurances of "armory" and "musket" (or other forms thereof) in my >>proposals to "widget factory" and "widget", respectively (or to their >>plural forms, as appropriate). >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu > >I like "frombozzle," or any of the syntactic metavariables (foo, >bar, baz, ...). Computer science....mmmmmm..... I once had a textbook that had a function call in example code as follows: foo(bar,bam,baz); ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:00:33 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>I like "frombozzle," or any of the syntactic metavariables (foo, >>bar, baz, ...). > >Computer science....mmmmmm..... And linguistics... -- "Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound." - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:04:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 09:02 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >At 07:15 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >>At 07:22 PM 1/11/99 , Plagge wrote: >>>At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >>>> >>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>>>>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>>>>every time? >>>> >>>>I think we should let winners pick cycle names. >>>Good idea. >>> >>>Proposal: >>> >>>Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has >>>no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated &The Cycle >>>of the Iowa Beef Producers.& The winner of each cycle must name the next >>>cycle by publicly decreeing the name that is to replace the >>>ampersand-delimited text. >> >>Is this another proposal, or is it just a revision of the last one? >A new one. Sorry. > Are you withdrawing the other one then? Don't they do the same thing? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:04:20 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: News from the outside "world" ------- Forwarded Message Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA17760 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:50:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from eidolon.muppetlabs.com (muppetlabs.com [206.191.168.254]) by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA15967; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:50:14 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA14570 for internomic-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:32:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.muppetlabs.com: majordom set sender to owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com using -f Received: from poverty.bloomington.in.us (root@dial-126-133.dial.indiana.edu [156.56.126.133]) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA14564 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:32:00 -0800 Received: from poverty.bloomington.in.us (scott@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by poverty.bloomington.in.us (8.7.3/8.7.3/poverty) with ESMTP id VAA00644 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:51:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199901130251.VAA00644@poverty.bloomington.in.us> To: internomic@muppetlabs.com Subject: Re: INTO: Starting members In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:34:29 CST." <199901130134.TAA02492@isua5.iastate.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:51:11 -0500 From: Scott Goehring Sender: owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: internomic@muppetlabs.com X-UIDL: c50e7b97b381cf99e469bdfc13ce7590 Status: U "Josh" == Josh writes: Josh> What has Agora done to the standard wins-by-points situation? It Josh> seems that when it's still in place, these things (creativity, Josh> etc.) are difficult to use as the basis for an economy, since Josh> (presumably) players interested in benefitting from applying Josh> their abilities are already rewarded in the best way possible, Josh> by obtaining points. Agora abolished wins by points something like two years ago. Points made a brief comeback last year but were unpopular and were abolished a few months later. We still have "wins" but they are extremely infrequent; I can't recall the last time someone Won a Game. I've got a dormant proposal to remove all notion of winning from the Game. Winning does not cause the Winner to become Speaker; all it does is grant the Winner the right to a "Winner's Cup" (progressivly higher Cups are awarded for progressively more Wins) although this has been somewhat diminished in meaning since Crito managed to Win several hundred times at once. We change Speaker once each quarter (and upon the occurence of certain other exceptional events, which rarely happens). ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:21:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: News from the outside "world" >------- Forwarded Message > >Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) > by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA17760 > for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:50:16 -0600 (CST) >Received: from eidolon.muppetlabs.com (muppetlabs.com [206.191.168.254]) > by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA15967; > Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:50:14 -0600 (CST) >Received: (from majordom@localhost) > by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA14570 > for internomic-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:32:04 -0800 >X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.muppetlabs.com: majordom set sender to >owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com using -f >Received: from poverty.bloomington.in.us (root@dial-126-133.dial.indiana.edu >[156.56.126.133]) > by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA14564 > for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:32:00 -0800 >Received: from poverty.bloomington.in.us (scott@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by >poverty.bloomington.in.us (8.7.3/8.7.3/poverty) with ESMTP id VAA00644 for >; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:51:13 -0500 >Message-Id: <199901130251.VAA00644@poverty.bloomington.in.us> >To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >Subject: Re: INTO: Starting members >In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:34:29 CST." > <199901130134.TAA02492@isua5.iastate.edu> >Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:51:11 -0500 >From: Scott Goehring >Sender: owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >X-UIDL: c50e7b97b381cf99e469bdfc13ce7590 >Status: U > >"Josh" == Josh writes: > >Josh> What has Agora done to the standard wins-by-points situation? It >Josh> seems that when it's still in place, these things (creativity, >Josh> etc.) are difficult to use as the basis for an economy, since >Josh> (presumably) players interested in benefitting from applying >Josh> their abilities are already rewarded in the best way possible, >Josh> by obtaining points. > >Agora abolished wins by points something like two years ago. Points >made a brief comeback last year but were unpopular and were abolished >a few months later. We still have "wins" but they are extremely >infrequent; I can't recall the last time someone Won a Game. I've got >a dormant proposal to remove all notion of winning from the Game. > >Winning does not cause the Winner to become Speaker; all it does is >grant the Winner the right to a "Winner's Cup" (progressivly higher >Cups are awarded for progressively more Wins) although this has been >somewhat diminished in meaning since Crito managed to Win several >hundred times at once. We change Speaker once each quarter (and upon >the occurence of certain other exceptional events, which rarely >happens). This is Josh on his crusade to eliminate points. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 23:36:25 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: News from the outside "world" Joel D Uckelman writes: >This is Josh on his crusade to eliminate points. Well, I figured that since you took my Internomic post about the infeasability of economies as a commentary on the odiousness of points, I had better take up the standard again... Josh -- "When angry, count to 10. When very angry, swear." - Mark Twain ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 01:08:35 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Cycle of Depends Adult Undergarments At 11:04 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >At 09:02 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >>At 07:15 PM 1/12/99 , you wrote: >>>At 07:22 PM 1/11/99 , Plagge wrote: >>>>At 12:52 PM 1/11/99 , you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>>>Would it be better to just have a vote on names for the next cycle during >>>>>>the voting period of the last cycle, rather than have it done by proposal >>>>>>every time? >>>>> >>>>>I think we should let winners pick cycle names. >>>>Good idea. >>>> >>>>Proposal: >>>> >>>>Each cycle shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has >>>>no significance at all. The current cycle shall be designated &The Cycle >>>>of the Iowa Beef Producers.& The winner of each cycle must name the next >>>>cycle by publicly decreeing the name that is to replace the >>>>ampersand-delimited text. >>> >>>Is this another proposal, or is it just a revision of the last one? >>A new one. Sorry. >> > >Are you withdrawing the other one then? Don't they do the same thing? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu yeah. it was supposed to be a new draft ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:28:58 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Proposal This is a disinterested proposal. Change "200" in rule 208 to "400". Josh noticed how many points Joel stands to accumulate this turn -- "Writing is like prostitution. First you do for the love of it, Then you do it for a few friends, And finally you do it for money." -Moliere ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:45:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 01:28 PM 1/13/99 , you wrote: > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Change "200" in rule 208 to "400". Sorry, it can't be a disinterested proposal unless it's a transmutation. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:46:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 01:28 PM 1/13/99 , Josh wrote: > >This is a disinterested proposal. > >Change "200" in rule 208 to "400". Actually, 400 would be only about 4 turns. I'd be in favor of something closer to 500-600. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:59:05 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) Proposal: 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 the Administrator. The list of proposed names shall then be sent to the mailing list. Each player shall then vote on each name, assigning it an integer value between 0 and 200 inclusive and not assigning two or more names the same value. If any proposed name is given anything other than an integer number between 0 and 200 inclusive or if a value is used more than once, that ballot shall be void and the player who submitted it shall not vote over. Votes shall be sent to and tabulated by the Administrator. >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 occurences of "Berserker Nomic" in the rules. In the event of a tie, the tied proposed names shall be sent to all players to be voted upon again in the same manner as described above. After a new name has won, this rule shall repeal itself [[and the quest for world nomic domination shall begin in earnest]]. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:01:45 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Problem w/ changing winning conditions? If the point value at which the game is won is raised, should the value of the Suber reflect that? Originally, controlling every Suber would be tantamount to winning, and thus raising the winning conditions would seriously devalue the Suber. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:07:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) At 03:59 PM 1/13/99 Plagge wrote: >Proposal: > >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 the >Administrator. The list of proposed names shall then be sent to the mailing >list. > >Each player shall then vote on each name, assigning it an integer value >between 0 and 200 inclusive and not assigning two or more names the same >value. If any proposed name is given anything other than an integer number >between 0 and 200 inclusive or if a value is used more than once, that >ballot shall be void and the player who submitted it shall not vote over. >Votes shall be sent to and tabulated by the Administrator. > >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 occurences of "Berserker Nomic" in the >rules. > >In the event of a tie, the tied proposed names shall be sent to all players >to be voted upon again in the same manner as described above. > >After a new name has won, this rule shall repeal itself [[and the quest for >world nomic domination shall begin in earnest]]. This won't do anything because the name of the game is specified in Rule 001, which is an immutable rule. Thus, you need to first propose a transmutation of 001. Of course, I won't vote for a transmutation of 001 unless we have already decided on a name that I like. I suggest making this inactive or modifying it to take this into account. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:16:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem w/ changing winning conditions? At 04:01 PM 1/13/99 , Plagge wrote: >If the point value at which the game is won is raised, should the value of >the Suber reflect that? Originally, controlling every Suber would be >tantamount to winning, and thus raising the winning conditions would >seriously devalue the Suber. Yep. You need to amend the Suber rule too. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:17:42 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Okay, then.. Well, fine, then, let's choose the name informally using the same technique, starting tomorrow at noon. Then if there is general non-violent-disagreement with the resulting name, we'll go from there. >>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 the >>Administrator. The list of proposed names shall then be sent to the mailing >>list. >> >>Each player shall then vote on each name, assigning it an integer value >>between 0 and 200 inclusive and not assigning two or more names the same >>value. If any proposed name is given anything other than an integer number >>between 0 and 200 inclusive or if a value is used more than once, that >>ballot shall be void and the player who submitted it shall not vote over. >>Votes shall be sent to and tabulated by the Administrator. >> >>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 occurences of "Berserker Nomic" in the >>rules. >> >>In the event of a tie, the tied proposed names shall be sent to all players >>to be voted upon again in the same manner as described above. >> >>After a new name has won, this rule shall repeal itself [[and the quest for >>world nomic domination shall begin in earnest]]. > >This won't do anything because the name of the game is specified in Rule >001, which is an immutable rule. Thus, you need to first propose a >transmutation of 001. Of course, I won't vote for a transmutation of 001 >unless we have already decided on a name that I like. I suggest making this >inactive or modifying it to take this into account. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:27:45 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Problem w/ changing winning conditions? At 04:16 PM 1/13/99 , Uckelman wrote: >At 04:01 PM 1/13/99 , Plagge wrote: >>If the point value at which the game is won is raised, should the value of >>the Suber reflect that? Originally, controlling every Suber would be >>tantamount to winning, and thus raising the winning conditions would >>seriously devalue the Suber. > >Yep. You need to amend the Suber rule too. Proposal: Replace "200" in rules 208 and 347 with "500" and delete this rule. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:34:50 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: I withdraw my last proposal -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:33:04 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) Joel D Uckelman writes: >This won't do anything because the name of the game is specified in Rule >001, which is an immutable rule. Thus, you need to first propose a >transmutation of 001. Of course, I won't vote for a transmutation of 001 >unless we have already decided on a name that I like. I suggest making this >inactive or modifying it to take this into account. That's rather puerile of you. If the _nomic_ decides on a name it likes, and you cast your vote in due course, you've made your opinion known. Didn't we have a similar problem with you casting your votes for lit group books? Why do you want extra choice now, but not then? Josh -- Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. - Rene Descartes ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:36:29 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) Uckelman wrote: >At 03:59 PM 1/13/99 Plagge wrote: >>Proposal: >> >>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 the >>Administrator. The list of proposed names shall then be sent to the mailing >>list. >> >>Each player shall then vote on each name, assigning it an integer value >>between 0 and 200 inclusive and not assigning two or more names the same >>value. If any proposed name is given anything other than an integer number >>between 0 and 200 inclusive or if a value is used more than once, that >>ballot shall be void and the player who submitted it shall not vote over. >>Votes shall be sent to and tabulated by the Administrator. >> >>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 occurences of "Berserker Nomic" in the >>rules. >> >>In the event of a tie, the tied proposed names shall be sent to all players >>to be voted upon again in the same manner as described above. >> >>After a new name has won, this rule shall repeal itself [[and the quest for >>world nomic domination shall begin in earnest]]. > >This won't do anything because the name of the game is specified in Rule >001, which is an immutable rule. Thus, you need to first propose a >transmutation of 001. Of course, I won't vote for a transmutation of 001 >unless we have already decided on a name that I like. I suggest making this >inactive or modifying it to take this into account. Don't you see! THIS is the sort of thing we can expect from having immutable rules. While I won't bother to fiddle with Rule 001 because it won't pass, perhaps I can convince Joel to see that he might wish a similar change in the future and be stymied by a similar "hostage-vote". So I propose the following disinterested proposals: *********** All immutable Rules except Rule 001 are made mutable. Comment: Gotta try :) *********** Rule 002 is made mutable if it is not already. Comment: If Nick's Mononoic thing pans out, we might want to make something other than human beings able to be players. *********** Rule 003 is made mutable if it is not already. Comment: WHY is the definition of a majority so sacred? *********** Rule 004 is made mutable if it is not already. Comment: The initial ruleset isn't even in force anymore! Not only can this rule be AMENDED with impunity, it can be REPEALED as needless fluff with impunity! Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:50:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) At 04:33 PM 1/13/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>This won't do anything because the name of the game is specified in Rule >>001, which is an immutable rule. Thus, you need to first propose a >>transmutation of 001. Of course, I won't vote for a transmutation of 001 >>unless we have already decided on a name that I like. I suggest making this >>inactive or modifying it to take this into account. > >That's rather puerile of you. If the _nomic_ decides on a name it >likes, and you cast your vote in due course, you've made your opinion >known. > >Didn't we have a similar problem with you casting your votes for lit >group books? Why do you want extra choice now, but not then? > >Josh Because in the case of the lit group, the intent of the voting (as I saw it) was different. In this case, it just happens that I used Rule 001's immutability to my advantage before anyone else. Other players can also trump the changing of our name if they loathe the prevailing choice. The only reason I'm doing this is because I want to ensure that I can at least tolerate the name we chose, as last time I wouldn't want to have admitted that 90% of the names had even been submitted. Not to be inflamitory, but one of the names that I liked the least came from Josh. We seem to have divergeant opinions on what names are good, but I think we should be able to come up with one that no one hates. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:37:53 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. >> >>OLDDUTIES >>3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. >> >>The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>he/she holds Office. >>OLDDUTIES >> >>NEWTRICK >>3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. >> >>4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. >> >>5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. >> >>It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award >>Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. Further >>it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow these Awards of the >>appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may not be a recipient >>of any Awards. >> >>The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>he/she holds Office. >>NEWTRICK >> >>Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. >> >>AWARDS >>When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is >>immortalized as a recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same >>type as the Award. Medals are tradeable and sellable if both parties agree >>publicly to such a thing. >> >>If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister >>shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. >> >>If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not >>given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to the Foreign >>Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests such a sale. >> >>It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to >>languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some >>Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting >>this sacred patriotic duty. >>AWARDS > >I will vote no for this in this form, as award-keepership is not >the providence of the Foreign Minister (at least, according to >the "conventional meaning" [shut your mouth, Joel]). If you want >that create a separate office. I'd vote for that, and you as officeholder. OK think of it this way. The army gives out medals. The Foreign Ministry is the closest thing to an army a nomic has. In adddition this: - adds some flavor to the economy with Awardees being able to trade shame for a Medal that the buyer can expect Subers for. (How low will the Poverty stricken player go? What would you risk for 10 probable subers... four, maybe seven?) - provides incentive for the Foreign Minister to give due consideration to awards and recipients because otherwise they might have to blow some cash on the situation - makes Awards mean _something_ If anyone still objects then either tell me who should track this stuff or I'll just chop that stuff out. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:43:40 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal Mueller writes: >OK think of it this way. The army gives out medals. The Foreign Ministry >is the closest thing to an army a nomic has. In adddition this: Don't care. It should be a separate office. I like the other parts though. 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: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:19:47 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal >Mueller writes: >>OK think of it this way. The army gives out medals. The Foreign Ministry >>is the closest thing to an army a nomic has. In adddition this: > >Don't care. It should be a separate office. Gotta agree, my man. We can't give out all our power to a foreigner like yourself... heheh ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:23:06 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Disinterested proposal Transmute rule 001. ---------------- Joel, we'll be good. I promise. And I promise to give a 0 to Josh and have him burnt at the stake if he suggests another damn inane sentence. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:25:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal At 08:37 PM 1/13/99 , it was written: >Josh wrote: >> >>Mueller writes: >>>Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. >>> >>>OLDDUTIES >>>3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. >>> >>>The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>>he/she holds Office. >>>OLDDUTIES >>> >>>NEWTRICK >>>3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. >>> >>>4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. >>> >>>5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. >>> >>>It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award >>>Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. Further >>>it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow these Awards of the >>>appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may not be a recipient >>>of any Awards. >>> >>>The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >>>he/she holds Office. >>>NEWTRICK >>> >>>Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. >>> >>>AWARDS >>>When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is >>>immortalized as a recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same >>>type as the Award. Medals are tradeable and sellable if both parties agree >>>publicly to such a thing. >>> >>>If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister >>>shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. >>> >>>If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not >>>given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to the Foreign >>>Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests such a sale. >>> >>>It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to >>>languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some >>>Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting >>>this sacred patriotic duty. >>>AWARDS >> >>I will vote no for this in this form, as award-keepership is not >>the providence of the Foreign Minister (at least, according to >>the "conventional meaning" [shut your mouth, Joel]). If you want >>that create a separate office. I'd vote for that, and you as officeholder. > >OK think of it this way. The army gives out medals. The Foreign Ministry >is the closest thing to an army a nomic has. In adddition this: > > - adds some flavor to the economy with Awardees being able to trade shame >for a Medal that the buyer can expect Subers for. (How low will the Poverty >stricken player go? What would you risk for 10 probable subers... four, >maybe seven?) > > - provides incentive for the Foreign Minister to give due consideration to >awards and recipients because otherwise they might have to blow some cash >on the situation > > - makes Awards mean _something_ > >If anyone still objects then either tell me who should track this stuff or >I'll just chop that stuff out. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net I have no objection to the Foreign Minister giving out awards, but I think that it should be a general ability of *all* officials [or maybe just elected officials, although I wouldn't mind being able to give awards for "extroardinary heroism in the face of Josh" or something like that :-) ], rather than solely the FM. Also, the Treasury Minister (once we have one, that is) should handle paying players for orphaned awards. I don't have any opinion on who should be able to call them back, maybe the issuer, maybe the Treasury Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:34:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Disinterested proposal At 09:23 PM 1/13/99 , you wrote: >Transmute rule 001. >---------------- >Joel, we'll be good. I promise. And I promise to give a 0 to Josh and >have him burnt at the stake if he suggests another damn inane sentence. Sorry, can't comply. The immutability of Rule 001 is the only real assurance that I have. As much as I like you guys, I want to hedge my bets. And don't take this the wrong way, I don't intend to be obstructionist on the names -- I just want to see what we come up with first. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:49:13 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Disinterested proposal The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Transmute rule 001. >---------------- >Joel, we'll be good. I promise. And I promise to give a 0 to Josh and >have him burnt at the stake if he suggests another damn inane sentence. I think the fact that the name to which you are referring came in sixth (out of umpteen) in the vote indicates the Nomic in general did not find the name altogether unfavorable. In fact, some conjecture: Mr. Ellefson and Mr. Uckelman both scored my favorite name with a 1. Aside from that (Palacek's 19 seems to have been arbitrarily assigned to a name he didn't like, in sequence, as were the ones I didn't care for), the name received large votes from the other players. One wonders if the two didn't collude in order to strike down the name surely ordained by God. And wonders that if they did, why they found this name to be more odious than "Lapmojo 11" and "Thanks for the anal rape, US West," which are surely less appealing names for a Nomic. I think the conspiracy I have uncovered is obvious now. finis Josh -- If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. - Ernest Rutherford ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:50:34 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Disinterested proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 09:23 PM 1/13/99 , you wrote: >>Transmute rule 001. >>---------------- >>Joel, we'll be good. I promise. And I promise to give a 0 to Josh and >>have him burnt at the stake if he suggests another damn inane sentence. > >Sorry, can't comply. The immutability of Rule 001 is the only real >assurance that I have. As much as I like you guys, I want to hedge my bets. > >And don't take this the wrong way, I don't intend to be obstructionist on >the names -- I just want to see what we come up with first. Why does it matter what we come up with first? You're still being obstructionist on the names by doing this - reserving the power to prevent name changes until you're pleased. Josh -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:34:43 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Disinterested proposal Make it inactive. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:06:13 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: transmutations Mueller does have a point about R004 being worthless. In fact, I don't remember why it was ever made a separate rule in the first place. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:03:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot Voting has started. I hope I got all of the active proposals here, as there was a lot of activity close to the deadline. ----------------------------------- P397 Strike paragraph 2 of Rule 305/1. ----------------------------------- P399 {{Add property as a Player attribute.}} Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable. Only Players and the game may possess property. Public property consists of property owned by Berserker Nomic rather than any individual Player. Auctions may be held to sell property. Players wishing to bid on auctioned property must submit bids within 48 hours of the start of the auction. Possession of auctioned property is transferred to the highest bidder upon receipt of payment. Any game entity may auction any or all of its property at any time, and may set the starting price. If a starting price is not specified, the starting price will be 0.01 Subers. ----------------------------------- P400 The Treasury holds all public property and funds, including, but not limited to, the proceeds collected from fines, taxes, tariffs, the sale of land, and the creation of new Subers. The Treasury may not go into debt, but will instead issue more Subers to cover the game's expenses. ------------------------------------ P401 Berserker Nomic takes place on a 50 by 50 hexagonal grid with the grain running north-south and the first column superior. Hexes are numbered xxyy where xx is the column number and yy is the row number, running from 00 in the west and south to 49 in the north and east. [[Thus, 2314 would be hex 14 in column 23.]] Each hex represents 1 unit of land. A hex may be owned by only one entity at a time. All land is initially public property. At least 50 hexes must remain public property at all times. Anything built within a hex may not be moved from that hex. ------------------------------------------ P402 The Treasury Minister is an elected Official whose duties consist of: 1. Paying Official's salaries from the Treasury. 2. Purchasing sufficient spam to support non-player game entities. 3. Purchasing sufficient widgets so as to replenish those expended for maintenance. 4. Preventing the Treasury from going into debt. 5. Submitting a turnly report on relevant matters to the mailing list. The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, but no more than once per turn, may: 1. Auction public lands. 2. Authorize the minting of Subers, to be placed in the Treasury. 3. Authorize the destruction of Subers, to be removed from the Treasury. The Treasury Minister, at his/her discretion, may: 1. Purchase lands from other game entities with funds from the Treasury. 2. Purchase commodities with funds from the Treasury. 3. Sell commodities held by the Treasury. The Treasury Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. --------------------------------------- P403 Enterprises are non-moveable property built within hexes, that given certain inputs will produce certain outputs, as defined below. Commodities are moveable property and are inputs and outputs for enterprises. The the set of enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel mill, power plant, supermarket, widget factory, construction yard} , and the set of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, spam, widgets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in non-negative integer quantities. Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in possession of the enterprise's owner: Forests convert 5 energy into 10 wood. Farms convert 5 energy into 10 livestock. Mines convert 10 energy into coal and ore, such that no more than 10 total units are produced. Lumber mills convert 40 wood and 15 energy into 10 lumber. Slaughterhouses convert 20 livestock and 15 energy into 10 meat. Steel mills convert 40 ore and 30 energy into 10 steel. Power plants convert 40 coal into 200 energy. Supermarkets convert 5 meat and 20 energy into 4 spam. Widget factories convert 15 steel and 15 energy into 10 widgets. Construction yards convert one of the following : 100 Subers, 5 lumber, and 5 energy into 1 forest. 25 Subers, 50 lumber, 5 steel, and 25 energy into 1 farm. 50 Subers, 50 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 mine. 100 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 50 energy into 1 lumber mill. 100 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 slaughterhouse. 100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 steel mill. 100 Subers, 5 lumber, 30 steel, and 50 energy into 1 power plant. 25 Subers, 20 lumber, 10 steel, and 25 energy into 1 supermarket. 50 Subers, 15 lumber, 15 steel, and 50 energy into 1 widget factory. 200 Subers, 50 lumber, 50 steel, and 50 energy into 1 construction yard. Upkeep for each enterprise costs 5 Subers per turn. An enterprise for which its owner does not pay upkeep is destroyed. If insufficient commodities are available to operate an enterprise or the owner chooses not to do so, it produces no output and consumes no commodities. Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which they do not consume spam. The game expends 3 widgets per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. Payment of upkeep, consumption of spam, and expenditure of widgets occur at the beginning of each turn. Production of commodities and construction occur during dead time. At the beginning of each game, Players begin with the enterprise of their choice and one randomly selected hex of public land. {{Upon passage, all players receive the enterprise of their choice and one randomly selected hex of land.}} New Players receive the same, unless there is no public land. ---------------------------------- P404 The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained. {{Initial prices use the following averages: wood - 2 livestock - 3 ore - 3 coal - 3 energy - 0.5 lumber - 13 meat - 6 steel - 14 spam - 10 widgets - 22 }} ------------------------------------ P406 Each game shall be sponsored by a corporate entity. This sponsorship has no significance at all. The current game shall be designated &The Game of the Iowa Beef Producers.& The winner of each game must name the next game by publicly decreeing the name that is to replace the ampersand-delimited text. ------------------------------------- P407 Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. OLDDUTIES 3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. OLDDUTIES NEWTRICK 3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. 4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. 5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. Further it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow these Awards of the appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may not be a recipient of any Awards. The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office. NEWTRICK Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. AWARDS When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is immortalized as a recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same type as the Award. Medals are tradeable and sellable if both parties agree publicly to such a thing. If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to the Foreign Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests such a sale. It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting this sacred patriotic duty. AWARDS ----------------------------------- P410 Replace "200" in rules 208 and 347 with "500" and delete this rule. ----------------------------------- P411 All immutable Rules except Rule 001 are made mutable. ----------------------------------- P412 Rule 002 is made mutable if it is not already. ----------------------------------- P413 Rule 003 is made mutable if it is not already. ------------------------------------ P414 Rule 004 is made mutable if it is not already. ------------------------------------ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:34:03 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot Joel wrote: >Voting has started. I hope I got all of the active proposals here, as there >was a lot of activity close to the deadline. > >P407 > >Amend Rule 389 by replacing the OLDDUTIES text with the NEWTRICK text. > >OLDDUTIES > >3. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. > >The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >he/she holds Office. > >OLDDUTIES > >NEWTRICK > >3. Publicly maintaining an archive of these reports. > >4. Proposing treaties and agreements as necessary. > >5. Tracking and maintaining public records of Awards. > >It is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to create and destroy Award >Types so long as no more than 1 Award Type is created each week. >Further it is a priviledge of the Foreign Minister to bestow >these Awards of the appropriate type to players. The Foreign Minister may >not be a recipient of any Awards. > >The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn >he/she holds Office. > >NEWTRICK > >Create a new rule numbered 388 with the following AWARDS delimited text. > >AWARDS > >When an Award is bestowed the player upon whom it is bestowed is >immortalized as a >recipient of that award and is given a Medal of the same type as the Award. > Medals are >tradeable and sellable if both parties agree publicly to such a thing. > >If ever someone sells a Medal they have recieved then the Foreign Minister >shall record that they are now on The Register Of Shame. > >If anyone other than the Foreign Minister owns a Medal that they were not >given along with an Award, then they are required to sell it to >the Foreign Minister for 10 Subers when that officer requests >such a sale. > >It is considered very bad form for the Foreign Minister to allow Medals to >languish in the hands of the unworthy. Ancient texts even note that some >Foreign Ministers in ancient times were burned at the stake for neglecting >this sacred patriotic duty. > >AWARDS If this passes I will give 5 Subers to each player who voted on it. Think of it this way: for the most part Awards are just a risk to the Minister who creates them so there's not any plot or scam here. I plan on submitting a prop to fix these by making Awards more dispersed through the office system, but for now this prop is not actively bad... merely less good than some think it could be. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:36:14 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal The proceedures for play are identical in every means to the startup of this nomic, but I am the only player. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:41:43 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal I'd vote for "foos" as well. Or perhaps "Eit-ps" ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:40:13 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal 0. As of now, it's a non-profit organisation. This may change in the future, if that's okay. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:52:14 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) Bloody good idea, IMHO. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:53:24 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Problem w/ changing winning conditions? Yeah, we've got to keep an eye on the currency. Either that, or detach it from points completely. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:57:56 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Okay, then.. Okay. I'm still confused about the time zones, so I'll send you my ideas now: 1. Special Circumstances 2. Usenet rules football legue 3. Capitalist 4. Paranioa Nomic 5. Not Aplicable ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:55:19 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Informal renaming I would suggest that any name proposals should be submitted before noon on next Thursday. Then we can vote on the the names submitted, again informally. Once those results are in, if there is no violent opposition to the winner, I'll make a proposal to transmute 001, change the name, and then transmute it right back again. I can see this is the only way to get past the dissidents. :) Let the naming begin! -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:01:22 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Now that Kuhns is gone... :) Uh-oh. What happened last time then? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:06:29 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Disinterested proposal I can't take the suspence any more. Just what was Josh's favorite name? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:13:53 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Disinterested proposal RJ KNIGHT writes: >I can't take the suspence any more. Just what was Josh's favorite name? See web page. -- "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." - Albert Camus ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:28:49 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase ------- Forwarded Message Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA08238; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:28:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from eidolon.muppetlabs.com (muppetlabs.com [206.191.168.254]) by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24386; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:28:17 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA18783 for internomic-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:20:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.muppetlabs.com: majordom set sender to owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com using -f Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102]) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18772 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:20:01 -0800 Received: from [129.186.168.116] (lyon-168-116.res.iastate.edu [129.186.168.116]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA21048 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:19:59 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: nosborn@POP-3.IASTATE.EDU (Unverified) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:19:52 -0600 To: internomic@muppetlabs.com From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Delegate of Theos Sender: owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: internomic@muppetlabs.com X-UIDL: be31fbdcb8dd93ca68d8122e0bcbecc6 Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic Treaty Organization. What Theos wills, is. The Speaker of Theos, Nosborn ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:42:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 Majordomo is really starting to anger me. This is the fifth bounce this week, when we've had fewer than that during the whole rest of the game. >Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:33:06 -0600 (CST) >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >To: uckelman@iastate.edu >Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) > >The original message was received at Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:33:04 -0600 (CST) >from pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >"|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing" > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.31411.out, it exists >ABORT Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.31411.out, it exists at >/usr/local/majordomo/majordomo.pl line 209. >554 "|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing"... unknown mailer error 2 >Reporting-MTA: dns; majordomo.iastate.edu >Received-From-MTA: DNS; pop-2.iastate.edu >Arrival-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:33:04 -0600 (CST) > >Final-Recipient: RFC822; nomic@majordomo.iastate.edu >X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; |/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r >nomic -h iastate.edu nomic-outgoing@majordomo.iastate.edu >Action: failed >Status: 5.0.0 >Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:33:06 -0600 (CST) >Return-Path: >Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) by >majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA29744 for >; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:33:04 -0600 (CST) >Received: from dub-img-9.compuserve.com (dub-img-9.compuserve.com >[149.174.206.139]) > by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA11673 > for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:33:03 -0600 (CST) >Received: (from root@localhost) > by dub-img-9.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id OAA24735 > for nomic@iastate.edu; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:33:02 -0500 (EST) >Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:32:39 -0500 >From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: INTO: Starting members >Sender: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> >To: N >Message-ID: <199901141432_MC2-66AF-A77@compuserve.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Disposition: inline > >Any form of exchange rate should definately be unregulated and based on >individual agreements, IMHO. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:52:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: clearing things up These things apply mainly to Knight, but also for anyone else who doesn't already know: 1. Time Zones: I use 24-hour time for recordkeeping and announcements. Since most of the players are in Central Standard Time (GMT -6), that's the time zone to which everything corresponds, i.e. we're 6 hours behind you, Knight. 2. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE quote the messages to which you're responding, or else no one will know what you mean. 3. There is now a method of having proposals delete parts of themeselves. See Rule 386 for more details. (Plagge!!!!) 4. Voting is still open until 11:31 tomorrow morning for those who haven't yet voted. Thanks. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:48:51 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: name We should name our nomic "Nick Osborn is a Tasteful Shrubbery" Ed ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:51:22 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: name Andrew Proescholdt writes: > >We should name our nomic "Nick Osborn is a Tasteful Shrubbery" > >Ed You rock Ed. -- Absence of proof is not proof of absence. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:17:03 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Name results At 08:42 PM 9/12/98 -0500, Uckelman wrote: >Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The results are in: we are now playing Berserker >Nomic. (Olaf: Skerlnik.) Congratulations to Matt Kuhns for creating the >winning name. Below are the final name standings: > >1151 Berserker Nomic >1028 Pandernomic > 984 N > 886 Nomic II: Urban Harvest > 848 nomic thantatou > 792 we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no >eyebrows > 761 Nomic People's Front > 743 THE PENTAVERATE > 735 B.L.O., Division of Games and Recreation > 721 Fuckweasal Nomic 2000 > 656 That Dumb Game > 654 ErgoNomic > 620 The People's Popular Nomic Front > 590 det(Pleasure Matrix) > 583 Lapmojo 11 > 564 Jeane Kirkpatrick > 560 Nomic Popular People's Front > 551 Fun With Fire > 531 Pander > 521 Assgoblin Nomic 4000 > 485 The Nomic Formerly Known as Nomic > 482 Stankopoly > 467 Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. > 392 Harf! > 363 (0x02) > 363 ASCII 0x07 Nomic > 363 NomicPro Gold '98 > 338 Shitferret Nomic 3000 > 311 LANPOYS > 276 Uckelman for President > 251 Haar's Loophole Playground > 234 Bob > 226 McNomic > 46 Nick Nomic Just thought this would be a timely flash from the past. Or if anyone had failed to retain their records or wasn't around at the time.... Oh, and as for my suggestion: Last time I opened a dictionary and randomly opened it to "pander".... my new random name suggestion is "comprehensive" either alone or with nomic appended. Although I must admit, the Berserker name has grown on me. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:33:01 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: names Hi. I am now officially out of limbo and going to ride the wave of my negative points. Woohoo! Yeah! Tasteful Names: 1. Tastefully NotJosh's Nomic ;) 2. The Burning Shrubbery Nomic or B.S. Nomic (I am tasteful and clever) 3. Everyone is in Limbo Nomic or Limbo Nomic (I am very quaint) 4. Ego Nomic (Yes, I do think highly of myself) 5. Blast Off! Nomic I am running out of clever ideas, which typically happens in Limbo I do believe. ehhh. or how about ehh, whatever Nomic? Lisa ps. how about the cliched, "Got Nomic?" too kitsch? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:39:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Name results At 05:17 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >At 08:42 PM 9/12/98 -0500, Uckelman wrote: >>Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The results are in: we are now playing Berserker >>Nomic. (Olaf: Skerlnik.) Congratulations to Matt Kuhns for creating the >>winning name. Below are the final name standings: >> >>1151 Berserker Nomic >>1028 Pandernomic >> 984 N >> 886 Nomic II: Urban Harvest >> 848 nomic thantatou >> 792 we threw gasoline on the fire and now we have stumps for arms and no >>eyebrows >> 761 Nomic People's Front >> 743 THE PENTAVERATE >> 735 B.L.O., Division of Games and Recreation >> 721 Fuckweasal Nomic 2000 >> 656 That Dumb Game >> 654 ErgoNomic >> 620 The People's Popular Nomic Front >> 590 det(Pleasure Matrix) >> 583 Lapmojo 11 >> 564 Jeane Kirkpatrick >> 560 Nomic Popular People's Front >> 551 Fun With Fire >> 531 Pander >> 521 Assgoblin Nomic 4000 >> 485 The Nomic Formerly Known as Nomic >> 482 Stankopoly >> 467 Thanks for the anal rape, USWest. >> 392 Harf! >> 363 (0x02) >> 363 ASCII 0x07 Nomic >> 363 NomicPro Gold '98 >> 338 Shitferret Nomic 3000 >> 311 LANPOYS >> 276 Uckelman for President >> 251 Haar's Loophole Playground >> 234 Bob >> 226 McNomic >> 46 Nick Nomic > >Just thought this would be a timely flash from the past. Or if anyone had >failed to retain their records or wasn't around at the time.... > >Oh, and as for my suggestion: > >Last time I opened a dictionary and randomly opened it to "pander".... my >new random name suggestion is "comprehensive" either alone or with nomic >appended. > >Although I must admit, the Berserker name has grown on me. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net These results can also be found (along with how everyone voted) on the Voting page under Miscellaneous Voting. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:48:25 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: name suggestions My name suggestions: 1. Berserker Nomic: I think this should be a choice, as we shouldn't change the name unless we find one that we like better as a group (and I'd still prefer not to change it). 2. ErgoNomic: I liked this one before. It has appropriate connotations, e.g. "designed to the correct fit". 3. Illuminomic: The Illuminati are cool, and I get the feeling that we might plan to be devious in foreign affairs. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:05:35 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: name suggestions Uckelman wrote: >My name suggestions: > >1. Berserker Nomic: I think this should be a choice, as we shouldn't >change the name unless we find one that we like better as a group (and I'd >still prefer not to change it). > >2. ErgoNomic: I liked this one before. It has appropriate connotations, >e.g. "designed to the correct fit". > >3. Illuminomic: The Illuminati are cool, and I get the feeling that we >might plan to be devious in foreign affairs. Kill The Spy!! The net nomic database http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~malcolmr/nomic/ has an entry for an "Illuminominic" already at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~malcolmr/nomic/db/37.html which provide this link: http://www.sjgames.com/secret.html Illuminomic's description says: "The goal of Illuminomic is to secretly infiltrate and subvert other Nomics, and bring them under our control. This may have already happened." It is blisteringly clear that Joel has been taken over by their mind control devices and we are being invaded. Tom Mueller, Head of the Dept. of Paranoid Realism mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:07:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 02:28 PM 1/14/99 , Josh wrote: > >------- Forwarded Message > >Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) > by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA08238; > Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:28:18 -0600 (CST) >Received: from eidolon.muppetlabs.com (muppetlabs.com [206.191.168.254]) > by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24386; > Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:28:17 -0600 (CST) >Received: (from majordom@localhost) > by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA18783 > for internomic-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:20:04 -0800 >X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.muppetlabs.com: majordom set sender to >owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com using -f >Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102]) > by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA18772 > for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:20:01 -0800 >Received: from [129.186.168.116] (lyon-168-116.res.iastate.edu >[129.186.168.116]) > by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA21048 > for ; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:19:59 -0600 (CST) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >X-Sender: nosborn@POP-3.IASTATE.EDU (Unverified) >Message-Id: >Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:19:52 -0600 >To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >From: Nicholas C Osborn >Subject: Delegate of Theos >Sender: owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >X-UIDL: be31fbdcb8dd93ca68d8122e0bcbecc6 > >Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. > >Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic >Treaty Organization. > >What Theos wills, is. > >The Speaker of Theos, >Nosborn How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:26:29 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 01:41 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >I'd vote for "foos" as well. Or perhaps "Eit-ps" Again, I'm not sure where this one fits in. Are these your name suggestions? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:25:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal At 01:36 PM 1/14/99 , TK wrote: >The proceedures for play are identical in every means to the startup of >this nomic, but I am the only player. To what does this refer? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:26:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal At 01:40 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >0. As of now, it's a non-profit organisation. This may change in the >future, if that's okay. I presume that this goes with the message before this. What is it? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:23:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: name suggestions At 06:05 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>My name suggestions: >> >>1. Berserker Nomic: I think this should be a choice, as we shouldn't >>change the name unless we find one that we like better as a group (and I'd >>still prefer not to change it). >> >>2. ErgoNomic: I liked this one before. It has appropriate connotations, >>e.g. "designed to the correct fit". >> >>3. Illuminomic: The Illuminati are cool, and I get the feeling that we >>might plan to be devious in foreign affairs. > >Kill The Spy!! > >The net nomic database >http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~malcolmr/nomic/ > >has an entry for an "Illuminominic" already at >http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~malcolmr/nomic/db/37.html > >which provide this link: >http://www.sjgames.com/secret.html > >Illuminomic's description says: >"The goal of Illuminomic is to secretly infiltrate and subvert other >Nomics, and bring them under our control. This may have already happened." > >It is blisteringly clear that Joel has been taken over by their mind >control devices and we are being invaded. > >Tom Mueller, Head of the Dept. of Paranoid Realism >mueller4@sonic.net Yeah, that's kinda where I got the idea, but I'm pretty sure it's not a real nomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:26:27 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase Uckelman wrote: >At 02:28 PM 1/14/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>------- Forwarded Message >>To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >>From: Nicholas C Osborn >>Subject: Delegate of Theos >> >>Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. >> >>Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic >>Treaty Organization. >> >>What Theos wills, is. >> >>The Speaker of Theos, >>Nosborn > >How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante >with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our >mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? Hmmmm... I hadn't considered it, but when I was elected foreign minister here I made a point of searching for and joining all the nomic mailing lists I could. So as of lask weekend I've been subscribed to Agora (the only one I could find that was easily found and clear on its mailing list). Should I stop this as "unethical 'n stuff" when I have no intention of joining Agora unless Berserker or Acka collapses? Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:58:45 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:36 PM 1/14/99 , TK wrote: >>The proceedures for play are identical in every means to the startup of >>this nomic, but I am the only player. > >To what does this refer? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu His GWIB, I take it. -- I knew I'd hate COBOL the moment I saw they'd used "perform" instead of "do". - Larry Wall on a not-so-popular programming language ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:56:55 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase Joel D Uckelman writes: >How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante >with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our >mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? Remove him immediately, I say. Closed door policy. -- "Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie... Study computers instead." - Jackie Chan ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:59:13 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 01:40 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >>0. As of now, it's a non-profit organisation. This may change in the >>future, if that's okay. > >I presume that this goes with the message before this. What is it? > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu Don't GWIBs have to have at least 1 point at risk? Or Subers, or whatever the fuck the rule says? -- It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistr y. - H.L. Mencken ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:00:06 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase Mueller writes: >Should I stop this as "unethical 'n stuff" when I have no intention of >joining Agora unless Berserker or Acka collapses? No one ever said WE couldn't be unethical. :) -- "Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:18:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal At 06:59 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 01:40 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >>>0. As of now, it's a non-profit organisation. This may change in the >>>future, if that's okay. >> >>I presume that this goes with the message before this. What is it? >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu > >Don't GWIBs have to have at least 1 point at risk? Or Subers, >or whatever the fuck the rule says? Yes. At least 0.01 Suber must be at stake in any GWIB. Except Alphanomic, which started before that rule came into effect, I think. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:15:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 06:26 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>At 02:28 PM 1/14/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>------- Forwarded Message >>>To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >>>From: Nicholas C Osborn >>>Subject: Delegate of Theos >>> >>>Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. >>> >>>Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic >>>Treaty Organization. >>> >>>What Theos wills, is. >>> >>>The Speaker of Theos, >>>Nosborn >> >>How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante >>with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our >>mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? > >Hmmmm... I hadn't considered it, but when I was elected foreign minister >here I made a point of searching for and joining all the nomic mailing >lists I could. > >So as of lask weekend I've been subscribed to Agora (the only one I could >find that was easily found and clear on its mailing list). > >Should I stop this as "unethical 'n stuff" when I have no intention of >joining Agora unless Berserker or Acka collapses? > >Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister >mueller4@sonic.net I see no reason not to do this. Spying is something that nations need to do to keep informed. I keep tabs on who's on our mailing list -- if someone joined that didn't contact me, I'd contact them to see what they want. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:40:15 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase J. Uckelman wrote: >At 06:26 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >>Uckelman wrote: >>>At 02:28 PM 1/14/99 , Josh wrote: >>>> >>>>------- Forwarded Message >>>>To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >>>>From: Nicholas C Osborn >>>>Subject: Delegate of Theos >>>> >>>>Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. >>>> >>>>Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic >>>>Treaty Organization. >>>> >>>>What Theos wills, is. >>>> >>>>The Speaker of Theos, >>>>Nosborn >>> >>>How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante >>>with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our >>>mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? >> >>Hmmmm... I hadn't considered it, but when I was elected foreign minister >>here I made a point of searching for and joining all the nomic mailing >>lists I could. >> >>So as of lask weekend I've been subscribed to Agora (the only one I could >>find that was easily found and clear on its mailing list). >> >>Should I stop this as "unethical 'n stuff" when I have no intention of >>joining Agora unless Berserker or Acka collapses? >> > >I see no reason not to do this. Spying is something that nations need to do >to keep informed. I keep tabs on who's on our mailing list -- if someone >joined that didn't contact me, I'd contact them to see what they want. > Firstly, I'm sure some of them do know I'm there, and I also enjoy watching their work (Though they probably woulnd't call it that, they're having a trial on someone who didn't propose in time and he claims he sent it to the list and it just didn't show up... It's started a few comments on evidentiary standards.) But if it is unethical (something that hadn't occured to me before now) I'd rather not do it even if I can construct a "everyone else does it" excuse. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:11:41 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Theocracy >>Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. >> >>Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic >>Treaty Organization. >> >>What Theos wills, is. >> >>The Speaker of Theos, >>Nosborn > >How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante >with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our >mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? Theocracy is a new nomic paradigm. I'm still working on sorting it out, but you can rest assured that it is not a joke. Right now, I invision a system that the deity with the most followers is the one and only true deity. Followers of the others would be heretics. As Nosborn and, now, Tplagge are the only Fellows in Theocracy, their deity of choice, Theos, is the one and only true deity. Theocracy focuses on some of the more philosophical aspects of nomic, and I expect that the implications of relations with other nomics will be quite entertaining. I encourage you to persist with INTO. If it would make you feel better, I'll get off the mailing list. It may be difficult working out a metanomic with two nomics so vastly different, but I think it will be worthwhile. The Theocracy Revelation will follow in another message. Theos be with you, n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:43:33 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: names Paranomic Jeane Kirkpatrick Gastronomic Radio Free Nomic Microsoft Nomic 99 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:43:16 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: The Will of Theos The Will of Theos, as Revealed to Nosborn, the Speaker of Theos What Theos wills, is. What Theos does not will, is not. Theos sees that it is not good for Theos to be alone. Theos needs a Speaker. Theos wills that Nosborn be. Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. What Theos inspires the Speaker to speak, the Speaker speaks, and not else. Theos wills as Theos wills, but the Speaker can speak only as the Speaker is able. The revelation of Theos is of Theos, but what is of the Speaker is of the Speaker. The Speaker is not Theos and knows not of the will of Theos but only what Theos inspires. Theos sees that it is not good for Nosborn to be alone. Nosborn needs a Fellow. Theos wills that Tplagge be. Theos wills that Tplagge be a Fellow to Nosborn. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:51:31 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: The Will of Theos Nicholas C Osborn writes: >The Will of Theos, as Revealed to Nosborn, the Speaker of Theos > >What Theos wills, is. What Theos does not will, is not. > >Theos sees that it is not good for Theos to be alone. Theos needs a >Speaker. Theos wills that Nosborn be. Theos wills that Nosborn be the >Speaker of Theos. > >What Theos inspires the Speaker to speak, the Speaker speaks, and not else. >Theos wills as Theos wills, but the Speaker can speak only as the Speaker >is able. The revelation of Theos is of Theos, but what is of the Speaker is >of the Speaker. The Speaker is not Theos and knows not of the will of Theos >but only what Theos inspires. > >Theos sees that it is not good for Nosborn to be alone. Nosborn needs a >Fellow. Theos wills that Tplagge be. Theos wills that Tplagge be a Fellow >to Nosborn. Been hitting the codeine again? Or have you moved up to Demerol? -- "Whereas the truth is that fullness of soul can sometimes overflow in utter vapidity of language, for none of us can ever express the exact measure of his needs or his thoughts or his sorrows; and human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars." - G. Flaubert ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:13:45 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: oops.. there's already a paranomic, so i withdraw that and instead submit this one: Cyclonomic (Note that this name is (or probably would be, anyway) endorsed by Martin Jischke) ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:18:16 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: names At 08:43 PM 1/14/99 , you wrote: >Paranomic >Jeane Kirkpatrick >Gastronomic >Radio Free Nomic >Microsoft Nomic 99 Radio Free Nomic already exists. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:16:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 07:40 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >J. Uckelman wrote: >>At 06:26 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >>>Uckelman wrote: >>>>At 02:28 PM 1/14/99 , Josh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>------- Forwarded Message >>>>>To: internomic@muppetlabs.com >>>>>From: Nicholas C Osborn >>>>>Subject: Delegate of Theos >>>>> >>>>>Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. >>>>> >>>>>Theos has designated Nosborn as the delegate of Theos to the Inter Nomic >>>>>Treaty Organization. >>>>> >>>>>What Theos wills, is. >>>>> >>>>>The Speaker of Theos, >>>>>Nosborn >>>> >>>>How should we deal with this? Do we want to engage in any kind of detante >>>>with Nick in INTO? Should we do anything about him still being on our >>>>mailing list, as it might undermine our foreign policy? >>> >>>Hmmmm... I hadn't considered it, but when I was elected foreign minister >>>here I made a point of searching for and joining all the nomic mailing >>>lists I could. >>> >>>So as of lask weekend I've been subscribed to Agora (the only one I could >>>find that was easily found and clear on its mailing list). >>> >>>Should I stop this as "unethical 'n stuff" when I have no intention of >>>joining Agora unless Berserker or Acka collapses? >>> >> >>I see no reason not to do this. Spying is something that nations need to do >>to keep informed. I keep tabs on who's on our mailing list -- if someone >>joined that didn't contact me, I'd contact them to see what they want. >> > >Firstly, I'm sure some of them do know I'm there, and I also enjoy watching >their work > >(Though they probably woulnd't call it that, they're having a trial on >someone who didn't propose in time and he claims he sent it to the list and >it just didn't show up... It's started a few comments on evidentiary >standards.) > >But if it is unethical (something that hadn't occured to me before now) I'd >rather not do it even if I can construct a "everyone else does it" excuse. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Since when has anyone claimed that diplomacy and spying are ethical? I think a case could be made that any responsible government necessarily must, i.e. has an obligation to its citizens, to engage in actions that would be unethical for individuals. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:31:39 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: shit err...there's also a Radio Free Nomic. so thus withdraw it and replace it with: [ascii 0013] Which, by the way, is the carriage return. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:40:15 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 10:16 PM 1/14/99 -0600, J. Uckelman wrote: >At 07:40 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >>But if it is unethical (something that hadn't occured to me before now) I'd >>rather not do it even if I can construct a "everyone else does it" excuse. >> > >Since when has anyone claimed that diplomacy and spying are ethical? I >think a case could be made that any responsible government necessarily >must, i.e. has an obligation to its citizens, to engage in actions that >would be unethical for individuals. > I disagree, I think that any government I deal with should, or at least should attempt, to base its policies on promoting individual desires in a "just" manner. If any action is taken which has ... I guess a _legitimate_ rationalization ... then it would BE ethical. To be inethical is to fail a correctness test. The idea that unethical behavorior is more correct demonstrates a duality of thought that I would not appreciate in my own beliefs. In answer to your initial question, I can easily imagine an ethical system wherein spying and diplomacy are seen as 1) the most effective means of obtaining maximal information and 2) the proper use of such information to properly balance they results of a meeting between two nomics (be they territorial like say Canada or games). Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:53:32 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 10:40 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >At 10:16 PM 1/14/99 -0600, J. Uckelman wrote: >>At 07:40 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >>>But if it is unethical (something that hadn't occured to me before now) I'd >>>rather not do it even if I can construct a "everyone else does it" excuse. >>> >> >>Since when has anyone claimed that diplomacy and spying are ethical? I >>think a case could be made that any responsible government necessarily >>must, i.e. has an obligation to its citizens, to engage in actions that >>would be unethical for individuals. >> > >I disagree, I think that any government I deal with should, or at least >should attempt, to base its policies on promoting individual desires in a >"just" manner. If any action is taken which has ... I guess a _legitimate_ >rationalization ... then it would BE ethical. > >To be inethical is to fail a correctness test. The idea that unethical >behavorior is more correct demonstrates a duality of thought that I would >not appreciate in my own beliefs. Hmmm. In ideal theory, the ethical and the pragmatic should coincide, but nasty people in the world seem to prevent this. I doubt that a perfectly ethical system would be able to survive in a world filled with predatory, unethical systems. History seems to bear out that being unethical to some greater or lesser degree is a dominant strategy in political affairs, whether I like it or not. >In answer to your initial question, I can easily imagine an ethical system >wherein spying and diplomacy are seen as 1) the most effective means of >obtaining maximal information and 2) the proper use of such information to >properly balance they results of a meeting between two nomics (be they >territorial like say Canada or games). I suppose this would square if the information were used in a purely defensive manner; however, the temptation to use available information is strong. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:23:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: more name suggestions I was looking at a list of Latin and Greek roots and came up with these: Cosmonomic Cryptonomic Ideonomic Logonomic J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:24:53 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: names, yet again How about: protonomic necronomic autonomic lisa ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:23:24 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 10:53 PM 1/14/99 -0600, you wrote: >At 10:40 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >>At 10:16 PM 1/14/99 -0600, J. Uckelman wrote: >>>At 07:40 PM 1/14/99 , Mueller wrote: >>>>But if it is unethical (something that hadn't occured to me before now) I'd >>>>rather not do it even if I can construct a "everyone else does it" excuse. >>>> >>> >>>Since when has anyone claimed that diplomacy and spying are ethical? I >>>think a case could be made that any responsible government necessarily >>>must, i.e. has an obligation to its citizens, to engage in actions that >>>would be unethical for individuals. >>> >> >>I disagree, I think that any government I deal with should, or at least >>should attempt, to base its policies on promoting individual desires in a >>"just" manner. If any action is taken which has ... I guess a _legitimate_ >>rationalization ... then it would BE ethical. >> >>To be inethical is to fail a correctness test. The idea that unethical >>behavorior is more correct demonstrates a duality of thought that I would >>not appreciate in my own beliefs. > >Hmmm. In ideal theory, the ethical and the pragmatic should coincide, but >nasty people in the world seem to prevent this. I doubt that a perfectly >ethical system would be able to survive in a world filled with predatory, >unethical systems. History seems to bear out that being unethical to some >greater or lesser degree is a dominant strategy in political affairs, >whether I like it or not. > >>In answer to your initial question, I can easily imagine an ethical system >>wherein spying and diplomacy are seen as 1) the most effective means of >>obtaining maximal information and 2) the proper use of such information to >>properly balance they results of a meeting between two nomics (be they >>territorial like say Canada or games). > >I suppose this would square if the information were used in a purely >defensive manner; however, the temptation to use available information is >strong. > For that matter I can imagine myself coming to the conculusion that the only purely ethical behavior was that which comes naturally to a sociopath. Consider: If I recognize that some things are preferable to others, then I would wish the preferable outcome (definitionally). Behavior which produces this is ethical. If I behave unethically (conduct myself such that undesired outcomes are produced) then at least one of the following should be true: 1) I did so due to a lack of understanding of the situation and could not pefectly apply my ethical system. 2) My ethical system imperfectly matched my ends and should be revised. 3) I am a broken person whose desires and "death-desires" will tear me apart. 4) I somehow can to the conclusion that I desired desirable things less than undesirable things... That is, though functionally defined, my ethical system nonetheless failed to to capture my true desires AND was still what I desired. 5) The basic premises are total garbage and something wildly different (or nothing) is true. Note that three and four involve an "A & ~A" situation that defies normal logical validity. I recognize it as a possibilty here because I figure you may as well be thorough, then reject them because, if truly accepted, basically ruin my ability to think and act. I am left then with five (which if true demands that I totally rethink everything if I want to approach "truth" and "happyness" simultaneously) or 1 & 2 (which simply require some forethought and maybe a few experiments). I tend to think that most of the problems in the world come from lazy or failed application of 1 & 2. But I still explore 5 just in case :) Perhaps I am running too loose with the definition of "ethics" but I think that should and do (in the sort of integrated philosophy I strive for) are identical. If by "ethics" you meant something other than "system dictating successful behavior" then sorry for the silly argument, and please explain as I would be facsinated to hear something that sounds like an option I would persue if 5 started to look more likely. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:34:28 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: A name submission My first choice: that our Nomic have no name. Josh -- Mathematics is not a deductive science ­ that's a cliche. When you try to prove a theorem, you don't just list the hypotheses, and then start to reason. What you do is trial and error, experimentation, guesswork. - Paul Halmos ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:58:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: names, yet again At 12:24 AM 1/15/99 , you wrote: >How about: > > protonomic > necronomic > autonomic > >lisa I think there's already an autonomic. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:16:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase At 12:23 AM 1/15/99 , Mueller wrote: > >For that matter I can imagine myself coming to the conculusion that the >only purely ethical behavior was that which comes naturally to a sociopath. > >Consider: > >If I recognize that some things are preferable to others, then I would wish >the preferable outcome (definitionally). > >Behavior which produces this is ethical. I think this is spurious, or at least it pegs one out as a utilitarian. Lots of ethical systems produce results that are certainly not the best pragmatically, e.g. Kant's. Not that I want to launch into a discussion of Kant right now, but I'm just not sure that I believe this -- either that, or "preferable outcome" is too vague. >If I behave unethically (conduct myself such that undesired outcomes are >produced) then at least one of the following should be true: >1) I did so due to a lack of understanding of the situation and could not >pefectly apply my ethical system. I'm not sure that one can be unethical in this way, as (some say) you aren't morally responsible for unforseen consequences of your actions. You have to be trying to be unethical, it isn't something that happens unintentionally. >2) My ethical system imperfectly matched my ends and should be revised. I'm not sure that I like this one either. Is the implication here that one's ethical system should be moulded to ones ends? That if I want, say, to embezzel from my employer, I should adjust my morals to permit it? It seems to me that this should be the opposite, that one's ends ought to be adjusted to be in accordance with one's ethical system. Am I misinterpreting your statement? >3) I am a broken person whose desires and "death-desires" will tear me apart. >4) I somehow can to the conclusion that I desired desirable things less >than undesirable things... That is, though functionally defined, my ethical >system nonetheless failed to to capture my true desires AND was still what >I desired. >5) The basic premises are total garbage and something wildly different (or >nothing) is true. > >Note that three and four involve an "A & ~A" situation that defies normal >logical validity. I recognize it as a possibilty here because I figure you >may as well be thorough, then reject them because, if truly accepted, >basically ruin my ability to think and act. > >I am left then with five (which if true demands that I totally rethink >everything if I want to approach "truth" and "happyness" simultaneously) or >1 & 2 (which simply require some forethought and maybe a few experiments). > >I tend to think that most of the problems in the world come from lazy or >failed application of 1 & 2. > >But I still explore 5 just in case :) > >Perhaps I am running too loose with the definition of "ethics" but I think >that should and do (in the sort of integrated philosophy I strive for) are >identical. If by "ethics" you meant something other than "system dictating >successful behavior" then sorry for the silly argument, and please explain >as I would be facsinated to hear something that sounds like an option I >would persue if 5 started to look more likely. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Yep, I think I do mean something other than "system dictating successful behavior". If you use that definition, couldn't you conceivably have an "ethics of murder" and an "ethics of theft"? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:32:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: names list so far Here's the unique names that have been suggested so far. It would make voting a lot easier if people would withdraw those names that they're not serious about. [no name] [ascii 0013] Berserker Nomic Blast Off! Nomic B.S. Nomic The Burning Shrubbery Nomic Capitalist Comprehensive Comprehensive Nomic Compronomic Cosmonomic Cryptonomic Cyclonomic Ego Nomic ErgoNomic Everyone is in Limbo Nomic Gastronomic Ideonomic Illuminomic Jeane Kirkpatrick Limbo Nomic Logonomic Microsoft Nomic 99 Necronomic Nick Osborn is a Tasteful Shrubbery Not Aplicable Paranioa Nomic Protonomic Special Circumstances Tastefully NotJosh's Nomic Usenet rules football legue J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:02:38 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: names list so far The Burning Shrubbery Nomic B.S. Nomic Everyone is in Limbo Nomic Necronomic Tastefully NotJosh's Nomic Okay, Joel. I am not "serious" about the five names above. I'm rather fond of the no name idea.... lisa ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:02:01 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far Joel D Uckelman writes: >Here's the unique names that have been suggested so far. It would make Why must we stay unique? There's nothing that says we can't reuse a name already in use. Josh ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:41:02 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far Dammit, I liked Necronomic! At 12:02 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: >The Burning Shrubbery Nomic >B.S. Nomic >Everyone is in Limbo Nomic >Necronomic >Tastefully NotJosh's Nomic > > > Okay, Joel. I am not "serious" about the five names above. > > I'm rather fond of the no name idea.... > >lisa ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:20:36 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far I liked The Burning Shrubbery Nomic At 12:41 PM 1/15/99 -0600, you wrote: >Dammit, I liked Necronomic! > >At 12:02 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: >>The Burning Shrubbery Nomic >>B.S. Nomic >>Everyone is in Limbo Nomic >>Necronomic >>Tastefully NotJosh's Nomic >> >> >> Okay, Joel. I am not "serious" about the five names above. >> >> I'm rather fond of the no name idea.... >> >>lisa > ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:32:30 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far At 12:02 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Here's the unique names that have been suggested so far. It would make > >Why must we stay unique? There's nothing that says we can't reuse >a name already in use. > >Josh Because it would be confusing, because it would be unoriginal... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:36:15 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: names list so far Here's the unique names that have been suggested so far (that at least one person wanted to keep on the list): [no name] [ascii 0013] Berserker Nomic Blast Off! Nomic The Burning Shrubbery Nomic Capitalist Comprehensive Comprehensive Nomic Compronomic Cosmonomic Cryptonomic Cyclonomic Ego Nomic ErgoNomic Gastronomic Ideonomic Illuminomic Jeane Kirkpatrick Limbo Nomic Logonomic Microsoft Nomic 99 Necronomic Nick Osborn is a Tasteful Shrubbery Not Aplicable Paranioa Nomic Protonomic Special Circumstances Usenet rules football legue J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:26:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P397 failed (3-3-0-3). P399 passed (4-2-0-3). P400 passed (5-1-0-3). P401 passed (5-1-0-3). P402 passed (4-2-0-3). P403 passed (5-1-0-3). P404 passed (4-2-0-3). P406 failed (1-4-1-3). P407 failed (1-5-0-3). P410 failed (5-1-0-3). P411 failed (3-2-0-3). P412 failed (3-2-0-3). P413 failed (3-2-0-3). P414 failed (4-1-0-3). Osborn's Demon voted with Tom Knight in auto-abstaining. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:35:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: correction P410 _passed_ (5-1-0-3). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:36:40 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: voting results >P410 failed (5-1-0-3). What?! This proposal didn't transmute anything. -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:33:49 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Reaction to Nomic Wars discussion My fellow Berserkers: If you've been following the discussion on the old Internomic list, then you already know that there has been talk of hostile nomic takeovers, "wars" as such. While this has the potential to be really cool, it sure wouldn't hurt to have at least a little bit of defense built into our ruleset. Thus the proposal I'm about to, er, propose. If this passes, I'll propose to transmute it, meaning unanimous consent would be required for a "traditional" hostile takeover. While this doesn't make us bulletproof, it would, in my opinion, make an attack on Berserker a real bitch. :) Proposal: No rule or judgement may cause Berserker Nomic to follow a set of rules other than its own. --------------------- "..We are clearly an intolerant society largely devoted to pretending otherwise." -Tom Tomorrow ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:17:47 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far lisa wrote: >The Burning Shrubbery Nomic >B.S. Nomic >Everyone is in Limbo Nomic >Necronomic >Tastefully NotJosh's Nomic > > > Okay, Joel. I am not "serious" about the five names above. > > I'm rather fond of the no name idea.... > I liked The Burning Shrubbery Nomic... Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:27:42 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase Uckelman wrote: >At 12:23 AM 1/15/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>For that matter I can imagine myself coming to the conculusion that the >>only purely ethical behavior was that which comes naturally to a sociopath. >> >>Consider: >> >>If I recognize that some things are preferable to others, then I would wish >>the preferable outcome (definitionally). >> >>Behavior which produces this is ethical. > >I think this is spurious, or at least it pegs one out as a utilitarian. No, it just makes utilitarians "saints". >Lots of ethical systems produce results that are certainly not the best >pragmatically, e.g. Kant's. Not that I want to launch into a discussion of >Kant right now, but I'm just not sure that I believe this -- either that, >or "preferable outcome" is too vague. Well, I think the idea is: there are certain things we intuit suck and some that we generally like. Ordering these things and discerning a pattern creates an ethical system as I use the term. The hope is that the application of thought to the situation will help these desires be met more efficiently (plus its just fun). The possibility of there being no pattern and no way of reconciling any desires with any other exists, but it takes all the fun out of it. (That would be one of those "5" paths.) >>If I behave unethically (conduct myself such that undesired outcomes are >>produced) then at least one of the following should be true: >>1) I did so due to a lack of understanding of the situation and could not >>pefectly apply my ethical system. > >I'm not sure that one can be unethical in this way, as (some say) you >aren't morally responsible for unforseen consequences of your actions. You >have to be trying to be unethical, it isn't something that happens >unintentionally. But if you believed this, and your ethical system was well crafted, then you wouldn't care about those unforseen consequences. Also, I've never heard of a belief system that I truly thought _really_ didn't care about ends, but _only_ cared about the means... they just say that we should craft a "meta-ultilitarian" system that produces general good. If particular actions happen to suck then you overlook those discrepancies and retain faith that this system will produce more net benefits. That or your real goal is to feel good about doing things without respect to results... you want a no-guilt-for-ME belief. Or something along these lines... >>2) My ethical system imperfectly matched my ends and should be revised. > >I'm not sure that I like this one either. Is the implication here that >one's ethical system should be moulded to ones ends? That if I want, say, >to embezzel from my employer, I should adjust my morals to permit it? If you truly think that's the best (or, remember the spark for this discussion, think spying and diplomacy are truly for the best) then your ethics should reflect this... so in a way, yes. >It >seems to me that this should be the opposite, that one's ends ought to be >adjusted to be in accordance with one's ethical system. Am I >misinterpreting your statement? If ethical systems' validity exist outside our ability to like or dislike them, then how do we judge them? (And this is not a rhetorical question, I would really like to hear another way of weighing them.) >>3) I am a broken person whose desires and "death-desires" will tear me apart. >>4) I somehow can to the conclusion that I desired desirable things less >>than undesirable things... That is, though functionally defined, my ethical >>system nonetheless failed to to capture my true desires AND was still what >>I desired. >>5) The basic premises are total garbage and something wildly different (or >>nothing) is true. >> >>Note that three and four involve an "A & ~A" situation that defies normal >>logical validity. I recognize it as a possibilty here because I figure you >>may as well be thorough, then reject them because, if truly accepted, >>basically ruin my ability to think and act. >> >>I am left then with five (which if true demands that I totally rethink >>everything if I want to approach "truth" and "happyness" simultaneously) or >>1 & 2 (which simply require some forethought and maybe a few experiments). >> >>I tend to think that most of the problems in the world come from lazy or >>failed application of 1 & 2. >> >>But I still explore 5 just in case :) >> >>Perhaps I am running too loose with the definition of "ethics" but I think >>that should and do (in the sort of integrated philosophy I strive for) are >>identical. If by "ethics" you meant something other than "system dictating >>successful behavior" then sorry for the silly argument, and please explain >>as I would be facsinated to hear something that sounds like an option I >>would persue if 5 started to look more likely. >> > >Yep, I think I do mean something other than "system dictating successful >behavior". If you use that definition, couldn't you conceivably have an >"ethics of murder" and an "ethics of theft"? Yes. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:15:12 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:02 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Here's the unique names that have been suggested so far. It would make >> >>Why must we stay unique? There's nothing that says we can't reuse >>a name already in use. >> >>Josh > >Because it would be confusing, because it would be unoriginal... That wasn't a problem for Ralph Ellison. -- 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: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:20:13 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Re: Reaction to Nomic Wars discussion The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >My fellow Berserkers: > >If you've been following the discussion on the old Internomic list, then >you already know that there has been talk of hostile nomic takeovers, >"wars" as such. While this has the potential to be really cool, it sure >wouldn't hurt to have at least a little bit of defense built into our >ruleset. Thus the proposal I'm about to, er, propose. > >If this passes, I'll propose to transmute it, meaning unanimous consent >would be required for a "traditional" hostile takeover. While this doesn't >make us bulletproof, it would, in my opinion, make an attack on Berserker a >real bitch. >:) > >Proposal: > >No rule or judgement may cause Berserker Nomic to follow a set of rules >other than its own. Not sure yet but this may be considered paradoxical if enacted. Josh -- Now I will have less distraction. - Leonhard Euler, upon losing the use of his right eye ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:23:23 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Something to think about Joel, you can delete this now. ------- Forwarded Message Received: from pop-1.iastate.edu (pop-1.iastate.edu [129.186.6.61]) by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA02194; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:36:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from eidolon.muppetlabs.com (muppetlabs.com [206.191.168.254]) by pop-1.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19182; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:36:07 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA15343 for internomic-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:28:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.muppetlabs.com: majordom set sender to owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com using -f Received: from dij91.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (dij91.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de [134.147.160.152]) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15335 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:28:16 -0800 Received: (from klaush@localhost) by dij91.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) id WAA16782; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:28:11 +0100 (NFT) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:28:11 +0100 (NFT) Message-Id: <199901152128.WAA16782@dij91.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> From: Klaus Herrmanns To: internomic@muppetlabs.com In-reply-to: (lambda@world.std.com) Subject: Re: My thoughts on various discussions Sender: owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: internomic@muppetlabs.com X-UIDL: 47dc81fb66ea93cb19fb76008971a5b0 Status: U >> I like the idea, but we run into the problem of defining the best player in Nomics such as Agora, where since there is no real way of winning, there is no way to define who is the best. << I think it's really amusing to reduce the concept of 'best' player to how well a player scores in win related points systems. Many of the points systems I've seen, especially in younger nomics, are a measure of how actively and frequently a player does things, but not of how well e does them. I guess in Agora it is quite clear who are the veterans who are really good at the game - although probably at least half of the players fall into this category... You'd just need to check who pulled off some major scams, or who shaped essential concepts in the rules (like our currency system, our judicial system etc). And although we don't put a lot of emphasis on winning, we do have some ways to measure how 'good' players are: various titles, for example for getting proposals adopted without 'against' votes; degrees (Bachelor and Doctir of Nomic, and the like); a Kudo system that measures how much others appreciate your contributions to the game (or not)... Do you seriously think that winning is _the_ way to find out who's a good nomic player? I'm not trying to attack you personally here, I just find this issue interesting (and the aspect of cross-cultural exchange, and seeing how other nomics see and handle things, is the most interesting part of the recent INTO related debates here, as far as I'm concerned). Kolja A. ------- End of Forwarded Message ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:56:05 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Reaction to Nomic Wars discussion Josh wrote: >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>My fellow Berserkers: >> >>If you've been following the discussion on the old Internomic list, then >>you already know that there has been talk of hostile nomic takeovers, >>"wars" as such. While this has the potential to be really cool, it sure >>wouldn't hurt to have at least a little bit of defense built into our >>ruleset. Thus the proposal I'm about to, er, propose. >> >>If this passes, I'll propose to transmute it, meaning unanimous consent >>would be required for a "traditional" hostile takeover. While this doesn't >>make us bulletproof, it would, in my opinion, make an attack on Berserker a >>real bitch. >>:) >> >>Proposal: >> >>No rule or judgement may cause Berserker Nomic to follow a set of rules >>other than its own. > >Not sure yet but this may be considered paradoxical if enacted. > I don't think its paradoxical... just trivially true. Much like a "follow the rules" rule it is unnecessary because if we are playing then this sort of thing is true anyway, and if we don't believe this sort of thing, I hardly see how this could change that... More to the point, this would not be a defense in a war because to have a rule in the first place we would have a rule of our own giving them some way to get at us. But with this rule we could never enter a war... because this would prevent _us_ from joining in a war if it had enough precedence to ever mean anything by preventing our war-joining-rule from functioning. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:31:41 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Reaction to Nomic Wars discussion Yeah, I wondered about that too. There's all sorts of ways this could be interpreted. At 07:20 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: > >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>My fellow Berserkers: >> >>If you've been following the discussion on the old Internomic list, then >>you already know that there has been talk of hostile nomic takeovers, >>"wars" as such. While this has the potential to be really cool, it sure >>wouldn't hurt to have at least a little bit of defense built into our >>ruleset. Thus the proposal I'm about to, er, propose. >> >>If this passes, I'll propose to transmute it, meaning unanimous consent >>would be required for a "traditional" hostile takeover. While this doesn't >>make us bulletproof, it would, in my opinion, make an attack on Berserker a >>real bitch. >>:) >> >>Proposal: >> >>No rule or judgement may cause Berserker Nomic to follow a set of rules >>other than its own. > >Not sure yet but this may be considered paradoxical if enacted. > > > >Josh > >-- >Now I will have less distraction. > - Leonhard Euler, upon losing the use of his right eye ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:47:05 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Where the hell are the scores? Let's keep this thing moving! -- Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe. Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:42:14 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: My second name choice This one's special just fer Joel: All Disco Dance Must End in Broken Bones -- "Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie... Study computers instead." - Jackie Chan ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:01:40 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: New Alphanomic rule (and the final one, for me) When this rule is enforceable according to the main ruleset, all players win. Josh -- 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: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:03:26 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Information Sale Here's the offer: For 50 subers (here after S50) I will vote publicly. That is, as many of you as want can put up subers and if the total meets or exceeds S50 I will post publicly and collect. If anyone wants the information privately, then pay that much to me and i will cc my votes to you and Joel, and not send them to the list. The idea is, if anyone is thinking of anti-voting for points but wants something passed, it might be helpful to know how I'm voting so you have a little more info to be careful with and get the prop AND the points. And if anyone wants just plain points the info is still useful. I am not particularly interested in winning by points but I want to play with the economy. Moreover, I see the extra information possibly helping the ruleset more accurately reflect what we want out of it, which I'd kinda like. Plus bribery and info economies are cool. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:48:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Where the hell are the scores? At 09:47 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: > >Let's keep this thing moving! I've been playing Car Wars all night. The scores and page updates will be up before noon sometime (hopefully). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:51:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 Another bounce. >Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:09 -0600 (CST) >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >To: uckelman@iastate.edu >Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) > >The original message was received at Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:05 -0600 (CST) >from pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >"|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing" > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.30842.out, it exists >ABORT Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.30842.out, it exists at >/usr/local/majordomo/majordomo.pl line 209. >554 "|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing"... unknown mailer error 2 >Reporting-MTA: dns; majordomo.iastate.edu >Received-From-MTA: DNS; pop-2.iastate.edu >Arrival-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:05 -0600 (CST) > >Final-Recipient: RFC822; nomic@majordomo.iastate.edu >X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; |/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r >nomic -h iastate.edu nomic-outgoing@majordomo.iastate.edu >Action: failed >Status: 5.0.0 >Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:08 -0600 (CST) >Return-Path: >Received: from pop-2.iastate.edu (pop-2.iastate.edu [129.186.6.62]) by >majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id AAA27795 for >; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:05 -0600 (CST) >Received: from isua5.iastate.edu (isua5.iastate.edu [129.186.1.205]) > by pop-2.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA14021 > for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:04 -0600 (CST) >Received: from localhost (kortbein@localhost) > by isua5.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA10888 > for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:04 -0600 (CST) >Message-Id: <199901160640.AAA10888@isua5.iastate.edu> >To: nomic@iastate.edu >Subject: Re: Nomic: Information Sale >In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:03:26 EST." > <3.0.1.32.19990116010326.00687780@sonic.net> >Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:40:04 CST >From: Josh > > >Mueller writes: >>Here's the offer: >> >>For 50 subers (here after S50) I will vote publicly. That is, as many of >>you as want can put up subers and if the total meets or exceeds S50 I will >>post publicly and collect. >> >>If anyone wants the information privately, then pay that much to me and i >>will cc my votes to you and Joel, and not send them to the list. >> >>The idea is, if anyone is thinking of anti-voting for points but wants >>something passed, it might be helpful to know how I'm voting so you have a >>little more info to be careful with and get the prop AND the points. >> >>And if anyone wants just plain points the info is still useful. >> >>I am not particularly interested in winning by points but I want to play >>with the economy. Moreover, I see the extra information possibly helping >>the ruleset more accurately reflect what we want out of it, which I'd kinda >>like. >> >>Plus bribery and info economies are cool. > >Is this uniform or pointwise (i.e. everafter or one-shot)? > >Maybe you should offer subscriptions. :) > >Josh > >-- >"Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its > rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and > beautiful women abound." > - Albert Einstein J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:57:05 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 Ah, is it just me, or have they all been originally sent by me? Could I be doing something wrong? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:59:45 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Name results Actually, I think that McNomic would be a pretty good name. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:03:11 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: name suggestions Hmm, ErgoNomic's quite good. The Illuminati are a bit of a cliche nowerdays, though, and anyway S.C. are sparkier. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:08:21 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal >>I'd vote for "foos" as well. Or perhaps "Eit-ps" >Again, I'm not sure where this one fits in. Are these your name suggestions? Sorry about that, they were suggested names for our currency units, currently called Subers. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:06:20 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: name suggestions >Illuminomic's description says: >"The goal of Illuminomic is to secretly infiltrate and subvert other >Nomics, and bring them under our control. This may have already happened." > >It is blisteringly clear that Joel has been taken over by their mind >control devices and we are being invaded. Never! The guys, gals and ubertech A.I.'s from Special Circumstances, complete with their slightly tongue-in-cheek moral angst, will never give in! ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:18:09 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >Yes. At least 0.01 Suber must be at stake in any GWIB. Except Alphanomic, >which started before that rule came into effect, I think. In that case, I'll add 0.01 Subers, leaving me with 249.99, IIRC. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:11:31 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >0. As of now, it's a non-profit organisation. This may change in the >future, if that's okay. >I presume that this goes with the message before this. What is it? It's a referecne to my GWIB, the U.B.N.0.5.F.L ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:10:40 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: a modest proposal >The proceedures for play are identical in every means to the startup of >this nomic, but I am the only player. >To what does this refer? My GWIB, the unofficial Bezerker Nomic 0.5-a-side football legue , henceforth to be known as the U.B.N.0.5.F.L. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:13:35 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase >So as of lask weekend I've been subscribed to Agora (the only one I could >find that was easily found and clear on its mailing list). > >Should I stop this as "unethical 'n stuff" when I have no intention of >joining Agora unless Berserker or Acka collapses? No way! We need to keep an eye on them. However, we also need someone to keep an eye on the forigen minister............ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:22:21 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: names Actually, as their seems to be a tradition for naming nomic after the style or type of government they are intended to represent , how about calling ourselfs Commitee? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:28:22 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Nick is a nutcase >In answer to your initial question, I can easily imagine an ethical system >wherein spying and diplomacy are seen as 1) the most effective means of >obtaining maximal information and 2) the proper use of such information to >properly balance they results of a meeting between two nomics (be they >territorial like say Canada or games). Since when have ethics been an issue anyway? Our aim should be to gather power over these other nomics. Once we have that power, then we can worry about such wishy-washy concepts such as ethics. Do unto others, before they do unto you. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:30:08 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Yet more names.... If we're going to get into this Latin schtick, how about pyronomic? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:42:52 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: names list so far >Why must we stay unique? There's nothing that says we can't reuse >a name already in use. *Hell* no, that would be awful. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:42:00 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: names list so far >The Burning Shrubbery Nomic >Okay, Joel. I am not "serious" about the five names above. Pity, I knid of like that one. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:39:30 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying Ethics are but a crutch for the weak, a last pathetic attempt by the defeated to prevent the victor from crushing them utterly, a purile, cowardly excuse from those who lack the strength to carry out their acts fully. They are a weakness to be exploited by those who recognise them for what they are, those who revel in the law of nature red in tooth and claw. That's what I think, anyway. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:55:43 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Information Sale >Plus bribery and info economies are cool. Indeed they are. I would like to make clear that I am perfectly willing to sell my votes, to anyone who wants to buy them. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:50:09 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Re: Reaction to Nomic Wars discussion >>No rule or judgement may cause Berserker Nomic to follow a set of rules >>other than its own. >Not sure yet but this may be considered paradoxical if enacted. Yes, it could be interpreted to mean that the rules as of now are fixed, and cannot be changed in *any* way. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:35:06 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 At 06:57 AM 1/16/99 , Knight wrote: >Ah, is it just me, or have they all been originally sent by me? Could I be >doing something wrong? Nope. The last one was Josh. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:39:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 Another one. I may take this up with the folks at the computation center. >Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:34:43 -0600 (CST) >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >To: uckelman@iastate.edu >Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) > >The original message was received at Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:34:41 -0600 (CST) >from pop-5.iastate.edu [129.186.6.65] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >"|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing" > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.28584.out, it exists >ABORT Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.28584.out, it exists at >/usr/local/majordomo/majordomo.pl line 209. >554 "|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing"... unknown mailer error 2 >Reporting-MTA: dns; majordomo.iastate.edu >Received-From-MTA: DNS; pop-5.iastate.edu >Arrival-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:34:41 -0600 (CST) > >Final-Recipient: RFC822; nomic@majordomo.iastate.edu >X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; |/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r >nomic -h iastate.edu nomic-outgoing@majordomo.iastate.edu >Action: failed >Status: 5.0.0 >Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:34:43 -0600 (CST) >Return-Path: >Received: from pop-5.iastate.edu (pop-5.iastate.edu [129.186.6.65]) by >majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id HAA03410 for >; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:34:41 -0600 (CST) >Received: from hil-img-8.compuserve.com (hil-img-8.compuserve.com >[149.174.177.138]) > by pop-5.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA18622 > for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 07:34:40 -0600 (CST) >Received: (from mailgate@localhost) > by hil-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id IAA12833 > for nomic@iastate.edu; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:34:40 -0500 (EST) >Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:33:34 -0500 >From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: Nomic: names, yet again >Sender: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> >To: "INTERNET:nomic@iastate.edu" >Message-ID: <199901160834_MC2-66D6-1F39@compuserve.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Disposition: inline > >The Nomic That Dare Not Speak It's Name? >The Nomic That Shall Remain Nameless? >The Nomic From The Nameless Dark? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:40:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying At 07:39 AM 1/16/99 , Knight wrote: >Ethics are but a crutch for the weak, a last pathetic attempt by the >defeated to prevent the victor from crushing them utterly, a purile, >cowardly excuse from those who lack the strength to carry out their acts >fully. They are a weakness to be exploited by those who recognise them for >what they are, those who revel in the law of nature red in tooth and claw. > That's what I think, anyway. That's very Nietzschiean of you. Way to exercise that will to power. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:49:32 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Scoring from last round: +88 Joel Uckelman +62 Josh Kortbein +21 Jeff Schroeder -10 Tom Mueller -10 Tom Plagge J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:56:38 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: New Alphanomic rule (and the final one, for me) At 11:01 PM 1/15/99 , Josh wrote: > >When this rule is enforceable according to the main ruleset, >all players win. > >Josh Add the same to my ruleset. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:55:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: My second name choice At 10:42 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: > >This one's special just fer Joel: > >All Disco Dance Must End in Broken Bones NB: this is an excellent example of the kind of name that I would vote against. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:00:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: name idea Fluid Nomic: we move at a quick pace, our name could reflect this. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:03:11 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: names list so far Here's the updated list of names suggested so far: [no name] [ascii 0013] All Disco Dance Must End in Broken Bones Berserker Nomic Blast Off! Nomic The Burning Shrubbery Nomic Capitalist Commitee Comprehensive Comprehensive Nomic Compronomic Cosmonomic Cryptonomic Cyclonomic Ego Nomic ErgoNomic Fluid Nomic Gastronomic Ideonomic Illuminomic Jeane Kirkpatrick Limbo Nomic Logonomic McNomic Microsoft Nomic 99 Necronomic Nick Osborn is a Tasteful Shrubbery The Nomic That Dare Not Speak It's Name The Nomic That Shall Remain Nameless The Nomic From The Nameless Dark Not Aplicable Paranioa Nomic Protonomic Pronomic Special Circumstances Usenet rules football legue J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:34:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: nomination I nominate myself for Treasury Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:34:26 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: nominations for Treasury Minister Nominations are now open for the office of Treasury Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:49:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: land assignments The following are the randomly determined hexes of land that each player receives courtesy of the game: Dakota Bailey - 4745 Jason Durheim - 0726 Nate Ellefson - 2037 Lisa Hamilton - 0217 Tom Knight - 4910 Josh Kortbein - 4048 Damon Luloff - 1118 Tom Mueller - 0047 Andy Palecek - 0500 Tom Plagge - 2743 Ed Proescholdt - 4914 Jeff Schroeder - 1406 Joel Ucklelman - 0336 Aaron Woell - 0121 Everyone should now declare what enterprise they want on their land. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:27:15 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: nominations for Treasury Minister I nominate myself for Treasur Minister. At 01:34 PM 1/16/99 -0600, you wrote: >Nominations are now open for the office of Treasury Minister. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu > ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:07:54 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 RJ KNIGHT writes: >Ah, is it just me, or have they all been originally sent by me? Could I be >doing something wrong? That one was me. -- What I tell you three times is true. - Lewis Carroll ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:26:00 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Another one. I may take this up with the folks at the computation center. I've been asking about it on isu.cc.vincent. Just posted an old bounce header. Josh -- "We are starting a movement in the state legislatures...to forbid the installation of clinics that dispense contraceptives." - Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:29:52 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: land assignments Joel D Uckelman writes: >The following are the randomly determined hexes of land that each player >receives courtesy of the game: > >Dakota Bailey - 4745 >Jason Durheim - 0726 >Nate Ellefson - 2037 >Lisa Hamilton - 0217 >Tom Knight - 4910 >Josh Kortbein - 4048 >Damon Luloff - 1118 >Tom Mueller - 0047 >Andy Palecek - 0500 >Tom Plagge - 2743 >Ed Proescholdt - 4914 >Jeff Schroeder - 1406 >Joel Ucklelman - 0336 >Aaron Woell - 0121 > >Everyone should now declare what enterprise they want on their land. So have you put a map up on the page yet? -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:30:27 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: name idea Joel D Uckelman writes: >Fluid Nomic: we move at a quick pace, our name could reflect this. Hmph. -- 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: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:30:48 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: My second name choice Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:42 PM 1/15/99 , you wrote: >> >>This one's special just fer Joel: >> >>All Disco Dance Must End in Broken Bones > >NB: this is an excellent example of the kind of name that I would vote against ... and don't think I'm not aware of this. Josh -- "An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." - Albert Camus ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:37:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: land assignments At 04:29 PM 1/16/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>The following are the randomly determined hexes of land that each player >>receives courtesy of the game: >> >>Dakota Bailey - 4745 >>Jason Durheim - 0726 >>Nate Ellefson - 2037 >>Lisa Hamilton - 0217 >>Tom Knight - 4910 >>Josh Kortbein - 4048 >>Damon Luloff - 1118 >>Tom Mueller - 0047 >>Andy Palecek - 0500 >>Tom Plagge - 2743 >>Ed Proescholdt - 4914 >>Jeff Schroeder - 1406 >>Joel Ucklelman - 0336 >>Aaron Woell - 0121 >> >>Everyone should now declare what enterprise they want on their land. > >So have you put a map up on the page yet? I'm still working out the technical details of a map yet. We'll have a map before the weekend is over. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:40:35 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: land assignments Joel D Uckelman writes: >Everyone should now declare what enterprise they want on their land. I would like a slaughterhouse. I will, of course, be naming it Slaughterhouse Five. Josh -- Attaching significance to invariants is an effort to recognize what, because of its form or colour or meaning or otherwise, is important or significant in what is only trivial or ephemeral. A simple instance of failing in this is provided by the poll-man at Cambridge, who learned perfectly how to factorize a^2 - b^2 but was floored because the examiner unkindly asked for the factors of p^2 - q^2. - H.W. Turnbull ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:52:10 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: New proposals ------------- Spivak Gender-Neutral Grammar The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood to take the places of the standard English pronouns whose table entries they occupy. Where two pronouns, the male and female, are replaced by a single Spivak pronoun, the Spivak pronoun shall be understood to refer to both genders. [[Example: "e" refers to both "he" and "she".]] | First Person | Second Person | Third Person ------------------------------------------------------- Subject | I | you | e ------------------------------------------------------- Object | me | you | em ------------------------------------------------------- Possessive| my/mine | your/yours | eir/eirs ------------------------------------------------------- Reflexive | myself | yourself | emself [[This proposal shamelessly stolen from Mueller's Nomic.]] -------------- Upon eir forfeit, a departing player's property and Subers are donated to the Treasury. -------------- Josh NB: If it weren't for immutability this would ideally belong in the other rule regarding forfeit. -- I knew I'd hate COBOL the moment I saw they'd used "perform" instead of "do". - Larry Wall on a not-so-popular programming language ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:53:11 -0600 (CST) From: Josh Kortbein Subject: Nomic: (fwd) Re: Majordomo Path: news.iastate.edu!john From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) Newsgroups: isu.cc.vincent Subject: Re: Majordomo Date: 16 Jan 1999 22:27:45 GMT Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA Lines: 27 Message-ID: <77r3p1$rgo$1@news.iastate.edu> References: <77lpo0$ed3$1@news.iastate.edu> <77p5mo$e53$1@news.iastate.edu> <77p7ko$g18$1@news.iastate.edu> <77r2if$qjg$1@news.iastate.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pvtest.cc.iastate.edu Xref: news.iastate.edu isu.cc.vincent:13362 Josh Kortbein wrote: }Here are the headers from a message like those I've been talking about: ... }> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- }>Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.30842.out, it exists }>ABORT Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.30842.out, it exists at ... Ah, thanks, that was a big help. I found a bunch (104) of crufty old temp files (/tmp/resend.?????.out) laying around from October, like this: -rw-rw---- 1 root system 15401 Oct 10 13:32 /tmp/resend.30842.out Whenever you were unlucky enough (about 1:300 odds) to end up with the same process-id (e.g. 30842) as one of these files, majordomo would be most unhappy. I deleted them, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. Thanks again, John -- John Hascall, Software Engr. Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you ISU Computation Center demanded are now mandatory. -Jello Biafra mailto:john@iastate.edu http://www.cc.iastate.edu/staff/systems/john/index.html <=- the usual crud -- -- He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:32:54 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying At 08:39 AM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >Ethics are but a crutch for the weak, a last pathetic attempt by the >defeated to prevent the victor from crushing them utterly, a purile, >cowardly excuse from those who lack the strength to carry out their acts >fully. They are a weakness to be exploited by those who recognise them for >what they are, those who revel in the law of nature red in tooth and claw. > That's what I think, anyway. Perhaps you didn't notice the way I used the term ethics. You have just presented an ethical system under that definition. I just wonder to what degree you really live by, and are then satisfied with, this ethical system? I assume here that when you said ethics in you statement you meant "sniveling philosophies which involve weaknesses like love and sympathy." Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:45:31 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying Mueller writes: >At 08:39 AM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >>Ethics are but a crutch for the weak, a last pathetic attempt by the >>defeated to prevent the victor from crushing them utterly, a purile, >>cowardly excuse from those who lack the strength to carry out their acts >>fully. They are a weakness to be exploited by those who recognise them for >>what they are, those who revel in the law of nature red in tooth and claw. >> That's what I think, anyway. > >Perhaps you didn't notice the way I used the term ethics. You have just >presented an ethical system under that definition. > >I just wonder to what degree you really live by, and are then satisfied >with, this ethical system? > >I assume here that when you said ethics in you statement you meant >"sniveling philosophies which involve weaknesses like love and sympathy." Yeah! Down with love! -- He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:42:52 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: (fwd) Re: Majordomo At 04:53 PM 1/16/99 , Josh wrote: >Path: news.iastate.edu!john >From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) >Newsgroups: isu.cc.vincent >Subject: Re: Majordomo >Date: 16 Jan 1999 22:27:45 GMT >Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA >Lines: 27 >Message-ID: <77r3p1$rgo$1@news.iastate.edu> >References: <77lpo0$ed3$1@news.iastate.edu> <77p5mo$e53$1@news.iastate.edu> ><77p7ko$g18$1@news.iastate.edu> <77r2if$qjg$1@news.iastate.edu> >NNTP-Posting-Host: pvtest.cc.iastate.edu >Xref: news.iastate.edu isu.cc.vincent:13362 > >Josh Kortbein wrote: >}Here are the headers from a message like those I've been talking about: > ... >}> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >}>Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.30842.out, it exists >}>ABORT Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.30842.out, it exists at > ... > > Ah, thanks, that was a big help. > I found a bunch (104) of crufty old temp files (/tmp/resend.?????.out) > laying around from October, like this: > >-rw-rw---- 1 root system 15401 Oct 10 13:32 /tmp/resend.30842.out > > Whenever you were unlucky enough (about 1:300 odds) to end up with the > same process-id (e.g. 30842) as one of these files, majordomo would be > most unhappy. > > I deleted them, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. > >Thanks again, >John >-- >John Hascall, Software Engr. Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you >ISU Computation Center demanded are now mandatory. -Jello Biafra >mailto:john@iastate.edu >http://www.cc.iastate.edu/staff/systems/john/index.html <=- the usual crud Thanks, Josh. If I could give awards or kudos or something, I'd give you one for that. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:05:37 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: RFJ called: I request judgement on the following statement: Each rule is a game entity. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:18:43 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Another one. I RFJ this statement: If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's command. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:21:18 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: land assignments Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Everyone should now declare what enterprise they want on their land. > >I would like a slaughterhouse. > >I will, of course, be naming it Slaughterhouse Five. > I'll take a Power plant. Tom Mueller ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:59:26 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: land assignments I'll take a construction yard ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:51:55 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: umm... upon further reflection, withdraw my most recent proposal. it sucks. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:52:36 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: New Alphanomic rule (and the final one, for me) At 12:56 PM 1/16/99 , you wrote: >At 11:01 PM 1/15/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>When this rule is enforceable according to the main ruleset, >>all players win. >> >>Josh > >Add the same to my ruleset. > and mine ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:03:18 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Proposal {{ Replace all occurrences of "Treasury minister" in the rules with "Alan Greenspan". }} ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:16:48 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: land assignments I'll have a spam factory on my land, please. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:13:22 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying >That's very Nietzschiean of you. Way to exercise that will to power. :) Why thank you. I do try my best : ). ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:21:27 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying >I assume here that when you said ethics in you statement you meant >"sniveling philosophies which involve weaknesses like love and sympathy." Yup, that's the one : ). ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:55:49 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >{{ Replace all occurrences of "Treasury minister" in the rules with "Alan >Greenspan". }} > Strike that "Alan!" -- "Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie... Study computers instead." - Jackie Chan ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:14:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: TM election Voting has opened for the position of Treasury Minister. On the ballot are Ed Proescholdt and Joel Uckelman. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:25:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: land I'll take a construction yard. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:27:55 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election Uckelman wrote: >Voting has opened for the position of Treasury Minister. On the ballot are >Ed Proescholdt and Joel Uckelman. > Speech!! Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:38:33 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying RJ wrote: > >>Mueller wrote: >>>Ethics are but a crutch for the weak, a last pathetic attempt by the >>>defeated to prevent the victor from crushing them utterly, a purile, >>>cowardly excuse from those who lack the strength to carry out their acts >>>fully. They are a weakness to be exploited by those who recognise them for >>>what they are, those who revel in the law of nature red in tooth and claw. >>> That's what I think, anyway. >> >>Perhaps you didn't notice the way I used the term ethics. You have just >>presented an ethical system under that definition. >> >>I just wonder to what degree you really live by, and are then satisfied >>with, this ethical system? >> >>I assume here that when you said ethics in you statement you meant >>"sniveling philosophies which involve weaknesses like love and sympathy." >> > >Yup, that's the one : ). > But do you really live by this? I have read acounts of this philosophy in two basic forms: pro and anti hypocrisy. The first is like a sociopath, who is nicer than sliced bread until he won't be caught. The second is kinda what one variety of Satanist believes and involves killing your parents (the ultimate liers) as a first step toward "freedom". More to to the point, do you _really_ never exerpience any sympathy towards anything? If so, I must say I am facisnated. :) I've never met anyone who admitted to being a sociopath so you'd be a first... Or is it the situation that this (as with utiltarians I've known) is merely a philosphy that appeals to you and makes you feel (as opposed to happily justified with Utilitarians) "tough"? Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:14:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election At 02:27 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>Voting has opened for the position of Treasury Minister. On the ballot are >>Ed Proescholdt and Joel Uckelman. >> > >Speech!! As author of the economic proposals, I'd like a chance to test our new economy as Treasury Minister and help fill our new land with industry and the fruits of its production. Currently, 0.2% of our fine land is occupied with enterprises (5/2500). Under my five turn plan, we too can equal the industrial output of nomics in the west, er... east, uh, whatever. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:33:52 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election At 12:14 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >Voting has opened for the position of Treasury Minister. On the ballot are >Ed Proescholdt and Joel Uckelman. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~tplagge/vote.jpg ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:47:57 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: First Contact (Acka Version) #submit proposal First Contact Create Rule 1-0-1 titled "An Area Of Discontinuity" with the following MEETYOURNEIGHBOR delimited text. MEETYOURNEIGHBOR There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well when a system for their effects exists. This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it is the same rule in both nomics and changes in both places when either nomic changes this rule. Changes to this rule only occur when such changes have been reported in both nomics. MEETYOURNEIGHBOR ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:48:02 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: First Contact (Berserker Version) As a new proposal I submit the following: --------------------------------------------- Create Rule 005 with the following MEETYOURNEIGHBOR delimited text. MEETYOURNEIGHBOR There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well when a system for their effects exists. This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it is the same rule in both nomics and changes in both places when either nomic changes this rule. Changes to this rule only occur when such changes have been reported in both nomics. MEETYOURNEIGHBOR ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:48:01 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election At 03:27 PM 1/17/99 -0500, you wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>Voting has opened for the position of Treasury Minister. On the ballot are >>Ed Proescholdt and Joel Uckelman. >> > >Speech!! > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net > I should be Treasury Minister because as Treasury Minister, I will do more than just abuse my power for my own advantage, I'll also abuse my power in ways that amuse me, even if those actions have no other benefit than pure amusement:) I promise to be corrupt, and allow others to benefit from my abuses of power if they give me a good reason to. I will encourage the growth of our free market economy so that we can crush the Communist Uckelmans... a, whatever. Besides, we all know that we don't live in a brownie-centered universe, we really live on the inside of the earth. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:02:32 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: A proposal to fix the economy {{ 10 energy and 2 spam is created in the possession of every player. Sufficient spam and widgets are created in the possession of the Treasury such that the Treasury Minister can fulfill his offical duties laid out in Rule 402. If there is a vote of Confidence called on the Treasury Minister it is canceled. }} ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:12:05 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal to fix the economy At 06:02 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >{{ >10 energy and 2 spam is created in the possession of every player. > >Sufficient spam and widgets are created in the possession of the Treasury >such that the Treasury Minister can fulfill his offical duties laid out in >Rule 402. > >If there is a vote of Confidence called on the Treasury Minister it is >canceled. >}} What the hell?! The Treasury Minister can buy stuff from the external market. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:38:25 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: A proposal to fix the economy Plagge wrote: >At 06:02 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >>{{ >>10 energy and 2 spam is created in the possession of every player. >> >>Sufficient spam and widgets are created in the possession of the Treasury >>such that the Treasury Minister can fulfill his offical duties laid out in >>Rule 402. >> >>If there is a vote of Confidence called on the Treasury Minister it is >>canceled. >>}} > >What the hell?! The Treasury Minister can buy stuff from the external market. > I retract the above proposal. I didn't see the self-deleting part of the Market rule where values were specified and figured it didn't take effect for two weeks... which would of course leave us high and dry and incapable of starting the economy up. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:11:38 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market {{Change 404 to read as follows: The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities (15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth, where "rand" is a random number between -5 and +5 inclusive. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained.}} ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:42:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market At 07:11 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >{{Change 404 to read as follows: >The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities >(15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity >during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells >commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest >hundredth, where "rand" is a random number between -5 and +5 inclusive. If >a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated >average is retained.}} I don't think this needs to be self-deleting, as it doesn't actually become a rule, it just amends one. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:58:30 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: I want mines. I will pay S375 for a mine to anyone who is uninterested in fiddling with the economy. Just pick a mine and sell it to me. (Up to two, first come, first serve.) Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:33:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I want mines. At 07:58 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >I will pay S375 for a mine to anyone who is uninterested in fiddling with >the economy. Just pick a mine and sell it to me. (Up to two, first come, >first serve.) > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Hmm. I wonder if I made the costs of building too high given available funds. I can build a mine for S987.50 at current prices. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:42:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Tom Plagge has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ 55: Each rule is a game entity. Ed Proescholdt has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ 56: If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's command. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:41:19 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: I want mines. Uckelman wrote: >Mueller wrote: >>I will pay S375 for a mine to anyone who is uninterested in fiddling with >>the economy. Just pick a mine and sell it to me. (Up to two, first come, >>first serve.) >> > >Hmm. I wonder if I made the costs of building too high given available >funds. I can build a mine for S987.50 at current prices. > There are other problems, too. I started figuring this turn's production, and realized that I would never be able to undercut the Market's price on energy if I had to buy coal from it. Neither will any other power plant. The only way I can beat the Market price is if I can cut down on my coal purchases. So either I need a few mines, or we need several people to run mines and substanially undercut the Market value of coal when they sell to me. Or I guess a third option is that I just abandone economic survival and the growth of the economy and resign myself to a spam famine. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:55:12 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Judgement 55 Statement: Each rule is a game entity Ruling: False Comments: "Game entity" pretty clearly refers to something dynamic--that is, something capable of taking actions, voting, etc. The rules just govern the behavior of those "game entities." Granted, the rules don't explicitly define the term "game entity," something that should be addressed in the future, just for clarification. But I think it's clear what this rule refers to. Excuse the preposition. :) -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:19:07 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 07:11 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >>{{Change 404 to read as follows: >>The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities >>(15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity >>during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells >>commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest >>hundredth, where "rand" is a random number between -5 and +5 inclusive. If >>a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated >>average is retained.}} > >I don't think this needs to be self-deleting, as it doesn't actually become >a rule, it just amends one. Fun, Joel, fun... -- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ­ neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ­ that`s all." ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:24:19 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Judgement 55 The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Statement: Each rule is a game entity > >Ruling: False > >Comments: "Game entity" pretty clearly refers to something dynamic--that >is, something capable of taking actions, voting, etc. The rules just >govern the behavior of those "game entities." Granted, the rules don't >explicitly define the term "game entity," something that should be >addressed in the future, just for clarification. But I think it's clear >what this rule refers to. Excuse the preposition. :) Joel and I have some rule changes planned which should take care of this ambiguity. Josh -- The best material model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat. - A. Rosenblueth ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:27:50 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >{{Change 404 to read as follows: >The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities >(15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity >during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells >commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest >hundredth, where "rand" is a random number between -5 and +5 inclusive. If >a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated >average is retained.}} Rule requires clarificaiton on "rand." I would normally assume real numbers but you seem to be talking about integers(?). Supposing that one doesn't attempt to look at other factors (which might reveal patterns), is this randomness an accurate representation of real market behavior - at all - or is it just a way to spice things up? Josh -- Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - David Hilbert ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:29:41 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Re: Request For Peer Pressure Mueller writes: >As an experiment I have submitted the following rule in both Acka (as Rule >1-0-1) and Berserker (as Rule 005): I don't think you get to pick the number. > >*** >There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule >defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have >traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well >when a system for their effects exists. > >This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it >is the same rule in both nomics and changes in both places when either >nomic changes this rule. Changes to this rule only occur when such changes >have been reported in both nomics. >*** > >Now I just sit and hope these pass, so I get to see what happens. > >Please comment and attempt to exert some peer pressure on members of these >various nomics to vote for this. Are you thinking of the rules-which-become-rules-when-every-ruleset- has-them of Alphanomic, and the Nomic on the net I stole the idea from? -- If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. - Ernest Rutherford ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:22:45 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: I want mines. Mueller writes: >Uckelman wrote: >>Mueller wrote: >>>I will pay S375 for a mine to anyone who is uninterested in fiddling with >>>the economy. Just pick a mine and sell it to me. (Up to two, first come, >>>first serve.) >>> >> >>Hmm. I wonder if I made the costs of building too high given available >>funds. I can build a mine for S987.50 at current prices. >> > >There are other problems, too. I started figuring this turn's production, >and realized that I would never be able to undercut the Market's price on >energy if I had to buy coal from it. Neither will any other power plant. > >The only way I can beat the Market price is if I can cut down on my coal >purchases. So either I need a few mines, or we need several people to run >mines and substanially undercut the Market value of coal when they sell to me. Hmmm. I don't know much about economies. So what you're saying is that with the current setup, you can't do better than the market prices without player assistance, or vertical integration? Depending on how cooperative others are, it could seem that Joel has set us up to openly entertain monopolies. >Or I guess a third option is that I just abandone economic survival and the >growth of the economy and resign myself to a spam famine. There is that. Josh -- Mr. Sparkle: Get out of my way, all of you. This is no place for loafers. Join me or die. Can you do any less? Japanese women: What a brave corporate logo! I accept the challenge of "Mr. Sparkle." ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:25:13 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Senators? ------- Forwarded Message Received: from pop-4.iastate.edu (pop-4.iastate.edu [129.186.6.64]) by pop-3.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA09579; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:44:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from eidolon.muppetlabs.com (muppetlabs.com [206.191.168.254]) by pop-4.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA06764; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:44:33 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA15792 for internomic-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:39:11 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: eidolon.muppetlabs.com: majordom set sender to owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com using -f Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102]) by eidolon.muppetlabs.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA15789 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:39:06 -0800 Received: from undertow.netins.net (lyon-168-65.res.iastate.edu [129.186.168.65]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA03200 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:39:04 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990117193750.00979580@pop-2.iastate.edu> X-Sender: uckelman@pop-2.iastate.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:39:01 -0600 To: internomic@muppetlabs.com From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Reaction to Nomic Wars discussion In-Reply-To: <199901172325.KAA00741@silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au> References: <199901162234.QAA20903@isua5.iastate.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-internomic@muppetlabs.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: internomic@muppetlabs.com X-UIDL: a2cab8f6f9f8f56ea207f55a3a37bc85 Status: U At 05:25 PM 1/17/99 , you wrote: >Josh wrote: >> >> >>Steve Gardner writes: >>>Oh, we don't *elect* our Senate. That would be self-defeating. >> >>How then? > >Rule 1717/1 (Power=1) >The Senate > > A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for > the immediately preceding two months. > > At any time during a Proposal's Voting Period, the Speaker may > make it a Senate Proposal, by stating so in the Public Forum. > If that does not happen, the Proposal is not a Senate Proposal. > > Entities other than Senators cannot Vote on Senate Proposals. > If an Entity other than a Senator has already voted on a > Proposal by the time it becomes a Senate Proposal, eir votes > on that Proposal are cancelled. > >History: >Created by Proposal 3490 (Zefram), May 19 1997 >Amended(1) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998 > >Steve Gardner | "If it's not worth doing, >Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | it's not worth doing well." >gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au | -- Donald Hebb -- This isn't a bad idea, but in Berserker, nearly all of us would now be Senators. Are Senate Proposals offered very frequently? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ------- End of Forwarded Message If we have a time-in-game requirement, coupled with a time-not-in- Limbo requirement, does this become more useful? Josh ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:33:39 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying Mueller writes: >Or is it the situation that this (as with utiltarians I've known) is merely >a philosphy that appeals to you and makes you feel (as opposed to happily >justified with Utilitarians) "tough"? Or like ethical systems in which one is compelled to do good because of some inner drive to good, or some higher power? Josh -- Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:34:24 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: First Contact (Berserker Version) Mueller writes: >As a new proposal I submit the following: > >--------------------------------------------- >Create Rule 005 with the following MEETYOURNEIGHBOR delimited text. > >MEETYOURNEIGHBOR >There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule >defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have >traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well >when a system for their effects exists. > >This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it >is the same rule in both nomics and changes in both places when either >nomic changes this rule. Changes to this rule only occur when such changes >have been reported in both nomics. >MEETYOURNEIGHBOR I don't like this. I think our Nomic is still too young to be poking around with international relations. Josh -- The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:46:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I want mines. At 10:41 PM 1/17/99 , Mueller wrote: >Uckelman wrote: >>Mueller wrote: >>>I will pay S375 for a mine to anyone who is uninterested in fiddling with >>>the economy. Just pick a mine and sell it to me. (Up to two, first come, >>>first serve.) >>> >> >>Hmm. I wonder if I made the costs of building too high given available >>funds. I can build a mine for S987.50 at current prices. >> > >There are other problems, too. I started figuring this turn's production, >and realized that I would never be able to undercut the Market's price on >energy if I had to buy coal from it. Neither will any other power plant. > >The only way I can beat the Market price is if I can cut down on my coal >purchases. So either I need a few mines, or we need several people to run >mines and substanially undercut the Market value of coal when they sell to me. > >Or I guess a third option is that I just abandone economic survival and the >growth of the economy and resign myself to a spam famine. > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net There is a way around this. If the Players spend all of their Subers on buying widgets, the Treasury can mint a large number of Subers and pay a greatly inflated price to the players for the widgets. Advantage: Players' money supplies are greatly expanded, putting the intial prices withing reach. Disadvantage: both the price and supply of widgets will be artifically inflated for at least 2 turns. Solution: the Treasury sells some widgets back to the external market to reduce the widget supply once the price reflects the trading between it and the players, but maintains enough so as not to be reliant on players for widgets until the price readjusts to normal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:53:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Request For Peer Pressure At 12:29 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>As an experiment I have submitted the following rule in both Acka (as Rule >>1-0-1) and Berserker (as Rule 005): > >I don't think you get to pick the number. Well, actually he can -- but no one usually does. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:33:12 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Economic problems Some of us Harwoodians (including Dakota and Nate, who may soon be rejoining us) have been taking a look at the economy, and we've discovered some potential problems. Among them: Mines suck. They need to produce more. There's really no reason anyone would ever want to buy a widget, making almost half of the economy pointless. There aren't enough subers out there. There are a couple ways to deal with this, but it would be really helpful if there was a brief moratorium on economic activity. -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:38:31 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: I want mines. >Hmmm. I don't know much about economies. So what you're saying is that >with the current setup, you can't do better than the market prices >without player assistance, or vertical integration? > >Depending on how cooperative others are, it could seem that Joel >has set us up to openly entertain monopolies. Monopolies would only be valuable if there were some sort of advantage to controlling a whole sector of the economy. Right now, the way to go would be vertical integration--there's not much incentive to trade, really. >>Or I guess a third option is that I just abandone economic survival and the >>growth of the economy and resign myself to a spam famine. > >There is that. > But I don't like spam! ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:36:23 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market Revision: Change 404 to read as follows: The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities (15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth, where "rand" is a random integer between -5 and +5 inclusive. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained. ----------- >Rule requires clarificaiton on "rand." I would normally assume real >numbers but you seem to be talking about integers(?). > >Supposing that one doesn't attempt to look at other factors (which >might reveal patterns), is this randomness an accurate representation >of real market behavior - at all - or is it just a way to spice things >up? A bit of both. It allows for some speculation, and it simulates the frequent fluctuations in the "real" market. It definately makes things more interesting. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:47:06 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Naming: important note Withdraw all of your name proposals that aren't realistic. I have done so. Remember that any name requires unanimous consent before taking effect, as a result of the transmutation. Having a huge glut of names makes things work far more shittily than is necessary. We'll be voting reasonably soon. -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:40:12 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Re: Request For Peer Pressure >>Mueller writes: >>>As an experiment I have submitted the following rule in both Acka (as Rule >>>1-0-1) and Berserker (as Rule 005): >> >>I don't think you get to pick the number. > >Well, actually he can -- but no one usually does. > And by doing so, he royally messes up the numbering system. Not that I plan on voting for it anyway, in its current form... ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:42:03 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic problems The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Some of us Harwoodians (including Dakota and Nate, who may soon be >rejoining us) have been taking a look at the economy, and we've discovered >some potential problems. Among them: > >Mines suck. They need to produce more. >There's really no reason anyone would ever want to buy a widget, making >almost half of the economy pointless. Aha, but Joel made them have a purpose, what with game maintenance and all. Didn't I tell you it would be a bad idea to force the values, Joel? >There aren't enough subers out there. > >There are a couple ways to deal with this, but it would be really helpful >if there was a brief moratorium on economic activity. How do you go about that? Josh -- Omnia apud me mathematica fiunt. [With me everything turns into mathematics.] - Rene Descartes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:44:54 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Revision: >Change 404 to read as follows: >The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities >(15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity >during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells >commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest >hundredth, where "rand" is a random integer between -5 and +5 inclusive. If >a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated >average is retained. >----------- >>Rule requires clarificaiton on "rand." I would normally assume real >>numbers but you seem to be talking about integers(?). >> >>Supposing that one doesn't attempt to look at other factors (which >>might reveal patterns), is this randomness an accurate representation >>of real market behavior - at all - or is it just a way to spice things >>up? > >A bit of both. It allows for some speculation, and it simulates the >frequent fluctuations in the "real" market. It definately makes things >more interesting. If there were some way to rig your formula so it's more sophisticated I would be all for it. I know the real market often jumps unexpectedly, but when it's not doing that it often changes by small amounts, right? Meaning that the rates close together in time should look, for the most part, close together (man, this has got me thinking about epsilons and deltas). Might you modify this so as to take into account past (recent) performance? If you want unpredictability to a greater extent, add in a really low-probability jump of high magnitude. Josh -- If you ask mathematicians what they do, you always get the same answer. They think. They think about difficult and unusual problems. They do not think about ordinary problems: they just write down the answers. - M. Egrafov ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 01:51:05 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Naming: important note The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Withdraw all of your name proposals that aren't realistic. I have done so. > Remember that any name requires unanimous consent before taking effect, as >a result of the transmutation. Having a huge glut of names makes things >work far more shittily than is necessary. We'll be voting reasonably soon. I am completely serious about my two choices. Josh -- Mathematics is not a deductive science ­ that's a cliche. When you try to prove a theorem, you don't just list the hypotheses, and then start to reason. What you do is trial and error, experimentation, guesswork. - Paul Halmos ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:02:46 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic problems At 01:42 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>Some of us Harwoodians (including Dakota and Nate, who may soon be >>rejoining us) have been taking a look at the economy, and we've discovered >>some potential problems. Among them: >> >>Mines suck. They need to produce more. >>There's really no reason anyone would ever want to buy a widget, making >>almost half of the economy pointless. > >Aha, but Joel made them have a purpose, what with game maintenance >and all. According to Joel, the bug developed because there *would* have been a use for muskets, if wars ever got going. Widgits, though, don't have a purpose for the players, so nobody would buy them and the price would remain constant. >Didn't I tell you it would be a bad idea to force the values, Joel? > >>There aren't enough subers out there. >> >>There are a couple ways to deal with this, but it would be really helpful >>if there was a brief moratorium on economic activity. > >How do you go about that? The moratorium? Just don't do anything for a while unless you want to unintentionally screw yourself over. Because either Ellefson or myself will probably soon make a proposal giving widgits a legitimate use, and the could change everything. -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:21:57 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: TRANSACTION Item: 1 spam From: External market at S8.50 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:22:59 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Transactions It occurs to me that there's going to be a huge glut of transaction mail, and that we need something to deal with that, such as another mailing list or (ideally) a web script. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:24:11 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic problems The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >The moratorium? Just don't do anything for a while unless you want to >unintentionally screw yourself over. Because either Ellefson or myself Aha. Perhaps you're thinking that I wanted an economy. Josh -- "All synthesizers are programmed white." - Miles Davis ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:20:15 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal: Randomization of external market At 01:44 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>Revision: >>Change 404 to read as follows: >>The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities >>(15+rand)% below the average per unit price established for each commodity >>during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells >>commodities (15+rand)% above that average price, rounded to the nearest >>hundredth, where "rand" is a random integer between -5 and +5 inclusive. If >>a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated >>average is retained. >>----------- >>>Rule requires clarificaiton on "rand." I would normally assume real >>>numbers but you seem to be talking about integers(?). >>> >>>Supposing that one doesn't attempt to look at other factors (which >>>might reveal patterns), is this randomness an accurate representation >>>of real market behavior - at all - or is it just a way to spice things >>>up? >> >>A bit of both. It allows for some speculation, and it simulates the >>frequent fluctuations in the "real" market. It definately makes things >>more interesting. > >If there were some way to rig your formula so it's more sophisticated >I would be all for it. I know the real market often jumps unexpectedly, >but when it's not doing that it often changes by small amounts, >right? Meaning that the rates close together in time should look, >for the most part, close together (man, this has got me thinking >about epsilons and deltas). Might you modify this so as to take >into account past (recent) performance? If you want unpredictability >to a greater extent, add in a really low-probability jump of high >magnitude. I understand that this isn't particularly realistic behavior at first glance, but 5% really isn't all that significant. I'm guessing if you graph the actual market performance and the performance of a system that varies periodically by a small percentage, they'll look very much the same. Also the economy is already pretty complicated, and we have no need to confuse the hell out of everyone. -Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:39:15 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >It occurs to me that there's going to be a huge glut of transaction mail, >and that we need something to deal with that, such as another mailing list >or (ideally) a web script. Separate mailing list. -- Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. - William of Occam ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:18:52 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Step One I buy 1 wood from the Market for 2.30 subers. I offer this to Josh for 0.01 Subers. Tom ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:18:38 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Transactions of the Royal Society I accept Mueller's offer of a wood. I note that for "the previous two full turns" 1 wood has been sold for 0.01 Subers making this the Market's new average among all inter-player wood transactions 0.01. I buy 108,694 woods for (108,694 woods)(.01 subers/wood)(1.15 [market profit]) = 1249.98 Subers leaving me with .02 Subers I then offer Mueller 1 wood for 950 Subers. Josh -- "We are starting a movement in the state legislatures...to forbid the installation of clinics that dispense contraceptives." - Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:23:46 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Step Three I accept Josh's wood offer of 1 wood for 950 Subers. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:33:06 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions At 02:39 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>It occurs to me that there's going to be a huge glut of transaction mail, >>and that we need something to deal with that, such as another mailing list >>or (ideally) a web script. > >Separate mailing list. Ah, having all the sale offers available at a glance would be nice. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:30:54 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three Mueller writes: >I accept Josh's wood offer of 1 wood for 950 Subers. > I note that for "the previous two full turns" 2 woods have been sold for 0.01 and 950 Subers respectively, making the Market's new average among all inter-player wood transactions 475.01. I sell 108,694 woods to the Market for (108,694 wood)(475.01 subers/wood)(.85 [market profit]) = 43,885,664 Subers. I give 21,942,832 subers to Mueller. HAND. Josh -- The more I see of men, the better I like my dog. - Blaise Pascal ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:41:15 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >At 02:39 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >>The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>>It occurs to me that there's going to be a huge glut of transaction mail, >>>and that we need something to deal with that, such as another mailing list >>>or (ideally) a web script. >> >>Separate mailing list. > >Ah, having all the sale offers available at a glance would be nice. I agree, but that's why mail is stored in long-term storage. So you can go back and look at it. Web pages are icky. Josh -- 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: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:45:00 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>I accept Josh's wood offer of 1 wood for 950 Subers. >> > >I note that for "the previous two full turns" 2 woods have been sold for >0.01 and 950 Subers respectively, making the Market's new average among all >inter-player wood transactions 475.01. > >I sell 108,694 woods to the Market for (108,694 wood)(475.01 >subers/wood)(.85 [market profit]) = 43,885,664 Subers. > >I give 21,942,832 subers to Mueller. > >HAND. I accept the S21M+ (in case that's formally necessary). Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:55:58 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three Mueller writes: >Josh wrote: >> >>Mueller writes: >>>I accept Josh's wood offer of 1 wood for 950 Subers. >>> >> >>I note that for "the previous two full turns" 2 woods have been sold for >>0.01 and 950 Subers respectively, making the Market's new average among all >>inter-player wood transactions 475.01. >> >>I sell 108,694 woods to the Market for (108,694 wood)(475.01 >>subers/wood)(.85 [market profit]) = 43,885,664 Subers. >> >>I give 21,942,832 subers to Mueller. >> >>HAND. > >I accept the S21M+ (in case that's formally necessary). And for the recordbooks, this one should be recorded as the "Mueller Maneuver." Josh -- "Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie... Study computers instead." - Jackie Chan ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:02:03 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Scam You guys are good, I must admit. The only potential problem is that the rules may be interpreted differently regarding your computation of the average price of wood. It may be by unit rather than by total sale. Either way, you made an assload of money. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:13:34 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Scam The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >You guys are good, I must admit. The only potential problem is that the >rules may be interpreted differently regarding your computation of the >average price of wood. It may be by unit rather than by total sale. >Either way, you made an assload of money. I just wish I could use it to buy CDs. Josh -- I advise my students to listen carefully the moment they decide to take no more mathematics courses. They might be able to hear the sound of closing doors. - James Caballero ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:46:18 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Scam At 04:13 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: > >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>You guys are good, I must admit. The only potential problem is that the >>rules may be interpreted differently regarding your computation of the >>average price of wood. It may be by unit rather than by total sale. >>Either way, you made an assload of money. > >I just wish I could use it to buy CDs. heheh. Hey Kortbein...wanna buy some coal? ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:54:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: TRANSACTION At 02:21 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >Item: 1 spam >From: External market at S8.50 You mean S11.50. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:57:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions At 02:22 AM 1/18/99 , Plagge wrote: >It occurs to me that there's going to be a huge glut of transaction mail, >and that we need something to deal with that, such as another mailing list >or (ideally) a web script. A cgi script would be nice, except that they won't let you have them on the public servers. What good will having another mailing list for transactions do? You'll still get all of the mail either way. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:51:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic problems At 01:42 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>Some of us Harwoodians (including Dakota and Nate, who may soon be >>rejoining us) have been taking a look at the economy, and we've discovered >>some potential problems. Among them: >> >>Mines suck. They need to produce more. >>There's really no reason anyone would ever want to buy a widget, making >>almost half of the economy pointless. > >Aha, but Joel made them have a purpose, what with game maintenance >and all. > >Didn't I tell you it would be a bad idea to force the values, Joel? No, that's not the problem. That widgets are only consumed by the state is the problem. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:01:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions of the Royal Society At 03:18 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: >I accept Mueller's offer of a wood. > >I note that for "the previous two full turns" 1 wood has been sold for 0.01 >Subers making this the Market's new average among all inter-player wood >transactions 0.01. No. There were no transactions in the previous two turns, so the initial average rides until the end of this turn. >I buy 108,694 woods for (108,694 woods)(.01 subers/wood)(1.15 [market >profit]) = 1249.98 Subers leaving me with .02 Subers Therefore, you can't buy all of this wood. >I then offer Mueller 1 wood for 950 Subers. > >Josh J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:02:41 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three At 03:30 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>I accept Josh's wood offer of 1 wood for 950 Subers. >> > >I note that for "the previous two full turns" 2 woods have been sold for >0.01 and 950 Subers respectively, making the Market's new average among all >inter-player wood transactions 475.01. > >I sell 108,694 woods to the Market for (108,694 wood)(475.01 >subers/wood)(.85 [market profit]) = 43,885,664 Subers. > >I give 21,942,832 subers to Mueller. > >HAND. > > > > >Josh Again, no. See previous post. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:20:30 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: TRANSACTION At 09:54 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >At 02:21 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >>Item: 1 spam >>From: External market at S8.50 > >You mean S11.50. Yup. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:50:25 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: TM election I'll vote for whoever promises to give me the largest sum of Subers. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:53:19 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: The Ethics Of Spying Oh, come on, remove that rod from your asses. I was only having a laugh, as I assumed would be obvious. Of course I don't live by this philosophy in real life, but I thought that it would be kind of fun to try it out in a nomic. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:55:53 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election >As author of the economic proposals, I'd like a chance to test our new >economy as Treasury Minister And this is why you shouldn't be elected, IMHO. Call me paraniod, but you created these ideas, and giving you controll over them may be part of some kind of plan. Of course, a small donation may change my mind........ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:03:18 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: I want mines. Want a spam factory? ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:05:14 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: I want mines. >Or I guess a third option is that I just abandone economic survival and the >growth of the economy and resign myself to a spam famine. Yay! Dystopia nomic! ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:01:53 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 02:22 AM 1/18/99 , Plagge wrote: >>It occurs to me that there's going to be a huge glut of transaction mail, >>and that we need something to deal with that, such as another mailing list >>or (ideally) a web script. > >A cgi script would be nice, except that they won't let you have them on the >public servers. What good will having another mailing list for transactions >do? You'll still get all of the mail either way. I think the idea is that if one DOESN'T want to see transaction mail, one need not subscribe to the economy list. Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:00:33 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election > I promise to be corrupt, and allow others to benefit from my >abuses of power if they give me a good reason to. And this is precisely why you shouldn't be elected, IMHO. The economic system has only just been instated, and needs to be carefully handled untill it can reach a satisfactory form. Who beter to do this that the person who came up with it in the first place? This scheming and plotting may be entertaining, but at this point I think we all want to stableise the sytem before attempting to mess with it. Of course, a small donation may change my mind.... ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:12:53 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: Naming: important note Okay, I withdraw all of mine apart from The Nomic That Dare Not Speak It's Name, Special Circumstances, and Comittee. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:15:04 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Scam The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >At 04:13 AM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >> >>The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>>You guys are good, I must admit. The only potential problem is that the >>>rules may be interpreted differently regarding your computation of the >>>average price of wood. It may be by unit rather than by total sale. >>>Either way, you made an assload of money. >> >>I just wish I could use it to buy CDs. > >heheh. > >Hey Kortbein...wanna buy some coal? Oh, surely we've got to let Joel grumble first, before he'll write down the proper statistics on the web page... Can that be considered obstruction of justice? :) Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:13:46 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions of the Royal Society Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 03:18 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: >>I accept Mueller's offer of a wood. >> >>I note that for "the previous two full turns" 1 wood has been sold for 0.01 >>Subers making this the Market's new average among all inter-player wood >>transactions 0.01. > >No. There were no transactions in the previous two turns, so the initial >average rides until the end of this turn. I dispute your claim here, and am careful to note that just because you invented our economy, that doesn't mean we should take your word as to how you want it to work now. Rule 404/1(m) : Commodity Prices The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained. Note that "if a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated AVERAGE is retained." I understand "average" to mean the same thing as earlier in the paragraph, the "average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions." The prices set initially were not computed by application of this rule; the rule wasn't around. Those prices were set arbitrarily - perhaps the rule's author had some intentions, but we can't know those. We only have the rule's text. Thus, there IS no last calculated average. So tell me, if you find a flaw in Mr. Mueller's reasoning, where is it? Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:50:20 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions of the Royal Society At 01:13 PM 1/18/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 03:18 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: >>>I accept Mueller's offer of a wood. >>> >>>I note that for "the previous two full turns" 1 wood has been sold for 0.01 >>>Subers making this the Market's new average among all inter-player wood >>>transactions 0.01. >> >>No. There were no transactions in the previous two turns, so the initial >>average rides until the end of this turn. > >I dispute your claim here, and am careful to note that just because >you invented our economy, that doesn't mean we should take your word >as to how you want it to work now. > > Rule 404/1(m) : Commodity Prices > > The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities > 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity > during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, > and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the > nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous > turn, the last calculated average is retained. > >Note that "if a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, >the last calculated AVERAGE is retained." I understand "average" to >mean the same thing as earlier in the paragraph, the "average >per unit price established for each commodity during the previous >two full turns by inter-Player transactions." > >The prices set initially were not computed by application of this rule; >the rule wasn't around. Those prices were set arbitrarily - perhaps >the rule's author had some intentions, but we can't know those. We >only have the rule's text. Thus, there IS no last calculated average. > >So tell me, if you find a flaw in Mr. Mueller's reasoning, where is it? The way I'm seeing this is Joel is saying that a game turn must be completed before the average is computed. I'm sure that each transaction isn't counted as being a "full turn" of the game (Rule 201). As to your point about the initial averages, that is very true. The last calculated average would probably be just a random number with no meaning for us because it hasn't been initialized to be anything yet. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:37:00 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions of the Royal Society Jeff Schroeder writes: >The way I'm seeing this is Joel is saying that a game turn must be >completed before the average is computed. I'm sure that each transaction That's one way to look at it but the rule says nothing about waiting. If that was to be a problem it should have been in the rule to begin with. >isn't counted as being a "full turn" of the game (Rule 201). As to your Surely Tom will explain for himself but I believe he was using a running average. >point about the initial averages, that is very true. The last calculated >average would probably be just a random number with no meaning for us >because it hasn't been initialized to be anything yet. That's a very computer-sciency thing of you to say. The contents of uninitialized memory locations are treated differently in many languages. Some language stipulate that uninitialized values shall be 0. Others specify nothing, and leave it up to the implementation - meaning that if you want to be safe, you shouldn't assume anything, else you're likely to get garbage if you access before initializing the location yourself. Despite this problem, the fact remains that the rules do not specify how sales shall be conducted prior to initialization of the average. I think Tom's is a reasonable solution. Josh -- The best material model of a cat is another, or preferably the same, cat. - A. Rosenblueth ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:23:49 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Transactions of the Royal Society At 01:13 PM 1/18/99 -0600, Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 03:18 AM 1/18/99 , Josh wrote: >>>I accept Mueller's offer of a wood. >>> >>>I note that for "the previous two full turns" 1 wood has been sold for 0.01 >>>Subers making this the Market's new average among all inter-player wood >>>transactions 0.01. >> >>No. There were no transactions in the previous two turns, so the initial >>average rides until the end of this turn. > >I dispute your claim here, and am careful to note that just because >you invented our economy, that doesn't mean we should take your word >as to how you want it to work now. > > Rule 404/1(m) : Commodity Prices > > The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities > 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity > during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, > and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the > nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous > turn, the last calculated average is retained. > >Note that "if a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, >the last calculated AVERAGE is retained." I understand "average" to >mean the same thing as earlier in the paragraph, the "average >per unit price established for each commodity during the previous >two full turns by inter-Player transactions." > >The prices set initially were not computed by application of this rule; >the rule wasn't around. Those prices were set arbitrarily - perhaps >the rule's author had some intentions, but we can't know those. We >only have the rule's text. Thus, there IS no last calculated average. > >So tell me, if you find a flaw in Mr. Mueller's reasoning, where is it? > >Josh Right here: >Thus, there IS no last calculated average. The following line self-deleted after setting the initial prices: "Initial prices use the following averages:" What follows it specifies the averages to be used at the beginning. Since no turns have passed, the original averages (note that the initial numbers were still termed "averages") stand. Therefore, your trades did not happen. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:58:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: revote Due to about 500k of bad sectors on my hard drive directly coinciding with my email program, I no longer have any of the votes for Treasury Minister. If you voted already, resend it. If you haven't, voting ends at 23:31 tonight. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:13:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: transaction list If I do make a list for transactions, does anyone care whether it's a ch- or a majordomo list? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:10:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: RFJ Statement: The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have purchased 108694 wood from the market is illegal. Analysis: [see my last post on this matter]. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:36:17 -0600 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 18:35:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman At 05:13 PM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >If I do make a list for transactions, does anyone care whether it's a ch- >or a majordomo list? I don't think Mueller or Knight could use a chlist. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 18:41:45 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: JUDGEMENT Statement: The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have purchased 108694 wood from the market is illegal. Judgement: True Comments: Prices are recomputed at the beginning of each turn; it's not a running average. The initial average prices were all set via a self-deleting proposal. Thus, said transaction is not possible and the Mueller Maneuver fails in its first incarnation. However, one would be wise to note the ease with which the market can be fucked. This is something we need to either exploit or correct. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:01:58 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: transaction list Joel D Uckelman writes: >If I do make a list for transactions, does anyone care whether it's a ch- >or a majordomo list? I prefer majordomo for no good reason. -- Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. - Rene Descartes ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:02:59 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: transaction list The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >At 05:13 PM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >>If I do make a list for transactions, does anyone care whether it's a ch- >>or a majordomo list? > >I don't think Mueller or Knight could use a chlist. They can be members of them. They just can't add/remove themselves. -- There is no hell. There is only France. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:27:57 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: JUDGEMENT The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Statement: The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have >purchased 108694 wood from the market is illegal. > >Judgement: True > >Comments: Prices are recomputed at the beginning of each turn; it's not a >running average. The initial average prices were all set via a >self-deleting proposal. Thus, said transaction is not possible and the >Mueller Maneuver fails in its first incarnation. However, one would be >wise to note the ease with which the market can be fucked. This is >something we need to either exploit or correct. I appeal this judgment. The original proposal stated: The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained. {{Initial prices use the following averages: [snip] }} Clearly, no wood was transacted during the previous turn, as no wood existed during the previous turn. So we are to be guided by the final sentence of the proposal's first paragraph, "If a commodity was not sold... the last CALCULATED average is retained." (Emphasis mine.) "Calculated" should be understood to mean "calculated according to the rule of averaging set forth earlier in this paragraph;" there is no other sense in which "calculation" of Market prices is defined in the rules. This means that the "initial prices" set forth in Mr. Uckelman's proposal are meaningless, as far as we are concerned. We do not know how they were arrived at. Indeed, it is likely that they were completely arbitrary selections. Certainly calling them "averages" does not make them averages in the sense required by this rule. No doubt Mr. Uckelman will agree - he has made clear in the past the distaste with which he regards the improper (i.e., out of line with "real world") naming of game notions. We should not overstep the bounds of the common sense Mr. Uckelman prescribes, by simply covering our eyes and ears and pretending that "average" may mean whatever we wish. Thus, as I mentioned in a previous message to Mr. Schroeder, this notion of "last calculated average" is problematic. We should not simply make assumptions about what the last calculated average is, or attempt to redefine what "calculated" or "average" mean. We are thus in unregulated territory, as described by rule 116: Rule 116/0(i) : Permissibility of the Unprohibited 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. Pedants may object here that transactions are regulated by rules, and so rule 116 does not apply. However, such a reading of the rules is not in keeping with the fine spirit of attention to detail in our fine Nomic. We should get at the deeper issue: are transactions taking place before Market prices have been calculated (according to the rule of averaging) regulated? Clearly not, because of the semantically empty phrase pointed to by Mr. Uckelman and the honorable Mr. Plagge. We might as well slap a phrase, "And monkeys might fly out of my butt," on the rule and claim that transactions taking place before Market prices have been calculated are thusly regulated. So, then: the action taken by myself, under guidance from wise Mr. Mueller, is unregulated by rule in this game, and is this permissable. If Mr. Uckelman wishes to patch up holes in the economy, he should do so via the lawmaking process, not by attempting to abuse the power of the Judiciary, swaying the Judge with hand-waving arguments composed of capricious and unreasonable redefinitions of words with "common sense" meanings. Josh -- It's fucking great to be alive, ladies and gentlemen, and if you do not believe it is fucking great to be alive, you better go now, because this show will bring you down so much. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:04:44 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Tom Mueller, Ed Proescholdt, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court for the following statement: The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have purchased 108694 wood from the market is illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 20:07:29 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: mail total Hi josh and joel! BTW, do you recall how I informed Matt Smith at the Philosophy Club about the high number of mails one recieves from the nomic mailing list? I quoted a number that you two were quick to correct. WEEEEllllll, I have just returned from visiting friends in Madison and I have a total of 150 mails, 142 of them are nomic mails! HAH! (I left Friday night around 8:00) Lisa :P ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:29:05 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: mail total At 08:07 PM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >Hi josh and joel! > > BTW, do you recall how I informed Matt Smith at the Philosophy > Club about the high number of mails one recieves from the nomic > mailing list? I quoted a number that you two were quick to > correct. WEEEEllllll, I have just returned from visiting friends > in Madison and I have a total of 150 mails, 142 of them are nomic > mails! HAH! (I left Friday night around 8:00) > >Lisa > >:P Yes, I quickly discovered the joy and wonder of Eudora filters. Also, it's pretty safe to ignore anything that comes from Kortbein, cutting the volume down by at least 2/3. :) ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:45:07 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignments Ruling: Dismissed I believe that statement's truthfullness cannot be fully evaulated. It seems equally possible that rules could be created by command or that rules could no longer be made by anyone. I can't think of a justification for either one. (Clearly, by our current rules, both are illegal) Also, who really cares? >Ed Proescholdt has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ 56: > >If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's >command. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:23:02 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignments At 09:45 PM 1/18/99 -0600, you wrote: >Ruling: Dismissed > >I believe that statement's truthfullness cannot be fully evaulated. It >seems equally possible that rules could be created by command or that rules >could no longer be made by anyone. I can't think of a justification for >either one. (Clearly, by our current rules, both are illegal) Also, who >really cares? > >>Ed Proescholdt has been assigned to 1 Court for RFJ 56: >> >>If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's >>command. I appeal. R228 says: "DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity, or does not address a rules-related matter." Clearly this is a rule-related matter - addressing as it does the very nature of the rules and the environment in which they exist. And R228 goes on to describe the mechanisms for evaluation: "All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, consistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." I care because and I want to know what the base state of a rule-less nomic is according to Berserker's "game-custom and the spirit of the game". Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:54:29 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Lisa Hamilton, Josh Kortbein, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 Court for the following statement: If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's command. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:04:30 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignments At 10:54 PM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >Lisa Hamilton, Josh Kortbein, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 >Court for the following statement: > >If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's >command. Ummmmm....whatever. If all the rules were repealed, players would no longer be players and the game would cease to exist. You could create all the rules you wanted but nobody would ever have to obey them. So you'd be wasting your time. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:09:17 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: mail total The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Yes, I quickly discovered the joy and wonder of Eudora filters. Also, it's >pretty safe to ignore anything that comes from Kortbein, cutting the volume >down by at least 2/3. :) That hurts, Tom. That really, really hurts. -- Mr. Sparkle: Get out of my way, all of you. This is no place for loafers. Join me or die. Can you do any less? Japanese women: What a brave corporate logo! I accept the challenge of "Mr. Sparkle." ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:02:43 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: mail total "lisa K. hamilton" writes: >Hi josh and joel! > > BTW, do you recall how I informed Matt Smith at the Philosophy > Club about the high number of mails one recieves from the nomic > mailing list? I quoted a number that you two were quick to > correct. WEEEEllllll, I have just returned from visiting friends > in Madison and I have a total of 150 mails, 142 of them are nomic > mails! HAH! (I left Friday night around 8:00) > >Lisa > >:P > > > Long-term averages are best observed over long-term periods. Josh -- I have no lid / Upon my head But if I did / You could look inside and see what's on my mind - DMB ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:11:32 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: judge assignments The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >At 10:54 PM 1/18/99 , you wrote: >>Lisa Hamilton, Josh Kortbein, and Jeff Schroeder have been selected to 2 >>Court for the following statement: >> >>If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's >>command. > >Ummmmm....whatever. If all the rules were repealed, players would no >longer be players and the game would cease to exist. You could create all >the rules you wanted but nobody would ever have to obey them. So you'd be >wasting your time. How do rule-based societies develop? They have no a priori rules, or obligations to follow any. Josh -- If you ask mathematicians what they do, you always get the same answer. They think. They think about difficult and unusual problems. They do not think about ordinary problems: they just write down the answers. - M. Egrafov ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 06:33:05 CST From: "lisa K. hamilton" Subject: Nomic: judge assignments If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's command. *I am new to this game and I am going to play this (as best to my knowledge and I am sure josh would correct me if I am wrong) as a chicken shit tradtionalist.* The above statement is true, yet if this was put into use.... 1. Isn't there already alphanomic for this purpose? 2. This speaks of anarchy, anarchy! 3. It is taking us long enough to find a new name, hell I would probably be gone and graduated by the time we could come up with a new list of "commandments." 4. Anarchic (sp?) rules are never fun because no one has the neat-o name of judge! hmmm. more to come later, especially after my morning coffee and cancer stick... lisa ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:20:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: TM election Election results: Uckelman - 2 Proeschodt - 1 Osborn (!) - 1 By a whopping 2 votes, I am now the Treasury Minister. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:36:36 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: mail total At 12:09 AM 1/19/99 , you wrote: > >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>Yes, I quickly discovered the joy and wonder of Eudora filters. Also, it's >>pretty safe to ignore anything that comes from Kortbein, cutting the volume >>down by at least 2/3. :) > >That hurts, Tom. That really, really hurts. Awww, I was just kidding. Come here, Josh...give me a hug. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:48:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal #prop Strike paragraph 2 of Rule 305/1. #endprop Why did people vote against this last time? It failed 3-3, but no one said anything about it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:59:21 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election Joel D Uckelman writes: >Election results: > >Uckelman - 2 >Proeschodt - 1 >Osborn (!) - 1 > >By a whopping 2 votes, I am now the Treasury Minister. I object, and call for blood. I don't see my vote in that list. Josh -- If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. - Ernest Rutherford ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:19:46 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: TM election >Uckelman - 2 >Proeschodt - 1 >Osborn (!) - 1 See! Proeschodt, you fool, if you'd taken advantage of my more than generous offer, you could have forced a tie! ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:32:11 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three Hmm. The Muller Manuver is currently hovering in some kind of legal limbo, but it came too close for comfort to effectively devaluing the Suber. I feel this is a perfect time to make a new proposal: Proposal 417 In addition to the Suber, each player may, if they wish, start their own currencies, wiht the limit of one currency per player. The name of said currency, the amount initially minted and it's initial distribution are up to the player in question. The creator of the currency can mint more of their currency at any time, by declaring their intentions to the list.The currencies are treated as normal in all other respects, and are governed by the same laws that cover Subers when not explicitly stated otherwise. Proposal 417 ends ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:14:10 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three RJ KNIGHT writes: >Hmm. The Muller Manuver is currently hovering in some kind of legal limbo, >but it came too close for comfort to effectively devaluing the Suber. I >feel this is a perfect time to make a new proposal: > > >Proposal 417 > >In addition to the Suber, each player may, if they wish, start their own >currencies, wiht the limit of one currency per player. The name of said >currency, the amount initially minted and it's initial distribution are up >to the player in question. The creator of the currency can mint more of >their currency at any time, by declaring their intentions to the list.The >currencies are treated as normal in all other respects, and are governed by >the same laws that cover Subers when not explicitly stated otherwise. > >Proposal 417 ends I am opposed to our current economy because it has little value within the current game structure. Do you intend these new currencies to have any value whatsoever? If so, how do you foresee them being spent? It will be of even less value than having Subers to me if I can get 400 Uckelmans for voting on his proposal. Josh -- "The best students always are flunking. Every good teacher knows that." -Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:40:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election At 10:59 AM 1/19/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Election results: >> >>Uckelman - 2 >>Proeschodt - 1 >>Osborn (!) - 1 >> >>By a whopping 2 votes, I am now the Treasury Minister. > >I object, and call for blood. I don't see my vote in that list. > >Josh What? Wasn't the vote for Osborn your vote? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:52:49 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:59 AM 1/19/99 -0600, you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Election results: >>> >>>Uckelman - 2 >>>Proeschodt - 1 >>>Osborn (!) - 1 >>> >>>By a whopping 2 votes, I am now the Treasury Minister. >> >>I object, and call for blood. I don't see my vote in that list. >> >>Josh > >What? Wasn't the vote for Osborn your vote? I distinctly recall submitting more than that as my vote. Josh -- Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen. - David Hilbert ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:54:55 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election At 04:52 PM 1/19/99 -0600, Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 10:59 AM 1/19/99 -0600, you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Election results: >>>> >>>>Uckelman - 2 >>>>Proeschodt - 1 >>>>Osborn (!) - 1 >>>> >>>>By a whopping 2 votes, I am now the Treasury Minister. >>> >>>I object, and call for blood. I don't see my vote in that list. >>> >>>Josh >> >>What? Wasn't the vote for Osborn your vote? > >I distinctly recall submitting more than that as my vote. > >Josh You didn't resend your vote, so I put down what I remembered from it. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:19:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: TM election At 07:15 PM 1/19/99 -0600, Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>You didn't resend your vote, so I put down what I remembered from it. > >I could have sworn I voted after you asked for revotes. I hadn't >voted yet. > >-- >"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself." > - Albert Camus I checked again. You did. Josh's vote in the TM election was: >I am voting for Nick Osborn, at the head of a massively devastating >wite-in campaign, and it should be noted that this entire sentence is my vote. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:50:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal a disinterested proposal #prop Transmute Rule 004/0 to mutable and strike it [[until it is dead]]. #endprop J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:00:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: purchase I purchase 1 spam from the market for S11.50. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:02:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal At 07:50 PM 1/19/99 -0600, I wrote: >a disinterested proposal > >#prop > >Transmute Rule 004/0 to mutable and strike it [[until it is dead]]. > >#endprop This is redundant. This is better: #prop Transmute Rule 004/0 and strike it [[until it is dead]]. #endprop J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:20:10 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Nomic purchase I purchase 1 spam from the market for S11.50. I would like to make my free hex of land a construction yard. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:32:04 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: correction Tom Plagge, not Josh Kortbein, should have received 17 points for Proposal 410. This has now been corrected. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:43:04 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: correction Joel D Uckelman writes: >Tom Plagge, not Josh Kortbein, should have received 17 points for Proposal >410. This has now been corrected. New proposal: Errors in scoring and accounting made by the Administrator shall stand when they are in a player's favor, and shall be corrected otherwise. 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: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:40:42 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: CFJ Statement: Every player loses 10 points due to rule 403. Analysis: The relevant paragraphs are Payment of upkeep, consumption of spam, and expenditure of widgets occur at the beginning of each turn. Production of commodities and construction occur during dead time. and Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which they do not consume spam. Rule 403 was rule from the beginning of this turn. As such, all players (because players are game entities) were required to consume 1 spam, which no player yet owned. No players consumed this spam, so according to rule 403, all players lose 10 points. This may also have interesting consequences as far as game entities go, but from the quick look I took it appears Osborn's Demon could still be considered able to vote. Josh -- Professional music critics rarely possess any aptitude for mathematics. Hence, they like to compare musical processes unintelligible to them with the equally darksome methods of mathematical thinking. - Nicholas Slonimsky ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:48:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three At 01:32 PM 1/19/99 , Knight wrote: >Hmm. The Muller Manuver is currently hovering in some kind of legal limbo, >but it came too close for comfort to effectively devaluing the Suber. I >feel this is a perfect time to make a new proposal: > > >Proposal 417 > >In addition to the Suber, each player may, if they wish, start their own >currencies, wiht the limit of one currency per player. The name of said >currency, the amount initially minted and it's initial distribution are up >to the player in question. The creator of the currency can mint more of >their currency at any time, by declaring their intentions to the list.The >currencies are treated as normal in all other respects, and are governed by >the same laws that cover Subers when not explicitly stated otherwise. > >Proposal 417 ends > This is actually Proposal 425. Just because 416 was the last proposal on the page, it doesn't mean that 416 was the last proposal -- there's a little lag (usually less than 12 hours - I'm currently a little behind due to the economy, but it should all be up to date tomorrow). J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:05:13 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 58: Every player loses 10 points due to rule 403. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:03:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: correction At 10:43 PM 1/19/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Tom Plagge, not Josh Kortbein, should have received 17 points for Proposal >>410. This has now been corrected. > >New proposal: > >Errors in scoring and accounting made by the Administrator shall stand >when they are in a player's favor, and shall be corrected otherwise. > > >Josh Ack. This could put me in a very undesirable situation if ever such a mistake triggers game action (e.g. a win), and leaves me susceptible to attacks on my impartiality as Admin. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:02:59 CST From: "" Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection > Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 58: > > Every player loses 10 points due to rule 403. Ruling: False My reading of the rules: as long as a player consumes spam at some point during the turn, there's no problem. If e acts in a turn and has not consumed spam by the end of it, though, then e is fined the ten points. So everyone hurry up and eat some spam. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:04:47 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: correction Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 10:43 PM 1/19/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Tom Plagge, not Josh Kortbein, should have received 17 points for Proposal >>>410. This has now been corrected. >> >>New proposal: >> >>Errors in scoring and accounting made by the Administrator shall stand >>when they are in a player's favor, and shall be corrected otherwise. >> >> >>Josh > >Ack. This could put me in a very undesirable situation if ever such a >mistake triggers game action (e.g. a win), and leaves me susceptible to >attacks on my impartiality as Admin. Can you suggest a revision which pleases you? Josh -- "Writing is like prostitution. First you do for the love of it, Then you do it for a few friends, And finally you do it for money." -Moliere ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:11:39 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection "" writes: >> Tom Plagge has been selected to 1 Court for RFJ 58: >> >> Every player loses 10 points due to rule 403. > >Ruling: False > >My reading of the rules: as long as a player consumes spam at some point >during the turn, there's no problem. If e acts in a turn and has not consumed > >spam by the end of it, though, then e is fined the ten points. So everyone >hurry up and eat some spam. I appeal this. Mr. Plagge's judgment is clearly overlooking the phrase "spam consumption occurs at the beginning of the turn." He can "read" all he wants but that doesn't make spam consumption NOT happen later than the beginning of the turn, according to the rule. Josh -- "When I have a little money I buy music; if any is left I buy food and clothing." - Erasmus, slightly paraphrased ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:23:29 CST From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Damn, josh, you're right. I missed that section. Sorry... For the record, I appeal my own judgement too. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:33:39 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection Tom Plagge writes: >Damn, josh, you're right. I missed that section. Sorry... >For the record, I appeal my own judgement too. Well that's why I cut n pasted it into my analysis. That's what you get for not reading 2/3 of the email you get! Josh -- In mathematics you don`t understand things. You just get used to them. - Johann von Neumann ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:39:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: correction At 01:04 AM 1/20/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 10:43 PM 1/19/99 , Josh wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Tom Plagge, not Josh Kortbein, should have received 17 points for Proposal >>>>410. This has now been corrected. >>> >>>New proposal: >>> >>>Errors in scoring and accounting made by the Administrator shall stand >>>when they are in a player's favor, and shall be corrected otherwise. >>> >>> >>>Josh >> >>Ack. This could put me in a very undesirable situation if ever such a >>mistake triggers game action (e.g. a win), and leaves me susceptible to >>attacks on my impartiality as Admin. > >Can you suggest a revision which pleases you? > >Josh Ackanomic (I think) has a pragmatism rule which lets errors in anything stand if no one catches them within a certain amount of time, like maybe two weeks. Something like this, over two turns, might be better. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:48:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: note on computer problems Completion of the page updates has once again been thwarted by computer problems. Let me tell you a story: I checked my email before I left for my 9 AM class. When I returned from the class to my room, the first thing I noticed was an acrid smell -- the same odor I noticed on Monday when I had problems with my HD. I noted to my dismay that my computer was no longer running, whereas it had been only an hour before. I quickly determined that the smell of burning silicon was eminating from the power supply, and when I opened it, I found a scorched spot on the circuit board around a large transistor connected to a heat sink and two round yellow capacitors. Luckily, the failure of my old power supply did not adversely affect the rest of my computer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:38:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge assignments Jeff Schroeder, Ed Proescholdt, and Tom Knight have been selected to 2 Court for RFJ 58: Every player loses 10 points due to rule 403. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:49:01 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: public auction The Treasury will soon be auctioning public lands to ease the acute land shortage. However, before doing so, I'd like to get some idea what land I should put up for auction. There's a lot of land out there, so some input on what and how much should be put up for auction and at what price the bidding should start would be appreciated. At present, we have the capacity to fill only three hexes next turn (since we have only 3 construction yards in the game). Also, there seems to be no prohibition on setting a negative starting price on land -- which could be used to pump more badly needed Subers into the fledgling economy. As of now, I don't intend to take in any revenue on the first sale of land, and plan to mint more Subers to cover the sale. It seems to me that there should be something like three to five times more Subers in circulation than there are now. I guess that means I'm in favor of "cheap money" a-la William Jennings Bryan and don't want players to "crucified on a cross of gold." Not that we have any gold. Or crosses. Or rules for crucifixion... [although stake burning might be an acceptable substitiute]. So: 1. How much land would you buy? 2. Where would that land be located? 3. How much do you expect to pay for it (or be paid for taking it)? [69.95? 49.95? No! Only 19.95 per hex and you get the lovely ginsu knives for free!] :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:01:57 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: public auction At 08:49 PM 1/20/99 -0600, you wrote: >The Treasury will soon be auctioning public lands to ease the acute land >shortage. However, before doing so, I'd like to get some idea what land I >should put up for auction. There's a lot of land out there, so some input >on what and how much should be put up for auction and at what price the >bidding should start would be appreciated. I think everyone would like land near their first square, but it really probably doesn't matter too much right now. >At present, we have the capacity to fill only three hexes next turn (since Nowhere does it say how much construction a construction yard can make, so why the 3 hex limit? >we have only 3 construction yards in the game). Also, there seems to be no >prohibition on setting a negative starting price on land -- which could be >used to pump more badly needed Subers into the fledgling economy. As of >now, I don't intend to take in any revenue on the first sale of land, and >plan to mint more Subers to cover the sale. It seems to me that there >should be something like three to five times more Subers in circulation >than there are now. I guess that means I'm in favor of "cheap money" a-la >William Jennings Bryan and don't want players to "crucified on a cross of >gold." Not that we have any gold. Or crosses. Or rules for crucifixion... >[although stake burning might be an acceptable substitiute]. > >So: > >1. How much land would you buy? >2. Where would that land be located? >3. How much do you expect to pay for it (or be paid for taking it)? jeff ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:00:06 CST From: Tom Plagge Subject: Re: Nomic: public auction Hexes adjacent to my current land holdings would be nice. I'd buy as much as I could, especially with negative prices. :) Even if I had to pay, I'd probably buy at least two or three hexes. > The Treasury will soon be auctioning public lands to ease the acute land > shortage. However, before doing so, I'd like to get some idea what land I > should put up for auction. There's a lot of land out there, so some input > on what and how much should be put up for auction and at what price the > bidding should start would be appreciated. > > At present, we have the capacity to fill only three hexes next turn (since > we have only 3 construction yards in the game). Also, there seems to be no > prohibition on setting a negative starting price on land -- which could be > used to pump more badly needed Subers into the fledgling economy. As of > now, I don't intend to take in any revenue on the first sale of land, and > plan to mint more Subers to cover the sale. It seems to me that there > should be something like three to five times more Subers in circulation > than there are now. I guess that means I'm in favor of "cheap money" a-la > William Jennings Bryan and don't want players to "crucified on a cross of > gold." Not that we have any gold. Or crosses. Or rules for crucifixion... > [although stake burning might be an acceptable substitiute]. > > So: > > 1. How much land would you buy? > 2. Where would that land be located? > 3. How much do you expect to pay for it (or be paid for taking it)? > > [69.95? 49.95? No! Only 19.95 per hex and you get the lovely ginsu knives > for free!] :) > > > J. Uckelman > uckelman@iastate.edu ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:24:17 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Re: land auction Hexes adjacent to already-owned hexes seem to be the ones in demand. Would offering the all hexes within the ZoC of owned hexes be acceptable? At -1000 Subers per? NB: ZoC means Zone of Control for all of you non-wargamers. A ZoC usually covers all of the hexes adjacent to the hex in question. J. Uckelman, Treasury Minister uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:20:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: public auction At 09:01 PM 1/20/99 , Jeff wrote: >>At present, we have the capacity to fill only three hexes next turn (since > >Nowhere does it say how much construction a construction yard can make, so >why the 3 hex limit? Ah. Because: "Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in possession of the enterprise's owner: Construction yards convert one of the following:" ^^^ I.e., construction yards produce one thing per turn. Q.E.D. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:17:29 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: public auction Joel D Uckelman writes: >At present, we have the capacity to fill only three hexes next turn (since >we have only 3 construction yards in the game). Also, there seems to be no >prohibition on setting a negative starting price on land -- which could be >used to pump more badly needed Subers into the fledgling economy. As of This remains to be seen... Josh -- If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you how to do your shit, then YOU DESERVE IT. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:15:07 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: public auction Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 09:01 PM 1/20/99 , Jeff wrote: >>>At present, we have the capacity to fill only three hexes next turn (since >> >>Nowhere does it say how much construction a construction yard can make, so >>why the 3 hex limit? > >Ah. Because: > >"Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in >possession of the enterprise's owner: > > > >Construction yards convert one of the following:" > ^^^ > >I.e., construction yards produce one thing per turn. Q.E.D. This isn't evident to me. I read that as a production rule - "one" being the general one, i.e. the action of a construction yard is to take a thing or list of things and spit out another. Nothing is said about the number of times this action can be taken. Josh -- "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." - Mitch Ratliffe, _Technology Review_ April, 1992 ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:27:53 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Osborn's Demon I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting him. ----- RFJ Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. ----- By the way, Theocracy would like to interact with Berserker. We're young, we don't admit that you exist, and we pay homage to a supreme being that I thunk up in my head. Let's have some fun. Glad I can't be judge, n ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:29:09 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Proposal In rule 403, strike the following paragraph: Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers a 10 point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn in which they do not consume spam. -------- Reasoning: When we used to have a turn-based system, instead of the proposal periods we now have (with the Frankenstein's monster of a turn grafted on to please certain voters, and Joel's delicate sensibilities), it was argued that keeping the turn was important because turns were the only things (aside from the off chance of being selected as a judge) which required players to take game action. This was deemed relevant because it kept low-activity players in the game, somehow. Clearly we've gotten past that problem. If a player doesn't propose, a player doesn't make points (off of the primary method for obtaining points, unless you're a bastard). Hence a player doesn't win. Winning may not be a goal of all players, but it's a player's own decision as to whether or not he wants to try winning or not. This proposal is simply an attempt to right the economic system, so that it parallels the legal system. I don't think players should be compelled to participate in the economy if they don't want to. This paragraph was part of the rule simply in order to force players into caring about the economy. Such coercion is not in keeping with the current game spirit. I am open to amending this so that game entities which are not Players are still affected. Josh -- "I've just had seventeen straight whiskeys, I think that's a record." -Dylan Thomas ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:32:14 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon Nicholas C Osborn writes: >I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a >ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by >the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the >creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting >him. > >----- >RFJ > >Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. >----- > >By the way, Theocracy would like to interact with Berserker. We're young, >we don't admit that you exist, and we pay homage to a supreme being that I >thunk up in my head. Let's have some fun. > >Glad I can't be judge, >n As I said earlier, it's not even clear that not being able to buy spam affects the Demon. In my reading he votes despite the inactivity clause in 403. Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 04:17:07 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Turnly Foreign Minister's Report Date: 1/21/99 INTO SUMMARY Berserker became the charter member of the Inter Nomic Treaty Organization (INTO) on Jan 11 1999. Berkserker players subscribed to INTO's mailing list and recieving The Heroic Ear as of this report are Josh Kortbein, Joel D Uckelman, and Thomas Plagge. Players are encouraged to subscribe by sending email to Majordomo@muppetlabs.com with a body text of "subscribe internomic". Berserker's entry prompted much discussion but little action. Ackanomic and Agora have indicated that they are in isolationist phases. "Theos" announced its presence and joined INTO on Jan 14 1998 when former Berserker player Nicholas C Osborn announced himself to be that nomic's speaker and delegate to INTO. Most discussion has focused on the basic feasibiliy and issues surrounding war and trade between nomics. Many hold the position that these things are simply impossible because individual nomics may come to certain conclusions that are in opposition to other nomics' beliefs and there would be no way to resolve these issues. Others are not so sure, but offer no striking counter examples (perhaps because there have never been any and it would take significant work to get to write something up). THE NICK REPORT Nick has announced the existance of "Mononomic" and "Theos" although public rulesets for either of these nomics have not been publicized very effectively. It is rumored that Berserker player Thomas Plagge belongs to Theos. He has requested various relationships with Berserker, but in the absence of solid offers (or at this point even information about the sort of nomic we would be forming treaties with) they have not been persued. He's just plain crazy. :) ACKANOMIC - A BRIDGE OF PEACE OR WAR A proposal in both Ackanomic and Berserker is being dealt with in each nomic. Little Berserker response has been registered, but Acka has offered at least one proposal "just in case" which will take effect before the turn is up a second time for us (but that we could beat out with proposals submitted for this turn). Acka's proposal says: ***************************** Proposal 4016 In the Name of Self-Defense else...if Due: Mon Jan 25 16:20:51 1999 If proposal 4014 passed, amend rule 1-0-1 to read as delimited by EATYOURNEIGHBOR EATYOURNEIGHBOR There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well when a system for their effects exists. This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it is the same rule in both nomics. If a change is made to this rule in Ackanomic, then it is a duty of the Speaker to announce the change in Berserker Nomic, at which point the change is made to the rule in Berserker Nomic as well. Berserker Nomic may not change this rule. If this rule conflicts with another rule on any topic, including this sentence, this rule takes precedence. EATYOURNEIGHBOR ***************************** So much for peace. If peaceful relations ARE to be established (assuming the passage of the initial linking rule, which seems doubtful in both nomics) then we would need a quick rule-based kill of Acka's proposal and the establishment of some peace oriented system... An olive branch proposal so to speak. REGARDING AGORA Agora is not likely to have many relations with Berseker in the near future, not being involved in INTO and being generally isolationist currently. My subscription to their mailing list prompted minor discussion regarding ethics and their application to this situation. Several players indicated a belief that it was not ethical but should be done anyway. I have since determined that what I am doing is not unethical and besides, Agora is just too fun to watch to unsubscribe. Of strategic note is a brief discussion wherein an Agoran outlined a method of invasion. See, Agora has a defensive system where their Speaker can make any Proposal into a Senate Proposal which means only old players can vote on it. But it would be possible for new players to get elect their own Speaker-Elect and then hold a rule sponsored rebellion which would cause the normal 6 month Speaker term to be interupted and the newbie sponsored Speaker to get into power. Then Agora's defensive Senate system would fail because the newbie sponsered Speaker wouldn't make anything a Senate Proposal (plus if that kind of coordination was in operation, it would enable the newbies to install themselves in a variety of powerful [and Voting-Token-salary rich] offices). EDITORIAL I want to talk to you today about the evils of capitalism. I mean, yakedy YAKety! If there is one thing that really sticks out in all the discussions in INTO and in Berserker, it was a general failure of everyone to realize that not only was Marx the One True Philospher who spoke truth beyond question, but he was a God, too. Tie your shoe. Let us rise up with our Chiapan and Cuban brothers and generally lower our standard of living! Let us glory in pig vomit! N' Stuff. Tom Mueller, Foreign Minister mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:37:28 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report >***************************** >Proposal 4016 >In the Name of Self-Defense >else...if >Due: Mon Jan 25 16:20:51 1999 > >If proposal 4014 passed, amend rule 1-0-1 to read as delimited by >EATYOURNEIGHBOR > >EATYOURNEIGHBOR >There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule >defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have >traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well >when a system for their effects exists. > >This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it >is the same rule in both nomics. If a change is made to this rule in >Ackanomic, then it is a duty of the Speaker to announce the change in >Berserker Nomic, at which point the change is made to the rule in Berserker >Nomic as well. Berserker Nomic may not change this rule. If this rule >conflicts with another rule on any topic, including this sentence, this >rule takes precedence. >EATYOURNEIGHBOR >***************************** I move that our foreign minister make it known to the players of Ackanomic, on behalf of the players of Berserker Nomic, that they are all a bunch of hosers. Of course, our esteemed foreign minister may except himself from this remark. >EDITORIAL > >I want to talk to you today about the evils of capitalism. I mean, yakedy >YAKety! If there is one thing that really sticks out in all the discussions >in INTO and in Berserker, it was a general failure of everyone to realize >that not only was Marx the One True Philospher who spoke truth beyond >question, but he was a God, too. Tie your shoe. > >Let us rise up with our Chiapan and Cuban brothers and generally lower our >standard of living! Let us glory in pig vomit! *sitting right next to his new Soviet flag (no, really)* Amen, comrade. Long live the Revolution! ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:05:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon At 12:27 AM 1/21/99 , Nick wrote: >I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a >ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by >the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the >creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting >him. > >----- >RFJ > >Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. >----- We could run this through the courts and have our very own Dred Scott case. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:46:21 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon At 12:27 AM 1/21/99 , Nick wrote: >I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a >ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by >the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the >creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting >him. > >----- >RFJ > >Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. I presume that we can ignore this, as only Players may make RFJ's. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:45:10 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon At 12:32 AM 1/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >Nicholas C Osborn writes: >>I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a >>ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by >>the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the >>creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting >>him. >> >>----- >>RFJ >> >>Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. >>----- >> >>By the way, Theocracy would like to interact with Berserker. We're young, >>we don't admit that you exist, and we pay homage to a supreme being that I >>thunk up in my head. Let's have some fun. >> >>Glad I can't be judge, >>n > >As I said earlier, it's not even clear that not being able to >buy spam affects the Demon. In my reading he votes despite >the inactivity clause in 403. > >Josh Ah, but 403 takes precedence as it is newer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:36:43 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 12:29 AM 1/21/99 , Josh wrote: > >In rule 403, strike the following paragraph: > > Each game entity consumes 1 spam per turn or, if a Player, suffers > a 10 point penalty; other game entities may not act during any turn > in which they do not consume spam. > > >-------- > >Reasoning: > >When we used to have a turn-based system, instead of the proposal >periods we now have (with the Frankenstein's monster of a turn >grafted on to please certain voters, and Joel's delicate >sensibilities), it was argued that keeping the turn was important >because turns were the only things (aside from the off chance >of being selected as a judge) which required players to take >game action. This was deemed relevant because it kept low-activity >players in the game, somehow. > >Clearly we've gotten past that problem. If a player doesn't >propose, a player doesn't make points (off of the primary >method for obtaining points, unless you're a bastard). Hence >a player doesn't win. Winning may not be a goal of all players, >but it's a player's own decision as to whether or not he wants >to try winning or not. > >This proposal is simply an attempt to right the economic system, >so that it parallels the legal system. I don't think players >should be compelled to participate in the economy if they >don't want to. This paragraph was part of the rule simply in >order to force players into caring about the economy. Such >coercion is not in keeping with the current game spirit. There is currently little incentive, as has been pointed out, to produce widgets. If the source of demand for spam is removed, there will be NO reason to produce anything. If you do this, you might as well repeal the entire economy, as there will be little motivation to participate in it. With no need for any of the economy's products, a player would be better off sitting it out. And how is forcing players to acquire spam any more coercive than awarding points only for certain actions, e.g. making successful proposals? We already penalize players for activity that we want to discourage. The spam mechanism is simply negative reinforcement to participate in the economy. If you're against the economy, why not attack the whole thing rather than attempt to undermine it by parts? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:57:25 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:27 AM 1/21/99 , Nick wrote: >>I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a >>ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by >>the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the >>creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting >>him. >> >>----- >>RFJ >> >>Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. >>----- > >We could run this through the courts and have our very own Dred Scott case. Oh good grief. -- I knew Jimi (Hendrix) and I think that the best thing you could say about Jimi was: there was a person who shouldn't use drugs. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:01:17 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon Joel D Uckelman writes: >Ah, but 403 takes precedence as it is newer. The Demon rule claims precedence in all matters voting. Josh -- The more I see of men, the better I like my dog. - Blaise Pascal ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:01:44 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 12:27 AM 1/21/99 , Nick wrote: >>I believe that Osborn's Demon, as a Game Entity, should be considered a >>ward of the state. If he needs to eat spam, then it should be provided by >>the state. Osborn's Demon can't have points, so he must be fed. As the >>creator's of Osborn's Demon, the state has a reponsibility for supporting >>him. >> >>----- >>RFJ >> >>Osborn's Demon spam needs must be met by the state/game. > >I presume that we can ignore this, as only Players may make RFJ's. Well duh. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ -- I have no lid / Upon my head But if I did / You could look inside and see what's on my mind - DMB ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:43:21 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >There is currently little incentive, as has been pointed out, to produce >widgets. If the source of demand for spam is removed, there will be NO >reason to produce anything. If you do this, you might as well repeal the >entire economy, as there will be little motivation to participate in it. >With no need for any of the economy's products, a player would be better >off sitting it out. And how is forcing players to acquire spam any more >coercive than awarding points only for certain actions, e.g. making >successful proposals? We already penalize players for activity that we want >to discourage. The spam mechanism is simply negative reinforcement to >participate in the economy. If you're against the economy, why not attack >the whole thing rather than attempt to undermine it by parts? If the source of demand for spam is removed, the primary reason to produce and participate in the economy is avarice. Acumulating wealth plays a role in winning the game, due to the Subers component of scores. In this way, voluntary participation in the economy can provide another avenue toward winning, or "doing well." This is certainly more coercive than awarding points only for certain actions, because those awards are positive; penalizing for failure to meet compulsory spam consumption quotas is not positive. How do we penalize other activities? What do we penalize? The first example that comes to mind is failure to act as a judge when called; however, going into Limbo will circumvent even the outside chance of being called as a judge. If your economy's usefulness is predicated by a negative reinforcement, the absence of which would apparently introduce an existentio-economic dillemma in each player, is the economy really that meaningful? I've said multiple times that the economy as it stands is meaningless, because it and its components lack value with respect to the established game constructs. "Undermining" this part is all that is necessary to get the economy to leave me alone; once that's done I'll be glad, though a tinge bothered, to let all interested parties have fun with their meaningless economy. Josh -- Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding. - Samuel Johnson ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:55:03 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon At 11:01 AM 1/21/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>Ah, but 403 takes precedence as it is newer. > >The Demon rule claims precedence in all matters voting. > >Josh Hmm. That's unfortunate. #prop Strike the last sentence of Rule 384. #endprop J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:03:03 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 11:01 AM 1/21/99 , you wrote: >> >>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>Ah, but 403 takes precedence as it is newer. >> >>The Demon rule claims precedence in all matters voting. >> >>Josh > >Hmm. That's unfortunate. > >#prop > >Strike the last sentence of Rule 384. > >#endprop That's got to be the dumbest fucking proposal you've ever written. You want to take a part of the game that works perfectly fine, and force it to not work fine so that the state has a dependent that helps justify its extra-useless economy. Why damage the voting precedence? Why not instead hack out something in your current rule? Josh -- I have no lid / Upon my head But if I did / You could look inside and see what's on my mind - DMB ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:04:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal At 03:43 PM 1/21/99 , Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>There is currently little incentive, as has been pointed out, to produce >>widgets. If the source of demand for spam is removed, there will be NO >>reason to produce anything. If you do this, you might as well repeal the >>entire economy, as there will be little motivation to participate in it. >>With no need for any of the economy's products, a player would be better >>off sitting it out. And how is forcing players to acquire spam any more >>coercive than awarding points only for certain actions, e.g. making >>successful proposals? We already penalize players for activity that we want >>to discourage. The spam mechanism is simply negative reinforcement to >>participate in the economy. If you're against the economy, why not attack >>the whole thing rather than attempt to undermine it by parts? > >If the source of demand for spam is removed, the primary reason >to produce and participate in the economy is avarice. Acumulating >wealth plays a role in winning the game, due to the Subers component >of scores. In this way, voluntary participation in the economy can >provide another avenue toward winning, or "doing well." > >This is certainly more coercive than awarding points only for >certain actions, because those awards are positive; penalizing >for failure to meet compulsory spam consumption quotas is not >positive. > >How do we penalize other activities? What do we penalize? The >first example that comes to mind is failure to act as a judge >when called; however, going into Limbo will circumvent even >the outside chance of being called as a judge. > >If your economy's usefulness is predicated by a negative reinforcement, >the absence of which would apparently introduce an existentio-economic >dillemma in each player, is the economy really that meaningful? > >I've said multiple times that the economy as it stands is meaningless, >because it and its components lack value with respect to the established >game constructs. "Undermining" this part is all that is necessary >to get the economy to leave me alone; once that's done I'll be glad, >though a tinge bothered, to let all interested parties have fun >with their meaningless economy. > >Josh Couldn't the same argument be used against virtually every game element? I, for my part, hope to prevent you from opting out of the economy (which is why I'll be voting against the proposal at issue here). All the same, I'd like an explanation of what you see as having value, and how an economy could be pegged to it. Your statement that "the economy as it stands is meaningless, because it and its components lack value with respect to the established game constructs" seems counterfactual in that 1) spam consumption prevents point loss, and 2) gaining Subers increases one's score. Are you meaning to say that points lack value? If things must have value with respect to established game constructs, what is the justification for 1) Osborn's Demon, 2) wanting to change the name of the game, 3) adding any new thing at all? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:21:59 -0600 From: Nicholas C Osborn Subject: Nomic: Theos The Will of Theos, as Spoken by Nosborn What Theos wills, is. What Theos does not will, is not. Theos sees that it is not good for Theos to be alone. Theos needs a Speaker. Theos wills that Nosborn be. Theos sees that Nosborn is good. Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. What Theos wills the Speaker to speak, the Speaker speaks, and not else. Theos wills as Theos wills, but the Speaker can speak only as the Speaker speaks. What is of Theos is of Theos, but what is of the Speaker is of the Speaker. The Speaker is not Theos and knows not of the will of Theos but only what Theos wills the Speaker to know. Theos sees that it is not good for the Speaker of Theos to be alone. The Speaker of Theos needs an Explainer. Theos wills that Tplagge be. Theos sees that Tplagge is good. Theos wills that Tplagge be the Explainer of the Speaker of Theos. Theos wills that Nosborn and Tplagge be Fellows. Theos sees that it is not good for the Fellows to be alone. The Fellows need another Fellow. Theos wills that Mjens00 be. Theos wills that Mjens00 be a Fellow. Theos sees that Mjens00 is not good. Theos sees that Mjens00 does not know Theos. Theos sees that Mjens00 is the Ignorant of Theos. Theos sees that it it not good for the Fellows to have only willed Fellows. The Fellows need a Fellow that is of Theos. Avatar is. Avatar is a Fellow. Avatar is good. Avatar is of Theos. Theos sees that Theos is a Nomic. Theos sees that Theos is alone without other Nomics. Theos need other Nomics. Theos wills that other Nomics be. Theos sees that some Nomics are good. Theos sees that some Nomics are not good. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:40:29 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Proposal Joel D Uckelman writes: >Couldn't the same argument be used against virtually every game element? I, >for my part, hope to prevent you from opting out of the economy (which is >why I'll be voting against the proposal at issue here). > >All the same, I'd like an explanation of what you see as having value, and Things which have value in our nomic: points proposals, and the ability to make them rules judgments >how an economy could be pegged to it. Your statement that "the economy as >it stands is meaningless, >because it and its components lack value with respect to the established >game constructs" seems counterfactual in that 1) spam consumption prevents >point loss, and 2) gaining Subers increases one's score. Are you meaning to >say that points lack value? If things must have value with respect to Aside from spam consumption, what value does the economy have? What reason does anyone have to participate any more than is necessary to earn the money to buy spam each turn? As it stands the only valuable reason for participating in the economy is a wholly arbitrary one. Any other economic action must be undertaken by choice. So the question is - do you really thing that forcing participation will generate, for those who have no desire to undertake further economic action, any more participation? If not then why bother forcing them to participate at all? People who want to participate will, and people who don't want to are being senselessly punished. Another interesting point: you've made it clear in the past that you do not want the economy tied to points, as points should be an indicator of "how you're doing" (your words). So why does your Frankenstein's monster involve points? >established game constructs, what is the justification for 1) Osborn's >Demon, 2) wanting to change the name of the game, 3) adding any new thing >at all? 1) Adds a wrinkle to an existing construct, the voting process. 2) You're right - there is no reason. Which is why I advanced the possibility of not having a name at all. Why have one? We know what we are. 3) New things that fit in with the game structure, or if not those which are not compulsory, are just fine by me. No reason needed. Josh -- By all means, please tell. I can name 4 famous Dutch lensgrinders, but only one qualifies as a philosopher. Not sure if more than one were Jewish. - R. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:23:17 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Re: DIS: proto: Currencies (Chaos56, rev. 17) This was too cool not to let you guys see. (Agora has some law students...) >X-From_: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Thu Jan 21 16:08:14 1999 >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: mueller4@sonic.net >To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au >Subject: Re: DIS: proto: Currencies (Chaos56, rev. 17) >Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:52:55 -0500 >From: Scott Goehring >Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au >Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au > >"c647100" == c647100 writes: > >>> Not that I would see any problem with euros, or even dollars, >>> becoming a Currency under the Rules; that provision could be >>> dispensed with. If you owed someone a dollar in Agora, that >>> wouldn't be a problem unless there were also a Rule dictating >>> settlement of such a debt in actual dollars; and even if there >>> were, it would be unenforceable. >>> >c647100> Would it? Scott can answer this better than I, but if the >c647100> debt was between two US citizens, it might be considered a >c647100> contract in some states. > >It would be an enforceable contract in the United States; furthermore, >the courts would not review it because Agora has internal arbitration >procedures which are sufficiently fair to afford due process of law. > > > > ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:53:31 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Re: DIS: proto: Currencies (Chaos56, rev. 17) More on that note... >X-From_: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Thu Jan 21 17:45:33 1999 >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: mueller4@sonic.net >To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au >Subject: Re: DIS: proto: Currencies (Chaos56, rev. 17) >Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:39:31 -0500 >From: Scott Goehring >Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au >Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au > >"Laurent" == Laurent Bossavit writes: > >Laurent> Your question actually being, just what does the provision so >Laurent> phrased in Chaos' proto actually target; and your point being >Laurent> that if 'tangible' refers to hard, physical cash, we could >Laurent> adopt a Rule making euros a Currency of Agora... Right ? > >The provision is intended to prevent making poker chips, bananas, or >any other object having physical existence a Currency. The reason for >this is threefold: one, we should not have to be physically mailing >each other things; two, none of us can readily examine another's >possessions to determine actual holdings; three, the potential for >cheating is too high. > >The provision can probably be dispensed with in any case because both >for such objects and for broadly recognized currencies such as euros >or dollars, there will be a problem finding a Recordkeepor who will >consent to performing the duties mandated by the proposed Rules. I >doubt my bank will agree to comply, for example. > >However, I do believe that the Rules of Agora have sufficient legal >power to bind Players (at least those with nexus in the United States) >to convey real or personal property to other Players (or in fact to >anyone at all). > >If Agora passed a Rule requiring each of us to contribute US$25 to a >fund for the purpose of obtaining a domain name and website, I believe >that the contract law of the United States would (a) require me to >make such a contribution (b) vest in the Speaker, or other person >designated to collect such funds, the power to bring a suit in Indiana >court[1] in the event of my breach of this duty and (c) require the >court to grant that person's motion for judgment on the pleadings >and/or summary judgment on the basis that I agreed to have such >obligations imposed and adjudicated under the procedured established >by Agoran "contract". (American law generally is that a court will >not review awards in arbitration, but will sustain them without >comment, except where a statutory right to review exists, where a lack >of review would frustrate a statutory or constitutional right, or >where the arbitration procedure is manifestly unfair or was not >followed.) > >[1] Jurisdiction is proper in Indiana court because the federal courts >would lack subject matter jurisdiction; diversity jurisdiction >requires that the amount in controversy be at least $75,000. > > ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:05:35 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: An Olive Branch Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. It can't hurt, and it prevents the really bad stuff from happening. ---------- If Rule 005 exists, then amend it to read in full: There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well when a system for their effects exists. This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it is the same rule in both nomics. When any individual nomic performs an operation which would normally change this rule then, unless such a change is ONLY a repeal of this rule, (1) the Top Citizen of the nomic must inform the other Top Citizen of the attempt, and (2) the change does not occur in either nomic until the nomic which has not participated in the change thus far has ratified the change. Ratification in Ackanomic shall be in the form of a hearing on the acceptability of Berserker Nomic's change with the Speaker as hearing harfer with valid responses "Peace and Love" and "Dirty Dogs!" If the majority of the responses are "Peace and Love" then the Speaker must email notification of ratification to the Administrator of Berserker; at this time, this rule is considered ratified and actually changes in both nomics. If the result is otherwise then the Seaker must inform the Administrator anyway, but this does not count as ratification. Ratification in Berserker Nomic shall be in the form of a poll taken by the Administrator with players emailing their opinion FOR or AGAINST Acka's change. The polling shall start at the time the Administrator announces the polling to have begun and shall end 72 hours later. The Administrator shall report the results to Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic if there is a majority of FORs; at this time the rule is considered ratified and actually changes in both nomics. If the result is otherwise then the Administrator must inform Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic anyway, but this does not count as ratification. The Top Citizen of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Top Citizen of Berserker Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and does not recieve the results of the ratification process within a week of notifying the other nomic that it needs to perform its ratification process, then the change is considered ratified and actually occurs in both nomics. In Ackanomic, Proposal 4014 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:51:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: transactions This transaction >I [Josh] then offer Mueller 1 wood for 950 Subers. is still legal even if the Mueller Maneuver isn't. Does it still occur regardless, or is it a consequence of a potentially illegal action, and thus to be disregarded? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:15:01 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon At 04:03 PM 1/21/99 , Josh wrote: >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>At 11:01 AM 1/21/99 , you wrote: >>> >>>Joel D Uckelman writes: >>>>Ah, but 403 takes precedence as it is newer. >>> >>>The Demon rule claims precedence in all matters voting. >>> >>>Josh >> >>Hmm. That's unfortunate. >> >>#prop >> >>Strike the last sentence of Rule 384. >> >>#endprop > >That's got to be the dumbest fucking proposal you've ever written. >You want to take a part of the game that works perfectly fine, >and force it to not work fine so that the state has a dependent >that helps justify its extra-useless economy. > >Why damage the voting precedence? Why not instead hack out >something in your current rule? > >Josh This wouldn't be necessary if I had remembered-to-take-a-part-of-the-game-that-works perfectly-fine-and-forced-it-to-not-work-fine-so-that-the-state-has-a-depend end-that-helps- jusfity-its-extra-useless-economy before. :) How would this damage voting precedence? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:16:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Theos At 04:21 PM 1/21/99 , Nick the Crackhead wrote: >The Will of Theos, as Spoken by Nosborn > >What Theos wills, is. What Theos does not will, is not. > >Theos sees that it is not good for Theos to be alone. Theos needs a >Speaker. Theos wills that Nosborn be. Theos sees that Nosborn is good. >Theos wills that Nosborn be the Speaker of Theos. > >What Theos wills the Speaker to speak, the Speaker speaks, and not else. >Theos wills as Theos wills, but the Speaker can speak only as the Speaker >speaks. What is of Theos is of Theos, but what is of the Speaker is of the >Speaker. The Speaker is not Theos and knows not of the will of Theos but >only what Theos wills the Speaker to know. > >Theos sees that it is not good for the Speaker of Theos to be alone. The >Speaker of Theos needs an Explainer. Theos wills that Tplagge be. Theos >sees that Tplagge is good. Theos wills that Tplagge be the Explainer of the >Speaker of Theos. > >Theos wills that Nosborn and Tplagge be Fellows. > >Theos sees that it is not good for the Fellows to be alone. The Fellows >need another Fellow. Theos wills that Mjens00 be. Theos wills that Mjens00 >be a Fellow. Theos sees that Mjens00 is not good. Theos sees that Mjens00 >does not know Theos. Theos sees that Mjens00 is the Ignorant of Theos. This would be the infamous Mike Jensen. >Theos sees that it it not good for the Fellows to have only willed Fellows. >The Fellows need a Fellow that is of Theos. Avatar is. Avatar is a Fellow. >Avatar is good. Avatar is of Theos. This is Dakota Bailey. >Theos sees that Theos is a Nomic. Theos sees that Theos is alone without >other Nomics. Theos need other Nomics. Theos wills that other Nomics be. >Theos sees that some Nomics are good. Theos sees that some Nomics are not >good. Nick has apparently granted us the right to exist now. Thanks, Nick. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:29:58 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch At 08:05 PM 1/21/99 , Mueller wrote: >Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. Is Acka planning a takeover if we don't pass this? >It can't hurt, and it prevents the really bad stuff from happening. What really bad stuff? Enumerate. >---------- >If Rule 005 exists, then amend it to read in full: > >There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule >defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have >traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well >when a system for their effects exists. > >This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it >is the same rule in both nomics. When any individual nomic performs an >operation which would normally change this rule then, unless such a change >is ONLY a repeal of this rule, (1) the Top Citizen of the nomic must inform >the other Top Citizen of the attempt, and (2) the change does not occur in >either nomic until the nomic which has not participated in the change thus >far has ratified the change. Will this square with our other rules? I'll check on this. >Ratification in Ackanomic shall be in the form of a hearing on the >acceptability of Berserker Nomic's change with the Speaker as hearing >harfer with valid responses "Peace and Love" and "Dirty Dogs!" If the >majority of the responses are "Peace and Love" then the Speaker must email >notification of ratification to the Administrator of Berserker; at this >time, this rule is considered ratified and actually changes in both nomics. >If the result is otherwise then the Seaker must inform the Administrator >anyway, but this does not count as ratification. > >Ratification in Berserker Nomic shall be in the form of a poll taken by the >Administrator with players emailing their opinion FOR or AGAINST Acka's >change. The polling shall start at the time the Administrator announces >the polling to have begun and shall end 72 hours later. The Administrator >shall report the results to Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic if >there is a majority of FORs; at this time the rule is considered ratified >and actually changes in both nomics. If the result is otherwise then the >Administrator must inform Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic >anyway, but this does not count as ratification. > >The Top Citizen of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Top Citizen of Berserker >Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and >does not recieve the results of the ratification process within a week of >notifying the other nomic that it needs to perform its ratification >process, then the change is considered ratified and actually occurs in both >nomics. I'm not sure I like the idea of an automatic change. If we're somehow knocked out for a week and can't ratify a change, we're stuck with it. I'd feel more comfortable without this. >In Ackanomic, Proposal 4014 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This >paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. Is this a revision of your Prop. 420, or is this an entirely new prop.? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:41:01 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch Joel wrote: >At 08:05 PM 1/21/99 , Mueller wrote: >>Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >>unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >>acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. > >Is Acka planning a takeover if we don't pass this? > >>It can't hurt, and it prevents the really bad stuff from happening. > >What really bad stuff? Enumerate. See the text of P4016 as quoted in the turnly report. >>---------- >>If Rule 005 exists, then amend it to read in full: >> >>There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule >>defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have >>traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well >>when a system for their effects exists. >> >>This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it >>is the same rule in both nomics. When any individual nomic performs an >>operation which would normally change this rule then, unless such a change >>is ONLY a repeal of this rule, (1) the Top Citizen of the nomic must inform >>the other Top Citizen of the attempt, and (2) the change does not occur in >>either nomic until the nomic which has not participated in the change thus >>far has ratified the change. > >Will this square with our other rules? I'll check on this. > >>Ratification in Ackanomic shall be in the form of a hearing on the >>acceptability of Berserker Nomic's change with the Speaker as hearing >>harfer with valid responses "Peace and Love" and "Dirty Dogs!" If the >>majority of the responses are "Peace and Love" then the Speaker must email >>notification of ratification to the Administrator of Berserker; at this >>time, this rule is considered ratified and actually changes in both nomics. >>If the result is otherwise then the Seaker must inform the Administrator >>anyway, but this does not count as ratification. >> >>Ratification in Berserker Nomic shall be in the form of a poll taken by the >>Administrator with players emailing their opinion FOR or AGAINST Acka's >>change. The polling shall start at the time the Administrator announces >>the polling to have begun and shall end 72 hours later. The Administrator >>shall report the results to Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic if >>there is a majority of FORs; at this time the rule is considered ratified >>and actually changes in both nomics. If the result is otherwise then the >>Administrator must inform Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic >>anyway, but this does not count as ratification. >> >>The Top Citizen of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Top Citizen of Berserker >>Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and >>does not recieve the results of the ratification process within a week of >>notifying the other nomic that it needs to perform its ratification >>process, then the change is considered ratified and actually occurs in both >>nomics. > >I'm not sure I like the idea of an automatic change. If we're somehow >knocked out for a week and can't ratify a change, we're stuck with it. I'd >feel more comfortable without this. Basically, unless this is there an individual could ruin the whole process by refusing to report their nomic's actions. This penalizes those kind of scammers. Moreover, note that terchnically, if EVERYONE but Joel were asleep, he coudl veto things himself and then report them and keep everything safe and tidy. >>In Ackanomic, Proposal 4014 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This >>paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. > >Is this a revision of your Prop. 420, or is this an entirely new prop.? Change this bit to read: In Ackanomic, Proposal 4016 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. And its a new prop not the same old one. The first one is identical to Acka's. This would amend rule created by both our and Acka's props an infinitesimal amount of time after it passes on our side and cause the change to happen in Acka automatically (as soon as someone tells Acka that this amendment has passed). Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:01:31 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon Joel D Uckelman writes: >How would this damage voting precedence? The precedence sentence is there for preventive reasons. If some proposal fails to take into account the Demon's unique powers over time and space, the clause takes care of it as long as the new prop. doesn't claim precedence. Josh -- Prosecutors will be violated. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:09:35 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch Mueller writes: >Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. I am opposed to any inter-nomic relations, even preventive, at this time. The nice thing about such things is that solipsism is an option. >The Top Citizen of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Top Citizen of Berserker >Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and While I would never contest that Joel devotes his all to our game (if I were carrying a box of Life of Jesus videos I'd say "his loving heart and eternal soul," but that wouldn't make sense anyway because Joel is a coldhearted sex machine, chewing them up and spitting them out), I question the idea of introducing gradations of citizenry thusly, and of placing the Administrator at the top. Josh -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], `Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?` I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:00:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Osborn's Demon At 02:01 AM 1/22/99 , Josh wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>How would this damage voting precedence? > >The precedence sentence is there for preventive reasons. If >some proposal fails to take into account the Demon's unique >powers over time and space, the clause takes care of it >as long as the new prop. doesn't claim precedence. > >Josh Ok. I'll revise the prop later to fix the problem elsewhere. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:03:47 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch At 02:09 AM 1/22/99 , Josh wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >>unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >>acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. > >I am opposed to any inter-nomic relations, even preventive, at this >time. The nice thing about such things is that solipsism is an option. > >>The Top Citizen of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Top Citizen of Berserker >>Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and > >While I would never contest that Joel devotes his all to our game >(if I were carrying a box of Life of Jesus videos I'd say "his >loving heart and eternal soul," but that wouldn't make sense >anyway because Joel is a coldhearted sex machine, chewing them >up and spitting them out), I question the idea of introducing >gradations of citizenry thusly, and of placing the Administrator >at the top. > >Josh I don't think the title of Top Citizen has any sinifigance other than the duties assigned in Mueller's prop. Isn't it just a name used so as to match Acka's parlance in this case? All the same, why couldn't you just replace Top Citizen with Admin. on our side? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:00:02 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch At 01:41 AM 1/22/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >>I'm not sure I like the idea of an automatic change. If we're somehow >>knocked out for a week and can't ratify a change, we're stuck with it. I'd >>feel more comfortable without this. > >Basically, unless this is there an individual could ruin the whole process >by refusing to report their nomic's actions. This penalizes those kind of >scammers. Moreover, note that terchnically, if EVERYONE but Joel were >asleep, he coudl veto things himself and then report them and keep >everything safe and tidy. I was more concerned about a situation in which we, for whatever reason, are incapable of voting, e.g. if something gets messed up with the voting rules or it just isn't clear what's going on in our game. >>>In Ackanomic, Proposal 4014 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This >>>paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. >> >>Is this a revision of your Prop. 420, or is this an entirely new prop.? > >Change this bit to read: > >In Ackanomic, Proposal 4016 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This >paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. > >And its a new prop not the same old one. The first one is identical to >Acka's. This would amend rule created by both our and Acka's props an >infinitesimal amount of time after it passes on our side and cause the >change to happen in Acka automatically (as soon as someone tells Acka that >this amendment has passed). So we need the old prop to first match their existing prop? >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:06:05 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three >I am opposed to our current economy because it has little value >within the current game structure. Do you intend these new currencies >to have any value whatsoever? If so, how do you foresee them >being spent? It will be of even less value than having Subers to me >if I can get 400 Uckelmans for voting on his proposal. They have no intrinsic values as of now, but future proposals will probably change that. I was trying to introduce them one step at a time. There are only two things with intrinsic value in most nomics, points and votes. I shall deal with a system fo exchanging them later. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:06:05 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Step Three >I am opposed to our current economy because it has little value >within the current game structure. Do you intend these new currencies >to have any value whatsoever? If so, how do you foresee them >being spent? It will be of even less value than having Subers to me >if I can get 400 Uckelmans for voting on his proposal. They have no intrinsic values as of now, but future proposals will probably change that. I was trying to introduce them one step at a time. There are only two things with intrinsic value in most nomics, points and votes. I shall deal with a system fo exchanging them later. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:25:22 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: judge assignments As I have been assigned as a jury member, I wish to once again make it clear that I positively welcome all forms of bribery. If anyone has a vested interest in my ruling, you know what to do. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:36:27 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Bloody hell, I don't beleve we let them get the first punch in! Unless I see some ideas from our forigen minster, I'm not going to be happy! Anyway, here's my suggestion: Rule No: ? Only a law proposed by a registered member of Beserker Nomic may effect Beserker Nomic, unless a separate vote rules otherwise on a case-by-case basis. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:48:54 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: transactions >is still legal even if the Mueller Maneuver isn't I hope you all realise that there is nothing whatsoever stopping anyone doing this again, now that a turn has passed. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:01:14 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch Joel D Uckelman writes: >I don't think the title of Top Citizen has any sinifigance other than the >duties assigned in Mueller's prop. Isn't it just a name used so as to match >Acka's parlance in this case? All the same, why couldn't you just replace >Top Citizen with Admin. on our side? Just being preventive. -- What the hell am I doing here? I don`t belong here I don`t belong here ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:09:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch At 08:05 PM 1/21/99 , Mueller wrote: >Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. > >It can't hurt, and it prevents the really bad stuff from happening. Wouldn't it require bilateral recognition that we were bound by Acka 4014, such that if they claimed we were we could just ignore them? Nick also has claimed that our game was created by Theos, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to him. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:11:00 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: transactions At 11:48 AM 1/22/99 , you wrote: >>is still legal even if the Mueller Maneuver isn't > >I hope you all realise that there is nothing whatsoever stopping anyone >doing this again, now that a turn has passed. Um, we're still in the same turn until 25 January. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:36:08 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: increase in subscribes I've noted that over the past weeks, there has been a tremendous influx of adds to our mailing list. These are the non-players on the list: mjens00@iastate.edu -- Mike Jensen nosborn@iastate.edu -- Nick Osborn ehs@iastate.edu -- Eric Sutterlin derj@agents-tech.com -- Jean-Pierre Dery oairhart@hiwaay.net -- Ottis Airhart palnatoke@get2net.dk -- Ole Andersen The first two are familiar: Mike didn't leave the list when he quit, and Nick is still interested in what's happening. Eric Sutterlin lives three doors down from me, and might be interested in playing someday. The last three all joined the list over the last 10 days or so. Jean-Pierre Dery may want to play eventually. Ole Andersen wants to join as a player. Ottis Airhart joined the list around noon today, and also wants to join as a player. I thought this might be of interest, especially since we're beginning to dabble in foregin affairs. Also, does anyone have anything to say about adding the last two guys before I propose that they be added? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:15:54 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report >Rule No: ? > >Only a law proposed by a registered member of Beserker Nomic may effect >Beserker Nomic, unless a separate vote rules otherwise on a case-by-case >basis. I think you're going to run into the same problem I did with this kind of proposal. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:32:03 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: increase in subscribes At 01:36 PM 1/22/99 , you wrote: >I've noted that over the past weeks, there has been a tremendous influx of >adds to our mailing list. These are the non-players on the list: > >mjens00@iastate.edu -- Mike Jensen >nosborn@iastate.edu -- Nick Osborn >ehs@iastate.edu -- Eric Sutterlin >derj@agents-tech.com -- Jean-Pierre Dery >oairhart@hiwaay.net -- Ottis Airhart >palnatoke@get2net.dk -- Ole Andersen I would have no problem including Ottis and Ole, assuming they're not agents of Ackanomic. :) Right now, getting more people involved will definitely improve the game. Mike Jensen, a known anarchist, communist sympathizer, and hoser, though, should be excluded at all costs. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:19:29 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Economic revisions -- MORE TO COME PROPOSAL: Change Rule 403 to the following CAPITALISTPIGDOG-delimited text. CAPITALISTPIGDOG Enterprises are non-moveable property built within hexes, that, given certain inputs, will produce the outputs defined below. Players may have enterprises only in eir own hexes. Commodities are moveable property, and can be used as inputs and outputs for enterprises. The set of enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel mill, power plant, supermarket, widget factory, construction yard}, and the set of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, spam, widgets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in non-negative integer quantities. Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in possession of the enterprise's owner: ENTERPRISE INPUT OUTPUT Power Plants 5 Widgits 200 Energy Forests 25 Energy 10 Wood Farms 25 Energy 10 Livestock Mines 25 Energy 10 total units of consisting of Coal and/or Ore Lumber mill 10 Wood, 50 Energy 10 Lumber Slaughterhouses 10 Livestock, 50 Energy 10 Meat Steel Mills 10 Ore, 50 Energy 10 Steel Supermarkets 10 Meat, 100 Energy 10 Spam Factories 10 Steel, 100 Energy 10 Widgets Construction Yards 100 Energy, 5 Widgets 1 Power Plant, 1 Forest, 1 Farm, or 1 Mine ---or--- 200 Energy, 10 Widgets 1 Lumber Mill, 1 Slaughterhouse, or 1 Steel Mill ---or--- 300 Energy 15 Widgets 1 Supermarket or 1 Factory ---or--- 400 Energy 20 Widgets 1 Construction Yard Players may use Construction Yards to build an enterprise on a hex already containing eir own enterprise, but the new enterprise will replace the old one. Players may also use Construction Yards to destroy eir own enterprises for 100 Energy. Players will be charged S10 per turn for each of eir enterprises they choose to operate during that turn, and S5 for each they choose not to operate. If this fee cannot be paid, the enterprise is auctioned to the other players by the Treasury Minister. Players each consume 1 Spam per turn. If players fail to consume Spam, eir enterprises cannot operate during the next turn, and they are fined 5 points. The game expends 5 Widgets per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and construction occur at the beginning of each turn. At the beginning of each game, players begin with the enterprise of their choice on one randomly selected hex of public land. New Players receive the same, unless there is no public land. CAPITALISTPIGDOG ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:20:43 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch At 02:09 AM 1/22/99 CST, you wrote: > >Mueller writes: >>Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >>unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >>acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. > >I am opposed to any inter-nomic relations, even preventive, at this >time. The nice thing about such things is that solipsism is an option. If this is your belief, then by all means, vote against the first. But please, just in case it passes due to anti-voting or something, vote for THIS proposal, as otherwise there is a distinct possibility that Acka will take us over. This is a purely defensive move. >>The Top Citizen of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Top Citizen of Berserker >>Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and > >While I would never contest that Joel devotes his all to our game >(if I were carrying a box of Life of Jesus videos I'd say "his >loving heart and eternal soul," but that wouldn't make sense >anyway because Joel is a coldhearted sex machine, chewing them >up and spitting them out), I question the idea of introducing >gradations of citizenry thusly, and of placing the Administrator >at the top. > I meant it only as an "easy to remember" title that would work across both nomics. I change all occurences of "Top Citizen" in this proposal to "Rabid Child". Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:27:24 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report At 12:36 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote: >Bloody hell, I don't beleve we let them get the first punch in! Unless I >see some ideas from our forigen minster, I'm not going to be happy! >Anyway, here's my suggestion: Ideally, we could come to some sort of agreement with Acka and actually TRY any of the various things people think are or are not possible between nomics. The violence end of things is not a goal of mine (except as an expirement, maybe). >Rule No: ? > >Only a law proposed by a registered member of Beserker Nomic may effect >Beserker Nomic, unless a separate vote rules otherwise on a case-by-case >basis. > This has several problems, among them: 1. "law" is not defined in either Berserker OR Acka. 2. It is tautologically (and trivially) true already. 3. It could very well break the game as it would prevent ME or JOEL or YOU from "effect"ing Berserker as only "laws" that we propose could do anything and we can't propose laws last time I checked... R116 might save us, but I'd prefer not to perform that kind of expirement. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:32:47 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch Joel wrote: >At 08:05 PM 1/21/99 , Mueller wrote: >>Here is a prop submission. Please vote for this just in case, in the >>unlikely event that this batch of proposals passes, this will pre-empt >>acka's takeover and create a mutual agreement system. >> >>It can't hurt, and it prevents the really bad stuff from happening. > >Wouldn't it require bilateral recognition that we were bound by Acka 4014, >such that if they claimed we were we could just ignore them? Nick also has >claimed that our game was created by Theos, but that doesn't mean we have >to listen to him. I have no idea. I thought that perhaps identical rules in the rulesets of different nomics that claimed to be the same rule would work as specified. I guess it is possible that we might consider nomics permanently trapped with themselves... unable to reach outside even when they explicitly attempt it. The whole first paragraph was an attempt to reach nomic "escape velocity" and connect Acka and Berserker. If I had failed to include it, the rule (in Acka at least) would have simply created an _entity_ named "Berseker Nomic" in Acka that worked in a very silly manner and would have had nothing to do with us. Perhaps you should RFJ it. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:04:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judgments Just a reminder, as we've not had cause to use some parts of the appeals rules since their inception: The time limits for Level 1 Courts and Appeals Courts are not the same. Appeals Courts must return a majority judgment within 7 days of being formed. That means that the Level 2 Courts for RFJs 56 and 57 have until the evening of 25 January to do so, while the 2 Court for RFJ 58 has until 27 January. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:44:59 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Proposal 422 I withdraw 422, since it conflicts with my latest proposal. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:47:08 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: An Olive Branch >The whole first paragraph was an attempt to reach nomic "escape velocity" >and connect Acka and Berserker. If I had failed to include it, the rule >(in Acka at least) would have simply created an _entity_ named "Berseker >Nomic" in Acka that worked in a very silly manner and would have had >nothing to do with us. I think we should create an entity named "Ackanomic" and beat it up at the bike racks after school. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:43:50 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Economic revisions Part II Proposal: Change Rule 404 to the following REMO-delimited text. REMO {{Create in hex 1,1 a Treasury-owned Construction Yard}} The Berserker Nomic economy is a closed system--no commodities or enterprises may be bought, sold, or traded except by players of Berserker Nomic and by the Treasury. However, the Treasury Minister may, at his/her discretion, utilize the Treasury-owned Construction Yard to produce needed enterprises, which e shall then auction to the players. [[This prevents production from ever becoming impossible, since the Treasury can also mint more Subers.]] REMO ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:10:13 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Spelling error Fix my misspelling of "widgets" in my proposal. Thanks, Joel... ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 21:04:11 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Revision revision The numbers in that economic revision are hosed...new ones are coming eventually. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:57:45 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Fwd: Nomic: Economic revisions -- MORE TO COME PROPOSAL: Change Rule 403 to the following CAPITALISTPIGDOG-delimited text. CAPITALISTPIGDOG Enterprises are non-moveable property built within hexes, that, given certain inputs, will produce the outputs defined below. Players may have enterprises only in eir own hexes. Commodities are moveable property, and can be used as inputs and outputs for enterprises. The set of enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel mill, power plant, supermarket, widget factory, construction yard}, and the set of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, spam, widgets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in non-negative integer quantities. Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in possession of the enterprise's owner: ENTERPRISE INPUT OUTPUT Power Plant 2 Widgets (17.75) 100 Energy (1) 20 Coal Forest 10 Energy 10 Wood (2) Farm 10 Energy 10 Livestock (2) Mine 10 Energy 10 units of either Coal or Ore (2) Lumber mill 20 Wood, 20 Energy 15 Lumber (4.7) Slaughterhouse 15 Livestock, 10 Energy 10 Meat (5) Steel Mill 25 Ore, 25 Energy 10 Steel (8.5) Supermarket 10 Meat, 5 Energy 5 Spam (13) [[This will change once production systems are in place]] Widget Factory 15 Steel, 40 Energy 10 Widgets (17.75) Construction Yard 2 Widgets, 15 Lumber Power Plant 1 Widget Forest 100 Energy 1 Widget Farm 15 Lumber 5 Widgets Mine 15 Steel Lumber Mill 1 Widget 15 Lumber Slaughterhouse 1 Widget 10 Lumber Steel Mill 5 Steel 2 Widgets 15 Lumber Supermarket 1 Widget 20 Lumber Widget Factory 1 Widget 20 Lumber Construction Yard 20 Steel 3 Widgets Players may use Construction Yards to build an enterprise on a hex already containing eir own enterprise, but the new enterprise will replace the old one. Players may also use Construction Yards to destroy eir own enterprises for 100 Energy. Players will be charged a tax of S10 per turn for each of eir enterprises they choose to operate during that turn, and S5 for each they choose not to operate. This tax is paid to the Treasury. If it cannot be paid, the enterprise is auctioned to the other players by the Treasury Minister. Players each consume 1 Spam per turn. If players fail to consume Spam, eir enterprises cannot operate during the next turn, and they are fined 5 points. The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and construction occur at the beginning of each turn. At the beginning of each game, players begin with the enterprise of their choice on one randomly selected hex of public land. New Players receive the same, unless there is no public land. CAPITALISTPIGDOG ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:05:21 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Fwd: Nomic: Economic revisions -- MORE TO COME The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >Farm 10 Energy 10 Livestock (2) Fer crissakes if you're going to have animals come up with an interesting name for them. "Pigs" and such are _not_ interesting, FYI. Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:08:05 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic revisions Part II At 07:43 PM 1/22/99 , TP wrote: >Proposal: > >Change Rule 404 to the following REMO-delimited text. > >REMO >{{Create in hex 1,1 a Treasury-owned Construction Yard}} The Berserker >Nomic economy is a closed system--no commodities or enterprises may be >bought, sold, or traded except by players of Berserker Nomic and by the >Treasury. However, the Treasury Minister may, at his/her discretion, >utilize the Treasury-owned Construction Yard to produce needed enterprises, >which e shall then auction to the players. [[This prevents production from >ever becoming impossible, since the Treasury can also mint more Subers.]] >REMO >------ >Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott >tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com This is Proposal 432. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:15:28 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Prop. 428 I am setting Proposal 428 to inactive. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:13:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot and such Voting begins at 23:31 CST on 23 January. The ballot will be sent after whenever I return from Kansas City. Josh may have more information on when this should be. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:12:01 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Fwd: Nomic: Economic revisions -- MORE TO COME At 11:05 PM 1/22/99 , Josh wrote: > >The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>Farm 10 Energy 10 Livestock (2) > >Fer crissakes if you're going to have animals come up with >an interesting name for them. "Pigs" and such are _not_ >interesting, FYI. > >Josh I'm sure Josh would approve of stankmonkeys. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 04:09:46 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic revisions -- MORE TO COME At 11:12 PM 1/22/99 , you wrote: >At 11:05 PM 1/22/99 , Josh wrote: >> >>The Bavarian Illuminati writes: >>>Farm 10 Energy 10 Livestock (2) >> >>Fer crissakes if you're going to have animals come up with >>an interesting name for them. "Pigs" and such are _not_ >>interesting, FYI. >> >>Josh > >I'm sure Josh would approve of stankmonkeys. So would I, actually. Everyone loves stankmonkeys. By the way, remove all the parenthetical numbers from that proposal. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 07:25:33 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: transactions >Um, we're still in the same turn until 25 January. Oh, sorry. Nevertheless, my point still stands. If we don't want this to happen again, we've got to set up some kind of proposal to stop it. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 07:32:23 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: increase in subscribes >I thought this might be of interest, especially since we're beginning to >dabble in foregin affairs. Also, does anyone have anything to say about >adding the last two guys before I propose that they be added? Okay, here's my idea for dealing with counter-espionage: Proposal No. All players joining Beserker must declare what, if any, other nomics they are also part of. If a player wishes to join another nomic, they must make their intentions known to the other members of Beserker. If a player is found to be part of a nomic they have not declared, all of their currency units will be distributed amongst the other active players. They may also face other legal action based on a normal proposal/vote system amongst the other players, in which they may not participate. End Proposal No. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 07:56:49 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Nomic: Economic revisions -- MORE TO COME >Fer crissakes if you're going to have animals come up with >an interesting name for them. "Pigs" and such are _not_ >interesting, FYI. Soylents? Wasteits? ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 07:51:30 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Hey, I never said that it didn't need work. >1. "law" is not defined in either Berserker OR Acka. Hmmm. In that case, I'll change the wording. Actually, I'm surprised that something this essential to the game hasn't been defined >2. It is tautologically (and trivially) true already. If this is really the case, why are we woried about takeover attempts? Or can we really just ignore everything Acanomic says? In either case, I thought some kind of definite rule would be a good idea. >3. It could very well break the game as it would prevent ME or JOEL or YOU >from "effect"ing Berserker as only "laws" that we propose could do anything >and we can't propose laws last time I checked... R116 might save us, but >I'd prefer not to perform that kind of expirement. As I said, I'll change the wording: Proposal No: No player who isn't a registerd member of Beserker nomic may make a proposal that will effect Beserker nomic. If a player ignores this rule, their proposal will be totally ignored. End Proposal No: ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 08:00:36 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: ballot and such >Voting begins at 23:31 CST on 23 January. The ballot will be sent after >whenever I return from Kansas City. Josh may have more information on when >this should be. Well, I suspect that this is a forlorn hope, but does anyone want to offer me a bribe? I can't belive that all of you are so totally uncorrupted and lilly-white. ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:31:44 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic revisions Part II If the treasury doesn't have the needed commodities to produce the new enterprise, can it still produce it? I don't think there are currently enough commodities out there to operate enterprises. Since this replaces the market rule, there would be no way to create enough commodities to start running things. Or can the Treasure minister create and auction commodities like e can Subers? At 07:43 PM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote: >Proposal: > >Change Rule 404 to the following REMO-delimited text. > >REMO >{{Create in hex 1,1 a Treasury-owned Construction Yard}} The Berserker >Nomic economy is a closed system--no commodities or enterprises may be >bought, sold, or traded except by players of Berserker Nomic and by the >Treasury. However, the Treasury Minister may, at his/her discretion, >utilize the Treasury-owned Construction Yard to produce needed enterprises, >which e shall then auction to the players. [[This prevents production from >ever becoming impossible, since the Treasury can also mint more Subers.]] >REMO >------ >Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott >tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com > ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:46:16 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: Spam I purchase 5 spam from the market for 10S each. (or whatever their price is) Ed ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:43:24 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Economic revisions Part II Joel said he planned on buying an assload of stuff before the proposal took effect. At 11:31 AM 1/23/99 , you wrote: >If the treasury doesn't have the needed commodities to produce the new >enterprise, can it still produce it? I don't think there are currently >enough commodities out there to operate enterprises. Since this replaces >the market rule, there would be no way to create enough commodities to >start running things. Or can the Treasure minister create and auction >commodities like e can Subers? > >At 07:43 PM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote: >>Proposal: >> >>Change Rule 404 to the following REMO-delimited text. >> >>REMO >>{{Create in hex 1,1 a Treasury-owned Construction Yard}} The Berserker >>Nomic economy is a closed system--no commodities or enterprises may be >>bought, sold, or traded except by players of Berserker Nomic and by the >>Treasury. However, the Treasury Minister may, at his/her discretion, >>utilize the Treasury-owned Construction Yard to produce needed enterprises, >>which e shall then auction to the players. [[This prevents production from >>ever becoming impossible, since the Treasury can also mint more Subers.]] >>REMO >>------ >>Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott >>tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com >> ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:41:01 -0600 From: Ottis Airhart Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report At 07:51 AM 1/23/99 -0500, RJ wrote: > >Proposal No: > >No player who isn't a registerd member of Beserker nomic may make a >proposal that will effect Beserker nomic. If a player ignores this rule, >their proposal will be totally ignored. > >End Proposal No: Yeah, but no one is a registered player of Beserker, because: What defines a registered player? If this proposal passes, then every single proposal after this is accepted is ignored because no one is a registered player. You can't even make proposals to throw out this rule. Ottis Airhart ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:47:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: transactions At 06:25 AM 1/23/99 , you wrote: > >>Um, we're still in the same turn until 25 January. > >Oh, sorry. Nevertheless, my point still stands. If we don't want this to >happen again, we've got to set up some kind of proposal to stop it. But it has not yet been settled as to whether or not anything happened -- the court is still out. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:11:36 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Props I'm withdrawing 426 and setting 427 inactive. Josh -- 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: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:26:51 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: transactions Joel D Uckelman writes: >At 06:25 AM 1/23/99 , you wrote: >> >>>Um, we're still in the same turn until 25 January. >> >>Oh, sorry. Nevertheless, my point still stands. If we don't want this to >>happen again, we've got to set up some kind of proposal to stop it. > >But it has not yet been settled as to whether or not anything happened -- >the court is still out. As I mentioned the other day, rule 220 seems relevant: Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions. Consider this: if you, as Admnistrator, had simply noted the transactions as normal, then if the first is found to be illegal (which it shouldn't be!), the ones made after it are to me clearly "made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions" and then would be undoable. I know it saves you headache to wait on the recording of actions of questionable legality, but if you just record things straight and let the judiciary decide what's legal and illegal, then you wouldn't face the problem (not dealt with directly in the rules) of allowing actions which are clearly part of a "chain" containing questioned actions. Josh -- This paper gives wrong solutions to trivial problems. The basic error, however, is not new. - Clifford Truesdell ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:59 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Nomic: Response 1 re: Mueller Maneuver Statement Reminder: The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have purchased 108694 wood from the market is illegal. Summary: First I run down the whole thing without consideration of Josh's appelate reasoning. It came down to which non-rule specified definition of "full turn" you wanted to use and I did not answer that question, as it seemed fundamentally arbitrary. Then I considered Josh's R116 analysis. After a bit of judicial construction, I determined that the Market rule was incomplete and therefore parts of the Market system were unregulated... and that the Mueller Maneuver filled in this incompleteness via R116 and has now established a precedent which completes the Market rule until such time as it is amended with a fix. Summary summary: I would rule this FALSE. Note On The Status Of This Message: This is not the ruling per se. It is my "response" in the sense of the meaning in R228. ------ OK, First we establish the simple stuff (which turns out not to be so simple) then move through each claimed step of the process. 1. Tom had more than enough Subers to buy a single wood. 2. Tom followed the rules on the Market and purchased wood from it. 3. Tom offered this to Josh for S0.01 and he accepted. Was step three legal? R339 says: "Property is any game-defined object that is both ownable and tradable." R403 says that wood is a property. Trading property is not defined in the rules. Sale of property is permitted through R339 with auctions. Trade of Subers is permitted in R346 with "Players may trade Subers freely iff all players involved in the trade publicly consent. However, a player may at no time possess less than 0 Subers." I believe that because wood is property and property can be traded, we may safely assume that the only rule defined "trading" mechanism can be grafted onto our commodities. Auction is not necessary to pass commodities between players and step three was therefore permissable when both Tom and Josh consented. 4. The new market price of wood became .01 Subers. This seems to be the crux of the issue. Here is the full text of the proposal which spawned the issue: ******************* Proposal 404 By: Joel Uckelman Passed (4-2-0-3) The Market buys and sells commodities. The Market buys commodities 15% below the average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions, and sells commodities 15% above that average price, rounded to the nearest hundredth. If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained. {{Initial prices use the following averages: wood - 2 livestock - 3 ore - 3 coal - 3 energy - 0.5 lumber - 13 meat - 6 steel - 14 spam - 10 widgets - 22 }} ********************** The important part seems to be "average per unit price established for each commodity during the previous two full turns by inter-Player transactions". (Note that transactions can include sale, whether by auction or not, or trade; we are consistent with the decision regarding the validity of step three.) The rule indicates that the average will be in the form "X Subers / commodity". It seems fairly clear that we should consider each individual commodity in each transaction, so as to fully comply with the rule and consider each individual wood as being covered by the rules. That is, a 10 wood transaction and a 100 wood transaction would be considered differently weighted with respect to their effects on the average. Then the question becomes: "Which transactions are in a time period that we are able to consider?" and the rules answer "the previous two full turns". But what does this mean? R202 (quoted in its entirety here) says: ********* One turn consists of four parts in this order: (1) a proposal and debate period,(2) a voting period, (3) voting-related scoring, and (4) dead time. Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be 204 hours (8.5 days). Immediately upon the expiration of the proposal and debate period, a call for votes is automatically made on all active Proposals only, thus beginning the voting period. Voting-related scoring occurs instantaneously upon the expiration of the voting period. Dead time occurs immediately following voting-related scoring. Dead time shall expire upon the completion of any additional actions that the Rules specify must be completed before a turn may end. If no such actions exist, the duration of dead time shall be instantaneous. The next turn shall begin immediately following the completion of the previous turn. All time periods specified herein are to be considered "reasonable" for the purposes of Judgments. ************** A "full turn" is not described directly. I think there are two basic models for a "full turn" so far assumed: A Mueller Maneuver Turn and a Counter Maneuver Turn. The Counter Maneuver Turn is like a speedometer with no tenths: it clicks over between part four and part one and if you are in part three, transactions don't count as having been part of the "previous full turn" until the next click. The Mueller Maneuver Turn works less like integers and more like real numbers. A full turn is a unit of time and the difference between one instant and the next could be a full turn so long as each is the same distance from their previous click. This concept of a full turn would result in fluctuations of the average in question from hour to hour. Which version is meant is not specified by the rules. BUT WAIT, HOLD EVERYTHING!! At this point I WOULD have stopped, decided which system should be used and called the case over, but Josh appeals with a citation of R116 and a criticism of the mutiple meanings of the term average in the Market rule and proposal.... SO let's look there before deciding once and for all. Josh basically says in his request for appeal that: (1) The averages are not properly established, and therefore (2) the rules are fuzzy to the point of not regulating this situation, and therefore (3) R116 takes over and permits just about anything. In order that this be more clearly analyzed, here is the text of R116: ************** Rule 116 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. ************** This is clearly fuzzy itself, so I will quickly make up a Doctrine of Explicit Spirit and claim that past RFJs, including their reasoning, become a guide the "the spirit of the game." This noted, RFJ 6 established that all game actions are regulated, but I can only find one reference to game actions in R220 where it says (regarding the effects of RFJs) "Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions." So I don't see how RFJ 6 speaks to this case. RFJ 7 speaks only to the _permissability_ of various rule changes and not to regulation, but RFJ 8 is more meaty. RFJ 8 proposes an "Uckelman principle" that says: "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." Note that the decision indicated that the term "regulated" means that pretty much anything addressed by the rules is safe from monkeying via the Uckelman principle. If RFJ 8 limited the scope of the anarchic Uckelman principle to anything not discussed by the rules (which means that you basically can set up a "black market" nomic so long as it never touches the legit world) then RFJ 10 gives a small edge to anarchy itself by noting that broad topic areas regarding rule defined things (like point TRADING) are still permissable. I note that nothing deals with the situation where a rule described system is simply inconsistent. For that reason, I feel safe in establishing a principle which seems as though it would not conflict with any overtly established custom, and being useful would be in keeping with game spirit. The Berserker Incompletness Theorem: When rule defined things have a rule defined system which is incompletely structured or specified then this area is considered un-regulated. The first acts of players within this new (broken) system are permitted so long as they violate no obvious phrases or rules. Moreover they serve as precedent setting actions with which to complete the incomplete system until such time as things are better fleshed out within the rules themselves. I think this is a useful custom to have lying around in case we ever have a worse crisis than a fuzzy Market valuing system. It also lets us escape the fundamentally arbitrary question of whether the Mueller Maneuver Turn or the Counter Maneuver Turn is the correct interpretation. After LOTS of wrangling and text sampling, we finally have a clear decision procedure: Determine whether R404 is incomplete. If so, the Mueller Maneuver fills in the imcompleteness as a precedent. R404 says in part "If a commodity was not sold during the previous turn, the last calculated average is retained." By either turn system (prior to the Mueller Maneuver) there were no commodities sold. What, then, was the last CALCULATED average. There was none. An attempt to fill this hole was made with the self-deleting text in P404. But as Josh points out in his appeal, the values asserted in P404 are not averages, in the sense that we can look back and recalibrate a new average after one wood has been sold: they are not calculated. P404 provided fundamentally unusable values... Recall the steps outlined at the beginning of this analysis: 1. Tom had more than enough Subers to buy a single wood. 2. Tom followed the rules on the Market and purchased wood from it. 3. Tom offered this to Josh for S0.01 and he accepted. 4. The new market price of wood became .01 Subers. Armed with this knowledge of incompletness we can see that in fact step 2 was impossible due to the value of wood being asserted to be 2 but also supposedly being the last CALCULATED value. Luckily, the Market still works via the BIT (Berserker Incompletness Theorem). Step 2 was possible due to R116 and similar actions with other commodities will be justified by the BIT. And so on. Everything involved in the Mueller Maneuver took place in the hole and the hole is now plugged with the new precedent. Josh's transaction was legal and so this RFJ's statement is FALSE. Tom Mueller muell4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:33:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Response 1 re: Mueller Maneuver At 09:49 AM 1/24/99 , Mueller wrote: > > A "full turn" is not described directly. I think there are two > basic models for a "full turn" so far assumed: A Mueller > Maneuver Turn and a Counter Maneuver Turn. > > The Counter Maneuver Turn is like a speedometer with no tenths: > it clicks over between part four and part one and if you are in > part three, transactions don't count as having been part of the > "previous full turn" until the next click. > > The Mueller Maneuver Turn works less like integers and more like > real numbers. A full turn is a unit of time and the difference > between one instant and the next could be a full turn so long > as each is the same distance from their previous click. This > concept of a full turn would result in fluctuations of the > average in question from hour to hour. > > Which version is meant is not specified by the rules. In at least one other place, R309, the concept of a full turn is used. There is precedent for interpreting it to mean a complete turn in the context of adding new players. In the abscence of other indicators, this interpretation should be maintained. > > RFJ 7 speaks only to the _permissability_ of various rule > changes and not to regulation, but RFJ 8 is more meaty. RFJ 8 > proposes an "Uckelman principle" that says: > >"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." > > Note that the decision indicated that the term "regulated" means > that pretty much anything addressed by the rules is safe from > monkeying via the Uckelman principle. > > If RFJ 8 limited the scope of the anarchic Uckelman principle to > anything not discussed by the rules (which means that you > basically can set up a "black market" nomic so long as it never > touches the legit world) then RFJ 10 gives a small edge to > anarchy itself by noting that broad topic areas regarding rule > defined things (like point TRADING) are still permissable. That understood, the "Uckelman principle" seems completely inapplicable to the situation at hand. > R404 says in part "If a commodity was not sold during the > previous turn, the last calculated average is retained." By > either turn system (prior to the Mueller Maneuver) there were no > commodities sold. What, then, was the last CALCULATED average. > There was none. An attempt to fill this hole was made with the > self-deleting text in P404. But as Josh points out in his > appeal, the values asserted in P404 are not averages, in the > sense that we can look back and recalibrate a new average after > one wood has been sold: they are not calculated. Here I disagree. The rule says that they are averages, and I calculated them, thus making them CALCULATED AVERAGES. Regardless of how often they are adjusted, this does not change. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:52:37 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot Here's the ballot. Voting ends at 11:31 CST, 25 January 1999. ----------------------------------------------- P417 The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood to take the places of the standard English pronouns whose table entries they occupy. Where two pronouns, the male and female, are replaced by a single Spivak pronoun, the Spivak pronoun shall be understood to refer to both genders. [[Example: "e" refers to both "he" and "she".]] First Person Second Person Third Person Subject I you e Object me you em Possessive my/mine your/yours eir/eirs Reflexive myself youself emself [[This proposal shamelessly stolen from Mueller's Nomic.]] -------------------------------------------------- P418 Upon eir forfeit, a departing player's property and Subers are donated to the Treasury. --------------------------------------------------- P419 {{ Replace all occurrences of "Treasury minister" in the rules with "Greenspan". }} --------------------------------------------------- P420 Create Rule 005 with the following MEETYOURNEIGHBOR delimited text. MEETYOURNEIGHBOR There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well when a system for their effects exists. This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it is the same rule in both nomics and changes in both places when either nomic changes this rule. Changes to this rule only occur when such changes have been reported in both nomics. MEETYOURNEIGHBOR ----------------------------------------------- P423 Strike paragraph 2 of Rule 305/1. ----------------------------------------------- P424 In addition to the Suber, each player may, if they wish, start their own currencies, wiht the limit of one currency per player. The name of said currency, the amount initially minted and it's initial distribution are up to the player in question. The creator of the currency can mint more of their currency at any time, by declaring their intentions to the list. The currencies are treated as normal in all other respects, and are governed by the same laws that cover Subers when not explicitly stated otherwise. ----------------------------------------------- P425 Transmute Rule 004/0 and strike it [[until it is dead]]. ------------------------------------------------ P429 If Rule 005 exists, then amend it to read in full: There exists a distinct outside world full of things which are not rule defined but nevertheless affect this game. Human beings are and have traditionally been such things. Other nomic games are these things as well when a system for their effects exists. This is a rule in the game of Ackanomic and Berserker Nomic. Moreover, it is the same rule in both nomics. When any individual nomic performs an operation which would normally change this rule then, unless such a change is ONLY a repeal of this rule, (1) the Rabid Child of the nomic must inform the other Rabid Child of the attempt, and (2) the change does not occur in either nomic until the nomic which has not participated in the change thus far has ratified the change. Ratification in Ackanomic shall be in the form of a hearing on the acceptability of Berserker Nomic's change with the Speaker as hearing harfer with valid responses "Peace and Love" and "Dirty Dogs!" If the majority of the responses are "Peace and Love" then the Speaker must email notification of ratification to the Administrator of Berserker; at this time, this rule is considered ratified and actually changes in both nomics. If the result is otherwise then the Seaker must inform the Administrator anyway, but this does not count as ratification. Ratification in Berserker Nomic shall be in the form of a poll taken by the dministrator with players emailing their opinion FOR or AGAINST Acka's change. The polling shall start at the time the Administrator announces the polling to have begun and shall end 72 hours later. The Administrator shall report the results to Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic if there is a majority of FORs; at this time the rule is considered ratified and actually changes in both nomics. If the result is otherwise then the Administrator must inform Berserker Nomic and the Speaker of Ackanomic anyway, but this does not count as ratification. The Rabid Child of Ackanomic is its Speaker. The Rabid Child of Berserker Nomic is its Administrator. If a nomic attempts to change this rule, and does not recieve the results of the ratification process within a week of notifying the other nomic that it needs to perform its ratification process, then the change is considered ratified and actually occurs in both nomics. In Ackanomic, Proposal 4016 and all the votes on it are destroyed. This paragraph repeals itself once its first sentence takes effect. ------------------------------------------------ P430 Only a law proposed by a registered member of Beserker Nomic may effect Beserker Nomic, unless a separate vote rules otherwise on a case-by-case basis. ------------------------------------------------ P431 PROPOSAL: Change Rule 403 to the following CAPITALISTPIGDOG-delimited text. CAPITALISTPIGDOG Enterprises are non-moveable property built within hexes, that, given certain inputs, will produce the outputs defined below. Players may have enterprises only in eir own hexes. Commodities are moveable property, and can be used as inputs and outputs for enterprises. The set of enterprises is {forest, farm, mine, lumber mill, slaughterhouse, steel mill, power plant, supermarket, widget factory, construction yard}, and the set of commodities is {wood, livestock, ore, coal, lumber, meat, steel, energy, spam, widgets}. Enterprises and commodities may only exist in non-negative integer quantities. Per turn, each enterprise may operate as follows, using resources in possession of the enterprise's owner: ENTERPRISE INPUT OUTPUT Power Plant 2 Widgets 100 Energy 20 Coal Forest 10 Energy 10 Wood Farm 10 Energy 10 Livestock Mine 10 Energy 10 units of either Coal or Ore Lumber mill 20 Wood, 20 Energy 15 Lumber Slaughterhouse 15 Livestock, 10 Energy 10 Meat Steel Mill 25 Ore, 25 Energy 10 Steel Supermarket 10 Meat, 5 Energy 5 Spam [[This will change once production systems are in place]] Widget Factory 15 Steel, 40 Energy 10 Widgets Construction Yard 2 Widgets, 15 Lumber Power Plant 1 Widget Forest 100 Energy 1 Widget Farm 15 Lumber 5 Widgets Mine 15 Steel Lumber Mill 1 Widget 15 Lumber Slaughterhouse 1 Widget 10 Lumber Steel Mill 5 Steel 2 Widgets 15 Lumber Supermarket 1 Widget 20 Lumber Widget Factory 1 Widget 20 Lumber Construction Yard 20 Steel 3 Widgets Players may use Construction Yards to build an enterprise on a hex already containing eir own enterprise, but the new enterprise will replace the old one. Players may also use Construction Yards to destroy eir own enterprises for 100 Energy. Players will be charged a tax of S10 per turn for each of eir enterprises they choose to operate during that turn, and S5 for each they choose not to operate. This tax is paid to the Treasury. If it cannot be paid, the enterprise is auctioned to the other players by the Treasury Minister. Players each consume 1 Spam per turn. If players fail to consume Spam, eir enterprises cannot operate during the next turn, and they are fined 5 points. The game expends 1 Widget per player per turn for game maintenance. If the Treasury possesses insufficient widgets to meet these demands, an automatic Confidence Vote is taken on the Treasury Minister. Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and construction occur at the beginning of each turn. At the beginning of each game, players begin with the enterprise of their choice on one randomly selected hex of public land. New Players receive the same, unless there is no public land. CAPITALISTPIGDOG ------------------------------------------------ P432 Change Rule 404 to the following REMO-delimited text. REMO {{Create in hex 1,1 a Treasury-owned Construction Yard}} The Berserker Nomic economy is a closed system--no commodities or enterprises may be bought, sold, or traded except by players of Berserker Nomic and by the Treasury. However, the Treasury Minister may, at his/her discretion, utilize the Treasury-owned Construction Yard to produce needed enterprises, which e shall then auction to the players. [[This prevents production from ever becoming impossible, since the Treasury can also mint more Subers.]] REMO J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:45:30 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report What about all that stuff I had to go through when I joined? I thought there was some vote to accept new players. If there is, what terminology do we use to reffer to players who have already been accepted? If not, then we need to define our borders, and fast. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:04:37 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Ruling On the statement for which Lisa, Jeff, and I are the appeals court, we have reached a majority opinion of TRUE. Analysis to come when I can find my old analysis. [Sorry about that.] Josh -- "We are starting a movement in the state legislatures...to forbid the installation of clinics that dispense contraceptives." - Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:18:03 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: My votes Okay, as no-ones yet tried to bribe me , here are my votes : P417: Against P418: For P419: Abstain P420: Against P423: Abstain P424: For P425: Abstain P429: Against P430: I wish to withdraw this proposal. Otherwise, I will abstain. P431: For P432: For that's it. ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:48:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: My votes At 01:18 PM 1/24/99 , Knight wrote: >P430: I wish to withdraw this proposal. Otherwise, I will abstain. The status of proposals may not be changed during voting. I'll register this as an abstention. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:45:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report At 12:45 PM 1/24/99 , you wrote: >What about all that stuff I had to go through when I joined? I thought >there was some vote to accept new players. If there is, what terminology >do we use to reffer to players who have already been accepted? If not, then >we need to define our borders, and fast. No one has proposed that Ole Andersen or Ottis Airhart be added as players yet. Actually, I am now. A vote is only taken it someone calls for one. Otherwise, it's automatic after 36 hours. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:23:37 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Leaving I will no longer be playing. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:29:25 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: ballot I vote yes on the two new players. P417: YES P418: NO P419: YES P420: NO P423: YES P424: NO P425: YES P429: NO P430: NO P431: YES P432: YES ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:33:54 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: DAMN I didn't mean to send that to the list. Sorry! Delete it imediately and forget everything you saw. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:06:44 CST From: My Own Love Slave Subject: Nomic: Quitting Mostly to time. With all the activity I don't think I'll be able to devote the proper amount of time which would enable me to continue enjoying the game. Damon __________ "Who am I?" he repeated; "I am five years." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:29:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judgment confusion The judgment information on the page is now correct. I appologize for any confusion it may have caused (Jeff!). The courts for 56 and 57 have until the evening of 25 January to return a verdict, while the court for 58 has until 27 January. Check the page if you're not sure about whether you're on one of the courts. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:53:29 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: doh! Proposal 433 didn't make it onto the ballot -- it needs to be voted on as well ------------------------------------ P433 All players joining Beserker must declare what, if any, other nomics they are also part of. If a player wishes to join another nomic, they must make their intentions known to the other members of Beserker. If a player is found to be part of a nomic they have not declared, all of their currency units will be distributed amongst the other active players. They may also face other legal action based on a normal proposal/vote system amongst the other players, in which they may not participate. --------------------------------------- J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:12:45 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: ballot revision The text for P430 on the ballot was incorrect. Here is the correct wording: No player who isn't a registerd member of Beserker nomic may make a proposal that will effect Beserker nomic. If a player ignores this rule, their proposal will be totally ignored. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:37:10 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: treasury actions The Treasury mints 10000 Subers, and purchases the following from the external market: 500 Energy 100 Coal 100 Ore 100 Livestock 100 Lumber 100 Meat 100 Ore 100 Spam 100 Steel 100 Widgets 100 Wood for a total of S8915, leaving S1085 in the Treasury. A land auction will be announced tomorrow morning. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:47:11 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: treasury actions At 12:37 AM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >The Treasury mints 10000 Subers, and purchases the following from the >external market: > >500 Energy >100 Coal >100 Ore >100 Livestock >100 Lumber >100 Meat >100 Ore >100 Spam >100 Steel >100 Widgets >100 Wood > >for a total of S8915, leaving S1085 in the Treasury. > >A land auction will be announced tomorrow morning. > And I buy two SPAM!!! tasty and delicious... Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:46:13 -0500 From: Mueller Subject: Re: Nomic: Response 1 re: Mueller Maneuver Joel wrote: >At 09:49 AM 1/24/99 , Mueller wrote: >> >> A "full turn" is not described directly. I think there are two >> basic models for a "full turn" so far assumed: A Mueller >> Maneuver Turn and a Counter Maneuver Turn. >> >> The Counter Maneuver Turn is like a speedometer with no tenths: >> it clicks over between part four and part one and if you are in >> part three, transactions don't count as having been part of the >> "previous full turn" until the next click. >> >> The Mueller Maneuver Turn works less like integers and more like >> real numbers. A full turn is a unit of time and the difference >> between one instant and the next could be a full turn so long >> as each is the same distance from their previous click. This >> concept of a full turn would result in fluctuations of the >> average in question from hour to hour. >> >> Which version is meant is not specified by the rules. > >In at least one other place, R309, the concept of a full turn is used. >There is precedent for interpreting it to mean a complete turn in the >context of adding new players. In the abscence of other indicators, this >interpretation should be maintained. I did find a reference to "full turn" in R389 "The Foreign Minister shall receive the standard salary for each full turn he/she holds Office." but this doesn't clear up the basic definition. Moreover R309 (which you refer to) says (in total): ************************ New Players may be added to the game pursuant to the following restrictions: 1. Addition of a new Player must not violate the Definition of Player. 2. An existing Player must make an informal proposal to add a new Player. 3. The informal proposal must receive a two-thirds majority of favorable votes from eligible voters if any player requests a vote on the matter. If no such request is made within 36 hours of the informal proposal, said proposal is considered to have passed. Upon entry to the game, new Players are regulated by the following restrictions: 1. New Players begin the game with zero points. 2. New Players may not propose or serve as Judges until they have been players for the entirety of one turn. ************************ Each of these just lets the definition be "obvious". What if someone somehow became Foriegn Minister (and salary was defined so that clause actually did something) midway between through step 2? The rule doesn't really say, does it? > > >> >> RFJ 7 speaks only to the _permissability_ of various rule >> changes and not to regulation, but RFJ 8 is more meaty. RFJ 8 >> proposes an "Uckelman principle" that says: >> >>"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." >> >> Note that the decision indicated that the term "regulated" means >> that pretty much anything addressed by the rules is safe from >> monkeying via the Uckelman principle. >> >> If RFJ 8 limited the scope of the anarchic Uckelman principle to >> anything not discussed by the rules (which means that you >> basically can set up a "black market" nomic so long as it never >> touches the legit world) then RFJ 10 gives a small edge to >> anarchy itself by noting that broad topic areas regarding rule >> defined things (like point TRADING) are still permissable. > >That understood, the "Uckelman principle" seems completely inapplicable to >the situation at hand. I just wanted to review all permutations of R116 for thoroughness. Also note that the Uckelman principle was _ruled down_ so its history serves as a braking system on anarchic actions. If you want R116 to justify something you can't just use the Uckelman principle, you need to delineate how the situation you're talking about is different fromt the situation described in the RFJ 8. (Which I attempted to do when describing BIT.) > > >> R404 says in part "If a commodity was not sold during the >> previous turn, the last calculated average is retained." By >> either turn system (prior to the Mueller Maneuver) there were no >> commodities sold. What, then, was the last CALCULATED average. >> There was none. An attempt to fill this hole was made with the >> self-deleting text in P404. But as Josh points out in his >> appeal, the values asserted in P404 are not averages, in the >> sense that we can look back and recalibrate a new average after >> one wood has been sold: they are not calculated. > >Here I disagree. The rule says that they are averages, and I calculated >them, thus making them CALCULATED AVERAGES. Regardless of how often they >are adjusted, this does not change. > You expose an assumption of mine which I had not even known I had: that the rules were referring to other rule defined processes. That being the case, it would seem to move the province of the case to a question of "real life" fact... (namely, whether the human being Joel calculated these values) an interesting area for an RFJ to be in. I don't know WHAT the effects of this principle would be if applied to other areas of the ruleset... And unfortuneately, I don't have time to check; off to the homework. Tom Mueller mueller4@sonic.net ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:53:25 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: auction The following hexes are being auctioned starting at -100 Subers each: 0046 0048 0146 0147 0236 0237 0335 0337 0436 0437 1305 1306 1405 1407 1505 1506 2643 2644 2742 2744 2843 2844 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 4810 4811 4909 4911 4814 4815 4913 4915 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:09:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bidding I open the bidding at -100 on all hexes up for sale. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:12:59 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Bid I bid -99.99 on everything up for sale. ------ Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:52:02 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: transaction mailing list I'll be getting a transaction mailing list this afternoon. Everyone will just have to suffer until then. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:51:27 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Bid At 12:12 PM 1/25/99 , Tom wrote: >I bid -99.99 on everything up for sale. >------ >Tom Plagge | Proud to boycott >tplagge@iastate.edu | http://www.fadetoblack.com -99.98. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:19:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: transaction list The transaction list (transact@iastate.edu) will be up sometime in the next 2-5 days, according to the computation center. It will be a majordomo list just like the regular list. More details to come once it's working. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:49:32 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: voting results P417 passed (5-3-0-1). P418 passed (7-1-0-1). P419 passed (4-2-2-1). P420 failed (0-6-2-1). P423 passed (5-1-2-1). P424 failed (2-6-0-1). P425 passed (5-0-3-1). P429 failed (2-5-1-1). P430 failed (1-4-3-1). P431 passed (7-0-1-1). P432 passed (6-1-1-1). P433 failed (1-4-0-4). After a check of the rules, I found that cases greater than Level 1 do not hold up play, so a new turn started at 11:31 today. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:07:04 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: doh! P433: For ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:04:13 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Foreign Minister's Report Okay, Proposal No. : A registered member of Beserker Nomic is defined as someone who can legally contribute proposals to the Beserker Nomic mailing list, and is unanimously recognised as a registered member by all other people who can legally contribute proposals on the Beserker Nomic mailing list. End Proposal No. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:15:41 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: auction I bid one suber for all of them. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:09:42 CST From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: auction I bid 1.01 subers for all the land up for auction. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:00:19 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: auction 1.01 S for all land for sale. Of course, I would have liked to make money off of getting land, but someone just had to go and ruin it for us all Ed At 03:15 PM 1/25/99 -0500, you wrote: > I bid one suber for all of them. > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:17:07 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: doh! At 02:07 PM 1/25/99 , Knight wrote: >P433: For Too late. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:21:31 CST From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Auction I bid 1.05 S for all the land. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:27:34 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: auction For hexes 0236, 0237, 0335, 0337, 0436, and 0437, I bid S5.00. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:38:49 CST From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: auction I bid S5.00 for these hexes: 0046 0048 0146 0147 1305 1306 1405 1407 1505 1506 2643 2644 2742 2744 2843 2844 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 4810 4811 4909 4911 4814 4815 4913 4915 ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:41:23 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Purchase I buy 25 Spam. ------ Tom Plagge tplagge@iastate.edu ------ "For the value of life, insofar as it consists of the enjoyment one gets from people, is vastly overrated." -Immanuel Kant ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:43:30 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Nomic: Bid I bid 0 on everything. ------ Tom Plagge tplagge@iastate.edu ------ "For the value of life, insofar as it consists of the enjoyment one gets from people, is vastly overrated." -Immanuel Kant ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:47:54 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: auction I bid S10 for the following: 2643 2644 2742 2744 2843 2844 I bid S5.01 for the rest. ------ Tom Plagge tplagge@iastate.edu ------ "For the value of life, insofar as it consists of the enjoyment one gets from people, is vastly overrated." -Immanuel Kant ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:53:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: appeal I appeal the decision reached in Judgment 57. [analysis to come later]. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:51:14 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Purchase At 03:41 PM 1/25/99 , you wrote: >I buy 25 Spam. >------ >Tom Plagge >tplagge@iastate.edu Really? From whom? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:55:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judge selection 57 Tom Plagge, Lisa Hamilton, Tom Knight, Jeff Schroeder, and Tom Mueller have been selected to 3 Court (the first time we've had one of these!) for the following statement: The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have purchased 108694 wood from the market is illegal. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:04:48 -0600 From: The Bavarian Illuminati Subject: Re: Nomic: Purchase >>I buy 25 Spam. >> >Really? From whom? Dammit. That will teach me to fall freaking three hours behind. :P ------ Tom Plagge tplagge@iastate.edu ------ "For the value of life, insofar as it consists of the enjoyment one gets from people, is vastly overrated." -Immanuel Kant ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:29:47 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: auction I bid 10S on the following hexes: 4814 4815 4913 4915 I bid 5.05S on the rest. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:48:35 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Bid I bid 10S on the following 6 hexes: 1305 1306 1405 1407 1505 1506 I bid 5.1S on the following: 0046 0048 0146 0147 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 4810 4811 4909 4911 jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:56:50 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: proposal whatever # I propose the following amendment to rule 202: Change the second paragraph/sentance to read as follows: Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be 192 hours (8.0 days). ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:02:15 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: proposal whatever # oops, I pressed the send button too soon, here is what it should read as: I propose the following amendment to rule 202: Change the second paragraph/sentance to read as between the LENGTHENVOTING text: LENGTHENVOTING Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be 192 hours (8.0 days). LENGTHENVOTING And add the following sentance: The beginning of a turn shall be defined to be the beginning of the proposal and debate period and the end of a turn shall be defined to be immediately after the voting period and coinciding with the voting-related scoring period. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:04:54 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: proposal # next whatever If the previous proposal passes change the first sentance of Rule 307 to read: For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 48 hours after the call for votes is made. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:20:23 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: spam I consume my Spam for this turn. jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:27:13 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: spam Don't you consume spam automaticly if its available? At 07:20 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >I consume my Spam for this turn. > >jeff > ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:25:30 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: proposal Prop# whatever: An enterprise's owner, may if e wishes, adorn the enterprise with shrubberies. Enterprises may have between 0 and 1000 shrubberies. Shrubberies cost nothing to add to an enterprise, and their only benefit is the beautification of the enterprise and this nomic. Enterprises owned by the treasury or otherwise publicly held cannot be adorned with shrubberies because public enterprises are ugly. [[While shrubberies have no actualy value, players are urged to take into account the beauty of the enterprise when negotiating trades.]] Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:37:45 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: judge selection 57 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Tom Plagge, Lisa Hamilton, Tom Knight, Jeff Schroeder, and Tom Mueller have >been selected to 3 Court (the first time we've had one of these!) for the >following statement: > >The transaction in which Josh Kortbein claimed to have purchased 108694 >wood from the market is illegal. Let it be known that I hereby offer up the following gentleman's agreement: I will give 500000 Subers to each judge above, excluding Tom Mueller (he's got more than that coming), who rules FALSE on the statement above presented for judgment, under the condition that once this case becomes unappealable, it was ruled FALSE. Negotiations cautiously welcome. Josh -- I advise my students to listen carefully the moment they decide to take no more mathematics courses. They might be able to hear the sound of closing doors. - James Caballero ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:43:55 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: spam Andrew Proescholdt writes: >Don't you consume spam automaticly if its available? One would hope we need not be utterly pedantic. > >At 07:20 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >>I consume my Spam for this turn. >> >>jeff >> -- The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:44:57 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Andrew Proescholdt writes: >Prop# whatever: > >An enterprise's owner, may if e wishes, adorn the enterprise with >shrubberies. Enterprises may have between 0 and 1000 shrubberies. >Shrubberies cost nothing to add to an enterprise, and their only benefit is >the beautification of the enterprise and this nomic. Enterprises owned by >the treasury or otherwise publicly held cannot be adorned with shrubberies >because public enterprises are ugly. [[While shrubberies have no actualy >value, players are urged to take into account the beauty of the enterprise >when negotiating trades.]] > >Ed You rock Ed. -- The union of the mathematician with the poet, fervor with measure, passion with correctness, this surely is the ideal. - William James ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:42:52 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: Analysis on 57 >>If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's >>command. > >I wish to hear this case. > >I see it like this: > > Rule 116/0(i) : Permissibility of the Unprohibited > > 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. > > Rule 228/0(m) : Judgments > > [snip] > > All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the > rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, > or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider > game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other > standards. > >According to rule 228, our judgment should be in agreement with game-custom >and the spirit of the game, as (clearly) the rules are silent on what >to do when there are no rules. This spirit seems best conveyed in rule >116; when there are no rules, the "rules" do not explicitly or >implicitly permit OR deny ANYTHING. Game custom then says that anything >would be permissible, according to 116. > >Thus, the statement should be judged TRUE. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:09:27 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal I made a misspelling. "actualy" should be "actual" >>An enterprise's owner, may if e wishes, adorn the enterprise with >>shrubberies. Enterprises may have between 0 and 1000 shrubberies. >>Shrubberies cost nothing to add to an enterprise, and their only benefit is >>the beautification of the enterprise and this nomic. Enterprises owned by >>the treasury or otherwise publicly held cannot be adorned with shrubberies >>because public enterprises are ugly. [[While shrubberies have no actualy >>value, players are urged to take into account the beauty of the enterprise >>when negotiating trades.]] >> >>Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:04:20 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: proposal # 434? I think my last 2 proposals should be 432 and 433, so this one should be 434, I think (between the BROKER delimited text). BROKER There exists an entity within Berserker Nomic known as the Broker which shall, when activated and only when activated by a Player, control that Players' enterprises, commodities and Subers (hereafter known as the Players' Holdings), and shall have restricted power to buy, sell or use these Holdings as defined and only as defined as follows. The Broker will control the Holdings of each Player who activated it separately from every other Players' Holdings; the only connection through the Broker between the Holdings of separate Players shall be the Market. The Broker will automatically consume one Spam for the Player, if available and if Spam has not already been consumed by the Player for the current turn, from the Players' Holdings during the voting period for each turn. If no Spam is available to be consumed from the Players' available Holdings, then the Broker shall buy one Spam from the Market at the current price for the Player (if sufficient funds are available) and proceed to consume the Spam. If sufficient Subers are unavailable for the purchase of one Spam, the Broker will sell commodities to the Market at the current Market price and in the following order, repeating until sufficient Subers are available or no commodities are available: One wood (if available), one livestock (if available), one ore (if available), one coal (if available), one lumber (if available), one meat (if available), one steel (if available), one energy (if available), one widget (if available). If sufficient Subers are unable to be acqured, the Broker does nothing. The Broker will automatically pay any and all applicable taxes from the Players' Suber fund. If necessary funds are unavailable in Subers, the Broker will sell commodities to the Market at the current Market price and in the following order, repeating until sufficient Subers are available or no commodities are available: One wood (if available), one livestock (if available), one ore (if available), one coal (if available), one lumber (if available), one meat (if available), one steel (if available), one energy (if available), one widget (if available). If sufficient Subers are unable to be acqured, the Broker does nothing. BROKER jeff ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:15:21 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: spam I don't think so, it just says "Players each consume 1 Spam per turn. If players fail to consume Spam, eir enterprises cannot operate during the next turn, and they are fined 5 points." and "Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and construction occur at the beginning of each turn." I'm just playing it safe. At 07:27 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >Don't you consume spam automaticly if its available? > >At 07:20 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >>I consume my Spam for this turn. >> >>jeff >> ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:19:40 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: proposal Here's a proposal: Players not wishing to participate in the economy may enter Economic Limbo. Players in Economic Limbo participate in every aspect of Berserker Nomic normally except the economy. Players in Economic Limbo do not participate in the economy. They do not lose points for not consuming Spam. They may not trade commodities, operate enterprises, buy or sell land, or gain or lose enterprises. Players in Economic Limbo may use their Subers for political purposes, such as but not limited to bribery and vote-buying, but may not use them for purchasing commodities, enterprises, or land. [[Players in Economic Limbo may own property, enterprises, and/or land.]] A players may enter Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating that e is entering Economic Limbo. A players may leave Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating e is leaving Economic Limbo. Players that enter Economic Limbo and leave after less than one full turn (using all parts of the turn from the description of full turn in Rule 202) cannnot participate in the economy for one full turn after entering Economic Limbo. End Proposal Ed ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:13:33 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Analysis on 57 this one? At 07:42 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote: > >>>If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's >>>command. >> >>I wish to hear this case. >> >>I see it like this: >> >> Rule 116/0(i) : Permissibility of the Unprohibited >> >> 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. >> >> Rule 228/0(m) : Judgments >> >> [snip] >> >> All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the >> rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, >> or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider >> game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other >> standards. >> >>According to rule 228, our judgment should be in agreement with game-custom >>and the spirit of the game, as (clearly) the rules are silent on what >>to do when there are no rules. This spirit seems best conveyed in rule >>116; when there are no rules, the "rules" do not explicitly or >>implicitly permit OR deny ANYTHING. Game custom then says that anything >>would be permissible, according to 116. >> >>Thus, the statement should be judged TRUE. ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:28:57 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: auction update Because virtually everyone placed bids on groups rather than individual hexes, I've split the bids among the hexes to determine the highest per hex bid. These are the bids that currently have each hex: 0046 - 0.36 - JS 0048 - 0.36 - JS 0146 - 0.36 - JS 0147 - 0.36 - JS 0236 - 0.83 - JU 0237 - 0.83 - JU 0335 - 0.83 - JU 0337 - 0.83 - JU 0436 - 0.83 - JU 0437 - 0.83 - JU 1305 - 1.67 - JS 1306 - 1.67 - JS 1405 - 1.67 - JS 1407 - 1.67 - JS 1505 - 1.67 - JS 1506 - 1.67 - JS 2643 - 1.67 - TP 2644 - 1.67 - TP 2742 - 1.67 - TP 2744 - 1.67 - TP 2843 - 1.67 - TP 2844 - 1.67 - TP 3947 - 0.36 - JS 3948 - 0.36 - JS 4047 - 0.36 - JS 4049 - 0.36 - JS 4147 - 0.36 - JS 4148 - 0.36 - JS 4810 - 0.38 - JS 4811 - 0.38 - JS 4909 - 0.38 - JS 4909 - 0.38 - JS 4814 - 2.55 - EP 4815 - 2.55 - EP 4913 - 2.55 - EP 4915 - 2.55 - EP J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:30:40 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bid I bid S1.00 for each of: 0046 0048 0146 0147 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 4810 4811 4909 4909 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:56:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bid I bid S1.50 for each of the following: 4810 4811 4909 4909 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:58:32 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: auction update i bid S1.50 each on the following 4: >0046 - 0.36 - JS >0048 - 0.36 - JS >0146 - 0.36 - JS >0147 - 0.36 - JS i bid S1.01 each on the following: >3947 - 0.36 - JS >3948 - 0.36 - JS >4047 - 0.36 - JS >4049 - 0.36 - JS >4147 - 0.36 - JS >4148 - 0.36 - JS > >4810 - 0.38 - JS >4811 - 0.38 - JS >4909 - 0.38 - JS >4909 - 0.38 - JS ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:52:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Fwd: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 Stupid bounce. >Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:05 -0600 (CST) >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >To: uckelman@iastate.edu >Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) > >The original message was received at Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:03 -0600 (CST) >from mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >"|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing" > (expanded from: ) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.1424.in, it exists >ABORT Failed to open temp file /tmp/resend.1424.in, it exists at >/usr/local/majordomo/majordomo.pl line 209. >554 "|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r nomic -h iastate.edu >nomic-outgoing"... unknown mailer error 2 >Reporting-MTA: dns; majordomo.iastate.edu >Received-From-MTA: DNS; mailhub.iastate.edu >Arrival-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:03 -0600 (CST) > >Final-Recipient: RFC822; nomic@majordomo.iastate.edu >X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; |/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l nomic -r >nomic -h iastate.edu nomic-outgoing@majordomo.iastate.edu >Action: failed >Status: 5.0.0 >Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:05 -0600 (CST) >Return-Path: >Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102]) by >majordomo.iastate.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id UAA04465 for >; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:03 -0600 (CST) >Received: from ed (dial133.ppp.iastate.edu [129.186.97.133]) > by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA05554 > for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:01 -0600 (CST) >Message-Id: <199901260245.UAA05554@mailhub.iastate.edu> >X-Sender: apresh@pop-2.iastate.edu >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 >Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 20:45:04 -0600 >To: nomic@iastate.edu >From: Andrew Proescholdt >Subject: Re: Nomic: bid >In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990125202902.00936280@pop-2.iastate.edu> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >I bid 1.01S for each of the following: > >>4810 >>4811 >>4909 >>4909 >Ed J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:37:06 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: bid I bid 1.51S for each of the following: >4810 >4811 >4909 >4909 Ed ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:11:00 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: Re: Nomic auction I bid S1.6 for each of the following: 4810 4811 4909 4911 ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:08:17 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Andrew Proescholdt writes: > >Here's a proposal: > >Players not wishing to participate in the economy may enter Economic Limbo. > Players in Economic Limbo participate in every aspect of Berserker Nomic >normally except the economy. Players in Economic Limbo do not participate >in the economy. They do not lose points for not consuming Spam. They may >not trade commodities, operate enterprises, buy or sell land, or gain or >lose enterprises. Players in Economic Limbo may use their Subers for >political purposes, such as but not limited to bribery and vote-buying, but >may not use them for purchasing commodities, enterprises, or land. >[[Players in Economic Limbo may own property, enterprises, and/or land.]] > >A players may enter Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing >list or the normal mailing list and stating that e is entering Economic >Limbo. A players may leave Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy >mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating e is leaving Economic >Limbo. > >Players that enter Economic Limbo and leave after less than one full turn >(using all parts of the turn from the description of full turn in Rule >202) cannnot participate in the economy for one full turn after entering >Economic Limbo. > >End Proposal >Ed You rock Ed. The last paragraph is problematic though because it refers to one full turn after entering EL, which places the end of that one full turn in the middle of the next turn, in general. That can't happen without some differentiation as to how turns are divided up. Perhaps instead just make it the rest of the turn in which the old in-out happened, or the rest of it plus all of the next turn. 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:11:05 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: spam Jeff Schroeder writes: >I don't think so, it just says "Players each consume 1 Spam per turn. If >players fail to consume Spam, eir enterprises cannot operate during the >next turn, and they are fined 5 points." and "Payment of upkeep and >consumption of Spam may occur at any time during each turn. Production of >commodities, expenditure of widgets, and construction occur at the >beginning of each turn." Eh? Where the fuck are you reading that? 403 (?) says specifically that spam consumption occurs at the beginning of the turn. Josh -- "Sleep... is a reward for some, a torture for others." - Lautreamont ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:13:14 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal # 434? Jeff Schroeder writes: >I think my last 2 proposals should be 432 and 433, so this one should be >434, I think (between the BROKER delimited text). > >BROKER >There exists an entity within Berserker Nomic known as the Broker which >shall, when activated and only when activated by a Player, control that It isn't clear what happens if this Broker is activated. Is e tied up, or can other players activate em independently? Josh -- I know there are people who insist that no good music has been made since the Sixties (or the Forties, or 1610, or 1982), but on anything but the most dispassionate, intellectual level, I find it hard to believe them anything but totally, and tragically, insane. - Glenn McDonald, http://www.furia.com/twas ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:00:37 -0600 From: the pizza guy Subject: Re: Nomic: spam At 01:11 AM 1/26/99 , you wrote: >Eh? Where the fuck are you reading that? 403 (?) says specifically >that spam consumption occurs at the beginning of the turn. That rule was revised by one of my proposals. ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:35:39 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal # 434? At 01:13 AM 1/26/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Jeff Schroeder writes: >>I think my last 2 proposals should be 432 and 433, so this one should be >>434, I think (between the BROKER delimited text). >> >>BROKER >>There exists an entity within Berserker Nomic known as the Broker which >>shall, when activated and only when activated by a Player, control that > >It isn't clear what happens if this Broker is activated. Is e >tied up, or can other players activate em independently? I'm trying to make it able to be activated by several players independantly. The line, "The Broker will control the Holdings of each Player who activated it separately from every other Players' Holdings; the only connection through the Broker between the Holdings of separate Players shall be the Market," seems to define this, but it's not clearly stated. Any suggestions on how to say it more clearly? jeff ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:48:53 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: RFJ 58 appeal On the statement, "Every player loses 10 points due to rule 403." we have reached a majority opinion of TRUE. The rule clearly states, "Payment of upkeep, consumption of spam, and expenditure of widgets occur at the beginning of each turn." The rule pertaining to this RFJ has been modified, but at the time the statement was made, spam was consumed at the beginning of the turn. Jeff ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:00:32 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal # 434? Jeff Schroeder writes: >At 01:13 AM 1/26/99 -0600, you wrote: >> >>Jeff Schroeder writes: >>>I think my last 2 proposals should be 432 and 433, so this one should be >>>434, I think (between the BROKER delimited text). >>> >>>BROKER >>>There exists an entity within Berserker Nomic known as the Broker which >>>shall, when activated and only when activated by a Player, control that >> >>It isn't clear what happens if this Broker is activated. Is e >>tied up, or can other players activate em independently? > >I'm trying to make it able to be activated by several players >independantly. The line, "The Broker will control the Holdings of each >Player who activated it separately from every >other Players' Holdings; the only connection through the Broker between the >Holdings of separate Players shall be the Market," seems to define this, >but it's not clearly stated. Any suggestions on how to say it more clearly? Why not instead create the brokerage firm H & R Schmuck which will open brokerage accounts for each player, and manage them independently in the ways you outline above? Josh -- Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. - William of Occam ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:18:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: new players Ottis Airhart and Ole Andersen are now players in Berserker Nomic as of 01:45 CST today, and receive from the Treasury hexes 3615 and 1247, respectively. Each of you may now select an enterprise (as defined in Rule 403) to place on your hex, and may bid on land in the current auction. Also, you each begin with 500 Subers. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:26:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: statistical stuff I noticed that we had the highest voter turnout since August during the last voting period. :) J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:46:21 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: statistical stuff Joel D Uckelman writes: >I noticed that we had the highest voter turnout since August during the >last voting period. :) > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ That mean you're updating that damn page? -- A good mathematical joke is better, and better mathematics, than a dozen mediocre papers. - J.E. Littlewood ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:54:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: scoring Scoring from last turn: +59 Tom Plagge +31 Josh Kortbein +24 Joel Uckelman +14 Ed Proescholdt +7 Jeff Schroeder -11 Tom Mueller -24 Tom Knight J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:54:53 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: statistical stuff At 07:46 PM 1/26/99 , you wrote: > >Joel D Uckelman writes: >>I noticed that we had the highest voter turnout since August during the >>last voting period. :) >> >>J. Uckelman >>uckelman@iastate.edu >>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ > >That mean you're updating that damn page? In the process of, yes. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:04:38 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal whatever # At 07:02 PM 1/25/99 , you wrote: >oops, I pressed the send button too soon, here is what it should read as: > >I propose the following amendment to rule 202: > >Change the second paragraph/sentance to read as between the LENGTHENVOTING >text: > >LENGTHENVOTING >Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. >The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be 192 hours (8.0 days). >LENGTHENVOTING > >And add the following sentance: > >The beginning of a turn shall be defined to be the beginning of the >proposal and debate period and the end of a turn shall be defined to be >immediately after the voting period and coinciding with the voting-related >scoring period. Um, if you want the voting to be longer, you also need to change the first sentence of R307/2. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:21:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal whatever # At 08:04 PM 1/26/99 , you wrote: >At 07:02 PM 1/25/99 , you wrote: >>oops, I pressed the send button too soon, here is what it should read as: >> >>I propose the following amendment to rule 202: >> >>Change the second paragraph/sentance to read as between the LENGTHENVOTING >>text: >> >>LENGTHENVOTING >>Any Player may make a new Proposal during the proposal and debate period. >>The duration of the proposal and debate period shall be 192 hours (8.0 days). >>LENGTHENVOTING >> >>And add the following sentance: >> >>The beginning of a turn shall be defined to be the beginning of the >>proposal and debate period and the end of a turn shall be defined to be >>immediately after the voting period and coinciding with the voting-related >>scoring period. > >Um, if you want the voting to be longer, you also need to change the first >sentence of R307/2. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ Ignore this. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:05:41 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: treasury actions At 12:47 AM 1/25/99 , Mueller wrote: >And I buy two SPAM!!! tasty and delicious... > >Tom Mueller >mueller4@sonic.net Also, Josh wrote: >buy me however much spam 250S will buy. There's no external market any more, so from whom are you purchasing this spam? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:26:52 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal The revised Economic Limbo proposal: Players not wishing to participate in the economy may enter Economic Limbo. Players in Economic Limbo participate in every aspect of Berserker Nomic normally except the economy. Players in Economic Limbo do not participate in the economy. They do not lose points for not consuming Spam. They may not trade commodities, operate enterprises, buy or sell land, or gain or lose enterprises. Players in Economic Limbo may use their Subers for political purposes, such as but not limited to bribery and vote-buying, but may not use them for purchasing commodities, enterprises, or land. [[Players in Economic Limbo may own property, enterprises, and/or land.]] A players may enter Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating that e is entering Economic Limbo. A players may leave Economic Limbo by mailing either the economy mailing list or the normal mailing list and stating e is leaving Economic Limbo. If a player attempts to leave Economic Limbo after having been in it for less than a full proposal and debate period and a full voting period, that player remains in Economic Limbo until two voting periods have passed. A player must eat spam and pay upkeep on enterprises on either the turn e enters Economic Limbo or the turn e leaves Economic Limbo or the normal penalties apply for the turn e leaves Economic Limbo. End Proposal >The last paragraph is problematic though because it refers to >one full turn after entering EL, which places the end of that one >full turn in the middle of the next turn, in general. That >can't happen without some differentiation as to how turns are >divided up. Perhaps instead just make it the rest of the turn >in which the old in-out happened, or the rest of it plus all >of the next turn. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:08:59 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bids 1.51 each for: 0046 0048 0146 0147 1.68 each for: 1305 1306 1405 1407 1505 1506 2643 2644 2742 2744 2843 2844 1.02 each for: 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 1.61 each for: 4810 4811 4909 4909 2.56 each for: 4814 4815 4913 4915 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:04:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: auction update Current bids: 0046 - 1.50 - JS 0048 - 1.50 - JS 0146 - 1.50 - JS 0147 - 1.50 - JS 0236 - 0.83 - JU 0237 - 0.83 - JU 0335 - 0.83 - JU 0337 - 0.83 - JU 0436 - 0.83 - JU 0437 - 0.83 - JU 1305 - 1.67 - JS 1306 - 1.67 - JS 1405 - 1.67 - JS 1407 - 1.67 - JS 1505 - 1.67 - JS 1506 - 1.67 - JS 2643 - 1.67 - TP 2644 - 1.67 - TP 2742 - 1.67 - TP 2744 - 1.67 - TP 2843 - 1.67 - TP 2844 - 1.67 - TP 3947 - 1.01 - JS 3948 - 1.01 - JS 4047 - 1.01 - JS 4049 - 1.01 - JS 4147 - 1.01 - JS 4148 - 1.01 - JS 4810 - 1.60 - JS 4811 - 1.60 - JS 4909 - 1.60 - JS 4909 - 1.60 - JS 4814 - 2.55 - EP 4815 - 2.55 - EP 4913 - 2.55 - EP 4915 - 2.55 - EP J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:31:23 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: nomic: auction I wish to bid S1.5 each for: 0236 0237 0335 0337 0436 0437 1.69 each for: 1305 1306 1405 1407 1505 1506 1.03 each for: 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 1.52 each for: 0046 0048 0146 0147 ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:21:17 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: proposal Andrew Proescholdt writes: >A player must eat spam and pay upkeep on enterprises on either the turn e >enters Economic Limbo or the turn e leaves Economic Limbo or the normal >penalties apply for the turn e leaves Economic Limbo. Special case: Player enters EL, doesn't pay. Economy goes wildly out of control. Player can never come out of EL because can't afford to pay upkeep, or possibly purchase spam. Josh -- I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers. :-) - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:36:48 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bid I bid 2.00 each for: 0236 0237 0335 0337 0436 0437 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:38:23 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bid I bid 1.50 each for: 3947 3948 4047 4049 4147 4148 J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:38:32 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Nomic: amend prop 436 Amend prop to read: If proposal 434 passes change the first sentance of Rule 307 to read: For any given Proposal, the voting period ends 48 hours after the call for votes is made. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:52:30 CST From: Josh Subject: Nomic: I shall bid 2000S on each hex. And, never fear, for my seemingly rash action has two possible outcomes (I hope): I don't get to buy anything, and no one else can buy anything. Bidding starts over, again with negative prices, and an admonishment to Tom Knight. I pull a Scrooge McDuck and give away hexes and money. Preferably as prizes for a grand beat poetry and interpretive dance festival. Josh -- The computer should be doing the hard work. That's what it's paid to do, after all. - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:22:20 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: I shall bid At 12:52 AM 1/27/99 , you wrote: > >2000S on each hex. > >And, never fear, for my seemingly rash action has two possible >outcomes (I hope): > >I don't get to buy anything, and no one else can buy anything. >Bidding starts over, again with negative prices, and an admonishment >to Tom Knight. > >I pull a Scrooge McDuck and give away hexes and money. Preferably >as prizes for a grand beat poetry and interpretive dance festival. > >Josh Since the legality of your doing so is still in dispute, I'm not sure how to handle this. If this is indeed legal, be forewarned -- I may be compelled to mint 100 quadrillion Subers to devalue your currency. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:07:16 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Nomic: various stuff 1. Hi all! 2. On my hex, 1247, I will have a Mine installed. Do I have to defíne its production now? [If so, it is a Coal Mine] Or do I decide from production run to production run? 3. I want to bid on hexes: 1147 1148 1246 1248 1347 1348 3.02 Suber per hex. 4. I suppose I need to buy some spam, too. I will buy five of these, from whomever has them. Price to be determined, if it ain't fixed. 5. If I am at this moment entitled to vote for or against anything, I will vote against all odd-numbered proposals, and for all even-numbered proposals. I will, I hope, gradually make less nebulous actions. Ole http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/3637/ http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/8941/ home: siri.iben@get2net.dk palnatoke@get2net.dk (Ole) palnatoke@altavista.net (Ole) aeshna@get2net.dk (Kira) school: 1508oa@fiol.brock.dk (Ole) school: ktkock at stud.aki.ku.dk (Kira) ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:21:42 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: judging salaries For J55, Tom Plagge receives 3 points. For J56, Lisa Hamilton, Josh Kortbein, and Jeff Schroeder recerive 3 points each. For J58, Tom Knight, Ed Proescholdt, and Jeff Schroeder receive 3 points, as per R390/0. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:37:36 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: timing "Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and construction occur at the beginning of each turn." Does this mean that we missed the chance to build things this turn? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:39:24 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: various stuff At 07:07 AM 1/27/99 , Ole wrote: >1. Hi all! >2. On my hex, 1247, I will have a Mine installed. Do I have to defíne its >production now? >[If so, it is a Coal Mine] >Or do I decide from production run to production run? You can decide each time. >3. I want to bid on hexes: >1147 >1148 >1246 >1248 >1347 >1348 >3.02 Suber per hex. Noted. >4. I suppose I need to buy some spam, too. I will buy five of these, from >whomever has them. Price to be determined, if it ain't fixed. There's no spam up for sale right now, but the Treasury may sell some of its reserves during the turn. >5. If I am at this moment entitled to vote for or against anything, I >will vote against all odd-numbered proposals, and for all even-numbered >proposals. Nothing to vote on right now. >I will, I hope, gradually make less nebulous actions. > > >Ole > >http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/3637/ >http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/8941/ >home: siri.iben@get2net.dk >palnatoke@get2net.dk (Ole) >palnatoke@altavista.net (Ole) >aeshna@get2net.dk (Kira) >school: 1508oa@fiol.brock.dk (Ole) >school: ktkock at stud.aki.ku.dk (Kira) > J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:45:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:50:38 -0600 From: owner-nomic The auction ends at 10:53 CST. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:52:50 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal A proposal to fix the auction system is forthcoming. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:50:09 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: bid I bid S3000 on each hex. Why I can do this: According to R399/1, "Possession of auctioned property is transferred to the highest bidder upon receipt of payment." There is no requirement that I currently have the necessary funds, just that I can't take possession of the land until I do. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:06:26 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: timing Joel D Uckelman writes: >"Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during >each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and >construction occur at the beginning of each turn." > >Does this mean that we missed the chance to build things this turn? According to the logic of the Great Spam Famine, I would say so. Josh -- Like the ski resort full of girls hunting for husbands and husbands hunting for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem. - Alan Lindsay Mackay ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:09:10 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: bid Joel D Uckelman writes: >I bid S3000 on each hex. > >Why I can do this: > >According to R399/1, "Possession of auctioned property is transferred to >the highest bidder upon receipt of payment." There is no requirement that I >currently have the necessary funds, just that I can't take possession of >the land until I do. You know, the idea behind bidding 2000S was that I could then give the land away along with money, something you weren't sure the Treasury could do despite minting lots more Subers. But if you want to make it even _more_ complicated... Josh -- "Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound." - Albert Einstein ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:10:12 -0600 From: tom Subject: Re: Nomic: timing At 10:37 AM 1/27/99 , you wrote: >"Payment of upkeep and consumption of Spam may occur at any time during >each turn. Production of commodities, expenditure of widgets, and >construction occur at the beginning of each turn." > >Does this mean that we missed the chance to build things this turn? Well, I wrote it intending for it to mean that construction ordered the previous turn was done at the instant the next turn began, but I sure didn't make it abundantly clear. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:13:59 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: I shall bid Joel D Uckelman writes: >Since the legality of your doing so is still in dispute, I'm not sure how >to handle this. If this is indeed legal, be forewarned -- I may be >compelled to mint 100 quadrillion Subers to devalue your currency. Book of the world, Joel. Book of the world. Josh -- "For I have always lived violently, drunk hugely, eaten too much or not at all, slept around the clock or missed two nights of sleeping, worked too hard and too long in glory, or slobbed for a time in utter laziness. I've lifted, pulled, chopped, climbed, made love with joy and taken my hangovers as a consequence, not as a punishment." - John Steinbeck ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:16:10 CST From: Jeff N Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: judging salaries What about J57? >For J55, Tom Plagge receives 3 points. For J56, Lisa Hamilton, Josh >Kortbein, and Jeff Schroeder recerive 3 points each. For J58, Tom Knight, >Ed Proescholdt, and Jeff Schroeder receive 3 points, as per R390/0. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:16:52 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: judging salaries At 02:16 PM 1/27/99 , Jeff wrote: >What about J57? J57 isn't done yet, therefore there are as of yet no salaries to be dispersed. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:32:38 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: proposal Strike the second paragraph of Rule 399/1 and add in its place the following AUCTIONFIX delimited text: AUCTIONFIX Auctions may be held to sell property. Players wishing to bid on auctioned property must submit bids within 48 hours of the start of the auction. A Player's total bids may not exceed eir total available funds at the time the bids are placed. Possession of auctioned property is transferred to the highest bidder and the higest bidder's payment to the Treasury upon the closing of the auction. In the event that a bidder does not have sufficient funds to cover eir winning bids, e must withdraw bids of eir choice until avialable funds cover eir remaining winning bids. If a bid is withdrawn, it is not considered in determining the highest bid. Any game entity may auction any or all of its property at any time, and may set the starting price. If a starting price is not specified, the starting price will be 0.01 Subers. {{All auctioned hexes for which the transactions are not yet complete shall revert to the Treasury.}} AUCTIONFIX J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:38:36 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Prop 438 I withdraw Prop 428. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:37:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Prop 435 Is Knight's Prop 435 redundant? "A registered member of Beserker Nomic is defined as someone who can legally contribute proposals to the Beserker Nomic mailing list, and is unanimously recognised as a registered member by all other people who can legally contribute proposals on the Beserker Nomic mailing list." Non-players are not allowed to affect the game, so "registered member" would be synonomous with Player, which is already defined. Also, requiring unanimous consent for registration seems as though it would have deleterious effects on the game, e.g. if I decided unilaterally to stop recognizing Josh as a player, he wouldn't be. The giant "ABUSE" warning light flashes... J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:43:19 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: Prop 434 comments Jeff wrote: "And add the following sentance: The beginning of a turn shall be defined to be the beginning of the proposal and debate period and the end of a turn shall be defined to be immediately after the voting period and coinciding with the voting-related scoring period." Agh! You're redefining the "end of a turn" to coincide with something in the turn itself. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:08:08 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 434 comments Oh, nevermind, just strike that paragraph from my proposal, unless anyone wants it there? jeff At 04:43 PM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >Jeff wrote: > >"And add the following sentance: > >The beginning of a turn shall be defined to be the beginning of the >proposal and debate period and the end of a turn shall be defined to be >immediately after the voting period and coinciding with the voting-related >scoring period." > >Agh! You're redefining the "end of a turn" to coincide with something in >the turn itself. > >J. Uckelman >uckelman@iastate.edu >http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:05:12 -0600 From: Jeff Schroeder Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 434 comments So far the "end of the turn" isn't defined anywhere, and since the voting-related scoring is instantaneous, it should fit the definition of the end of a turn, unless you'd it rather be after the dead time, but I consider that to be after the end and before the beginning of the turn. My assumption is that this will clear up where and when a turn is considered over to make a "full turn" complete. At 04:43 PM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >Jeff wrote: > >"And add the following sentance: > >The beginning of a turn shall be defined to be the beginning of the >proposal and debate period and the end of a turn shall be defined to be >immediately after the voting period and coinciding with the voting-related >scoring period." > >Agh! You're redefining the "end of a turn" to coincide with something in >the turn itself. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:36:56 -0600 (CST) From: majordomo@iastate.edu Subject: Nomic: Welcome to transact-digest -- Welcome to the transact-digest mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send the following command in email to "transact-digest-request@iastate.edu": unsubscribe Or you can send mail to "majordomo@iastate.edu" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe transact-digest nomic@iastate.edu Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: #### No info available for transact-digest. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:42:39 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Welcome to transact-digest Disregard this. It's just the result of the nomic list being subscribed to the transaction digest. >-- > >Welcome to the transact-digest mailing list! > >If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, >send the following command in email to >"transact-digest-request@iastate.edu": > > unsubscribe > >Or you can send mail to "majordomo@iastate.edu" with the following command >in the body of your email message: > > unsubscribe transact-digest nomic@iastate.edu > >Here's the general information for the list you've >subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: > >#### No info available for transact-digest. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:50:15 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 435 Joel D Uckelman writes: >Is Knight's Prop 435 redundant? > >"A registered member of Beserker Nomic is defined as someone who can >legally contribute proposals to the Beserker Nomic mailing list, and is >unanimously recognised as a registered member by all other people who can >legally contribute proposals on the Beserker Nomic mailing list." > >Non-players are not allowed to affect the game, so "registered member" >would be synonomous with Player, which is already defined. > >Also, requiring unanimous consent for registration seems as though it would >have deleterious effects on the game, e.g. if I decided unilaterally to >stop recognizing Josh as a player, he wouldn't be. The giant "ABUSE" >warning light flashes... Hypothetically speaking, of course. -- I'm sure a mathematician would claim that 0 and 1 are both very interesting numbers. :-) - Larry Wall ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:05:32 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: auction 2 subers for the first 100 hexes ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:34:15 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Nomic: More auction stuff >0236 - 0.83 - JU >0237 - 0.83 - JU >0335 - 0.83 - JU >0337 - 0.83 - JU >0436 - 0.83 - JU >0437 - 0.83 - JU I've already bid one for the first one hundred parcels. Wasn't this legal, somehow? ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:31:41 -0500 From: RJ KNIGHT <106713.3367@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 435 Well, I'm not really sure about redundancy, I just wanted to define our borders. There doesn't seem to be any specific rules about this kind of thing. Maybe the unanimous thing was a bad idea, but once we've all registered ourselves, we can sort out the exact ways of becoming unresgistered afterwards. Anyway: Change the phrase: "all other people" in my proposal to "a simple majority of the people" ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:41:05 CST From: Josh Subject: Re: Nomic: More auction stuff RJ KNIGHT writes: > >>0236 - 0.83 - JU >>0237 - 0.83 - JU >>0335 - 0.83 - JU >>0337 - 0.83 - JU >>0436 - 0.83 - JU >>0437 - 0.83 - JU > >I've already bid one for the first one hundred parcels. Wasn't this legal, >somehow? Your bids now are irrelevant unless you care to bid > 3000S. Read your mail. Josh -- There is no hell. There is only France. - Zappa ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:05:53 -0600 From: Andrew Proescholdt Subject: Nomic: prop 439 Delete the last paragraph of prop 439. Ed ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:50:51 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: sale! sale! everything must go! The Treasury is interested in selling a portion of its commodities so the players have inputs for their enterprises. Prices are negotiable -- make an offer. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:47:30 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Nomic: Prop 435 At 02:31 PM 1/28/99 , Knight wrote: >Well, I'm not really sure about redundancy, I just wanted to define our >borders. There doesn't seem to be any specific rules about this kind of >thing. Maybe the unanimous thing was a bad idea, but once we've all >registered ourselves, we can sort out the exact ways of becoming >unresgistered afterwards. Anyway: > >Change the phrase: "all other people" in my proposal to "a simple majority >of the people" I have a feeling that your proposal doesn't say what you intended it to after that change: "A registered member of Beserker Nomic is defined as someone who can legally contribute proposals to the Beserker Nomic mailing list, and is unanimously recognised as a registered member by a simple majority of the people who can legally contribute proposals on the Beserker Nomic mailing list." How can one be "unanimously recognized as a registered memeber by a simple majority"? J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:03:56 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: resources Players wishing to run their enterprises next turn need to buy the necessary commodities during this turn. The treasury will sell the commodities needed to run each enterprise at very low cost to the Player. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:04:42 +0100 From: "Ole Andersen" Subject: Sv: Nomic: resources Joel D Uckelman wrote: >Players wishing to run their enterprises next turn need to buy the >necessary commodities during this turn. The treasury will sell the >commodities needed to run each enterprise at very low cost to the Player. > I could sure use some spam and some energy, say 5 of the former and 20 of the latter, and then I will make 20 Ore. Ole http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/3637/ http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/8941/ home: siri.iben@get2net.dk palnatoke@get2net.dk (Ole) palnatoke@altavista.net (Ole) aeshna@get2net.dk (Kira) school: 1508oa@fiol.brock.dk (Ole) school: ktkock at stud.aki.ku.dk (Kira) ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:28:22 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Re: Sv: Nomic: resources At 11:04 AM 1/31/99 , you wrote: >Joel D Uckelman wrote: > > >>Players wishing to run their enterprises next turn need to buy the >>necessary commodities during this turn. The treasury will sell the >>commodities needed to run each enterprise at very low cost to the Player. >> > > >I could sure use some spam and some energy, say 5 of the former and 20 of >the latter, and then I will make 20 Ore. > >Ole I'll sell each player 1 spam for S1.00, and the resources they need to produce during the next turn at S1.00 per, except power at S0.10 per. All transactions will be executed over the transaction list. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/ ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:45:04 -0600 From: Joel D Uckelman Subject: Nomic: message logs and Y2K compliance The message logs for the first half of this month are now up. If anyone finds any problems in them, let me know. Also, the old filenames for the message logs used a yy-mm-dd format, but they now use yyyy-mm-dd. With that change, everything on the page is now Y2K compliant, so if anything bursts into flame at 00:00, 1 January 2000, it's not my fault. J. Uckelman uckelman@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/