Subject: Re: Nomic: draft ruleset

From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:58:14 -0500 (CDT)

[[proposed additions for the 'Players, Playerlike Entities section':]]

If, at any time, there are no players in the game, the game is terminated
and considered finished. The last player to be in the game is the winner  
by default.
When the game is created, a single player, "Joel Uckelman", is
simultaneously created. [[or some other way to create the game with
players in it. otherwise there will be no one to make the first Motion to
Add!!]]

- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. C'est ne pas un e-mail.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush

---

From: Benjamin Bradley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:03:20 -0500 (CDT)

A college student myself and a card-carrying procrastinator, I suggest
that we set a starting date for the game in 3-4 weeks. Otherwise, it won't
happen.

---

From: desert search for techno allah <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 18:23:13 CDT

>players in it. otherwise there will be no one to make the first Motion to

No way am I going to OK that bitch Joel ever being the only player
in the game.

yours truly,

Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
      tdr: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/tdr/

---

From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 18:33:16 -0500

> No way am I going to OK that bitch Joel ever being the only player

You're funny, Josh.

Is the concern here that we can't just start with an arbitrary group of players? If that is your worry, I should mention that I had always assumed we could start with whatever players assented to commencing play, not that they would need to be added one at a time after the start of the game. Possibly that needs to be made explicit.  Or is it something else? 

Also, I'm not sure of the necessity of declaring the last player in the game the winner--e could just do that emself.
-- 
J. Uckelman
[email-masked]
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/

---

From: desert search for techno allah <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 18:45:42 CDT

>> No way am I going to OK that bitch Joel ever being the only player

I am also deadly serious. Biatch!

>Is the concern here that we can't just start with an arbitrary group of player
>s? If that is your worry, I should mention that I had always assumed we could 
>start with whatever players assented to commencing play, not that they would n
>eed to be added one at a time after the start of the game. Possibly that needs
> to be made explicit.  Or is it something else? 

No, it's that we can't just start with _you_ as an arbitrary group
of player. I know, Joel is scrupulous, etc. etc., but I would rather
not have someone restart the game, etc. and leave you magically
the only one left.

>he winner--e could just do that emself.

Yes. And that seems more fun too.

Josh

---

From: Roger Carbol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 18:30:35 -0600

Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Also, I'm not sure of the necessity of declaring the 
> last player in the game the winner--e could just do that emself.

Not necessarily -- there are lots of gamestates in which the
last player might not be able to do that.  Fer instance,
Axiom Mediocrity, in which the penultimate player is declared
the winner.

.. Roger Carbol .. [email-masked]

---

From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:32:11 -0500

>.. Roger Carbol .. [email-masked]

Well, actually I was thinking about that. It would be at least humorous 
if someone were the last player and could find no way to win.

---

From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:26:36 -0500

> not have someone restart the game, etc. and leave you magically

Aha. I see the problem now. I'll see what I can do about that.