Subject: Nomic: changes! improvements?

From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:25:09 -0500

I think these fix a few problems people noticed:

* A player is a playerlike entity capable of independent action. Each 
player must be exactly one real-world sentient being capable of passing
the Turing Test. No real-world sentient being may be more than one 
player.
Each player must have a uniquely identifying name, which may be 
specified
initially and changed only by the player emself.

[[No, your dog cannot play. Unless it is a very intelligent dog, that 
is. Adding the Turing Test requirement should be sufficient for what we 
want. I'm not worried about someone creating a computer program that 
passes the Turing Test just so it can play our game. Actually, that 
would be really cool, and should be highly encouraged. On the other 
hand, this brings to mind a joke about some *people* being unable to 
pass the TT...]]

* A player forfeits by declaring publicly eir intention to do so. No
restrictions may be placed on when a player may forfeit.

[[A slight rewording. The previous version could be read as implying 
that a player may forfeit only by committing suicide. Oops.]]

* A real-world being becomes a player whenever a Motion to Add em is 
passed.
A Motion to Add must include the prospective player's name, and may 
only be
made on behalf of a being who would qualify as a player as defined in 
the
rules. A Motion to Add may be made by any player at any time, and 
requires
a two-thirds majority vote or unanimous consent.

[[Again, a slight rewording--to prevent rocks, trees, dogs, etc. from 
being the object of Motions to Add.]]

* Any being that would qualify as a player may become one simply by 
publicly
declaring a desire to be so, but only during the first nweek of play.

[[This answers the concern about who the initial players are. Of 
course, we could also just have a rule listing them.]]

-- 
J. Uckelman
[email-masked]
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~uckelman/

---

From: desert search for techno allah <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:49:43 CDT

>hand, this brings to mind a joke about some *people* being unable to 

So do we get to play the Turing game, as an admission requirement?

"Capable of independent action." Hmmm.

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 23:02:06 -0500

>So do we get to play the Turing game, as an admission requirement?

Um, now that you mention it, that would be sort of neat. All this 
requires is that a prospective player be *capable* of passing it. Of 
course, the most straightforward way of demonstrating that would be to 
pass it. I would assume this would only come up in the face of a legal 
challenge, though. And what an interesting legal challenge it would be 
(as we hear Josh hauling out his copy of _Mind Design II_).

>"Capable of independent action." Hmmm.

This troubles you. Why?

---

From: desert search for techno allah <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:13:00 CDT

>(as we hear Josh hauling out his copy of _Mind Design II_).

Well, I would expect the requirement to be enforced, always. Don't
want any hamburger attempting to join the game; this nips that in
the bud. Plus I've always wanted to play the game.

>>"Capable of independent action." Hmmm.

Well, I just got this check from my parents, you see... :)

Josh

---

From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 15:36:57 -0400 (EDT)

Perhaps we should administer the Turing Test to any player who wishes to
join.  It is probably the simplest way to prove that they can indeed
pass it.

We could define the goal of this nomic as to sift through the masses of
humanity and tell the real humans from the numerous impostors through the
use of the Turing Test.  We could award players for showing humanity and
penalize players for mechanicalness, as determined by us.

DW