From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 07:24:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] test Message-ID: OK, I think this is finally working properly. Test test test, test. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 07:31:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:31:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > OK, I think this is finally working properly. Test test test, test. Test wop a lubop, a test bang boom? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 15:26:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:26:41 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] test Message-ID: > OK, I think this is finally working properly. Test test test, test. Hello, fellow players. .. Roger Carbol .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 19:26:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:26:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <14903530.1042153519@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Rule 7. The state of the game may not be altered in any manner not > prescribed by the rules. (Commentary: This means that players may only > alter the gamestate as prescribed by the rules, as intended, but also that > non-players or external agencies cannot alter the rules either unless a > rule specifically allows it.) > > Perhaps also: > > Rule 8: "The state of the game" shall consist of the current set of players > and the current list of rules, as well as anything added to this definition > by a future Rule. I'm willing to accept these two, and perhaps even leave out Rule 6. But I would like them to be in the opposite order. Just an aesthetic thing; if there's a rule defining a term, the definition should come before it is used. In addition, Greg Travis is backing out. Thus, I wish to remove him from Rule 3 of my proposal. (Since we haven't agreed on an initial ruleset yet, I'd say that the game hasn't really started, so this is just pre-game planning still. If this troubles you, think of it as the last game entering a dead state through the nonparticipation of one member, and me proposing that we start a new game.) I have dropped him from this mailing list, which is currently outside the scope of the proposed rules anyway. With Greg's departure, it is now the case that all participants are on ifMUD. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 20:35:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:35:59 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40696808.1042230959@cornelius> > I'm willing to accept these two, and perhaps even leave out Rule > 6. But I would like them to be in the opposite order. Just an > aesthetic thing; if there's a rule defining a term, the > definition should come before it is used. Yeah, I'd agree about the order. With regards to removing Rule 6, though, unless I'm mistaken this would leave us with no mechanism for altering the rules, which is probably not what we want. For the sake of formalities I'll also mention that I'll accept the removal of Greg Travis from rule 3. Would it be possible for you to modify the mailing list to include a Reply-To: nomic02@wurb.com header, to make replying easier? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 10 21:11:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:11:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <40696808.1042230959@cornelius> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Yeah, I'd agree about the order. With regards to removing Rule 6, though, > unless I'm mistaken this would leave us with no mechanism for altering the > rules, which is probably not what we want. I meant rule 5. The Limitation of Scope rule. The proposed rules 7 and 8 seem to express everything I want from rule 5. > Would it be possible for you to modify the mailing list to include a > Reply-To: nomic02@wurb.com header, to make replying easier? I could, but I'm a little reluctant to because that's Considered Harmful. (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) Given a reasonable mail client - and even the command-line-based Unix "mail" command counts as "reasonable" by this criterion - replying to the list is no more difficult than replying to the author of a message. However, there is also the reasonable argument that using the reply-to-all function usually replies to both the list and the sender who is also on the list, which is redundant and wasteful and potentially snowballs until everyone on the list is receiving two copies of every reply. So I'll make this change unless someone objects. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 03:03:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 03:03:56 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63974109.1042254236@cornelius> > I meant rule 5. The Limitation of Scope rule. The proposed rules 7 and 8 > seem to express everything I want from rule 5. I disagree. Rule 5 as it stands states that the game cannot affect things that are not part of it, as well as the other way around. Without it, we could (in theory) pass a rule to the effect of "Carl Muckenhoupt must pay each of the other players $5 each time he wishes to perform any action within the game". Possibly this could be incorporated into Rule 7, but I think it ought to be mentioned. >> Would it be possible for you to modify the mailing list to include a >> Reply-To: nomic02@wurb.com header, to make replying easier? > > I could, but I'm a little reluctant to because that's Considered > Harmful. (http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) Given a > reasonable mail client - and even the command-line-based Unix > "mail" command counts as "reasonable" by this criterion - replying to > the list is no more difficult than replying to the author of a > message. However, there is also the reasonable argument that using the > reply-to-all function usually replies to both the list and the sender who > is also on the list, which is redundant and wasteful and potentially > snowballs until everyone on the list is receiving two copies of every > reply. So I'll make this change unless someone objects. Well, Mulberry manages to make replying to the list somewhat more complicated than replying to just the author, but having looked again it turns out it is at least possible (without having to copy the emails addresses by hand). So, given the reasons listed in the web page you cited, I'm willing to retract this request - though by all means do it anyway if you think it'll reduce the frequency with which we receive two copies of each reply to posts to the list ... jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 03:11:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:11:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <63974109.1042254236@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > I meant rule 5. The Limitation of Scope rule. The proposed rules 7 and 8 > > seem to express everything I want from rule 5. > > I disagree. Rule 5 as it stands states that the game cannot affect things > that are not part of it, as well as the other way around. Without it, we > could (in theory) pass a rule to the effect of "Carl Muckenhoupt must pay > each of the other players $5 each time he wishes to perform any action > within the game". Possibly this could be incorporated into Rule 7, but I > think it ought to be mentioned. I don't see where you get that from, exactly. Why would #5 prevent us from making a rule like that? baf's in the game since he's one of the players, and even if he weren't, we could make a rule adding him to the game state. Of course, baf would probably vote against such a rule, but that's a different matter. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 11:50:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:50:32 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <769716.1042285832@cornelius> > I don't see where you get that from, exactly. Why would #5 prevent us > from making a rule like that? baf's in the game since he's one of the > players, and even if he weren't, we could make a rule adding him to the > game state. Of course, baf would probably vote against such a rule, but > that's a different matter. baf as a player is in the game, but the current Rule 5 prevents the game from having any effect on real-world concerns like, in my example, money. I don't think that the argument that we could pass a rule adding it to the gamestate is valid here, as by that argument none of the initial rules count for anything since they can all be altered. To be honest, I'm not overly bothered about this, but I thought I ought to point out that we are losing something if we remove Rule 5. I'm suspecting that in practice this is unlikely to be an issue, so remove it if you like. jw ps. Do we really need to send emails to one member of the list and cc them to the rest of the list, so that the intended receipient gets them twice? From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 11:52:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 06:52:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: <769716.1042285832@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > baf as a player is in the game, but the current Rule 5 prevents the game > from having any effect on real-world concerns like, in my example, money. I > don't think that the argument that we could pass a rule adding it to the > gamestate is valid here, as by that argument none of the initial rules > count for anything since they can all be altered. By that logic, you couldn't make a rule saying that rules can only be submitted via email without making a rule to include the players' computers in the game state, no? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 16:05:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:05:08 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16045982.1042301108@cornelius> > By that logic, you couldn't make a rule saying that rules can only be > submitted via email without making a rule to include the players' > computers in the game state, no? Since I've already said that I don't object to dropping Rule 5, I think this easiest thing may be to let this debate rest. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 19:03:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:03:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Re: Nomic start In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rule 5 specifically limits its exclusion to "things that are not explicitly mentioned in the rules". If we add a rule that mentions money, Rule 5 no longer excludes money from the game. Yes, it's a trivial rule. All the rules in my proposal are trivial. I'd be willing to try something more formal - say, adding a distinction between Rules and Definitions, and stating that only terms with Definitions may be used in Rules - but I'd like to pass the simpler proposed ruleset first. Also, I'm starting to change my mind about leaving Rule 5 out. It is good to have it there in addition to the proposed rules about "the state of the game", because actions are not part of the state of the game. For example, Rule 5 makes it clear that discussion of rules on this list is not a part of the game, so if the "Carl pays money for any action in the game" rule were to pass, I could still participate in game discussions on this list for free. Finally, having seen no strong objection to munging reply-to (other than my own), I've decided to go ahead with it. If anyone complains, I'll undo it. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 11 19:35:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:35:41 -0500 Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal Message-ID: To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates all suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? And "aye" from all of you and it's done. Not that I want to pressure you or anything. Feel free to object to anything you find objectionable. Rule 1. This is a game. Rule 2. A rule is a series of one or more statements in English. This game has a set of rules, consisting of Rule 1 and all the rules that follow it. Rule 3. This game has a set of players. At the start of the game, this set consists of Adam Biltcliffe, Roger Carbol, Admiral Jota, and Carl Muckenhoupt. Rule 4. All players must obey the rules. That is, all players must, to the best of their ability, behave in such a manner that the rules are satisfied. Rule 5. Any action or thing, whether actual or notional, that is neither explicitly mentioned in the rules nor otherwise brought into the game in a manner described by the rules is not a part of the game. Rule 6. The players may change the rules by unanimous agreement. Rule 7. "The state of the game" shall consist of the current set of players and the current list of rules, as well as anything added to this definition by a future Rule. Rule 8. The state of the game may not be altered in any manner not prescribed by the rules. In addition to the above, I'm starting to think about a rule to explicitly state the point that Adam saw in Rule 5 that Jota disagreed with. Something like "No rule may specifically require any effect on anything that is not part of the state of the game." But this is a separate matter, not part of the above proposal. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 12 00:09:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:09:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates all suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? > And "aye" from all of you and it's done. Not that I want to pressure you or anything. Feel free to object to > anything you find objectionable. Aye. > In addition to the above, I'm starting to think about a rule to explicitly state the point that Adam saw in > Rule 5 that Jota disagreed with. Something like "No rule may specifically require any effect on anything that > is not part of the state of the game." But this is a separate matter, not part of the above proposal. As a separate rule, to be voted on once we ratify the main ruleset and formally start the game? Sure. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 12 02:40:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 02:40:23 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54160809.1042339223@cornelius> > To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates > all suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? And > "aye" from all of you and it's done. Aye! jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 13 15:40:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:40:32 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Updated initial rules proposal Message-ID: > To summarize, here's an initial ruleset that incorporates all=20 > suggestions made so far. Can we agree on it? =20 Aye. =20 .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 13 19:13:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:13:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Web site Message-ID: I've created a web site for this game at http://www.wurb.com/nomic/02. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 14 23:38:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:38:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions Message-ID: Some of these proposals obviously depend on others, but for the most part I'd be happy to consider them individually. I. Rules governing rules A. Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule. B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number overrides the rule with the lesser number. The rule with the lesser number still applies in matters where no higher-numbered rule applies. C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. (Commentary: This depends on I.B. or some similar mechanism for resolving conflicts. Also, note that with such a mechanism, this rule itself could be overridden by a later rule, and thus should be seen as only applying to normal rule-making procedures.) D. No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of the state of the game, except by making it part of the state of the game. E. Changes to the rules do not take effect until midnight GMT following their adoption. (Commentary: I'd be happy to accept something else here. I just want it to be clear exactly when rules go into effect.) II. Decision making procedures A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken care to make sure that the following rules comply with I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.) B. "Unanimous consent" refers to the following process: A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit to be decided by unanimous consent. If all other players post a reply to the proposal indicating agreement by using the word "aye", the proposal goes into effect. C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process: A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit to be decided by passive consent. If no player posts a reply to the proposal indicating disagreement by using the word "nay" within 48 hours, or some other period specified by the rule, the proposal goes into effect. D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process: A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit to be decided by majority rule. For the next 48 hours, or some other period specified by the rule, players have the opportunity to post a vote, either "aye" or "nay", and may change their vote at any time by posting the new vote. The proposer is assumed to cast an "aye" vote until changing it. After the voting period is over, the proposal goes into effect if the number of players voting "aye" is strictly greater than the number of players voting "nay". III. Specific decision-making A. Rules may be added by majority rule. (Commentary: Note that this only concerns adding rules, not removing or changing existing rules. Rules may still be removed or changed by unanimous consent, unless we pass I.C.) B. Any person who posts a request to join the game may be added to the players by passive consent. (Commentary: As passive consent is defined in II.C., there still has to be a proposal by a player. Thus, each new player needs a sponsor.) IV. Rule-breaking A. Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be assigned to that player by majority rule. Demerits are part of the state of the game. B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely from the state of the game. C. Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that were not part of the state of the game when the violation occurred. V. Endings A. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so. When this happens, the player is removed entirely from the state of the game. B. It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and all players who have not won will lose. VI. Let's give this game some content other than itself already. A. The state of the game contains a map, consisting of rooms. The map contains a room called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map. The Lounge is the initial location of every player. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 09:58:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:58:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Some of these proposals obviously depend on others, but for the most > part I'd be happy to consider them individually. Woah, rule overload. > I. Rules governing rules > A. Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each > new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule. > B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number > overrides the rule with the lesser number. The rule with the > lesser number still applies in matters where no higher-numbered > rule applies. > C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the > rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. (Commentary: > This depends on I.B. or some similar mechanism for resolving > conflicts. Also, note that with such a mechanism, this rule > itself could be overridden by a later rule, and thus should be > seen as only applying to normal rule-making procedures.) > D. No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of > the state of the game, except by making it part of the state > of the game. > E. Changes to the rules do not take effect until midnight > GMT following their adoption. (Commentary: I'd be happy to > accept something else here. I just want it to be clear exactly > when rules go into effect.) Most of this seems fairly unecessary. The conflicting rules thing can be dealt with when it comes up, IMO. I'd only keep the last one, part E. Although, perhaps rules ratified between 2300 and 0100 GMT should be delayed until the following noon, to prevent any disagreement over clocks? > II. Decision making procedures > A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at > nomic02@wurb.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is > still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken > care to make sure that the following rules comply with > I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under > these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.) In that case, how about these rules: Scoring: Each player in the game will have one or more point tallies associated with him or her, as a part of the game state. These will have (signed) integer values. Initially, each player will have tallies referred to as "Brownie" points and "Penalty" points, which both start at 0. Later rules may add new tallies, remove existing tallies, change the current values of tallies, or describe methods for doing any of those three things. The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point. > B. "Unanimous consent" refers to the following process: > A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit > to be decided by unanimous consent. > If all other players post a reply to the proposal > indicating agreement by using the word "aye", > the proposal goes into effect. Sure. But I'd suggest rewording this to define both "aye" and "nay" respectively in this rule. > C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process: > A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit > to be decided by passive consent. > If no player posts a reply to the proposal indicating > disagreement by using the word "nay" within 48 hours, > or some other period specified by the rule, > the proposal goes into effect. > D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process: > A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit > to be decided by majority rule. For the next 48 hours, > or some other period specified by the rule, players have the > opportunity to post a vote, either "aye" or "nay", > and may change their vote at any time by posting the > new vote. The proposer is assumed to cast an "aye" > vote until changing it. After the voting period is over, > the proposal goes into effect if the number of players > voting "aye" is strictly greater than the number of > players voting "nay". Nah, I don't care for much of that, personally. How about... Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified or vetoed. I don't like the idea of three players being allowed to force through a proposal that the fourth player is against -- but I don't mind idlers being ignored, provided they have sufficient time to make an argument. [III] Section III is mainly about majority decisions, which I'm not in favor of, so. > IV. Rule-breaking > A. Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by > a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that > is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be > assigned to that player by majority rule. Demerits are part > of the state of the game. > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed > entirely from the state of the game. > C. Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that > were not part of the state of the game when the violation > occurred. Mmm. I'd made my earlier comments before reading down this far, since there was so much to read here. I'm fine with this, and with my earlier rule about not posting be amended to refer to demerits instead of penalty points. > V. Endings > A. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting > intention to do so. When this happens, the player is > removed entirely from the state of the game. > B. It is possible for players to win or lose by means > to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be > removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not > rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and > all players who have not won will lose. Sure. > VI. Let's give this game some content other than itself already. > A. The state of the game contains a map, consisting of rooms. > The map contains a room called "the Lounge". All players > have a location on the map. The Lounge is the initial > location of every player. Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD? (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID. The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification should still be in effect, so.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 10:32:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:32:25 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) Message-ID: <94734561.1042626745@cornelius> oops, I sent this just to baf the first time by mistake, so here it is for everyone: --On 14 January 2003 6:38 pm -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Some of these proposals obviously depend on others, but for the most > part I'd be happy to consider them individually. > > I. Rules governing rules > A. Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each > new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule. Sounds simple enough, although something bothers me about the phrasing. My instinct would be "one greater than the greatest number currently assigned to any rule"; I can't work out whether this is actually any different. > B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number > overrides the rule with the lesser number. The rule with the > lesser number still applies in matters where no higher-numbered > rule applies. Sure. > C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the > rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. I'm not dead against this, but I'm curious as to why you're suggesting it. > D. No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of > the state of the game, except by making it part of the state > of the game. Yes. I think that's the effect that I felt was missing from Rule 5. > E. Changes to the rules do not take effect until midnight > GMT following their adoption. (Commentary: I'd be happy to > accept something else here. I just want it to be clear exactly > when rules go into effect.) I can see situations where this could needlessly slow things down. I think this rule could be better covered by the rules defining decision-making procedures below. > II. Decision making procedures > A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at > nomic02@wurb.com. Aye. > B. "Unanimous consent" refers to the following process: > A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit > to be decided by unanimous consent. > If all other players post a reply to the proposal > indicating agreement by using the word "aye", > the proposal goes into effect. Suggest changing the ending to "may be brought into effect as soon as the last player has replied" (see my new proposal II.E below). It might be wise to introduce some means of coping with inactive players at some point. > C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process: > A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit > to be decided by passive consent. > If no player posts a reply to the proposal indicating > disagreement by using the word "nay" within 48 hours, > or some other period specified by the rule, > the proposal goes into effect. "... may be brought into effect as soon as this period has elapsed." > D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process: > A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit > to be decided by majority rule. For the next 48 hours, > or some other period specified by the rule, players have the > opportunity to post a vote, either "aye" or "nay", > and may change their vote at any time by posting the > new vote. The proposer is assumed to cast an "aye" > vote until changing it. After the voting period is over, > the proposal goes into effect if the number of players > voting "aye" is strictly greater than the number of > players voting "nay". "... may be brought into effect as soon as the voting period is over, provided that the number of players ..." Then add: E. When the rules specify that a change "may be brought into effect", the player who proposed the rule may post an announcement that the rule has come into effect (along with a summary of the voting if it is felt that this would be helpful). The rule comes into effect as soon as this announcement is posted. It does not come into effect before this. (Commentary: this makes players responsible for tracking their own proposals and so makes it harder for one to be 'missed'. It also makes it clear exactly when a new rule has come into effect. I assume the mailing list is fast enough that it can be assumed that all players will be aware of everything that has been posted to it immediately? Even if not, we can't end up in a situation where someone is penalised for posting something now forbidden by a new rule since posts to the list are not part of the state of the game. Also, I hope I'm right in thinking that the wording of Rule 8 allows changes to the rules to come into effect when they're announced on the list without the list being part of the state of the game?) > III. Specific decision-making > A. Rules may be added by majority rule. (Commentary: Note that > this only concerns adding rules, not removing or changing > existing rules. Rules may still be removed or changed by > unanimous consent, unless we pass I.C.) On the other hand, if we didn't pass I.C, adding new rules would require majority consent while changing or removing them would require unanimous consent, which seems like a good situation. I'm not sure I see the point in forbidding anything which the players agree to unanimously. > B. Any person who posts a request to join the game may be > added to the players by passive consent. (Commentary: > As passive consent is defined in II.C., there still has > to be a proposal by a player. Thus, each new player > needs a sponsor.) I agree in principle, but it seems as though the official wording ought to make the need for a sponsor clearer. > IV. Rule-breaking > A. Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by > a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that > is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be > assigned to that player by majority rule. Demerits are part > of the state of the game. > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed > entirely from the state of the game. > C. Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that > were not part of the state of the game when the violation > occurred. This all seems fine, except that I would suggest that IV.A be amended to prohibit the rulebreaking player from voting on their own demeriting. > V. Endings > A. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting > intention to do so. When this happens, the player is > removed entirely from the state of the game. We'll need to bear in mind that additions to the state of the game which are associated with a player may need to specify what happens when that player is removed from the game, but yes. > B. It is possible for players to win or lose by means > to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be > removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not > rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and > all players who have not won will lose. Yes. I also suggest: C. If at any time there is only one player remaining in the game then the game shall end and that player shall be deemed to have won. > VI. Let's give this game some content other than itself already. > A. The state of the game contains a map, consisting of rooms. > The map contains a room called "the Lounge". All players > have a location on the map. The Lounge is the initial > location of every player. Sure, why not? Also, am I correct in thinking that as the map is part of the state of the game, all its properties (such as the locations of players within it) are also part of the state of the game? jw ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 10:43:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 05:43:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <94734561.1042626745@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I can see situations where this could needlessly slow things down. I think > this rule could be better covered by the rules defining decision-making > procedures below. [....] > Suggest changing the ending to "may be brought into effect as soon as the > last player has replied" (see my new proposal II.E below). What if a rule goes into effect one hour after ratification? I'm only saying that out of concern of message propagation and such -- so you won't inadvertantly send out a message that breaks a rule because the last vote didn't have time to get to your inbox before you sent your "move" or whatever. > It might be wise to introduce some means of coping with inactive players at > some point. My penalty for not posting, combined with baf's three demerit disqualifier would do it, provided they were modified to use the same language for the penalties/demerits. > > IV. Rule-breaking > > A. Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by > > a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that > > is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be > > assigned to that player by majority rule. Demerits are part > > of the state of the game. > > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed > > entirely from the state of the game. > > C. Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that > > were not part of the state of the game when the violation > > occurred. > > This all seems fine, except that I would suggest that IV.A be amended to > prohibit the rulebreaking player from voting on their own demeriting. Why? If it's actually a *majority* ruling (the rule ought to avoid the word "rule" here, since a "rule" is a rule of the game), then they'll presumably be in the minority. Unless they're in the majority :) > > V. Endings > > A. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting > > intention to do so. When this happens, the player is > > removed entirely from the state of the game. > > We'll need to bear in mind that additions to the state of the game which > are associated with a player may need to specify what happens when that > player is removed from the game, but yes. How about adding to VA, "portions of the game state specifically associated to that player and no other player cease to exist, unless otherwise specified in another rule" and "portions of the game state associated with both that player and other player(s) will revert to only the other player(s) with which they are associated", or somesuch? > Yes. I also suggest: > > C. If at any time there is only one player remaining in the game then the > game shall end and that player shall be deemed to have won. Sure. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 10:47:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:47:48 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95656606.1042627667@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 4:58 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > Woah, rule overload. Indeed. Since we don't have a formal mechanism for dealing with proposed rule-changes in place yet, I hope this doesn't get too confusing. >> I. Rules governing rules >> A. Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each >> new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule. >> B. When two rules conflict, the rule with the greater number >> overrides the rule with the lesser number [...] >> C. Rules may not be changed or removed [...] >> D. No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of >> the state of the game, except by making it part of the state >> of the game. >> E. Changes to the rules do not take effect until midnight >> GMT following their adoption. (Commentary: I'd be happy to >> accept something else here. I just want it to be clear exactly >> when rules go into effect.) > > Most of this seems fairly unecessary. The conflicting rules thing can be > dealt with when it comes up, IMO. I'd only keep the last one, part E. > Although, perhaps rules ratified between 2300 and 0100 GMT should be > delayed until the following noon, to prevent any disagreement over clocks? I've already voiced my disagreement with I.C here. I.A I think we should have just for ease of reference in discussing the rules. I.B is perhaps not necessary since a proposed rule can be phrased to take account of the rules existing at the time (assuming there's nothing here which causes a problem with rules which state they override other rules). I guess it might be useful for resolving conflicts in the rules which aren't noticed when the rules are originally passed. I still disagree with I.E, since Jota's suggestion doesn't change anything: people can still disagree about whether a rule was passed before or after 2300. I'm still in favour of having rules come into effect when the original proponent announces that the rule has been ratified. >> II. Decision making procedures >> A. To "post" something is to send it to the mailing list at >> nomic02@wurb.com. (Commentary: At this point, the list is >> still not part of "the state of the game". I have taken >> care to make sure that the following rules comply with >> I.D. - although posting is a big part of the game under >> these proposals, no one is ever required to post anything.) > > In that case, how about these rules: > > Scoring: Each player in the game will have one or more point tallies > associated with him or her, as a part of the game state. These will have > (signed) integer values. Initially, each player will have tallies referred > to as "Brownie" points and "Penalty" points, which both start at 0. Later > rules may add new tallies, remove existing tallies, change the current > values of tallies, or describe methods for doing any of those three > things. Are you withdrawing this suggestion in favour of baf's demerits? > The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered > a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" > something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a > week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest > post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest > invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point. I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing list be considered part of the state of the game. >> B. "Unanimous consent" refers to the following process: >> A player posts a proposal of a kind that the rules permit >> to be decided by unanimous consent. >> If all other players post a reply to the proposal >> indicating agreement by using the word "aye", >> the proposal goes into effect. > > Sure. But I'd suggest rewording this to define both "aye" and "nay" > respectively in this rule. Actually, I'm not agreeing to this yet; I think it would be simpler to use Jota's passive dissent rule below to determine when a unanimous agreement has been reached and use that for all decision-making. >> C. "Passive consent" refers to the following process: [...] >> D. "Majority rule" refers to the following process: [..] > > Nah, I don't care for much of that, personally. How about... > > Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". > Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the > voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but > may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a > proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may > change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified or vetoed. This would be simpler, and I'd be content for it to replace all three of baf's proposed ruling methods. The only actual difference would be that, as Jota says, three players couldn't force through a proposal the fourth player is opposed to, and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. > [III] > > Section III is mainly about majority decisions, which I'm not in favor of, > so. I'd suggest that the suggestion outlining the "Active Dissent" process be reworded to the effect that, if no-one vetoes the suggestion,the players be deemed to have reached unanimous agreement. In that case, this mechanism can be used to change the rules according to the existing Rule 6, removing the need for baf's proposal III.A. With regards to III.B, I suggest a new rule: "Players may be added to the state of the game by unanimous agreement", assuming again that we employ Jota's suggestion for determining when unanimous agreement has been reached. [rule-breaking discussion snipped] [endings discussion snipped] >> VI. Let's give this game some content other than itself already. >> A. The state of the game contains a map, consisting of rooms. >> The map contains a room called "the Lounge". All players >> have a location on the map. The Lounge is the initial >> location of every player. > > Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD? Just calling the initial room "the Lounge" hardly means that the whole map has to be based on the MUD. Do you have an alternate suggestion? > (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID. > The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The > others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification > should still be in effect, so.) So, VA and VB have been ratified by everyone except Roger ... nothing else seems to be in danger of passing just yet. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 11:02:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:02:23 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96531825.1042628543@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 5:43 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > What if a rule goes into effect one hour after ratification? I'm only > saying that out of concern of message propagation and such -- so you won't > inadvertantly send out a message that breaks a rule because the last vote > didn't have time to get to your inbox before you sent your "move" or > whatever. I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk about on this list is restricted (this is why I've been against the content of the list becoming part of the state of the game - but at present Rule 8 allows things which are not part of the game to influence it anyway if the rules say so). Having rules come into effect an hour after ratification would be fine by me, but it'd still be nice (especially if we're using active dissent) to see a message from the proponent to the effect of "the period of dissent for this rule has ended; the rule will come into effect at 14:30 GMT". >> It might be wise to introduce some means of coping with inactive players >> at some point. > > My penalty for not posting, combined with baf's three demerit disqualifier > would do it, provided they were modified to use the same language for the > penalties/demerits. Right. As it stands that could prevent us from making any 'unanimous' decisions for three weeks, but if we use the active dissent rule the issue of inactive players becomes less important anyway. >> > IV. Rule-breaking >> > A. Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by >> > a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that >> > is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be >> > assigned to that player by majority rule. Demerits are part >> > of the state of the game. >> > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed >> > entirely from the state of the game. >> > C. Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that >> > were not part of the state of the game when the violation >> > occurred. >> >> This all seems fine, except that I would suggest that IV.A be amended to >> prohibit the rulebreaking player from voting on their own demeriting. > > Why? If it's actually a *majority* ruling (the rule ought to avoid the > word "rule" here, since a "rule" is a rule of the game), then they'll > presumably be in the minority. Unless they're in the majority :) As it stands, this means that only one player other than the player being courtmartialled need object for the demerit not to pass. If that's what we want, fine. (For the sake of simplicity, though, I'm still in favour of eliminating "majority ruling" altogether and using active dissent for everything, in which case we'd need to prevent the violating player from vetoing their own demeriting but would end up with basically the same suggestion as you have here.) Also, the first half of V.A could perhaps be more elegantly rephrased as "whenever a player violates Rule 4 ..." >> > V. Endings >> > A. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting >> > intention to do so. When this happens, the player is >> > removed entirely from the state of the game. >> >> We'll need to bear in mind that additions to the state of the game which >> are associated with a player may need to specify what happens when that >> player is removed from the game, but yes. > > How about adding to VA, "portions of the game state specifically > associated to that player and no other player cease to exist, unless > otherwise specified in another rule" and "portions of the game state > associated with both that player and other player(s) will revert to only > the other player(s) with which they are associated", or somesuch? Sure. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 11:13:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:13:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: <95656606.1042627667@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I've already voiced my disagreement with I.C here. I.A I think we should > have just for ease of reference in discussing the rules. OK. I'll vote aye on I.A. > I still disagree with I.E, since Jota's suggestion doesn't change > anything: people can still disagree about whether a rule was passed > before or after 2300. Fair enough. > I'm still in favour of having rules > come into effect when the original proponent announces that the rule has > been ratified. Mrm. That still leaves people operating under rules they have no reasonable way of knowing about yet, though. It seems to me that *some* kind of delay would be of value, even if it's just 'one hour from announcement/ratification/whatever' -- even if people disagree about when the hour's up, anyone who's taking game actions near that time would have no excuse to not know that the rule was about to come into effect, and would be acting at their own risk. > Are you withdrawing this suggestion in favour of baf's demerits? Yeah. I can propose brownie points separately. > > The Mailing List: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered > > a part of the game state, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" > > something is to send it to the list. Any player who does note post for a > > week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest > > post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > > penalty point. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest > > invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional penalty point. > > I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing > list be considered part of the state of the game. Not the *content* of the list, necessarily. Just the list itself, as a notional entity that one can act on (or fail to act on). > I'd suggest that the suggestion outlining the "Active Dissent" process be > reworded to the effect that, if no-one vetoes the suggestion,the players be > deemed to have reached unanimous agreement. In that case, this mechanism > can be used to change the rules according to the existing Rule 6, removing > the need for baf's proposal III.A. OK, how's this: Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified. If at any point, all players have voted in favor of on a particular proposal (either by actively voting "aye", or by failing to vote "nay" within the alotted 72 hours), the proposer of the rule may officially declare it to have been ratified by unanimous consent. > With regards to III.B, I suggest a new rule: "Players may be added to the > state of the game by unanimous agreement", assuming again that we employ > Jota's suggestion for determining when unanimous agreement has been reached. I'll vote for that. > > Playgurizm! Er, I mean, how about a map not initially based on ifMUD? > > Just calling the initial room "the Lounge" hardly means that the whole map > has to be based on the MUD. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Nah, just feeling contrary. I retract my complaint, and vote aye :) > > (Note that the only proposals I've formally voted against are IIC and IID. > > The only ones I've formally voted in favor of are IIB, VA and VB. The > > others I haven't formally voted on, but the rule of unanimous ratification > > should still be in effect, so.) > > So, VA and VB have been ratified by everyone except Roger ... nothing else > seems to be in danger of passing just yet. And now I.A and VI.A are 75% in as well. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 11:19:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:19:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <96531825.1042628543@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk about > on this list is restricted (this is why I've been against the content of > the list becoming part of the state of the game - but at present Rule 8 > allows things which are not part of the game to influence it anyway if the > rules say so). Yeah, I didn't mean breaking rules about message content. I meant about game actions. Like if you said, "OK, I move from the Lounge to Washington DC, and drop a banana there", at the same time a rule prohibiting bringing produce into national capitals was ratified, it'd get messy. > Having rules come into effect an hour after ratification > would be fine by me, but it'd still be nice (especially if we're using > active dissent) to see a message from the proponent to the effect of "the > period of dissent for this rule has ended; the rule will come into effect > at 14:30 GMT". Sure. > As it stands, this means that only one player other than the player being > courtmartialled need object for the demerit not to pass. If that's what we > want, fine. (For the sake of simplicity, though, I'm still in favour of > eliminating "majority ruling" altogether and using active dissent for > everything, in which case we'd need to prevent the violating player from > vetoing their own demeriting but would end up with basically the same > suggestion as you have here.) OK. So, a unanimous ruling is needed to apply extra demerits, but the demeritee can't veto that ruling. Works for me. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 12:04:13 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (amgb2@cam.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:04:13 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <181843196.1042632252@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Splicing together my responses to both the conversation threads here, in a vague effort to reduce confusion: --On 15 January 2003 06:19 -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> I'm hoping we don't reach the point where what we're allowed to talk >> about on this list is restricted [...] > > Yeah, I didn't mean breaking rules about message content. I meant about > game actions. Like if you said, "OK, I move from the Lounge to Washington > DC, and drop a banana there", at the same time a rule prohibiting bringing > produce into national capitals was ratified, it'd get messy. Oops, you're entirely right. The suggestion I made about having rules come into effect an hour after final ratification and having the proponent post a message stating that the rule has been passed and exactly when it comes into effect covers all our concerns about this nicely, I think. > OK. So, a unanimous ruling is needed to apply extra demerits, but the > demeritee can't veto that ruling. Works for me. Right. > > I'm still not convinced that it's desirable that the content of the mailing > > list be considered part of the state of the game. > > Not the *content* of the list, necessarily. Just the list itself, as a > notional entity that one can act on (or fail to act on). Again, at present, I can't see any reason for this: just acknowledging the existence of the list doesn't really fit with my ideas about what "the state of the game" should cover. If you can give a concrete example of a rule or situation where it would be important for the list to be part of the state of the game I might change my mind. > Active Dissent: Any player may veto any proposed ruling by voting "nay". > Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time > as the voting is complete. The proposer is assume to cast an initial > "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't > voted on a proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have > voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is > officially ratified. If at any point, all players have voted in favor > of on a particular proposal (either by actively voting "aye", or by > failing to vote "nay" within the alotted 72 hours), the proposer of > the rule may officially declare it to have been ratified by unanimous > consent. Perfectly happy with this in spirit, but I think the wording should reflect the fact that this is a general decision-making process, not only one which applies to the introduction of new rules. A "proposal" should cover any change which the rules require to be agreed unanimously: although at the moment this is just changes to the rules, phrasing this properly means that passing rules such as "players may be added to the state of the game by unanimous agreement" becomes very simple since unanimous agreement is already defined. We seem to be a little closer to reaching consensus on some of these, although Roger hasn't had a chance to raise any objections yet ... I'm having trouble keeping track of what's been agreed to by whom, but I think the only rules that are immediately likely to pass are those from baf's initial proposal which both Jota and I agreed to unchanged: I.A, V.A, V.B and VI.A. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 12:12:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:12:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <181843196.1042632252@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > Oops, you're entirely right. The suggestion I made about having rules come > into effect an hour after final ratification and having the proponent post > a message stating that the rule has been passed and exactly when it comes > into effect covers all our concerns about this nicely, I think. Yeah, I'm all for it. > Again, at present, I can't see any reason for this: just acknowledging the > existence of the list doesn't really fit with my ideas about what "the > state of the game" should cover. If you can give a concrete example of a > rule or situation where it would be important for the list to be part of > the state of the game I might change my mind. For one, if we wanted to demerit people for not taking part. For two, if we wanted to propose rules for the formatting of rules or votes. For three, you can't make a rule saying that someone has to post 'This rule has been ratified' to the list unless the list exists as an entity you can act on. > Perfectly happy with this in spirit, but I think the wording should reflect > the fact that this is a general decision-making process, not only one which > applies to the introduction of new rules. A "proposal" should cover any > change which the rules require to be agreed unanimously: although at the > moment this is just changes to the rules, phrasing this properly means that > passing rules such as "players may be added to the state of the game by > unanimous agreement" becomes very simple since unanimous agreement is > already defined. Feel free to posit an alternative phrasing that you're comfortable with. > We seem to be a little closer to reaching consensus on some of these, > although Roger hasn't had a chance to raise any objections yet ... I'm > having trouble keeping track of what's been agreed to by whom, but I think > the only rules that are immediately likely to pass are those from baf's > initial proposal which both Jota and I agreed to unchanged: I.A, V.A, V.B > and VI.A. Any others would require consent from both RC *and* baf, at this point. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:06:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (amgb2@cam.ac.uk) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:06:33 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185582944.1042635992@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> --On 15 January 2003 07:12 -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > > For one, if we wanted to demerit people for not taking part. For two, if > we wanted to propose rules for the formatting of rules or votes. For > three, you can't make a rule saying that someone has to post 'This rule > has been ratified' to the list unless the list exists as an entity you can > act on. Hm, I've been looking too hard at the current Rule 8 and ignoring Rule 5. According to Rule 5, we do need to acknowledge that the list is part of the game, but this is different from it being part of the state of the game (which I don't think makes sense, since the game state consists of information, not things). So: "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit." (The only changes from your original rule here are the removal of the word 'state' and the change of 'penalty point' to 'demerit'. > Feel free to posit an alternative phrasing that you're comfortable with. Here we go: "Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires the unanimous agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or "nay" in response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list. Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified. If at any point all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal (either by voting "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the proposal is ratified. The issue under consideration is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour from the time of ratification has elapsed." And, to get this down in writing: "Once a proposal has been ratified, the original proposer should post to the list saying that the proposal has been ratified and giving the time at which it came or will come into force." My only concern at the moment is that if a proposal receives any "nay" votes, it currently remains as a proposal forever. I'm against this since it means I can vote "nay" to a proposal everyone else has ratified and then change my vote weeks later and have the proposal come into effect an hour later before everyone else has even remembered what it is. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:08:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:08:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the > > rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. > > I'm not dead against this, but I'm curious as to why you're suggesting it. So that the set of rules contains its complete history. This strikes me as desirable mainly because of the amusement I have derived from browsing the rulesets of other games of Nomic and seeing how they developed. > E. When the rules specify that a change "may be brought into effect", > the player who proposed the rule may post an announcement that the rule > has come into effect (along with a summary of the voting if it is felt > that this would be helpful). The rule comes into effect as soon as this > announcement is posted. It does not come into effect before this. I like this. This has my support. Also, if this passes, I no longer desire the "midnight GMT" rule. Just one concern: What if there's a majority rule decision, and the proposer changes his mind, but there's still a majority? Perhaps "the player who proposed the rule" should be replaced with "any player". > Also, I hope I'm right in > thinking that the wording of Rule 8 allows changes to the rules to come > into effect when they're announced on the list without the list being > part of the state of the game?) That is my understanding as well. > > B. Any person who posts a request to join the game may be > > added to the players by passive consent. (Commentary: > > As passive consent is defined in II.C., there still has > > to be a proposal by a player. Thus, each new player > > needs a sponsor.) > > I agree in principle, but it seems as though the official wording ought to > make the need for a sponsor clearer. I guess it would be a good idea to add a clause requiring the support of at least one player, just in case the definition of passive consent changes. > Yes. I also suggest: > > C. If at any time there is only one player remaining in the game then the > game shall end and that player shall be deemed to have won. Hm. I'm not sure if I like this. I think I might prefer a game where a person who scares everyone else away loses. > Sure, why not? Also, am I correct in thinking that as the map is part of > the state of the game, all its properties (such as the locations of players > within it) are also part of the state of the game? I guess it would be a good idea to state this explicitly in the rule. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:09:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:09:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Reply-to Message-ID: I noticed that the reply-to munging still wasn't working right, and sure enough, I had missed a step in configuring that. It should be working now. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:19:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:19:22 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <186352630.1042636762@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> (leaving all of baf's comments intact since his original reply went only to me rather than the list) --On 15 January 2003 07:57 -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> > C. Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the >> > rule set permissable is the addition of new rules. >> >> I'm not dead against this, but I'm curious as to why you're suggesting >> it. > > So that the set of rules contains its complete history. This strikes me > as desirable mainly because of the amusement I have derived from browsing > the rulesets of other games of Nomic and seeing how they developed. True, but the entire archive of this mailing list is also publically available, which gives a far fuller picture of how the rules have developed than an archive of past rules does. >> E. When the rules specify that a change "may be brought into effect", >> the player who proposed the rule may post an announcement that the >> rule has come into effect (along with a summary of the voting if it >> is felt that this would be helpful). The rule comes into effect as >> soon as this announcement is posted. It does not come into effect >> before this. > > I like this. This has my support. Also, if this passes, I no longer > desire the "midnight GMT" rule. Just one concern: What if there's a > majority rule decision, and the proposer changes his mind, but there's > still a majority? Perhaps "the player who proposed the rule" should be > replaced with "any player". Jota and I are currently attempting to move away from the use of majority rule decisions anyway. If decisions do end up being taken this way, some change will be necessary, but I'd like to keep the sense that it's the duty of the proponent to announce the passing of rules where possible. > > Also, I hope I'm right in > > thinking that the wording of Rule 8 allows changes to the rules to > > come into effect when they're announced on the list without the list > > being part of the state of the game?) > > That is my understanding as well. As Jota has pointed out, Rule 5 implies that we need to recognise that the list is part of the game, but that's not the same thing as being part of the gamestate. >> > B. Any person who posts a request to join the game may be >> > added to the players by passive consent. (Commentary: >> > As passive consent is defined in II.C., there still has >> > to be a proposal by a player. Thus, each new player >> > needs a sponsor.) >> >> I agree in principle, but it seems as though the official wording ought >> to make the need for a sponsor clearer. > > I guess it would be a good idea to add a clause requiring the support of > at least one player, just in case the definition of passive consent > changes. If we introduce the "active-dissent" mechanism as I proposed it in my last post, this rule can become simply "new players may be added to the game by unanimous agreement", and would work in the same way as suggested here. >> Yes. I also suggest: >> >> C. If at any time there is only one player remaining in the game then >> the game shall end and that player shall be deemed to have won. > > Hm. I'm not sure if I like this. I think I might prefer a game where a > person who scares everyone else away loses. Depends on the circumstances of the other players' leaving, I guess. If every other player is legally eliminated, that seems as though it should be a win, but if everyone leaves the game of their own volition that's not true. Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be deemed to have won"? >> Sure, why not? Also, am I correct in thinking that as the map is part of >> the state of the game, all its properties (such as the locations of >> players within it) are also part of the state of the game? > > I guess it would be a good idea to state this explicitly in the rule. Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is mentioned, though. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 13:46:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:46:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <185582944.1042635992@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > So: "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it > to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day > period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of > day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long > delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur > one additional demerit." (The only changes from your original rule here are > the removal of the word 'state' and the change of 'penalty point' to > 'demerit'. Aye. > My only concern at the moment is that if a proposal receives any "nay" > votes, it currently remains as a proposal forever. I'm against this since > it means I can vote "nay" to a proposal everyone else has ratified and then > change my vote weeks later and have the proposal come into effect an hour > later before everyone else has even remembered what it is. So, it's not officially ratified until the original proposer declares it so, and can also be officially be removed from consideration if voted down: Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires the unanimous agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or "nay" in response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list. Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified or removed from consideration. If at any point any player has voted against a particular proposal, then any other player (including other "nay" voters) may declare it to be dead, and removed from consideration. If at any point all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal (either by voting "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message containing the text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, and the time it will come into effect: the issue under consideration is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour from the time of this posting has elapsed. And, to reply to stuff from jwal's other message (to baf): > Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two > players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be > deemed to have won"? Sounds fair to me. But what if there are three players, and two lose simultaneously? Also, this would probably require that being demerited out counts as a loss. > Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to > write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is > mentioned, though. It'd only have to be mentioned once, in the rule that defines it as such. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:01:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:01:15 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <107263767.1042639275@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 8:46 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires the > unanimous agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" > or "nay" in response to the proposal by posting this vote to the > list. Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such > time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an > initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player > who hasn't voted on a particular proposal within the first 72 hours > is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the > proposal is officially ratified or removed from consideration. If at > any point any player has voted against a particular proposal, then > any other player (including other "nay" voters) may declare it to be > dead, and removed from consideration. If at any point all players > have voted in favour of a particular proposal (either by voting "aye" > or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original > proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message > containing the text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, > and the time it will come into effect: the issue under consideration > is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a > period of one hour from the time of this posting has elapsed. Aye. > Sounds fair to me. But what if there are three players, and two lose > simultaneously? Also, this would probably require that being demerited out > counts as a loss. Ok, so: "If the number of players in the game is ever reduced to one by an action other than a voluntary departure, the remaining player shall be deemed to have won." >> Ok. It'd be nice if we could find a phrasing which would avoid having to >> write "this is part of the state of the game" every time the map is >> mentioned, though. > > It'd only have to be mentioned once, in the rule that defines it as such. Ok, my proposed revision for baf's VI.A: "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:35:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:35:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: <186352630.1042636762@pccl506.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > Jota and I are currently attempting to move away from the use of majority > rule decisions anyway. The proposal about I was commenting on seems to me to not be dependent in any way on majority rule. As long as there is some mechanism for making changes of the rules (or, more generally, the state of the game), the idea that the changes need to be announced before they take effect is a good one. And I think it should be kept separate from the processes for passing said changes, so it will still apply if those processes change, and so it will automatically apply to any new process that get adopted. > Perhaps a better rule might be "if at any time there are only two > players remaining in the game, and one of them loses, the other shall be > deemed to have won"? If there's one player left, he can simply pass a rule stating "I win". So any single-player win condition seems unnecessary. Single-player lose conditions, now... From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:47:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:47:55 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <110064434.1042642075@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 9:35 am -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > If there's one player left, he can simply pass a rule stating "I win". > So any single-player win condition seems unnecessary. Single-player lose > conditions, now... You're right. I withdraw my proposal. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:46:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:46:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires the > unanimous agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" > or "nay" in response to the proposal by posting this vote to the > list. Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such > time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an > initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player > who hasn't voted on a particular proposal within the first 72 hours > is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the > proposal is officially ratified or removed from consideration. If at > any point any player has voted against a particular proposal, then > any other player (including other "nay" voters) may declare it to be > dead, and removed from consideration. If at any point all players > have voted in favour of a particular proposal (either by voting "aye" > or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original > proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message > containing the text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, > and the time it will come into effect: the issue under consideration > is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a > period of one hour from the time of this posting has elapsed. I'm willing to accept this, although don't think you can still claim that it's simpler than my proposals. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:53:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:53:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: <107263767.1042639275@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Ok, my proposed revision for baf's VI.A: "The game contains a map, > consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have > a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any > information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part > of the state of the game." Aye. And I simultaneously retract my vote in favor of the original version of course, lest we inadvertantly ratify two almost identical proposals :) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:58:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:58:07 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <110675633.1042642686@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 9:46 am -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I'm willing to accept this, although don't think you can still claim > that it's simpler than my proposals. You may have a point there; however, it's less confusing than having three different decision-making procedures for different decisions. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 14:54:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:54:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Some rule suggestions (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I'm willing to accept this, although don't think you can still claim > that it's simpler than my proposals. Was it supposed to be simpler? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:03:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:03:38 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: <111007079.1042643018@cornelius> Ok, since at present there's simultaneously no mechanism for keeping track of proposals and and awful lot of half-formed proposals flying around, I'm making some attempt to summarise the rules which have been suggested so far and not absolutely rejected by anybody. I've tried to only mark proposals down as having been accepted by certain players when I'm sure this is the case, but I wouldn't consider any of this authoritative to be on the safe side. PROPOSED RULES ============== "Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each new rule has a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) "Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the rule set permissable is the addition of new rules." (Accepted by baf) "No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part of the game, except by making it part of the game." (Accepted by jwalrus) "Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires the unanimous agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or "nay" in response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list. Any player may change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye" (but may change it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted "aye", but may change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified or removed from consideration. If at any point any player has voted against a particular proposal, then any other player (including other "nay" voters) may declare it to be dead, and removed from consideration. If at any point all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal (either by voting "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message containing the text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, and the time it will come into effect: the issue under consideration is considered to have been unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour from the time of this posting has elapsed." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) "Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent." (Accepted by jwalrus) "Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by a rule other than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that is required by a rule other than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be assigned to that player by unanimous agreement. The player being demerited may not veto the issuing of the demerit. Demerits are part of the state of the game." (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) "Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely from the state of the game." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) "Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that were not part of the state of the game when the violation occurred." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit." (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) "Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so." (Accepted by jwalrus) "Unless specified otherwise, when a player leaves the game, portions of the game state specifically associated to that player and no other player cease to exist. Portions of the game state associated with both that player and other player(s) will revert to only the other player(s) with which they are associated." (Accepted by jwalrus) "It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and all players who have not won will lose." (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game." (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:17:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:17:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: <111007079.1042643018@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the rule set > permissable is the addition of new rules." > (Accepted by baf) I'd agree to this if instead it were: "No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement." Thus, one could effectively change a rule by making a proposal to simultaneously add a new rule while removing an old one, but a rule number will only ever refer to one rule, whether it's an extant or deleted one. > "Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I'll vote for this. > "Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so." > (Accepted by jwalrus) Sure. > "Unless specified otherwise, when a player leaves the game, portions of the > game state specifically associated to that player and no other player cease > to exist. Portions of the game state associated with both that player and > other player(s) will revert to only the other player(s) with which they are > associated." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I'm fine with that. > "It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in the > rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state of the > game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end > and all players who have not won will lose." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the above rule? > "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the > Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the > Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it > shall be considered part of the state of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) In light of the above rules, about players leaving the game, I'm going to have to posit an addition to that: "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the locations it comprises will be considered associated with all players, in the sense described above." Also, would it be possible for the summary to mention who is the proposer for the current version of each proposition? Admittedly, that information isn't vital yet, but it will be if the rule about unanimous ratification and active dissent and all that is passed. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:41:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:41:02 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <113251436.1042645262@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 10:17 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > I'd agree to this if instead it were: "No individual rule may be changed > after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only > be done by unanimous agreement." Thus, one could effectively change a rule > by making a proposal to simultaneously add a new rule while removing an > old one, but a rule number will only ever refer to one rule, whether it's > an extant or deleted one. Ok, that's fine by me. Isn't "which may only be done by unanimous agreement" redundant, though? >> "It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in >> the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state >> of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will >> immediately end and all players who have not won will lose." >> (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) > > Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the > above rule? I was intending it to. Does the wording need to be clearer? >> "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called >> "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially >> the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything >> on it shall be considered part of the state of the game." >> (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) > > In light of the above rules, about players leaving the game, I'm going to > have to posit an addition to that: > > "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the > Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the > Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it > shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the > locations it comprises will be considered associated with all players, in > the sense described above." I was assuming that the 'default' for parts of the game state would be for them not to be associated with any player, which would seem to make more sense than for the map to be associated with all players. > Also, would it be possible for the summary to mention who is the proposer > for the current version of each proposition? Admittedly, that information > isn't vital yet, but it will be if the rule about unanimous ratification > and active dissent and all that is passed. I think (unfortunately) if the rule defining unanimous agreement is passed, all the 'informal' proposals above will have to be proposed again more formally. Perhaps we could argue a way around this. In any case, I'll see if I can make a note for the next summary, if there is one. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:45:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: <113251436.1042645262@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Ok, that's fine by me. Isn't "which may only be done by unanimous > agreement" redundant, though? Probably. But redundant is better than ambiguous. > > Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the > > above rule? > > I was intending it to. Does the wording need to be clearer? Nah. Just so long as we all understand it that way. > I was assuming that the 'default' for parts of the game state would be for > them not to be associated with any player, which would seem to make more > sense than for the map to be associated with all players. That would be OK, too. Just so long as the definition of the map and its locations clarify that the locations aren't "associated with" the players in them in any form that'd make them get deleted. How about: "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the locations it comprises will be considered associated with the game itself, as opposed to being associated with any individual player(s)." -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 15:51:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:51:41 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: > "Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each=20 > new rule has=20 > a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) Aye. =20 > "Rules may not be changed or removed. The only change to the=20 > rule set=20 > permissable is the addition of new rules." > (Accepted by baf) I'm not sure this does anything. I think under this proposal, a rule such as "Rule X: Rule Y is not a part of the game" is still legal. Nay. > "No rule may require any effect on anything that is not part=20 > of the game,=20 > except by making it part of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I think we're still a bit shaky for this at this point. I'd be surprised to say any of the sort of abuses that this rule might prevent. Nay. > "Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires=20 > the unanimous=20 > agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or=20 > "nay" in=20 > response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list.=20 > Any player may=20 > change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is=20 > complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye"=20 > (but may change=20 > it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular=20 > proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted=20 > "aye", but may=20 > change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified=20 > or removed=20 > from consideration. If at any point any player has voted against a=20 > particular proposal, then any other player (including other=20 > "nay" voters)=20 > may declare it to be dead, and removed from consideration. If=20 > at any point=20 > all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal=20 > (either by voting=20 > "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original=20 > proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message=20 > containing the=20 > text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, and the=20 > time it will=20 > come into effect: the issue under consideration is considered=20 > to have been=20 > unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour=20 > from the time=20 > of this posting has elapsed." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) I'm not terribly happy with this; I'd rather see another voting state of 'abstain' and have everyone default to it. But it looks like a good start. Aye. > "Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent." > (Accepted by jwalrus) Aye. > "Whenever a player performs an action that is forbidden by a=20 > rule other=20 > than Rule 4, or fails to perform an action that is required=20 > by a rule other=20 > than Rule 4, a "demerit" may be assigned to that player by unanimous=20 > agreement. The player being demerited may not veto the issuing of the=20 > demerit. Demerits are part of the state of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) This is a consistent sticking point in nomics, so here's my view: A player *can't* perform an action forbidden by the rules. If the player tries, it just fails to happen. If you allow players to break, say, Rule 8, and only get one fat demerit for it, the game will immediately degenerate, I think. Such is my opinion, anyway. Nay. =20 > "Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed=20 > entirely from=20 > the state of the game." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) I'm still voting against the rule-breaking proposal, but this seems fine enough. Aye. > "Demerits may not be assigned for violations of rules that=20 > were not part of=20 > the state of the game when the violation occurred." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) I'm still not happy with the idea that the rules CAN be violated, so I can't support this. Nay. =20 > "The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a=20 > part of the=20 > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something=20 > is to send it=20 > to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that=20 > is, a seven-day=20 > period of non-posting following their latest post, counted=20 > from the time of=20 > day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long=20 > delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will=20 > each incur=20 > one additional demerit." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) I'll support this. Although, technically, the concept of "time passing in the world outside the game" isn't well-defined within the game. Aye. =20 > "Any player may leave the game at any time by posting=20 > intention to do so." > (Accepted by jwalrus) Aye. =20 > "Unless specified otherwise, when a player leaves the game,=20 > portions of the=20 > game state specifically associated to that player and no=20 > other player cease=20 > to exist. Portions of the game state associated with both=20 > that player and=20 > other player(s) will revert to only the other player(s) with=20 > which they are=20 > associated." > (Accepted by jwalrus) I don't think this is required, but I'll go along with it. Aye. > "It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be=20 > described in the=20 > rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the=20 > state of the=20 > game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will=20 > immediately end=20 > and all players who have not won will lose." > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus) The concept of 'rejoining' is probably meaningless given the other proposal about removing all the gamestate about a player who leaves. But I don't like that part anyway, so I'm happy with it. Aye. =20 > "The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which=20 > is called "the=20 > Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is=20 > initially the=20 > Lounge. The map and any information about the location of=20 > anything on it=20 > shall be considered part of the state of the game." > (Accepted by jwalrus, Jota) Yeah, this sort of thing can be fun. Aye. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 16:02:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:02:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > > "Each rule has a number. Rule numbers start with 1, and each > > new rule has > > a number 1 greater than the previously enacted rule." > > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) > > Aye. Looks like we have a rule 9. > > "Any player may post a proposal for a change which requires > > the unanimous > > agreement of all players. All other players may vote "aye" or > > "nay" in > > response to the proposal by posting this vote to the list. > > Any player may > > change his or her vote on a proposal until such time as the voting is > > complete. The proposer is assumed to cast an initial "aye" > > (but may change > > it, like any other vote). Any player who hasn't voted on a particular > > proposal within the first 72 hours is assumed to have voted > > "aye", but may > > change that vote up until the proposal is officially ratified > > or removed > > from consideration. If at any point any player has voted against a > > particular proposal, then any other player (including other > > "nay" voters) > > may declare it to be dead, and removed from consideration. If > > at any point > > all players have voted in favour of a particular proposal > > (either by voting > > "aye" or failing to vote within the alloted 72 hours), the original > > proposer may declare it to be ratified by posting a message > > containing the > > text of the proposal, a summary of the votes on it, and the > > time it will > > come into effect: the issue under consideration is considered > > to have been > > unanimously agreed by all players after a period of one hour > > from the time > > of this posting has elapsed." > > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) > > I'm not terribly happy with this; I'd rather see another > voting state of 'abstain' and have everyone default to it. > But it looks like a good start. > > Aye. And rule 10. For the sake of following the spirit of the rule, whether or not it's yet necessary to follow the letter, I hereby quote the proposal (above), summarize the votes ("aye" from baf, jwalrus, Roger and myself), and note that it went into effect when Roger voted (no delay, since this rule didn't exist before this rule was ratified). So mote it be. > This is a consistent sticking point in nomics, so here's my view: > > A player *can't* perform an action forbidden by the rules. If > the player tries, it just fails to happen. > > If you allow players to break, say, Rule 8, and only get one > fat demerit for it, the game will immediately degenerate, I think. > > Such is my opinion, anyway. That may work for performing illegal actions, but what about failing to perform required actions? > > "Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed > > entirely from > > the state of the game." > > (Accepted by baf, jwalrus, Jota) > > I'm still voting against the rule-breaking proposal, but this > seems fine enough. > > Aye. Rule 11. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 16:15:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:15:18 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] demerit proposal Message-ID: >> A player *can't* perform an action forbidden by the rules. If >> the player tries, it just fails to happen. >> >> If you allow players to break, say, Rule 8, and only get one >> fat demerit for it, the game will immediately degenerate, I think. =20 > That may work for performing illegal actions, but what about=20 > failing to perform required actions? I think the two are interchangeable from a logical standpoint, but for some rules it would be torturous. My recommendation would be to either avoid rules that required actions, or to specify the penalty within the rule itself. If we had a hypothetical rule such as "Rule X: Each player must submit a proposal to The List at least once every 72 hours." It's my opinion that we'd still need another rule or part of a rule to describe what happens if this fails to occur, even if the demerit-handing-out rule was in effect. But I'd rather avoid this sort of rule altogether. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 18:56:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:56:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <124997566.1042657008@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 11:02 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: >> I'm not terribly happy with this; I'd rather see another >> voting state of 'abstain' and have everyone default to it. >> But it looks like a good start. I don't see how the concept of abstention is useful; given that unanimity is required to make a change, abstaining is the same as agreeing. I'm also withdrawing my support for the rule which reads "Unless specified otherwise, when a player leaves the game, portions of the game state specifically associated to that player and no other player cease to exist. Portions of the game state associated with both that player and other player(s) will revert to only the other player(s) with which they are associated." I think there are actually very few elements of the game state which we'd automatically want to cease to exist when a player leaves the game. In the case of scores, etc., if a rule reads "each player shall have a score", it's implicit that the score disappears when the player leaves. On the other hand, if part of the game state is that I have five Magic Lemons, I don't think it's to be assumed at all that my lemons should disappear if I leave the game, and this should be handled by the rule introducing the ownership of magic lemons. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 19:13:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:13:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals Message-ID: In light of Rule 10, I'm going to formally propose the suggestions that have been made, but have neither been ratified nor vetoed at this point: I. Joining and leaving the game A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely from the state of the game. C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do so. II. Stuff in the game A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. If I missed any, feel free to propose them yourselves, of course. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 19:49:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:49:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Forgot one: III. Miscellaneous A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement. Also, just for fun, I'll add some new ones: IV. Winning and losing A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule is ratified receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into effect. Any new player added to the game also automatically receives 10 brown points. Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie points will immediately win the game. B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any player whose location is this room will be said to have "won Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 21:40:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:40:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] demerit proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd agree that we can do without rules that can be violated. Currently, all rules permit things rather than require things, and the only things that are forbidden are unauthorized changes to game state, which fits within RC's suggestion that violations are merely impossible. As long as there's someone other than myself willing to veto violable rules (I don't trust myself to always catch these things), I'm willing to do without penalty rules. I just don't want to see a repeat of what happened in game 01: a rule was passed stating "All players must name their tokens within 5 days of this rule's passage." After 5 days, one player had not named his token, and we didn't know what to do about it. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 21:51:36 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:51:36 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] demerit proposal Message-ID: > I'd agree that we can do without rules that can be violated. =20 > Currently, > all rules permit things rather than require things, and the=20 > only things > that are forbidden are unauthorized changes to game state, which fits > within RC's suggestion that violations are merely impossible.=20 > As long as > there's someone other than myself willing to veto violable=20 > rules (I don't > trust myself to always catch these things), I'm willing to do without > penalty rules. I just don't want to see a repeat of what=20 > happened in game > 01: a rule was passed stating "All players must name their=20 > tokens within 5 > days of this rule's passage." After 5 days, one player had=20 > not named his > token, and we didn't know what to do about it. Jota's new proposal is interesting: >However, any player who "wins Mornington >Crescent" in this manner will also immediately=20 >lose this game. Is "losing" an action that the player is required to take in this situation? Could he just decline to do so and take a demerit? Such is the problem with these things, I think, and so I remain against legalized rules-breaking. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:11:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:11:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rules 9, 10, and 11 have been added to my website (which, lest we forget, has no official status in the game, and you are all free to ignore it and keep your own lists of rules.) I'm a little displeased that we now have a rule referring to demerits, but not a rule stating how they're earned or whether they're part of the state of the game. Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:23:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:23:23 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: > I'm a little displeased that we now have a rule referring to demerits, > but not a rule stating how they're earned or whether they're=20 > part of the state of the game. =20 I like it. I'm of the opinion that anything referenced by the rules is implicity part of the game state. Consider Rule 2 and its reference to 'English', for example. My general nomic style is to introduce small, atomic, axiomatic-ish sorts of rules, and let them interact, rather than trying to fully define things all in one big rule. > Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. Nay. .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:25:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:25:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rules 9, 10, and 11 have been added to my website (which, lest we forget, > has no official status in the game, and you are all free to ignore it and > keep your own lists of rules.) > > I'm a little displeased that we now have a rule referring to demerits, > but not a rule stating how they're earned or whether they're part of the > state of the game. Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. Does that imply that you intend to vote against proposal II.A, in my earlier message? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:33:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:33:28 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals -- Roger's Votes Message-ID: > I. Joining and leaving the game > A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. Aye. > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be=20 > removed entirely > from the state of the game. Aye. > C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting=20 > intention to do > so. Aye. > II. Stuff in the game > A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered=20 > a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post"=20 > something is to > send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a=20 > week (that > is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their=20 > latest post, > counted from the time of day the last post was made)=20 > will incur one > demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the=20 > latest invocation > of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Aye. > B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of=20 > which is called > "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is > initially the Lounge. The map and any information about=20 > the location > of anything on it shall be considered part of the state=20 > of the game. Aye. > III. Miscellaneous > A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added,=20 > except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. Nay. > IV. Winning and losing > A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule=20 > is ratified > receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into=20 > effect. Any new > player added to the game also automatically receives 10=20 > brown points. > Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie > points will immediately win the game. Aye. > B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any > player whose location is this room will be said to have "won > Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington > Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. Aye. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:40:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:40:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > In light of Rule 10, I'm going to formally propose the suggestions that > have been made, but have neither been ratified nor vetoed at this point: OK. I think that this make you the proposer for the purposes of Rule 10, even for those rules initially suggested by other people. > A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. Aye. > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely > from the state of the game. This has already passed, as Rule 11, has it not? Nay. > C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do > so. Aye. Although, as with "demerit", I'm unhappy about using terms like "list" and "post" that are part of rules that haven't passed. > A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to > send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that > is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, > counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation > of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Aye. Although I'd prefer two separate rules: A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. B. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Consider this a proposal. > B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called > "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is > initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location > of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. Aye. In light of complaints about the use of the word "lounge", I'd be happy to accept a different name for the initial location - say, "West of House", or "Attic", or "Under the High Wall (on a resting)". From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 22:55:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:55:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > B. Any player with three demerits will automatically be removed entirely > > from the state of the game. > This has already passed, as Rule 11, has it not? Nay. Yeah, my slip-up. Now that it has a nay vote, I'll declare this unnecessary clone dead, as per Rule 10. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 23:12:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:12:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > I'm of the opinion that anything referenced by the rules is > implicity part of the game state. Consider Rule 2 and its > reference to 'English', for example. Are you suggesting that the English language should be considered to be part of the state of the game? I disagree. I'm going to be a strict constructionist here. Rule 7 tells us what's in "the state of the game": rules, players, and anything added to the definition by a rule. My understanding is that adding things to this definition means stating "The state of the game contains...", not simply mentioning things. Rules 7 and 8 were passed to provide greater formalization than Rule 5. I don't much like the idea of this formalization being weakened by implicit additions to the state of the game. > My general nomic style is to introduce small, atomic, > axiomatic-ish sorts of rules, and let them interact, > rather than trying to fully define things all in one > big rule. Funny you should use the word "axiomatic". I haven't played enough Nomic to consider myself to have a style, but I've been thinking of rules in terms of axiomatic systems too. To me, this suggests rigorous formality, with every primitive notion explicitly introduced and its relationship to other terms defined. I do, however, concur with your objection to putting things in "one big rule", and have already made a proposal to split a prospective rule into more elementary components. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 15 23:26:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:26:33 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising Message-ID: > I'm going to be a strict constructionist here. =20 In my experience, this only leads to madness. What is a 'player'? What is a 'vote'? What is 'English'? Can we define these things in some manner that isn't, eventually, circular? But, hey, give it a shot if you want. I won't prima facie vote against anything that defines=20 any of those terms. (Reference to 'real' law: At least one person has challenged Canadian tax law on the basis that it never defines what a 'dollar' is, nor is that defined anywhere else in the corpus of law. He lost.) .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 01:22:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:22:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > > I'm going to be a strict constructionist here. > > In my experience, this only leads to madness. > > What is a 'player'? What is a 'vote'? What > is 'English'? Can we define these things in > some manner that isn't, eventually, circular? The words "vote" and "English" do not require definition to preserve the formality of "the state of the game", as they are not part of the state of the game. (But I'm glad to have "vote" defined in Rule 10 anyway.) The word "player" refers to a member of a set established in rule 3. That's as much definition as you need. (There are currently no restrictions on what can be added to this set. However, there is also currently no way to add things to it.) Again I state: "every primitive notion introduced and *its relationship to other terms* defined". This is exactly how mathematical axiomatic systems work. In set theory, for example, you'll never see a definition of the word "set" beyond how they relate to their elements and to other sets - because "set" a primitive notion. This does not in any way lessen the rigor of the axioms of set theory, which is arguably the most formalized field in all of mathematics. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 09:24:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 04:24:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals -- Roger's Votes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > > III. Miscellaneous > > A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, > > except to > > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous > > agreement. > > Nay. I'll declare this proposal dead, then. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 09:43:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 04:43:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Aye. Although I'd prefer two separate rules: [....] > Consider this a proposal. Under the assumption that, when jwalrus votes, the original form of the rule will be ratified, I'm going to give a formal "nay" to this -- not because I dislike it, but just to prevent us from ratifying both versions, and ending up with clone rules. However, the principle you illustrate is one to keep in mind in the future. Also, if jwal vetoes the original version but supports this, I'll happily change my vote. > Aye. In light of complaints about the use of the word "lounge", I'd be > happy to accept a different name for the initial location - say, "West of > House", or "Attic", or "Under the High Wall (on a resting)". I think I was the only complainer, and I fully withdrew my complaint, so I wouldn't worry about that. However, your comment does suggest another proposal: Additional rooms on the map shall include (but need not be limited to) "West of House", "Attic", "Under the High Wall (on a resting)", "Washington, DC", "Central Park", "The House of Commons", "Saturn", "Blasted Heath", "The North Pole", and "West of Nowhere". -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 12:40:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:40:24 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <188813349.1042720824@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 4:43 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > Under the assumption that, when jwalrus votes, the original form of the > rule will be ratified, I'm going to give a formal "nay" to this -- not > because I dislike it, but just to prevent us from ratifying both versions, > and ending up with clone rules. However, the principle you illustrate is > one to keep in mind in the future. Also, if jwal vetoes the original > version but supports this, I'll happily change my vote. I'm in favour of splitting the rule, both aesthetically and so that we still have a definition of 'post' if the rule demeriting players for not posting is revoked. Accordingly, I'll vote aye in favour of baf's split version and nay to the original so that someone can kill it and prevent both from passing. > Additional rooms on the map shall include (but need not be limited > to) "West of House", "Attic", "Under the High Wall (on a resting)", > "Washington, DC", "Central Park", "The House of Commons", "Saturn", > "Blasted Heath", "The North Pole", and "West of Nowhere". Aye. (out of interest, baf, will you be keeping details of the map on the website under the state of the game?) jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 12:44:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:44:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <189078150.1042721089@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 2:13 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > In light of Rule 10, I'm going to formally propose the suggestions that > have been made, but have neither been ratified nor vetoed at this point: > > I. Joining and leaving the game > A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. Aye. > C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do > so. Aye. > II. Stuff in the game > A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to > send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that > is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, > counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation > of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Nay. But aye to baf's proposal to enact this as two separate rules. > B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called > "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is > initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location > of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. Aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 12:49:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:49:12 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <189341168.1042721352@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 2:49 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. I believe this has been vetoed and declared dead already, right? > Also, just for fun, I'll add some new ones: > > IV. Winning and losing > A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule is ratified > receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into effect. Any new > player added to the game also automatically receives 10 brown points. > Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie > points will immediately win the game. Aye. > B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any > player whose location is this room will be said to have "won > Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington > Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. Aye, although we'd better be careful about any rules which can move players to random locations or locations of other players' choices. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 12:46:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 07:46:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: <188813349.1042720824@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I'm in favour of splitting the rule, both aesthetically and so that we > still have a definition of 'post' if the rule demeriting players for not > posting is revoked. Accordingly, I'll vote aye in favour of baf's split > version and nay to the original so that someone can kill it and prevent > both from passing. OK. I change my vote on baf's proposal to aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 12:55:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:55:02 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <189691071.1042721702@cornelius> --On 15 January 2003 3:23 pm -0700 "Carbol, Roger" wrote: > I'm of the opinion that anything referenced by the rules is > implicity part of the game state. Consider Rule 2 and its > reference to 'English', for example. This certainly doesn't fit with my idea of the state of the game: I think it's important to draw a distinction between things that are part of the game (which can be implicit) and things that are part of the state of the game (which have to be formally defined). As I understand it, the entire state of the game at the moment can be summarised as: "Roger Carbol, Carl Muckenhoupt, Adam Biltcliffe and Admiral Jota are playing a game with the following rules:", plus the list of rules. That's all the information necessary to define the game in its current state. When the rule introducing demerits comes into effect (which I think happens in about half an hour, as I believe I was the only person who hadn't ratified it), the number of demerits assigned to each player will also become information necessary to define the state of the game. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 12:52:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 07:52:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I. Joining and leaving the game > A. Players may be added to the game by unanimous consent. > C. Any player may leave the game at any time by posting intention to do > so. > II. Stuff in the game > B. The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called > "the Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is > initially the Lounge. The map and any information about the location > of anything on it shall be considered part of the state of the game. As per Rule 10, I'm quoting the text of the above three proposals and noting that they have been ratified by the players. I implicited voted aye by acting as the proposer, and Roger, baf, and jwal have all explicitly voted aye. Therefore, they will officially come into effect as Rules 12-14 respectively one hour from now, at 12:55 GMT. > A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to > send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that > is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, > counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation > of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. As jwal has vetoed this proposal, I declare it dead, in deference to baf's similar proposal. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 13:11:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:11:01 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] three new proposals Message-ID: <190650060.1042722661@cornelius> I propose the following three new rules: "Players may change the details of the map by unanimous consent." (Essentially, now that the map is part of the gamestate, I don't think it's necessary to have to pass a new rule every time we want to change the map. With the rules that currently exist, plus this new rule, changing the map could be done using the same mechanism as changing the rules, but the list of rules wouldn't have to become cluttered with the details of the map.) "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached unanimous consent on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except that only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the outcome of the proposal." (This is just a support rule for the rule below. I think the wording is fairly airtight, but it's possible I've missed a loophole somewhere.) "Any player who is found to have intentionally deceived another player about the current state of the game may be issued a demerit by unanimous consent of the other players." (Given that at the moment there's no official record of the state of the game, there's nothing preventing players from lying about it, and it'd be nice if we didn't all have to be paranoid and keep our own copies of everything. It's implicit in this rule that players should attempt to be truthful, but I didn't want to make that part of the rule, since that would make it possible to break it. This seems the best way.) jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 13:15:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:15:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] three new proposals In-Reply-To: <190650060.1042722661@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "Players may change the details of the map by unanimous consent." > (Essentially, now that the map is part of the gamestate, I don't think it's > necessary to have to pass a new rule every time we want to change the map. > With the rules that currently exist, plus this new rule, changing the map > could be done using the same mechanism as changing the rules, but the list > of rules wouldn't have to become cluttered with the details of the map.) Aye. > "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached unanimous > consent on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except that > only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the > outcome of the proposal." > (This is just a support rule for the rule below. I think the wording is > fairly airtight, but it's possible I've missed a loophole somewhere.) Hmm. I'd be more comfortable if this were called something without the word "unanimous" in the name. Like, "consent of the subset" or "sectional consent" or something. So I'm giving a tentative nay. > "Any player who is found to have intentionally deceived another player > about the current state of the game may be issued a demerit by unanimous > consent of the other players." In principle, I like the idea. In practice, I think that it should be better defined what it means "to be found to have intentionally deceived another player". E.g., agreed to have done so by sectional consent of the other players. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 13:18:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:18:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] three new proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > "Any player who is found to have intentionally deceived another player > > about the current state of the game may be issued a demerit by unanimous > > consent of the other players." (Er, so that's a nay, of course.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 14:03:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:03:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Psmith Message-ID: I propose that, in accordance with Rule 12, Dylan O'Donnell (aka Psmith) be added to the game as a player. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 14:17:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:17:17 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Psmith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <194625787.1042726637@cornelius> > I propose that, in accordance with Rule 12, Dylan O'Donnell (aka Psmith) > be added to the game as a player. Aye! jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 14:32:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:32:20 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] two revised proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <195529476.1042727540@cornelius> >> "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached unanimous >> consent on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except >> that only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the >> outcome of the proposal." Since Jota has vetoed this proposal, I hereby declare it dead, and submit the following proposal instead: "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached 'sectional consent' on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except that only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the outcome of the proposal." >> "Any player who is found to have intentionally deceived another player >> about the current state of the game may be issued a demerit by unanimous >> consent of the other players." I declare this vetoed proposal dead as well, and replace it with: "Any player who is agreed by sectional consent of all other players to have intentionally deceived another player about the current state of the game shall receive a demerit." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 14:31:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:31:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] two revised proposals In-Reply-To: <195529476.1042727540@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached 'sectional > consent' on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except > that only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the > outcome of the proposal." Aye. > "Any player who is agreed by sectional consent of all other players to have > intentionally deceived another player about the current state of the game > shall receive a demerit." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:03:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:03:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Additional rooms on the map shall include (but need not be limited > to) "West of House", "Attic", "Under the High Wall (on a resting)", > "Washington, DC", "Central Park", "The House of Commons", "Saturn", > "Blasted Heath", "The North Pole", and "West of Nowhere". Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:08:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:08:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: <188813349.1042720824@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > Additional rooms on the map shall include (but need not be limited > > to) "West of House", "Attic", "Under the High Wall (on a resting)", > > "Washington, DC", "Central Park", "The House of Commons", "Saturn", > > "Blasted Heath", "The North Pole", and "West of Nowhere". > > Aye. (out of interest, baf, will you be keeping details of the map on the > website under the state of the game?) I will, when as the map rules go into effect. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:09:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:09:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > II. Stuff in the game > A. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the > game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to > send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that > is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, > counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one > demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation > of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Changing my vote to nay on this, since it looks like the split version is going to pass. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:13:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:13:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Forgot one: > > III. Miscellaneous > A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. Aye. Not that it matters, since it's been vetoed already, but just in case the veto gets changed. > IV. Winning and losing > A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule is ratified > receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into effect. Any new > player added to the game also automatically receives 10 brown points. > Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie > points will immediately win the game. Aye. > B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any > player whose location is this room will be said to have "won > Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington > Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:22:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:22:00 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals Message-ID: >> III. Miscellaneous >> A. No individual rule may be changed after it's been=20 > added, except to >> remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous >> agreement. >=20 > Aye. Not that it matters, since it's been vetoed already, but just in > case the veto gets changed. Since I seem to be the only player objecting to this rule, and my objection isn't especially, strong, I'll withdraw my Nay vote. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:24:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > IV. Winning and losing > A. Each player currently in the game at the time this rule is ratified > receives 10 "brownie points" when this rule goes into effect. Any new > player added to the game also automatically receives 10 brown points. > Any player who manages to accrue two-hundred fifty (250) brownie > points will immediately win the game. > B. There will be a room on the map called "Mornington Crescent". Any > player whose location is this room will be said to have "won > Mornington Crescent". However, any player who "wins Mornington > Crescent" in this manner will also immediately lose this game. I hereby declare the above two proposals ratified as Rules 15 and 16 respectively. They were explicitly supported by Roger, baf, and jwal, and implicitly supported by me. They will go into efect one hour after the timestamp on this message. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:34:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:34:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > Since I seem to be the only player objecting to this rule, > and my objection isn't especially, strong, I'll withdraw > my Nay vote. Does that imply changing it to "aye"? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:37:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:37:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Synonyms Message-ID: In light of possibly ambiguous usage, I propose another rule: The term "consent" will be considereny synonymous with the term "agreement" or "agree" (depending on part of speech), and "brown points" will be considered synonymous with "brownie points". -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:35:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:35:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Synonyms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > In light of possibly ambiguous usage, I propose another rule: > > The term "consent" will be considereny synonymous with the term > "agreement" or "agree" (depending on part of speech), and "brown points" > will be considered synonymous with "brownie points". Aye, although I wouldn't be concerned if it doesn't pass. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:39:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:39:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Aye. Not that it matters, since it's been vetoed already, but just in > case the veto gets changed. Actually, it's been removed from consideration by the author too. So never mind. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:46:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:46:08 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals Message-ID: >> Since I seem to be the only player objecting to this rule, >> and my objection isn't especially, strong, I'll withdraw >> my Nay vote. =20 > Does that imply changing it to "aye"? Well, it implies that I've not made a vote, which defaults to an "aye", but I'll explicitly "aye" here. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:47:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:47:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > Since I seem to be the only player objecting to this rule, > and my objection isn't especially, strong, I'll withdraw > my Nay vote. Actually, since it was already marked dead, I'll re-propose it: No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:48:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:48:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > > Consider this a formal proposal: Remove Rule 11. > > Nay. Since it's been vetoed, it may as well be declared dead, so consider it done. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:49:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:49:33 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals Message-ID: > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by=20 > unanimous agreement. AYE already. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:51:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:51:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] three new proposals In-Reply-To: <190650060.1042722661@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I propose the following three new rules: > > "Players may change the details of the map by unanimous consent." Aye. I'm also going to post (under a different subject heading, for easier tracking) suggestions for how individual players can make certain kinds of alteration to the map without consent of others. > "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached unanimous > consent on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except that > only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the > outcome of the proposal." Aye. > "Any player who is found to have intentionally deceived another player > about the current state of the game may be issued a demerit by unanimous > consent of the other players." Aye. Note that my site contains an indication of when it was last updated, and is not meant to be an accurate indication of gamestate after that time. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:51:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:51:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Psmith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I propose that, in accordance with Rule 12, Dylan O'Donnell (aka Psmith) > be added to the game as a player. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:52:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:52:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] two revised proposals In-Reply-To: <195529476.1042727540@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached 'sectional > consent' on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except > that only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the > outcome of the proposal." Aye. > "Any player who is agreed by sectional consent of all other players to have > intentionally deceived another player about the current state of the game > shall receive a demerit." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 16:00:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:00:05 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200794427.1042732805@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 10:47 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except > to remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 15:53:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:53:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Actually, since it was already marked dead, I'll re-propose it: > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 16:01:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:01:39 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Synonyms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200888141.1042732899@cornelius> >> The term "consent" will be considereny synonymous with the >> term "agreement" or "agree" (depending on part of speech), >> and "brown points" will be considered synonymous with >> "brownie points". I'll say aye, although I haven't noticed anyone referring to 'brown points' yet anyway. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 16:02:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formal proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Actually, since it was already marked dead, I'll re-propose it: > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > remove it from the game, which can only be done by unanimous agreement. Officially ratified as a rule, we all voted (myself implicitly, the rest explicitly), goes into effect one hour from this timestamp. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 17:40:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:40:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement Message-ID: Some proposals: At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. Turns end after 24 hours, or when the active player posts the words "Next turn", or when the active player is removed from the game, whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no such player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become active. (Commentary: This is not intended to limit actions not specified to take place on turns. Do we need to spell this out?) Two rooms may be declared "connected" to each other by unanimous consent. Connections between rooms are part of the state of the game. To "move" something means to change its location on the map to a room connected to that location. Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting intention to do so. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 17:56:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:56:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. > Turns end after 24 hours, or when the active player posts the words "Next > turn", or when the active player is removed from the game, whichever comes > first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the player whose name > comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using the names by which > players are known in this game), or if there is no such player, the first > player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into effect, the first > player in alphabetical order will become active. Aye. > (Commentary: This is not intended to limit actions not specified to take > place on turns. Do we need to spell this out?) Since there's not yet any significance to the term "active" outside these proposals, I don't see any problem there. > Two rooms may be declared "connected" to each other by unanimous > consent. Connections between rooms are part of the state of the game. Aye. And, to follow that up, I propose (not as a rule, but just as game state data): Any two rooms whose names, ignoring any articles ("the", "an", and "a"), share at least three distinct consonants (letters of the English alphabet not including "a", "e", "i", "o", or "u") will be considered to be connected. > To "move" something means to change its location on the map to a room > connected to that location. Aye. It appears implicit in the rule that something must have a location on the map for its location to be changed. If that's not generally seen as implicit, then I'll retract my vote. > Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting intention > to do so. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 18:02:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:02:44 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement Message-ID: > At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active=20 > player's turn. =20 > Turns end after 24 hours, or when the active player posts the=20 > words "Next > turn", or when the active player is removed from the game,=20 > whichever comes > first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the=20 > player whose name > comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using the names by which > players are known in this game), or if there is no such=20 > player, the first > player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into=20 > effect, the first > player in alphabetical order will become active. Eeeagh, I think this is awful. I don't really see any advantage to it, and it looks like a bookkeeping nightmare. > Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by=20 > posting intention > to do so. I don't think I see the value in not simply letting anyone move whenever they feel like it. But my mind remains open. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 18:11:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:11:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > Eeeagh, I think this is awful. I don't really see any > advantage to it, and it looks like a bookkeeping nightmare. The advantage would be to set up taking turns. Like in most board games, where play proceeds from one player to the next. > > Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by > > posting intention > > to do so. > > I don't think I see the value in not simply letting > anyone move whenever they feel like it. For the converse, what is the value of simply letting anyone move whenever they feel like it? As for restricting movement to one's turns, the game state so far is discrete, including the map. Some kind of formalized mechanism for changing that state seems appropriate, particularly if the game is going to be interesting as a game -- without restrictions on actions, actions become less interesting. Also, letting anyone move at any time gives an advantage to people who happen to be available at the right time to take advantage of a certain move -- simply by dint of having been sitting there waiting at their email client. And further, by letting any player perform game actions like moving at any time, it introduces the possibility of race conditions, where two players are making moves either simultaneously, or at least before hearing news of the other's actions. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 18:17:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:17:49 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement Message-ID: > The advantage would be to set up taking turns. Alright. I'm still not convinced, but I'll support it. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 19:08:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:08:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Formalists vs. Informalists: general observations Message-ID: I'm starting to notice a trend. In both this game and game 01, the players became polaized between those who want a great deal of formality, with rules specifying how everything is done, and those who wanted to take a looser approach, where the important thing is not the rules but the intent, and achieving agreement is more important than playing by the letter of the law. Obviously I'm in the formalist camp, and RC, who takes umbrage at being asked to say "aye" when he's already expressed agreement using other words, is an informalist. But this isn't just about the current game. In game 01, there was dispute over the matter of letting someone join. No one was opposed to him joining, but I was of the opinion that we couldn't do so because the rules at the time didn't provide for such a thing. This led to the animosity that caused the game to break up before it was far advanced. In particular, the person who wanted to join at one point posted "Everyone knows I'm in this game whether the rules say so or not", or something similar. My argument against this was that there's no point in haveing a game that's about its own rules if you ignore those rules, and that since, at that point in the game, there had already been disagreement and misunderstanding even on matters where the rules seemed clear to me, that we couldn't afford to assume things that aren't stated at all. As a rather inexperienced nomicist, I'm wondering: Is this division found in the nomic world in general? If so, how do they deal with it? Do particular games come to be dominated by one camp or the other, or is there always compromise? Are formalist tendencies a mark of an inexperienced player? (Do people get tired of the fine-print stuff after a while?) Are there other divisive issues I should be aware of? There's a third camp that I've noticed as well: the people who are just interested in passing silly rules with no effect on gameplay - for example, declaring "Admiral Jota is master of all beasts", and never referring to it again. (There used to be a game linked from Jacob Davenport's page where all the players were sillies, but it seems to be gone.) I admit I was like that in my first game of nomic, played in my teens; the fact that the Peter Suber rules actually require players to propose rule changes on their turn even if they don't have any in mind is part of this. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 19:17:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:17:06 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <212614833.1042744626@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 12:56 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > >> At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's >> turn. Turns end after 24 hours, or when the active player posts the >> words "Next turn", or when the active player is removed from the game, >> whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the >> player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using >> the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no >> such player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule >> goes into effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become >> active. I'm not certain I like this; it seems as though it could potentially slow the game down a lot. I can see the value in having an active player to avoid race conditions and in limiting frequency of action, though. Are players expected to end their turns as soon as they have carried out all the actions they want to perform, or will turns typically last the maximum 24 hours? Also, is the gotcha in "posts the words 'next turn'" intentional? I can see turns being ended by accident that way, and unless that was your intent I'd be happier with a phrasing like "announces that their turn is over". Withholding vote on this for now. >> Two rooms may be declared "connected" to each other by unanimous >> consent. Connections between rooms are part of the state of the game. Aye. > Aye. And, to follow that up, I propose (not as a rule, but just as game > state data): > > Any two rooms whose names, ignoring any articles ("the", "an", and "a"), > share at least three distinct consonants (letters of the English alphabet > not including "a", "e", "i", "o", or "u") will be considered to be > connected. I don't think you're allowed to do this unless you propose it as a rule, since my rule that the map can be changed by unanimous agreement hasn't been approved by Roger yet. Also, were you intending that this be a general property of the map or just that the rooms currently in existence be immediately connected in this manner? It seems like a good algorithm, but we might want to later make rooms which are harder to get to or otherwise connected in specific ways. >> To "move" something means to change its location on the map to a room >> connected to that location. Aye. >> Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting >> intention to do so. I'm not voting on this now, since if I agreed to it it would come into effect before the rule defining what a turn is. Once the turn rule or a suitable alternative is passed I'll approve this. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 19:25:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:25:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <212614833.1042744626@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I'm not certain I like this; it seems as though it could potentially slow > the game down a lot. I can see the value in having an active player to > avoid race conditions and in limiting frequency of action, though. Are > players expected to end their turns as soon as they have carried out all > the actions they want to perform, or will turns typically last the maximum > 24 hours? Hmm. I'd seen the 24 hours as a limiting factor, to prevent the turns from slowing the game to a standstill in the case that someone didn't take their turn, with the assumption that (once there was some more interesting stuff to do on one's turn) people would end their turns when they were done doing stuff. But I admit I had no real reason for that assumption. > Also, is the gotcha in "posts the words 'next turn'" intentional? I can see > turns being ended by accident that way, and unless that was your intent I'd > be happier with a phrasing like "announces that their turn is over". Good point. That probably ought to be clearer. I change my earlier vote to a tentative "nay". > I don't think you're allowed to do this unless you propose it as a rule, > since my rule that the map can be changed by unanimous agreement hasn't > been approved by Roger yet. Also, were you intending that this be a general > property of the map or just that the rooms currently in existence be > immediately connected in this manner? It seems like a good algorithm, but > we might want to later make rooms which are harder to get to or otherwise > connected in specific ways. I had intended to withhold official announcement of ratification until your rule had passed, but I can wait on the proposal itself as well if you wish. Also, the proposal was intended to apply to all existing and future rooms, except any rooms which later ratified proposals specified as being exceptions -- it wasn't meant to necessarily be the only method by which rooms kight be connected. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 19:24:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:24:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <212614833.1042744626@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I'm not certain I like this; it seems as though it could potentially slow > the game down a lot. I can see the value in having an active player to > avoid race conditions and in limiting frequency of action, though. Are > players expected to end their turns as soon as they have carried out all > the actions they want to perform, or will turns typically last the maximum > 24 hours? I'd certainly encourage people to explicitly end their turns rather than let them time out. But the timeout clause is necessary to keep people from blocking progress by inaction, and 24 hours seems like a reasonable turnaround to me. > Also, is the gotcha in "posts the words 'next turn'" intentional? I can see > turns being ended by accident that way, and unless that was your intent I'd > be happier with a phrasing like "announces that their turn is over". Well, okay. I like the principle of specifying an exact phrasing to eliminate ambiguity, and would gladly substitute "Blanchard regumas" or some other unlikely construction. But from the way things are going, I suspect that such any such exact phrase would be ignored part of the time, so "announces their turn is over" is probably better. Any other revisions? From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:10:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:10:53 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <219442421.1042751453@cornelius> >> At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's >> turn. Turns end after 24 hours, or when the active player posts the >> words "Next turn", or when the active player is removed from the game, >> whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the >> player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using >> the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no >> such player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule >> goes into effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become >> active. Ok, having heard everyone's responses I'll say "aye" to this. > Any two rooms whose names, ignoring any articles ("the", "an", and "a"), > share at least three distinct consonants (letters of the English alphabet > not including "a", "e", "i", "o", or "u") will be considered to be > connected. Having discussed this with Jota on ifMUD, we're both of the opinion that the map resulting from this is too highly connected. Jota has an alternative suggestion which I believe he's about to post either now or once the proposal allowing changes to the map has passed. So: Nay. >> Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting >> intention to do so. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:10:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:10:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <219442421.1042751453@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Having discussed this with Jota on ifMUD, we're both of the opinion that > the map resulting from this is too highly connected. Jota has an > alternative suggestion which I believe he's about to post either now or > once the proposal allowing changes to the map has passed. So: Nay. And, dead. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:10:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:10:14 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Roger's Magic Voting Omnibus Message-ID: I hereby vote AYE on all current proposals, with the exception of any proposal I have (unretractedly) voted NAY on. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:19:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:19:58 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <219987485.1042751998@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 2:25 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > Good point. That probably ought to be clearer. I change my > earlier vote to a tentative "nay". In which case, I declare baf's proposal to be dead, and submit the following new proposed rule: "At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. Turns end when the active player posts an announcement that their turn is completed, or after 24 hours, or when the active player is removed from the game, whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no such player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become active." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:19:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:19:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Passed proposals Message-ID: Additional rooms on the map shall include (but need not be limited to) "West of House", "Attic", "Under the High Wall (on a resting)", "Washington, DC", "Central Park", "The House of Commons", "Saturn", "Blasted Heath", "The North Pole", and "West of Nowhere". The term "consent" will be considereny synonymous with the term "agreement" or "agree" (depending on part of speech), and "brown points" will be considered synonymous with "brownie points". The above two proposals have been ratified, with either an implicit or explicit "aye" vote from each player. They will go into effect one hour from the time on this message, as Rules 18 and 19 respectively. The below proposal has also been ratified, with either an implicit or explicit "aye" vote from each player. The change to the game state that it describes will go into effect one hour from the time on this message, as per Rule 12. I propose that, in accordance with Rule 12, Dylan O'Donnell (aka Psmith) be added to the game as a player. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:20:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:20:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <219987485.1042751998@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. > Turns end when the active player posts an announcement that their turn is > completed, or after 24 hours, or when the active player is removed from the > game, whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is > the player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using > the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no such > player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into > effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become active." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:28:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:28:28 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] new rules in effect Message-ID: <220497448.1042752508@cornelius> In accordance with Rule 10, I am announcing that the following three rules have been agreed by all players and will come into effect one hour after the timestamp on this message. Rule 20. Players may change the details of the map by unanimous consent. Rule 21. A specified subset of players may be deemed to have reached 'sectional consent' on an issue in the same manner as specified in Rule 10, except that only players in the specified subset are counted for determining the outcome of the proposal. Rule 22. Any player who is agreed by sectional consent of all other players to have intentionally deceived another player about the current state of the game shall receive a demerit. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:38:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:38:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity Message-ID: Assumining that the proposals defining connections and letting us change the map go into effect before the following does, I propose (as a description of part of the state of the game, not as a rule): If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter of another room's name, counting from the start of each name, compared case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, and articles (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then those two rooms will be considered connected. This will apply both to those rooms already existing when this goes into effect and to those defined later, except where otherwise specified by a later rule. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 21:58:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:58:43 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <222311787.1042754323@cornelius> > Assumining that the proposals defining connections and letting us > change the map go into effect before the following does, I propose > (as a description of part of the state of the game, not as a rule): I'm not going to formally quibble with this because it's not part of your actual proposition, but this sentence seems to imply that one can propose arbitrary changes to the gamestate. The only changes you can propose are new rules, removals of rules, additions of players and alterations to the geography of the map (which is what this is). Just thought this should be clarified. > If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter > of another room's name, counting from the start of each name, > compared case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, > and articles (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then > those two rooms will be considered connected. This will apply both > to those rooms already existing when this goes into effect and to > those defined later, except where otherwise specified by a later > rule. Aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 22:30:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:30:35 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions Message-ID: Persuant to Rule 20 (when it comes into full effect), I suggest the following new details of the map: 1) There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can it be connected to any other room. 2) There exists a room which is connected to every other room and every possible room. The above two rooms may or may not have names in=20 the traditional sense. No, I don't know if the room proposed in #1 connects to #2 or not. Eventually, we'll probably need to resolve conflicting rules and that sort of thing. 3) There exists a room called "The Bank" which contains 10 brownie points. 4) There exists a room called "Iraq" which contains three demerits. 5) There exists a room called "The". .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 22:45:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:45:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > 1) There exists a room which is not connected to > any other room nor can it be connected to any other > room. Seems reasonable. I'm reading as, effectively, a two-part proposal: A) There exists a room (without a specified name). B) This room is not connected to any other rooms. Assuming no one assigns this room a name that'd conflict with the earlier proposal about connectivity by Nth letters, I have no problems with this room. Aye. > 2) There exists a room which is connected to > every other room and every possible room. Nay. For one, it'd conflict with the above proposal. For two, it'd conflict with the earlier Nth letter connectivity. For three, it'd wreak havoc on connectivity to have a room that's connected to every single other one. Too easy to get from place to place. > 3) There exists a room called "The Bank" which > contains 10 brownie points. > > 4) There exists a room called "Iraq" which > contains three demerits. Nay to both. There's nothing in any rule that describes a room as containing anything, so that's not a property of rooms unless a rule makes it so. Furthermore, there is nothing yet in the rules about brownie points or demerits that suggests that they can be associated with anything other than players. > 5) There exists a room called "The". I've got nothing against this in principle, but in practice, it doesn't appear to serve particularly much purpose beyond that served by the room described in your first proposal above. So nay. However, a proposal to name the room mentioned in your first proposal to "The" would be fine by me. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 22:50:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:50:12 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <225400769.1042757412@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 3:30 pm -0700 "Carbol, Roger" wrote: > Persuant to Rule 20 (when it comes into full effect), > I suggest the following new details of the map: > > 1) There exists a room which is not connected to > any other room nor can it be connected to any other > room. I'm fine with the idea, but I'd prefer it if the room had a name. See my response to your fifth proposal. > 2) There exists a room which is connected to > every other room and every possible room. Nay; this would make it possible to travel from any room to any other room in two moves and render the whole issue of connectivity more or less pointless. Although I'm tempted by the idea of creating some kind of transporter room which can be teleported to or from with some kind of attached expense. > 3) There exists a room called "The Bank" which > contains 10 brownie points. Nay; I don't think it's meaningful at this point for a room to contain brownie points, which can only be attached to players at present. (Actually, at the moment a player's brownie points tally is not part of the gamestate; this should be rectified.) Also there are no rules which cover the presence of objects other than players in rooms or any mechanism for picking them up if they did exist. On the other hand, I'd be ok with creating a room called the Bank and passing a rule that the first player to enter it receieves ten brownie points, or somesuch. > 4) There exists a room called "Iraq" which > contains three demerits. Again, I have to vote nay on this on the grounds that according to the rules, a room can't contain demerits. > 5) There exists a room called "The". Aye. This would be the room which is not and cannot be connected to any other room? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 22:57:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:57:45 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] new rule proposal Message-ID: <225854291.1042757865@cornelius> In an attempt to fix a couple of potentially important omissions, I propose the following new rule: "Two tallies shall be attached to each player, recording the number of demerits and the number of brownie points each has received. The value of these tallies shall be part of the state of the game." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 22:57:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:57:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] new rule proposal In-Reply-To: <225854291.1042757865@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "Two tallies shall be attached to each player, recording the number of > demerits and the number of brownie points each has received. The value of > these tallies shall be part of the state of the game." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 22:53:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:53:28 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions Message-ID: >> 2) There exists a room which is connected to >> every other room and every possible room. =20 > Nay; this would make it possible to travel from any room to=20 > any other room=20 > in two moves and render the whole issue of connectivity more or less=20 > pointless. Although I'm tempted by the idea of creating some kind of=20 > transporter room which can be teleported to or from with some kind of=20 > attached expense. Yes, I suppose there is that. Maybe the omni-connectional room should be non-enterable by players. But then it gets even MORE pointless than usual, even by my standards. >> 3) There exists a room called "The Bank" which >> contains 10 brownie points. =20 > Nay; I don't think it's meaningful at this point for a room=20 > to contain brownie points I think it's as meaningful as players containing brownie points, which may or may not be very much. >> 4) There exists a room called "Iraq" which >> contains three demerits. =20 > Again, I have to vote nay on this on the grounds that=20 > according to the=20 > rules, a room can't contain demerits. I wouldn't say the rules say that. =20 >> 5) There exists a room called "The". =20 > Aye. This would be the room which is not and cannot be=20 > connected to any=20 > other room? I think so, but I'm not entirely sure. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:05:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:05:30 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <226318699.1042758330@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 3:53 pm -0700 "Carbol, Roger" wrote: >> Nay; I don't think it's meaningful at this point for a room >> to contain brownie points > > I think it's as meaningful as players containing brownie > points, which may or may not be very much. > >> Again, I have to vote nay on this on the grounds that >> according to the rules, a room can't contain demerits. > > I wouldn't say the rules say that. At the moment the rules don't define demerits or brownie points at all. If my latest proposal is passed, demerits and brownie points will be defined in terms of a tally attached to each player, which makes it entirely meaningful for players to have them and entirely impossible for rooms to contain them. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:03:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:03:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > > Nay; I don't think it's meaningful at this point for a room > > to contain brownie points > > I think it's as meaningful as players containing brownie > points, which may or may not be very much. Right, exactly. Players can receive them, but there's nothing about players containing them, so that's not meaningful either. > > Again, I have to vote nay on this on the grounds that > > according to the > > rules, a room can't contain demerits. > > I wouldn't say the rules say that. The rules don't say a room can contain demerits. That's not part of the definition of a room, or of demerits, or of any other room about rooms or demerits. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:11:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:11:01 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] new rule proposal Message-ID: <226650506.1042758661@cornelius> I hereby propose the following new rule: "There shall exist a room called 'the Dot-Com Bubble', referred to in this rule as "the bubble". The first player to enter the bubble shall receieve one brownie point. The next player to enter shall receive two brownie points, with the number of points doubling each time a player enters, except that a player does not receive any points for entering the bubble if they were previously the last person who received points for doing so. As soon as a player receives 32 brownie points for entering the bubble, the bubble will burst and any and all objects in the game whose location is the bubble will have their location changed to the Lounge; the bubble will be removed from the map entirely." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:11:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:11:24 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions Message-ID: > At the moment the rules don't define demerits or brownie=20 > points at all. If=20 > my latest proposal is passed, demerits and brownie points=20 > will be defined=20 > in terms of a tally attached to each player, which makes it entirely=20 > meaningful for players to have them and entirely impossible=20 > for rooms to=20 > contain them. There's no reason to think that players and rooms are mutually exclusive categories. Formal Call for Consensus: The room "Mornington Crescent", pursuant to Rule 12, shall become a player. Formal Call for Consensus 2: That a room called "Roger Carbol" be added to the map. .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:14:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:14:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] new rule proposal In-Reply-To: <226650506.1042758661@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "There shall exist a room called 'the Dot-Com Bubble', referred to in this > rule as "the bubble". The first player to enter the bubble shall receieve > one brownie point. The next player to enter shall receive two brownie > points, with the number of points doubling each time a player enters, > except that a player does not receive any points for entering the bubble if > they were previously the last person who received points for doing so. As > soon as a player receives 32 brownie points for entering the bubble, the > bubble will burst and any and all objects in the game whose location is the > bubble will have their location changed to the Lounge; the bubble will be > removed from the map entirely." Under the assumption that we all understand that the 'no points for entering right after yourself' bit doesn't count as 0 brownie points, for purposes of future doubling, I vote aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:20:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:20:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > There's no reason to think that players and rooms are > mutually exclusive categories. There's nothing that says a player can be a room or vice versa; it'd take a rule to declare that they could be each other. The players are defined; the rooms are defined. Anything further would require adding to their definitions. > The room "Mornington Crescent", pursuant to Rule 12, > shall become a player. Nay, on the above grounds. You're free to propose it as a rule, if you wish. But that'd suck if it passed, because it's not likely to vote on anything. > That a room called "Roger Carbol" be added to the map. Nay, on the grounds that it'd be confusing to have a room and a palyer with the same name. If you really are concerned, feel free to propose a rigorous definition of "the details of the map". -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:26:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:26:14 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions Message-ID: > There's nothing that says a player can be a room or vice=20 > versa; it'd take > a rule to declare that they could be each other. The players=20 > are defined; > the rooms are defined. Anything further would require adding to their > definitions. The players are defined, but there's no definition of what can become a player. Indeed, as far as the game is concerned, players come out of nowhere, fully formed. There's no rule stating Psmith can become a player, and yet we're about to make him one. So I don't think "Mornington Crescent" is any less a legal target for playerification. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:30:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:30:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > The players are defined, but there's no definition of > what can become a player. Indeed, as far as the game is > concerned, players come out of nowhere, fully formed. > > There's no rule stating Psmith can become a player, and > yet we're about to make him one. Well, Rule 12 states he can. I was under the impression you were basing your previous proposal on Rule 20, which may have been incorrect of me. So I'll change my reasoning: > So I don't think "Mornington Crescent" is any less a legal > target for playerification. Given Rule 12, sure, we could make MC a player. But I still vote nay anyway, because he'd make a fairly poor player. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:56:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:56:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Passive Voting Message-ID: The following is one proposal (to be voted on as one single proposal) for two new rules (to be added as two separate rules): I. As part of the game state, there shall exist a list of players called the "Passive Voters" list. The list may at times hold zero players; this is fine. Whenever a formal proposal is made, any player who is on this list will be considered to immediately vote "aye" on said proposal; this shall be considered an implicit "aye" vote as described in Rule 10. Any such player may still change that vote, as described in Rule 10. II. Any player may cause themselves to be added to or removed from the Passive Voters list by posting clear intent to do so. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 16 23:52:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:52:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] My pending proposals Message-ID: OK. We have a new player; welcome Psmith! Unfortunately, I think this means that we no longer have unanimous consent on any of the rule proposals I had made. If I had jumped in after RC gave his mass Aye and before psmith was declared to be in the game, I could have declared them ratified, but no, I decided to do other stuff for a change. So! For the convenience of Mr. O'Donnell, and of myself, here's a summary of my proposals still under consideration. If any of this is inaccurate, please let me know. http://wurb.com/pipermail/nomic02/2003-January/000055.html The two proposals about posting: aye from all players except psmith http://wurb.com/pipermail/nomic02/2003-January/000096.html The two proposals defining connections and movement: aye from all players except psmith The rule defining turns: Adam has made a counterproposal which I support at http://wurb.com/pipermail/nomic02/2003-January/000108.html. I will declare the original version dead shortly. The rule about moving once per turn: aye from Jota and I think from RC, if I understand him correctly. Adam abstaining until a definition of turns passes. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:04:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:04:00 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Passive Voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <229828896.1042761840@cornelius> > The following is one proposal (to be voted on as one single proposal) for > two new rules (to be added as two separate rules): > > I. As part of the game state, there shall exist a list of players called > the "Passive Voters" list. [...] > > II. Any player may cause themselves to be added to or removed from the > Passive Voters list by posting clear intent to do so. Aye! jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:06:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:06:44 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <229992902.1042762004@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 4:11 pm -0700 "Carbol, Roger" wrote: > There's no reason to think that players and rooms are > mutually exclusive categories. Possibly true. However, based on the fact that the rules are built around the assumption that players have the ability to act for themselves, a room would not be a good candidate for a player. > Formal Call for Consensus: > > The room "Mornington Crescent", pursuant to Rule 12, > shall become a player. Vote nay, for the reasons above. On the grounds that Jota has also voted nay and seems unlikely to change his mind, I'm declaring that this proposal is dead. > Formal Call for Consensus 2: > > That a room called "Roger Carbol" be added to the map. I'll vote aye, since I don't have any strong objection. Not that it makes much difference, as I suspect Jota is again unlikely to change his nay-vote. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:13:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:13:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Winning and Losing Message-ID: Whoops, this never got formally proposed, so I'll do it now: It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and all players who have not won will lose. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:13:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:13:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter of > another room's name, counting from the start of each name, compared > case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, and articles > (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then those two rooms > will be considered connected. This will apply both to those rooms > already existing when this goes into effect and to those defined later, > except where otherwise specified by a later rule. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:17:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:17:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <219987485.1042751998@cornelius> Message-ID: > "At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. > Turns end when the active player posts an announcement that their turn is > completed, or after 24 hours, or when the active player is removed from the > game, whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is > the player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using > the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no such > player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into > effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become active." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:18:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:18:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] new rule proposal In-Reply-To: <225854291.1042757865@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "Two tallies shall be attached to each player, recording the number of > demerits and the number of brownie points each has received. The value of > these tallies shall be part of the state of the game." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:21:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:21:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > >> 2) There exists a room which is connected to > >> every other room and every possible room. > > > Nay; I'm declaring this dead. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:33:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:33:56 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Winning and Losing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <231624949.1042763636@cornelius> > Whoops, this never got formally proposed, so I'll do it now: > > It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be > described in the rules. A player who loses will be removed > entirely from the state of the game, and may not rejoin. > If a player wins, the game will immediately end and all > players who have not won will lose. Aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:27:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:27:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] new rule proposal In-Reply-To: <226650506.1042758661@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > "There shall exist a room called 'the Dot-Com Bubble', referred to in this > rule as "the bubble". The first player to enter the bubble shall receieve > one brownie point. The next player to enter shall receive two brownie > points, with the number of points doubling each time a player enters, > except that a player does not receive any points for entering the bubble if > they were previously the last person who received points for doing so. As > soon as a player receives 32 brownie points for entering the bubble, the > bubble will burst and any and all objects in the game whose location is the > bubble will have their location changed to the Lounge; the bubble will be > removed from the map entirely." Aye. Let it be noted that there is currently no way for players to change their location, but this does not strike me as an obstacle to passing this proposal. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:30:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:30:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > The room "Mornington Crescent", pursuant to Rule 12, > shall become a player. Nay. I don't think it will be posting any votes, so if we add it as a player, we'll have to wait the full 72 hours for every decision. I do agree in principle that players don't need to be human, and would be willing to consider nonhuman players, provided that they are capable of posting votes. > That a room called "Roger Carbol" be added to the map. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:36:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:36:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Passive Voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I. As part of the game state, there shall exist a list of players called > the "Passive Voters" list. The list may at times hold zero players; > this is fine. Whenever a formal proposal is made, any player who is on > this list will be considered to immediately vote "aye" on said > proposal; this shall be considered an implicit "aye" vote as described > in Rule 10. Any such player may still change that vote, as described in > Rule 10. Aye. > II. Any player may cause themselves to be added to or removed from the > Passive Voters list by posting clear intent to do so. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 00:38:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:38:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Winning and Losing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Whoops, this never got formally proposed, so I'll do it now: > > It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in > the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state > of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will > immediately end and all players who have not won will lose. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 02:14:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:14:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants Message-ID: This is a single proposal, made up of three parts. The first part regards an addition to the map. The second and third parts describe two new rules. For further clarity, those rules are broken down further, but each is still only a single rule. I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". II. Servants: Creation and Destruction A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. III. Servants: Names and Species A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. Again, note that the above (one map change, two rules) is one proposal. Also note that this does not specify any mechanism for servants' locations being changed, and that any rule describing what happens when a player enters a location still only refers to players, not servants. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 02:19:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:19:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Er. Because of great stupidity on my part, I shall now vote Nay to that proposal I just submitted. I ask that someone declare it dead, as I'm about to post a version including what I stupidly forgot, last time. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 02:20:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:20:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants Message-ID: This is a single proposal, made up of three parts. The first part regards an addition to the map. The second and third parts describe two new rules. For further clarity, those rules are broken down further, but each is still only a single rule. I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". II. Servants: Creation and Destruction A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. These servants will be part of the state of the game. B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. III. Servants: Names and Species A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. Again, note that the above (one map change, two rules) is one proposal. Also note that this does not specify any mechanism for servants' locations being changed, and that any rule describing what happens when a player enters a location still only refers to players, not servants. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 02:18:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:18:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > This is a single proposal, made up of three parts. The first part regards > an addition to the map. The second and third parts describe two new rules. > For further clarity, those rules are broken down further, but each is > still only a single rule. Aye to it. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 02:21:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:21:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > This is a single proposal, made up of three parts. The first part regards > an addition to the map. The second and third parts describe two new rules. > For further clarity, those rules are broken down further, but each is > still only a single rule. Aye to this one too. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 08:07:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:07:17 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Servants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1341789.1042790837@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 9:14 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > This is a single proposal, made up of three parts. The first part regards > an addition to the map. The second and third parts describe two new rules. > For further clarity, those rules are broken down further, but each is > still only a single rule. > > I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". > > II. Servants: Creation and Destruction > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. > B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The > initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. > C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. > > III. Servants: Names and Species > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. > C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time > will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and > species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by > sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. > > Again, note that the above (one map change, two rules) is one proposal. > Also note that this does not specify any mechanism for servants' locations > being changed, and that any rule describing what happens when a player > enters a location still only refers to players, not servants. Vote nay and declare this proposal dead, as per your request. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 08:13:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:13:53 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Servants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1737989.1042791233@cornelius> --On 16 January 2003 9:20 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' > Quarters". > > II. Servants: Creation and Destruction > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated > servant. > These servants will be part of the state of the game. > B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the > map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' > Quarters. > C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease > to exist. > > III. Servants: Names and Species > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their > servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule > takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, > whichever is later. > C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in > that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the > assignment of the name and species of their servant will be > turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of > all players in the game excepting themselves. I'll vote aye on this for now, but I'll mention that I'm a little unhappy with the phrase "these servants will be part of the state of the game": the state of the game should consist of information, not things. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 11:00:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:00:35 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal Message-ID: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> Good morning, all. To start moving things along: The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Aye. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Aye. Two rooms may be declared "connected" to each other by unanimous consent. Connections between rooms are part of the state of the game. Aye. To "move" something means to change its location on the map to a room connected to that location. Aye. At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. Turns end when the active player posts an announcement that their turn is completed, or after 24 hours, or when the active player is removed from the game, whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no such player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become active. Aye. (For what it's worth, baf's original proposal with regard to this was already declared dead by jwalrus in http://wurb.com/pipermail/nomic02/2003-January/000108.html so there's no need for baf to do so.) Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting intention to do so. I intend to vote "aye" on this, but won't until the rule defining "move" has come into effect. If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter of another room's name, counting from the start of each name, compared case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, and articles (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then those two rooms will be considered connected. This will apply both to those rooms already existing when this goes into effect and to those defined later, except where otherwise specified by a later rule. Aye. Two tallies shall be attached to each player, recording the number of demerits and the number of brownie points each has received. The value of these tallies shall be part of the state of the game. Aye. There shall exist a room called 'the Dot-Com Bubble', referred to in this rule as "the bubble". The first player to enter the bubble shall receieve one brownie point. The next player to enter shall receive two brownie points, with the number of points doubling each time a player enters, except that a player does not receive any points for entering the bubble if they were previously the last person who received points for doing so. As soon as a player receives 32 brownie points for entering the bubble, the bubble will burst and any and all objects in the game whose location is the bubble will have their location changed to the Lounge; the bubble will be removed from the map entirely. Aye. There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can it be connected to any other room. Nay. I don't want unnamed entities to be part of the state of the game; referring to them is cumbersome. There exists a room called "The Bank" which contains 10 brownie points. I declare this proposal dead pursuant to jwalrus' nay vote. There exists a room called "Iraq" which contains three demerits. I declare this proposal dead pursuant to jwalrus' nay vote. There exists a room called "The". Aye. A room called "Roger Carbol" shall be added to the map. Nay. I don't want two entities with the same name to be part of the state of the game. I declare this proposal dead, pursuant to Jota's nay vote. As part of the game state, there shall exist a list of players called the "Passive Voters" list. The list may at times hold zero players; this is fine. Whenever a formal proposal is made, any player who is on this list will be considered to immediately vote "aye" on said proposal; this shall be considered an implicit "aye" vote as described in Rule 10. Any such player may still change that vote, as described in Rule 10. Any player may cause themselves to be added to or removed from the Passive Voters list by posting clear intent to do so. Aye, with the observation that if at any time all players are on this list, anyone can get anything they like passed (or, if all but one are, the remaining player can). So this is something that will have to be avoided. It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and all players who have not won will lose. Aye. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. These servants will be part of the state of the game. B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. Nay, on the grounds of jwalrus' objection. I propose the following bundle-change (as before, a map-change and two rules): I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". II. Servants: Creation and Destruction A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. The set of these servants will be part of the state of the game. B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. III. Servants: Names and Species A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. A request for information: are there any outstanding proposals on which I have not voted? And a note: the website version of Rule 15 is incorrect; the second mention of "brownie points" should read "brown points" (declared to be synonymous by Rule 19). -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 11:20:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:20:06 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal Message-ID: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> Named Proposals [Psmith]: Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, initials, or other individual referent to the proponent in square brackets ([]). -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 11:44:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:44:14 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> References: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <728537.1042803854@cornelius> --On 17 January 2003 11:20 am +0000 Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Named Proposals [Psmith]: > Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be > different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether > that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To > ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, > initials, or other individual referent to the proponent in square > brackets ([]). Aye, and good suggestion. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 12:10:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:10:00 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> References: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <2273999.1042805400@cornelius> --On 17 January 2003 11:00 am +0000 Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Aye, with the observation that if at any time all players are on this > list, anyone can get anything they like passed (or, if all but one > are, the remaining player can). So this is something that will have to > be avoided. Well, by adding oneself to the passive voters list one is implicitly giving consent for anything anyone likes to be passed, so I don't see this as a problem. In addition to which, if everyone is on the passive voters list the game is probably in trouble anyway. > There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". > > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. > These servants will be part of the state of the game. > B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The > initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. > C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to > exist. > > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. > C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that > time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the > name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided > instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting > themselves. > > Nay, on the grounds of jwalrus' objection. I propose the following > bundle-change (as before, a map-change and two rules): > > I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' > Quarters". > > II. Servants: Creation and Destruction > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. > The set of these servants will be part of the state of the game. > B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The > initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. > C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to > exist. > > III. Servants: Names and Species > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their > servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule > takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, > whichever is later. > C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that > time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the > name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided > instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting > themselves. In this case I declare Jota's proposal dead pursuant to Psmith's nay vote and vote aye on Psmith's similar proposal. > A request for information: are there any outstanding proposals on > which I have not voted? I only have a record of those I proposed, all of which you've voted on. I can't immediately think of any you've missed. > And a note: the website version of Rule 15 is incorrect; the second > mention of "brownie points" should read "brown points" (declared to be > synonymous by Rule 19). True; note that the website is not officially part of the game, however, and since the two phrases are synonymous anyway I'm prepared to veto any proposal that baf be demerited for lying about the rules. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 13:09:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:09:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can > it be connected to any other room. > > Nay. I don't want unnamed entities to be part of the state of the game; > referring to them is cumbersome. I'll declare this dead. However, since there seems to be no general complaint about the notion of a disconnected room, I'll propose a synthesis of two of Roger's proposals: There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can it be connected to any other room. This room is called "The". > Nay, on the grounds of jwalrus' objection. I propose the following > bundle-change (as before, a map-change and two rules): I should note that by Rule 14, the map itself is part of the game state ("The map and any information about..."). However, this won't prevent me from supporting your revised version. > I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". > > II. Servants: Creation and Destruction > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. > The set of these servants will be part of the state of the game. > B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The > initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. > C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. > > III. Servants: Names and Species > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. > C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that > time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the > name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided > instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting > themselves. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 13:10:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:10:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Named Proposals [Psmith]: > Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be > different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether > that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To > ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, > initials, or other individual referent to the proponent in square > brackets ([]). Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 13:12:46 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:12:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Named Proposals [Psmith]: > Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be > different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether > that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To > ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, > initials, or other individual referent to the proponent in square > brackets ([]). Actually, I should clarify: if this is ratified, it would only affect the process of making new proposals, not invalidate existing ones, right? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 13:19:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:19:55 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030117131955.GA63517@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Named Proposals [Psmith]: > > Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be > > different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether > > that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To > > ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, > > initials, or other individual referent to the proponent in square > > brackets ([]). > > Actually, I should clarify: if this is ratified, it would only affect the > process of making new proposals, not invalidate existing ones, right? It sets restrictions on the posting of new proposals, so yes. If anyone differs in this interpretation, I can re-propose it with more explicit wording to that effect. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 13:28:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:28:10 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030117132809.GB63517@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can > it be connected to any other room. This room is called "The". Aye. Furthermore, I declare Roger's proposal for a simple room called "The" dead, pursuant to Jota's previous nay vote. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 16:33:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:33:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: The following rule proposals have been ratified, having received an explicit "aye" from all players but myself. They go into effect one hour from the timestamp of this message. The mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com will be considered a part of the game, and will be refered to as The List. To "post" something is to send it to the list. Any player who does not post for a week (that is, a seven-day period of non-posting following their latest post, counted from the time of day the last post was made) will incur one demerit. Further week-long delays, counted from the latest invocation of this rule, will each incur one additional demerit. Two rooms may be declared "connected" to each other by unanimous consent. Connections between rooms are part of the state of the game. To "move" something means to change its location on the map to a room connected to that location. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 16:46:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:46:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal In-Reply-To: <2273999.1042805400@cornelius> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > True; note that the website is not officially part of the game, however, > and since the two phrases are synonymous anyway I'm prepared to veto any > proposal that baf be demerited for lying about the rules. In addition, I submit that this was a mistake, not a deliberate deception. I have corrected it. Also, typos of this sort shouldn't occur much; I retyped that rule because it was inconvenient at the time for me to copy the email directly, but this will not generally be the case. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 16:49:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:49:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117131955.GA63517@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > It sets restrictions on the posting of new proposals, so yes. If anyone > differs in this interpretation, I can re-propose it with more explicit > wording to that effect. I think it's fine the way it is. The existing rules aren't affected because they're no longer proposals. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 16:58:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:58:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > It sets restrictions on the posting of new proposals, so yes. If anyone > > differs in this interpretation, I can re-propose it with more explicit > > wording to that effect. > > I think it's fine the way it is. The existing rules aren't affected > because they're no longer proposals. My concern was because existing viable proposals (not yet ratified or dead) are still proposals. However, I'm fine with taking it as read that they'd be unaffected. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 16:54:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:54:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pending proposals: Psmith's votes, and a revised proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117110034.GB62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: > Nay, on the grounds of jwalrus' objection. I propose the following > bundle-change (as before, a map-change and two rules): > > I. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". > > II. Servants: Creation and Destruction > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. > The set of these servants will be part of the state of the game. > B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The > initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. > C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. > > III. Servants: Names and Species > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. > C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that > time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the > name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided > instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting > themselves. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 16:55:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:55:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal proposal In-Reply-To: <20030117112005.GC62402@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Named Proposals [Psmith]: > Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be > different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether > that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To > ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, > initials, or other individual referent to the proponent in square > brackets ([]). Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:09:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:09:55 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing Message-ID: <20030117170955.GA64673@spod-central.org> Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. Remove Rule 17. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous agreement. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:19:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:19:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: <20030117170955.GA64673@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: > A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. > Remove Rule 17. > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it > from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. That seems reasonable, given that the above is a single proposal, so the new rule will go into effect at the same time #17 is removed. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:32:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:32:29 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: <20030117170955.GA64673@spod-central.org> References: <20030117170955.GA64673@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <21622661.1042824748@cornelius> > Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: > A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. > Remove Rule 17. > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except > to amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to > remove it from the game, either of which can only be done by > unanimous agreement. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:25:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:25:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: > > A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. > > Remove Rule 17. > > > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > > amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it > > from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous > > agreement. I'm still undecided about this. I just want to comment on this new trend of compound proposals, which started with the Servant's Quarters proposal. My opinion is that nothing in the rules forbid it; if everything in a proposal is allowed to be done by unanimous consent, then the proposal as a whole can be decided by unanimous consent. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:39:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:39:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I'm still undecided about this. I just want to comment on this new trend > of compound proposals, which started with the Servant's Quarters proposal. > My opinion is that nothing in the rules forbid it; if everything in a > proposal is allowed to be done by unanimous consent, then the proposal as > a whole can be decided by unanimous consent. Irrelevant nit-pick: I think it actually started with Passive Voting, so that the rule about joining/leaving the PV list couldn't pass without the definition of the PV list passing as well. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:44:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:44:28 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22341805.1042825468@cornelius> > I'm still undecided about this. I just want to comment on this new trend > of compound proposals, which started with the Servant's Quarters > proposal. My opinion is that nothing in the rules forbid it; if > everything in a proposal is allowed to be done by unanimous consent, then > the proposal as a whole can be decided by unanimous consent. For what it's worth, I concur. Rule 6 says that rules may be changed by unanimous agreement, and Rule 10 details a process for deciding when the players have reached unanimous agreement. There's nothing in Rule 6 saying that only one change may be made at a time. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:43:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:43:07 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030117174307.GA64882@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: > > > A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. > > > Remove Rule 17. > > > > > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > > > amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it > > > from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous > > > agreement. > > I'm still undecided about this. The intention is to turn number-references into symbolic links rather than hard links, to prevent having to delete-and-repropose all referring rules whenever a rule is amended by deletion-and-reproposal. A convenience, nothing more. > I just want to comment on this new trend > of compound proposals, which started with the Servant's Quarters proposal. > My opinion is that nothing in the rules forbid it; if everything in a > proposal is allowed to be done by unanimous consent, then the proposal as > a whole can be decided by unanimous consent. Yes, I was going to query Jota's use of it in SQ; but looked at Rule 10 again and noted that "a change" didn't necessarily mean an atomic change. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:48:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:48:43 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030117174843.GA64976@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting intention > to do so. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:51:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:51:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: <20030117174307.GA64882@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > I'm still undecided about this. > > The intention is to turn number-references into symbolic links rather > than hard links, to prevent having to delete-and-repropose all > referring rules whenever a rule is amended by deletion-and-reproposal. > A convenience, nothing more. I think baf's concern is that it'll prevent the possibility of someone looking at the list of rules (deleted and extant) and be able to see how the rules used to be at a point in time, because the information of where the pointers used to point will not longer appear there. However, given that the web page isn't actually a part of the game, there's nothing preventing baf from adding notes to deleted rules, mentioning which other rules used to point to them. Also, as a side-note, it might be useful to timestamp the listing of rules (and rule deletions, and pointer-changes) with when they took effect, so that it's easy to see at what point a rule was deleted. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 17:55:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:55:01 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Room suggestion Message-ID: <20030117175501.GB64976@spod-central.org> Zrblm [Psmith]: There is a room on the map called "Zrblm". No servant may be moved to Zrblm. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 18:00:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:00:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room suggestion In-Reply-To: <20030117175501.GB64976@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Zrblm [Psmith]: > There is a room on the map called "Zrblm". No servant may be moved > to Zrblm. Aye. (In light of Psmith's clarification that this is a rule proposal, not just a room proposal.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 18:05:13 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:05:13 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Room suggestion In-Reply-To: <20030117175501.GB64976@spod-central.org> References: <20030117175501.GB64976@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <23586675.1042826713@cornelius> > Zrblm [Psmith]: > There is a room on the map called "Zrblm". No servant may be > moved to Zrblm. Aye, based on the implication that at some point a rule will be proposed which allows servants to be moved. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 18:07:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:07:06 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Room suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <20030117175501.GB64976@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030117180706.GC64976@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Zrblm [Psmith]: > > There is a room on the map called "Zrblm". No servant may be moved > > to Zrblm. > > Aye. > > (In light of Psmith's clarification that this is a rule proposal, not just > a room proposal.) To confirm: this is a proposal under the auspices of Rule 6, not of Rule 20. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 17 18:41:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:41:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Christmas Proposal Message-ID: This is a proposal in two parts. The first is for a rule (per Rule 6); the second is for a change to the map (per Rule 20). Merry Consumerism Christmas [Jota] I. A room on the map may have an associated "toll", which may also be referred to as a "tax". A toll has a location (its room on the map), a name, and an integer value. Any time a player enters (by movement or other means described in the rules) a room with an associated toll, that player loses a number of brownie points equal to the value of the toll, and every other player receives a number of brownie points equal to one half of that value, rounded up. Tolls will be considered details of the map, as per Rule 20. II. The North Pole will have an associated toll called the "Elf Tax", with the value 10. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 18 00:17:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:17:57 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Christmas Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45950994.1042849077@cornelius> > Merry Consumerism Christmas [Jota] > > I. A room on the map may have an associated "toll", which may also be > referred to as a "tax". A toll has a location (its room on the map), a > name, and an integer value. Any time a player enters (by movement or > other means described in the rules) a room with an associated toll, > that player loses a number of brownie points equal to the value of the > toll, and every other player receives a number of brownie points equal > to one half of that value, rounded up. Tolls will be considered details > of the map, as per Rule 20. > > II. The North Pole will have an associated toll called the "Elf Tax", with > the value 10. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 18 00:19:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:19:51 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal Message-ID: <46065668.1042849191@cornelius> Things Can Only Get Better [jwalrus] (rule proposal) A player's brownie points tally may never be negative. If the rules dictate that a player should lose more brownie points than the current value of their brownie points tally, the value of the tally shall instead become 0. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 18 00:26:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:26:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <46065668.1042849191@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Things Can Only Get Better [jwalrus] (rule proposal) > > A player's brownie points tally may never be negative. If the rules dictate > that a player should lose more brownie points than the current value of > their brownie points tally, the value of the tally shall instead become 0. Hmm, interesting. Ps was also considering a proposal on that subject. I'll wait until both have been made before choosing one to support. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 00:22:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:22:50 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] passivity proposal Message-ID: <58626720.1042935770@cornelius> A proposal for a new rule: Zombie Voters [jwalrus] "Any player who has not posted in the last 72 hours may be added to the passive voters list by sectional consent of all the other players." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 00:22:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 19:22:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] passivity proposal In-Reply-To: <58626720.1042935770@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Zombie Voters [jwalrus] > "Any player who has not posted in the last 72 hours may be added to the > passive voters list by sectional consent of all the other players." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 03:05:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:05:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Game Name Message-ID: A rule proposal: Nominality [Jota] This game will have a name. At the time this rule goes into effect, that name will be "ifMUD Nomic". The players may change the name of the game by unanimous agreement. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 08:27:13 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:27:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing In-Reply-To: <20030117170955.GA64673@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: > A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. > Remove Rule 17. > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to > amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it > from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous > agreement. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 08:28:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:28:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Room suggestion In-Reply-To: <20030117175501.GB64976@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Zrblm [Psmith]: > There is a room on the map called "Zrblm". No servant may be moved > to Zrblm. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 08:29:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:29:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Christmas Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > This is a proposal in two parts. The first is for a rule (per Rule 6); the > second is for a change to the map (per Rule 20). Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 08:29:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:29:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <46065668.1042849191@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Things Can Only Get Better [jwalrus] (rule proposal) Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 08:30:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:30:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Game Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > A rule proposal: > > Nominality [Jota] > This game will have a name. At the time this rule goes into effect, that > name will be "ifMUD Nomic". The players may change the name of the game by > unanimous agreement. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 08:30:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:30:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] passivity proposal In-Reply-To: <58626720.1042935770@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > A proposal for a new rule: > > Zombie Voters [jwalrus] > "Any player who has not posted in the last 72 hours may be added to the > passive voters list by sectional consent of all the other players." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 09:44:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:44:40 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Game Name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451258.1042969480@cornelius> > Nominality [Jota] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 16:34:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:34:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude Message-ID: You folks will probably want to wait for other rules to pass before voting on this rule proposal, but I'll toss it out now anyway: Mobile Servitude [Jota]: Once per turn, the active player may move his or her servant by posting intention to do so, providing the player has not already moved him or herself. Doing so forfeits the right to move oneself on that turn. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 17:07:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:07:53 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] a proposal I seem to have forgotten to approve Message-ID: <27043957.1042996073@cornelius> Jota wrote: There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can it be connected to any other room. This room is called "The". Aye From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 17:09:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:09:19 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27130261.1042996159@cornelius> > Mobile Servitude [Jota]: > Once per turn, the active player may move his or her servant by > posting intention to do so, providing the player has not already > moved him or herself. Doing so forfeits the right to move oneself > on that turn. Not voting just yet, but it seems a shame to introduce servants and then stipulate that they can't do things at the same time as you do. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 17:19:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:19:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude In-Reply-To: <27130261.1042996159@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Not voting just yet, but it seems a shame to introduce servants and then > stipulate that they can't do things at the same time as you do. If others agree with you, I'd be content to support an alternate rule that let a player and his/servant both move on a turn. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 21:39:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:39:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved Message-ID: The following proposal has now been voted upon by all players. I have implicitly voted "aye" by proposing it. Roger has implicitly voted "aye" by not voting within 72 hours after it was proposed. baf, jwalrus, and Psmith have all explicitly voted "aye". If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter of another room's name, counting from the start of each name, compared case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, and articles (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then those two rooms will be considered connected. This will apply both to those rooms already existing when this goes into effect and to those defined later, except where otherwise specified by a later rule. This change to the map (which I note is not a rule) will take effect one hour from the timestamp on this message. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 19 23:58:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:58:05 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] new rules 27-29 in effect Message-ID: <51655696.1043020685@cornelius> The following new rules have now been approved by all players and will all come into effect one hour from the timestamp on this message. In each case, I have implicitly voted in favour of the rule by proposing it, baf, Jota and Psmith have each explicitly voted in favour and RogerCarbol has implictly voted in favour by failing to cast a vote within 72 hours of the proposal being made. Rule 27. At any moment, one player is "active", and it is the active player's turn. Turns end when the active player posts an announcement that their turn is completed, or after 24 hours, or when the active player is removed from the game, whichever comes first. When a turn ends, the next active player is the player whose name comes next in alphabetical order (by surname, using the names by which players are known in this game), or if there is no such player, the first player in alphabetical order. When this rule goes into effect, the first player in alphabetical order will become active. Rule 28. Two tallies shall be attached to each player, recording the number of demerits and the number of brownie points each has received. The value of these tallies shall be part of the state of the game. Rule 29. There shall exist a room called 'the Dot-Com Bubble', referred to in this rule as "the bubble". The first player to enter the bubble shall receieve one brownie point. The next player to enter shall receive two brownie points, with the number of points doubling each time a player enters, except that a player does not receive any points for entering the bubble if they were previously the last person who received points for doing so. As soon as a player receives 32 brownie points for entering the bubble, the bubble will burst and any and all objects in the game whose location is the bubble will have their location changed to the Lounge; the bubble will be removed from the map entirely. I note that in light of Rule 27 above and working on the principle that the Admiral's surname, for purposes of alphabetical comparison, is 'Jota', I will become the active player one hour from the timestamp on this message. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:00:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:00:58 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <20030117174843.GA64976@spod-central.org> References: <20030117174843.GA64976@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <51828865.1043020858@cornelius> --On 17 January 2003 5:48 pm +0000 Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: >> Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting >> intention to do so. I believe that I have already implictly voted in favour of this proposal by failing to cast an explicit vote within 72 hours; however, I shall cast an explicit "aye" vote now that Rule 27 is ratified and the terms "turn" and "active player" are defined. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:13:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:13:25 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Phase Number / Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus] Message-ID: <52576260.1043021605@cornelius> Two new rule proposals: Phase Number [jwalrus]: "There shall exist a number called the Phase Number which is part of the state of the game and is not attached to any game entity. The Phase Number shall begin at 0 and shall be incremented by 1 each time the player who is last in alphabetical order ends their turn and the player who is first in alphabetical order becomes the active player. Players are encouraged to mention the current value of the Phase Number when taking actions which may only be made by the active player or when ending their turn." (Commentary: Hopefully this should make it quicker for us to work out whose turn it is, since the last player to act will always be the alphabetically-last player to have acted during the current Phase.) Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus]: "The initial value of each player's demerits tally shall be 0." (Commentary: I just realised this has never been explicitly mentioned and probably should be made official, since I believe as of the passing of Rule 28 we all now possess an indeterminate number of demerits.) jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:09:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:09:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Map movement In-Reply-To: <51828865.1043020858@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > --On 17 January 2003 5:48 pm +0000 Dylan O'Donnell > wrote: > > > Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > >> Once per turn, the active player may move him/herself by posting > >> intention to do so. > > I believe that I have already implictly voted in favour of this proposal by > failing to cast an explicit vote within 72 hours; however, I shall cast an > explicit "aye" vote now that Rule 27 is ratified and the terms "turn" and > "active player" are defined. Yeah, the only reason I didn't say anything about that yet is that I wanted the definition of turns to be added to the rules first. I hereby announce that the above rule has been ratified by all players: implicitly by myself, explicitly by Adam, Jota, and Psmith, and included in RC's Voting Omnibus. It goes into effect one hour from now, at 8:07 PM EST. It will be Rule 30. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:27:36 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:27:36 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] Message-ID: <53427124.1043022456@cornelius> Two new rule proposals: Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of Commons. Once per turn, the Magic Omnibus may be used (by the active player) to transport the active player or the active player's servant, if their location is the same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this happens, the location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported is changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be moved by any other means in the same turn after using the Magic Omnibus." Bus Fare [jwalrus]: "When the Magic Omnibus is used to transport a player or servant the active player shall lose five brownie points. A player who has less than five brownie points may not use the Magic Omnibus." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:34:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:34:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Phase Number / Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <52576260.1043021605@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Phase Number [jwalrus]: > "There shall exist a number called the Phase Number which is part of the > state of the game and is not attached to any game entity. The Phase Number > shall begin at 0 and shall be incremented by 1 each time the player who is > last in alphabetical order ends their turn and the player who is first in > alphabetical order becomes the active player. Players are encouraged to > mention the current value of the Phase Number when taking actions which may > only be made by the active player or when ending their turn." > (Commentary: Hopefully this should make it quicker for us to work out whose > turn it is, since the last player to act will always be the > alphabetically-last player to have acted during the current Phase.) Aye. > Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus]: > "The initial value of each player's demerits tally shall be 0." > (Commentary: I just realised this has never been explicitly mentioned and > probably should be made official, since I believe as of the passing of Rule > 28 we all now possess an indeterminate number of demerits.) Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:35:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:35:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <53427124.1043022456@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: > "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location > on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of > Commons. Once per turn, the Magic Omnibus may be used (by the active > player) to transport the active player or the active player's servant, if > their location is the same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location > (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this > happens, the location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported > is changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the > passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be moved by > any other means in the same turn after using the Magic Omnibus." Aye! > Bus Fare [jwalrus]: > "When the Magic Omnibus is used to transport a player or servant the active > player shall lose five brownie points. A player who has less than five > brownie points may not use the Magic Omnibus." Most certainly aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 00:40:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:40:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified Proposals Message-ID: The following two-part proposal has been supported by all players (implicitly by Roger and myself, and explicitly by baf, Psmith, and jwalrus): I. As part of the game state, there shall exist a list of players called the "Passive Voters" list. The list may at times hold zero players; this is fine. Whenever a formal proposal is made, any player who is on this list will be considered to immediately vote "aye" on said proposal; this shall be considered an implicit "aye" vote as described in Rule 10. Any such player may still change that vote, as described in Rule 10. II. Any player may cause themselves to be added to or removed from the Passive Voters list by posting clear intent to do so. It will go into effect one hour from this message's timestamp as Rules 31 and 32 respectively. The following proposal has been supported under the same terms, and will go into effect at the same time, as Rule 33: It is possible for players to win or lose by means to be described in the rules. A player who loses will be removed entirely from the state of the game, and may not rejoin. If a player wins, the game will immediately end and all players who have not won will lose. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 01:15:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:15:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Mobile Servitude [Jota]: > Once per turn, the active player may move his or her servant by posting > intention to do so, providing the player has not already moved him or > herself. Doing so forfeits the right to move oneself on that turn. In light of other players' comments, I'll vote nay on the above proposal, and instead propose: Highly Mobile Servitude [Jota]: Once per turn, the active player may choose to move his or her servant by posting intention to do so. This may be done before, after, or instead of moving oneself, at the player's discretion. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 01:26:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:26:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] A Token Proposal Message-ID: A proposal for three rules. A Token Proposal [Jota]: I. The set of "tokens" will be a part of the game state. A token must have a name and a location. That location may be any room, player, or servant. Tokens may be added, removed, or modified by unanimous agreement. II. "Carrying" a token will be defined as being that token's location. To "drop" a token one is carrying will be defined as setting its location equal to one's own location. To "pick up" a token whose location is the same as one's own is to set the token's location equal to oneself. III. At any point during a turn, the active player may choose to pick up any appropiate token, drop any carried token, or cause his or her servant to perform either of those actions by posting clear intent to do so. These actions may be taken as many times as desired, in whatever order desired, to the same or different tokens as desired, provided the action is not prohibited by any other rule or rules. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 04:35:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:35:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] a proposal I seem to have forgotten to approve In-Reply-To: <27043957.1042996073@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Jota wrote: > > There exists a room which is not connected to any other room > nor can it be connected to any other room. This room is called > "The". Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 04:40:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:40:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Phase Number / Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <52576260.1043021605@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Phase Number [jwalrus]: > "There shall exist a number called the Phase Number which is part of the > state of the game and is not attached to any game entity. The Phase Number > shall begin at 0 and shall be incremented by 1 each time the player who is > last in alphabetical order ends their turn and the player who is first in > alphabetical order becomes the active player. Players are encouraged to > mention the current value of the Phase Number when taking actions which may > only be made by the active player or when ending their turn." Nay. I see no advantage to this, and it's too long and complicated for me to say "Sure, why not." We can keep track of the phase informally, of course. > Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus]: > "The initial value of each player's demerits tally shall be 0." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 04:59:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:59:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Brownie points for proposals Message-ID: Rule proposal: Whenever a proposal is adopted by unanimous agreement, the player who proposed it will receive one brownie point. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 05:07:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:07:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Brownie points for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Whenever a proposal is adopted by unanimous agreement, the player who > proposed it will receive one brownie point. Interesting. It could lead to runaway proposing, possibly... -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 05:31:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:31:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Brownie points for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > > Rule proposal: > > Whenever a proposal is adopted by unanimous agreement, the player who > > proposed it will receive one brownie point. > > Interesting. It could lead to runaway proposing, possibly... It would transform the game, certainly. I'm not even sure I'd like the changes it would bring. I'd start vetoing more. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:35:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:35:06 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120093506.GA87916@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > The following proposal has now been voted upon by all players. I have > implicitly voted "aye" by proposing it. Roger has implicitly voted "aye" > by not voting within 72 hours after it was proposed. baf, jwalrus, and > Psmith have all explicitly voted "aye". > > If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter of > another room's name, counting from the start of each name, compared > case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, and articles > (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then those two rooms > will be considered connected. This will apply both to those rooms > already existing when this goes into effect and to those defined later, > except where otherwise specified by a later rule. > > This change to the map (which I note is not a rule) will take effect one > hour from the timestamp on this message. I believe this _is_ a rule; at least, I don't think that the clause about applying to later-defined rooms can be a considered a change to a "detail of the map". (Also, "later rule" implies that this is an earlier rule.) My aye vote was certainly based on its being a rule proposal. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:40:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:40:23 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <53427124.1043022456@cornelius> References: <53427124.1043022456@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120094023.GB87916@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Two new rule proposals: > > Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: > "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location > on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of > Commons. Once per turn, the Magic Omnibus may be used (by the active > player) to transport the active player or the active player's servant, if > their location is the same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location > (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this > happens, the location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported > is changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the > passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be moved by > any other means in the same turn after using the Magic Omnibus." This proposal doesn't specify the means of using the Magic Omnibus; is there a "by posting intent to do so" missing? Nay for now, though I support the idea. > Bus Fare [jwalrus]: > "When the Magic Omnibus is used to transport a player or servant the active > player shall lose five brownie points. A player who has less than five > brownie points may not use the Magic Omnibus." Vote withheld pending above. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:42:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:42:14 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120094214.GC87916@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > > > Mobile Servitude [Jota]: > > Once per turn, the active player may move his or her servant by posting > > intention to do so, providing the player has not already moved him or > > herself. Doing so forfeits the right to move oneself on that turn. > > In light of other players' comments, I'll vote nay on the above proposal, And I'll declare it dead. > and instead propose: > > Highly Mobile Servitude [Jota]: > Once per turn, the active player may choose to move his or her servant > by posting intention to do so. This may be done before, after, or > instead of moving oneself, at the player's discretion. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:43:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:43:51 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] A Token Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120094351.GD87916@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A proposal for three rules. > > > A Token Proposal [Jota]: Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:49:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Phase Number / Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <52576260.1043021605@cornelius> References: <52576260.1043021605@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120094933.GE87916@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Two new rule proposals: > > Phase Number [jwalrus]: Nay, for the same reason as baf (but I'll let you argue for it rather than declare it dead :-) > Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus]: Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:51:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] passivity proposal In-Reply-To: <58626720.1042935770@cornelius> References: <58626720.1042935770@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120095121.GF87916@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > A proposal for a new rule: > > Zombie Voters [jwalrus] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 09:51:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:51:43 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Game Name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120095143.GG87916@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A rule proposal: > > Nominality [Jota] > This game will have a name. At the time this rule goes into effect, that > name will be "ifMUD Nomic". The players may change the name of the game by > unanimous agreement. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 10:16:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:16:01 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46065668.1042849191@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > Things Can Only Get Better [jwalrus] (rule proposal) > > > > A player's brownie points tally may never be negative. If the rules dictate > > that a player should lose more brownie points than the current value of > > their brownie points tally, the value of the tally shall instead become 0. > > Hmm, interesting. Ps was also considering a proposal on that subject. I'll > wait until both have been made before choosing one to support. Now that tallies are a rule, that alternative rule proposal: If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]: Any tally may be either positive, negative, or zero. A player may not take an action by posting individual intent if as a possible immediate consequence it could cause: i) a currently non-negative tally associated with that player to become negative, or ii) a currently negative tally associated with that player to decrease further. Non-individual actions (for example, those requiring unanimous or sectional consent), or penalties for non-action, may cause tallies to go negative without restriction. (So, jwalrus' proposal would allow paupers to ride the Magic Omnibus for free; mine would make them walk. Is Nomic02 a welfare state? :-) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 11:42:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:42:27 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals Message-ID: <20030120114227.GA88702@spod-central.org> The following two proposals have each been agreed unanimously: implicitly by me as proponent and by Roger by non-voting within 72 hours, and explicitly by Jota, jwalrus, and baf. The map change and Rules 35 through 37 (numbering provisional on my earlier comment about the connectivity proposal) will come into effect in one hour from the timestamp of this post. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. These servants will be part of the state of the game. B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. Named Proposals [Psmith]: Each proposal must be given a name by its proponent; this name must be different from any previous proposal's name, regardless of whether that previous proposal died, was ratified, or is still pending. To ensure uniqueness, the name of a proposal must end with the name, initials, or other referent to the proponent in square brackets ([]). -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:09:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:09:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: <20030120093506.GA87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Admiral Jota wrote: > > This change to the map (which I note is not a rule) will take effect one > > hour from the timestamp on this message. > I believe this _is_ a rule; at least, I don't think that the clause > about applying to later-defined rooms can be a considered a change to > a "detail of the map". (Also, "later rule" implies that this is an > earlier rule.) My aye vote was certainly based on its being a rule > proposal. I think it's still a description of the details of the map as it only describes the shape of the map, with respect to connections, rooms, and the relationships between them. Every datum that is a consequence of it could have been specified as a rider to the appropriate room-creation proposal as a map-change (without needing a rule). Furthermore, these consequential connections do not rely on any outside event to exist, nor even on anything outside of the details of the rooms themsleves (that is, their names). Because of those two things, I think it's a valid description of the state of the map: it has no direct effect on, nor is it directly affected by, anything other than the details of the map. Also, the original proposal was proposed as not being a rule change. If it were considered invalid as a change to the details of the map, a new proposal would have to be made in order for this change to take effect in the map. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:10:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:10:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Phase Number / Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120094933.GE87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > Phase Number [jwalrus]: > Nay, for the same reason as baf (but I'll let you argue for it rather > than declare it dead :-) Even if it's not a formal part of the game state, it probably still is a useful thing to keep track of informally, though. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:12:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:12:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]: I think I prefer Ps' proposal, in this case. Aye. > (So, jwalrus' proposal would allow paupers to ride the Magic Omnibus > for free; mine would make them walk. Is Nomic02 a welfare state? :-) Well, the Bus Fare proposal specifies that "A player who has less than five brownie points may not use the Magic Omnibus." But the point still stands with regards to other things that cost brownie points (e.g. taxes). -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:14:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:14:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: <20030120114227.GA88702@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. My servant is named "Grunk". His species is "orc". -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:20:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:20:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]: > > Any tally may be either positive, negative, or zero. A player may > not take an action by posting individual intent if as a possible > immediate consequence it could cause: > i) a currently non-negative tally associated with that player to become > negative, or > ii) a currently negative tally associated with that player to decrease > further. > Non-individual actions (for example, those requiring unanimous or > sectional consent), or penalties for non-action, may cause tallies to > go negative without restriction. Aye. (I'll accept either proposal.) > (So, jwalrus' proposal would allow paupers to ride the Magic Omnibus > for free; mine would make them walk. Is Nomic02 a welfare state? :-) Except that the Omnibus rule specifically forbids taking the bus without paying. Also, I don't think it would be a bad thing for paupers to do things for free. It would help them catch up and become competitive in the brownie race again. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:25:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:25:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] "The" room passed Message-ID: The following proposal has been supported implicitly or explicitly by all players: There exists a room which is not connected to any other room nor can it be connected to any other room. This room is called "The". I declare it officially ratified as a change to the map. Ps, I should note that this is another non-rule (less explicitly stated than the other, but still specified to be a synthesis of two proposals that were specified to be non-rules). Is that going to be problematic for you? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:32:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:32:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I, too, am unhappy with this not being a rule, because that's where descriptions of game mechanics like this belong, in my opinion. Like jw, I approved it at a moment when I forgot about the not-a-rule clause. But I have to admit that we did approve it specifically as a non-rule, and I don't think there's anything technically illegitimate about it. We passed a rule stating that we can change the map in any way we agree to, and so we can change the map by adding automatic behaviors to it. I will note that, since it isn't a rule, I don't feel obliged to put the exact phrasing of the proposal on my website. Rules are specifically sequences of sentences; change the sentence and you cange the rule. This is just a concept, which I can restate in my own words. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:44:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:44:53 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Roger is Not Dead Yet Message-ID: Hi everyone, Sorry for the delay -- don't expect me to be too active during the weekends. As such, persuant to Rule 32, I (passively) intend to=20 join the Passive Voters list. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 15:47:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:47:59 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Retroactive Passivity Message-ID: Just to make life easier, I'll vote AYE on all outstanding proposals too, just to make my Passivity quasi-retroactive. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:00:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:00:17 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508571.1043078416@cornelius> --On 19 January 2003 8:15 pm -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > >> Mobile Servitude [Jota] > > In light of other players' comments, I'll vote nay on the above > proposal, and instead propose: > > Highly Mobile Servitude [Jota] In which case I shall declare "Mobile Servitude [Jota]" dead and vote "aye" for its replacement. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:03:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:03:02 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] A Token Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <673909.1043078582@cornelius> > A Token Proposal [Jota]: > > I. The set of "tokens" will be a part of the game state [...] > > II. "Carrying" a token will be defined as being that token's > location. To "drop" a token one is carrying will be defined as > setting its location equal to one's own location. To "pick up" a > token whose location is the same as one's own is to set the > token's location equal to oneself. > > III. At any point during a turn [...] Aye to this, although I'm not entirely certain whether the fact that part II of this proposal leaves picking up distant tokens undefined (as opposed to defined and forbidden) is a good thing ... jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:00:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:00:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > But I have to admit that we did approve it specifically as a non-rule, and > I don't think there's anything technically illegitimate about it. We > passed a rule stating that we can change the map in any way we agree to, > and so we can change the map by adding automatic behaviors to it. Ps doubts its legitimacy, but he's proposing a rule that should remove doubt of its validity. Until his proposal passes, the Connectivity proposal is of uncertain validity. > I will note that, since it isn't a rule, I don't feel obliged to put the > exact phrasing of the proposal on my website. Rules are specifically > sequences of sentences; change the sentence and you cange the rule. This > is just a concept, which I can restate in my own words. No complaint there. Rephrasing this concept to express the same information isn't willfull deceit to me. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:03:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:03:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] A Token Proposal In-Reply-To: <673909.1043078582@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > III. At any point during a turn [...] > Aye to this, although I'm not entirely certain whether the fact that part > II of this proposal leaves picking up distant tokens undefined (as opposed > to defined and forbidden) is a good thing ... That's why I made sure to include the word "appropriate" in part III, so that it would only be authorized where it was defined. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:06:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:06:27 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120160626.GA89655@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > I, too, am unhappy with this not being a rule, because that's where > descriptions of game mechanics like this belong, in my opinion. Like > jw, I approved it at a moment when I forgot about the not-a-rule clause. > > But I have to admit that we did approve it specifically as a non-rule, and > I don't think there's anything technically illegitimate about it. We > passed a rule stating that we can change the map in any way we agree to, > and so we can change the map by adding automatic behaviors to it. I disagree with this. Rule 14 defines the map as consisting of "rooms"; while those rooms can have properties (for example, names and connections), and those properties are details of the map, I don't see any scope as it stands for "details of the map" to cover algorithms for determining the properties of future rooms. To rectify that, a proposal for a new rule: Here be Dragons [Psmith] The map may have associated with it, in addition to the properties given it by Rule 14, conditions describing the mutual relations of any rooms it contains or may contain in the future. These conditions shall be considered details of the map and part of the state of the game. > I will note that, since it isn't a rule, I don't feel obliged to put the > exact phrasing of the proposal on my website. Rules are specifically > sequences of sentences; change the sentence and you cange the rule. This > is just a concept, which I can restate in my own words. I'd say that would apply even under this proposed rule. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:08:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:08:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Brownie points for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > > Whenever a proposal is adopted by unanimous agreement, the player who > > > proposed it will receive one brownie point. > It would transform the game, certainly. I'm not even sure I'd like the > changes it would bring. I'd start vetoing more. I'm going to have to vote nay here, on the premise that it could break down the cooperative aspects of rule-building and, and I'm rather enjoying the cooperative aspects of rule-building. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:09:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:09:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: <20030120160626.GA89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Here be Dragons [Psmith] > > The map may have associated with it, in addition to the properties > given it by Rule 14, conditions describing the mutual relations of any > rooms it contains or may contain in the future. These conditions shall > be considered details of the map and part of the state of the game. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:10:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:10:44 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] A clarification Message-ID: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> Since a difference of opinion has arisen to the exact meaning of Rule 25, a rule proposal to clarify that: Reciprocality of Connections [Psmith] All connections are two-way; if room A is connected to room B, room B is connected to room A. (Yes, this could be a map condition under Here be Dragons when that passes, but since Rule 25 is a rule, probably best for this to be as well.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:17:47 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:17:47 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: <20030120160626.GA89655@spod-central.org> References: <20030120160626.GA89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <1558871.1043079467@cornelius> > Here be Dragons [Psmith] > > The map may have associated with it, in addition to the > properties given it by Rule 14, conditions describing the > mutual relations of any rooms it contains or may contain in the > future. These conditions shall be considered details of the map > and part of the state of the game. Aye. Are we assuming that the connections specified by the controversial proposal exist already, or does the current ambiguity reander Jota's proposal invalid until this one is passed? I ask since I'm currently the active player and I'd like to know whether I can finally get out of the lounge. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:18:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:18:54 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] A clarification In-Reply-To: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> References: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <1626418.1043079534@cornelius> > Reciprocality of Connections [Psmith] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:16:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:16:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] A clarification In-Reply-To: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Reciprocality of Connections [Psmith] > > All connections are two-way; if room A is connected to room B, room B > is connected to room A. Aye. Although I'm surprised you didn't take the opportunity to define a new one-way entity. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:17:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:17:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: <1558871.1043079467@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Are we assuming that the connections specified by the controversial > proposal exist already, or does the current ambiguity reander Jota's > proposal invalid until this one is passed? I ask since I'm currently the > active player and I'd like to know whether I can finally get out of the > lounge. I think it's rendered ambiguous, but it would be best to consider it invalid on the grounds that it's better to be safe than sorry. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:22:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:22:12 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Brownie points for proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1824112.1043079732@cornelius> --On 20 January 2003 11:08 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > >> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: >> > > Whenever a proposal is adopted by unanimous agreement, the >> > > player who proposed it will receive one brownie point. > > I'm going to have to vote nay here, on the premise that it could > break down the cooperative aspects of rule-building and, and I'm > rather enjoying the cooperative aspects of rule-building. I'm voting nay also, on the grounds that under this proposal, it's to a player's advantage to make as many pointless proposals as possible since there's no penalty for them not passing and if any do pass they're worth points. The only way around that would be to introduce penalties for failed proposals, which I don't want to see. On the grounds that Jota is also opposed and that even the original proponent has expressed misgivings, I shall declare this proposal dead. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:19:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:19:21 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Pointer-chasing and Zrblm ratifications Message-ID: <20030120161920.GC89655@spod-central.org> The following proposals have been unanimously agreed (implicit aye from me as proponent, explicit ayes from baf, Jota, jwalrus and Roger). As a result, Rule 17 will be deleted and Rules 37 and 38 come into effect in one hour from the timestamp of this message. Pointer-chasing [Psmith]: A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule. Remove Rule 17. No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous agreement. Zrblm [Psmith]: A proposal for a new rule. There is a room on the map called "Zrblm". No servant may be moved to Zrblm. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:21:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:21:30 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Servant Message-ID: Apparently we're in the servant-naming phase, and I don't want to get demeritized. My servant will be named "Hugo" and his species "Betta splendens". ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:22:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:22:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Nominality passed Message-ID: The following proposal now has aye votes from all players. Nominality [Jota] This game will have a name. At the time this rule goes into effect, that name will be "ifMUD Nomic". The players may change the name of the game by unanimous agreement. It goes into effect as a rule an hour from this message's timestamp. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:19:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:19:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Brownie points for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > > It would transform the game, certainly. I'm not even sure I'd like the > > changes it would bring. I'd start vetoing more. > > I'm going to have to vote nay here, on the premise that it could break > down the cooperative aspects of rule-building and, and I'm rather enjoying > the cooperative aspects of rule-building. In that case, I remove it from consideration. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:29:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:29:19 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> References: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <2251207.1043080159@cornelius> --On 20 January 2003 10:16 am +0000 Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]: > > Any tally may be either positive, negative, or zero. A player > may not take an action by posting individual intent if as a > possible immediate consequence it could cause: > i) a currently non-negative tally associated with that player > to become negative, or > ii) a currently negative tally associated with that player to > decrease further. > [...] My only concern with this is the definition of "possible immediate consequence". Taking a particularly contrived example, if Jota has the Magic Leech which steals brownie points from a player when they enter the same room as him, no-one else would be able to enter his room. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:31:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:31:35 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2386792.1043080295@cornelius> --On 20 January 2003 10:14 am -0500 Admiral Jota wrote: > My servant is named "Grunk". His species is "orc". Congratulations; I believe you're the first person to change the state of the game without having had to seek unanimous approval first. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:23:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:23:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aye to Here be Dragons [Psmith] From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:31:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:31:56 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Xyzzy Message-ID: <20030120163156.GD89655@spod-central.org> More movement options (and a chance to strand the Magic Omnibus out of reach, should you choose to take it :-) xyzzy [Psmith] A proposal for a new rule. Once per turn, the active player (only) may invoke the magic word "xyzzy" to set their location to the Lounge, by posting intent to do so. "xyzzy" may not be used if the player has taken any action to change their location in the same turn, nor may a player take any other action to change their location in the same turn after invoking "xyzzy". -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:35:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:35:42 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Phase Number / Innocent Until Proven Otherwise [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2633847.1043080542@cornelius> > Even if it's not a formal part of the game state, it probably > still is a useful thing to keep track of informally, though. If it's felt that the rule is too complex, we needn't pass it, although I'd have thought agreeing to keep track of it informally would be somewhat pointless if the definition isn't popular. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:35:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:35:10 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <2251207.1043080159@cornelius> References: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> <2251207.1043080159@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120163510.GE89655@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > --On 20 January 2003 10:16 am +0000 Dylan O'Donnell > wrote: > > >If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]: > > > > Any tally may be either positive, negative, or zero. A player > > may not take an action by posting individual intent if as a > > possible immediate consequence it could cause: > > i) a currently non-negative tally associated with that player > > to become negative, or > > ii) a currently negative tally associated with that player to > > decrease further. > > [...] > > My only concern with this is the definition of "possible immediate > consequence". Taking a particularly contrived example, if Jota has the > Magic Leech which steals brownie points from a player when they enter the > same room as him, no-one else would be able to enter his room. ... unless they can afford to be stolen from. Right, that's how I intend it to be. (I would assume that any proposal creating an actual Magic Leech would specify that it can't steal what's not there to be stolen, however, in the way that Bus Fare [jwalrus] did for payment and I overlooked.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:38:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:38:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Xyzzy In-Reply-To: <20030120163156.GD89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > More movement options (and a chance to strand the Magic Omnibus out > of reach, should you choose to take it :-) > > xyzzy [Psmith] > A proposal for a new rule. Nay. This proposal would make every location effectively one step away from the lounge, which would collapse the map far too much for my taste. What if you had to pay to do this, perhaps? (Probably more than bus fare, since it's more flexible.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:44:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:44:00 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120094023.GB87916@spod-central.org> References: <20030120094023.GB87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <3132484.1043081040@cornelius> > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: >> Two new rule proposals: >> >> Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: >> "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has >> a location on the map. The initial location of the Magic >> Omnibus shall be the House of Commons. Once per turn, the Magic >> Omnibus may be used (by the active player) to transport the >> active player or the active player's servant, if their location >> [...] > > This proposal doesn't specify the means of using the Magic > Omnibus; is there a "by posting intent to do so" missing? Nay for > now, though I support the idea. Yes, there should probably have been a "by posting intent to do so" there. However, I'll respond with an additional proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus]: "Whenever any change to the state of the game is made by a means other than unanimous or sectional agreement, the player responsible must announce this fact to all other players through the List. The change shall be considered to have been made at the moment this is done." This should allow for rules (such as the one above) which specify what a player may do without making it always necessary to include 'by posting intent to do so'. Unanimous and sectional agreement are exempted as the mechanism for those specifies that the decision must be taken through the mailing list in any case. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:35:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:35:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] A clarification In-Reply-To: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > All connections are two-way; if room A is connected to room B, room B > is connected to room A. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:41:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:41:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Active Player Message-ID: A rule proposal: I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]: The notion of which player is the "active player" shall be considered a part of the state of the game. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:40:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:40:41 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: <20030120160626.GA89655@spod-central.org> References: <20030120160626.GA89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120164041.GF89655@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > To rectify that, a proposal for a new rule: > > Here be Dragons [Psmith] > > The map may have associated with it, in addition to the properties > given it by Rule 14, conditions describing the mutual relations of any > rooms it contains or may contain in the future. These conditions shall > be considered details of the map and part of the state of the game. This has now been unanimously approved (implicit ayes by me as proponent and Roger as a passive voter, explicit ayes by baf, Jota and jwalrus), and is hereby ratified, going into effect as Rule 40 in one hour from the timestamp of this message. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:46:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:46:58 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Xyzzy In-Reply-To: <20030120163156.GD89655@spod-central.org> References: <20030120163156.GD89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <3309959.1043081218@cornelius> > xyzzy [Psmith] > A proposal for a new rule. > > Once per turn, the active player (only) may invoke the magic word > "xyzzy" to set their location to the Lounge [...] I'm in favour in principle, but I agree with Jota that there should be some attached penalty, so nay for now until someone suggests one. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:44:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:44:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <3132484.1043081040@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Public Eye [jwalrus]: > "Whenever any change to the state of the game is made by a means other than > unanimous or sectional agreement, the player responsible must announce this > fact to all other players through the List. The change shall be considered > to have been made at the moment this is done." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:44:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:44:53 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] Message-ID: > Public Eye [jwalrus]: > "Whenever any change to the state of the game is made by a=20 > means other than=20 > unanimous or sectional agreement, the player responsible must=20 > announce this=20 > fact to all other players through the List. The change shall=20 > be considered=20 > to have been made at the moment this is done." I believe we already have non-player-driven gamestate changes, like the changing of the active player by timeout. I like the intent of this rule, though. Perhaps something more like 'Any player action must be posted to the List' or some such. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:47:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:47:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Connectivity approved In-Reply-To: <20030120093506.GA87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: > > If the Nth letter of a room's name is the same as the Nth letter of > > another room's name, counting from the start of each name, compared > > case-insensitively, and ignoring all spaces, punctuation, and articles > > (the words "a", "an", and "the") in either name, then those two rooms > > will be considered connected. This will apply both to those rooms > > already existing when this goes into effect and to those defined later, > > except where otherwise specified by a later rule. The above has still been approved by all. Whether or not it was already in effect, it will unambiguously be in effect one hour from the timestamp on this message, (by which point Ps' rule will also be in effect). -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:51:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:51:35 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Active Player In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3587198.1043081495@cornelius> > A rule proposal: > > I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]: > The notion of which player is the "active player" shall be > considered a part of the state of the game. My instinctive reaction to this is that the state of the game should also include the time at which the active player's turn began, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:53:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:53:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Active Player In-Reply-To: <3587198.1043081495@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]: > > The notion of which player is the "active player" shall be > > considered a part of the state of the game. > > My instinctive reaction to this is that the state of the game should also > include the time at which the active player's turn began, but I'd like to > hear your opinion on this. Given that the rules (which are in the game state) don't have their timestamps attached, I don't feel it's necessary, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being added, either as a separate rule or a repalcement for this proposition. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:59:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:59:14 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4045727.1043081954@cornelius> >> Public Eye [jwalrus]: >> "Whenever any change to the state of the game is made by a means other >> than unanimous or sectional agreement, the player responsible must >> announce this fact to all other players through the List. The change shall >> be considered to have been made at the moment this is done." > > I believe we already have non-player-driven gamestate changes, > like the changing of the active player by timeout. True; it strikes me that there ought to be a mechanism for making sure we're all aware of these, as well as changes such as players receiving demerits for inactivity or failure to name a servant. Alternatively, we could alter the rules so that non-player-driven gamestate changes are replaced with giving any player the ability to make the change in question at the appropriate time. > I like the intent of this rule, though. Perhaps something > more like 'Any player action must be posted to the List' or > some such. To clarify, are you explictly voting against this proposal? Currently you're voting in favour of it as you were a passive voter when I proposed it. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:58:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:58:54 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] Message-ID: > To clarify, are you explictly voting against this proposal? No. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:03:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:03:40 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Active Player In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4311759.1043082220@cornelius> > Given that the rules (which are in the game state) don't have > their timestamps attached, I don't feel it's necessary, but I > wouldn't be opposed to it being added, either as a separate rule > or a repalcement for this proposition. True, but once a rule is in effect the time at which it became so is no longer relevant to the game. Given that the point at which the active player began their turn does have an effect on the game (as their turn will end 24 hours later), it falls under what I would consider to be information pertaining to the current state of the game. By the same token, the time at which a given player last posted to the list also ought to be part of the state of the game. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 16:59:36 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:59:36 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] A clarification In-Reply-To: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> References: <20030120161044.GB89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120165936.GA90498@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Reciprocality of Connections [Psmith] > > All connections are two-way; if room A is connected to room B, room B > is connected to room A. Unanimous agreement: implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: baf, jwalrus, Jota Ratified, in effect as Rule 41 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:07:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:07:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <20030120163510.GE89655@spod-central.org> References: <20030120163510.GE89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <4560707.1043082469@cornelius> >> My only concern with this is the definition of "possible >> immediate consequence". Taking a particularly contrived example, >> if Jota has the Magic Leech which steals brownie points from a >> player when they enter the same room as him, no-one else would >> be able to enter his room. > > ... unless they can afford to be stolen from. Right, that's how I > intend it to be. No, what I meant was that a player without sufficient brownie points would be forbidden by this rule from entering Jota's location under any circumstances, which didn't seem to be the intent of the rule. As you point out, though, a proposal for a Magic Leech would have to specify how it worked on a player without sufficient brownie points, and a similar rule would have to be made under my proposal. Therefore I'll vote aye on this one (If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]), declare my own (Things Can Only Get Better [jwalrus]) dead, and just grumble and moan if anything like my contrived example ever actually occurs. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:13:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:13:23 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] New rules 42-43, my servant, death of "Phase Number [jwalrus]" Message-ID: <4895669.1043082803@cornelius> The following rules were proposed by me and explicitly approved by all other players and shall therefore come into effect as rules 42 and 43 one hour from the timestamp on this message. Rule 42. Any player who has not posted in the last 72 hours may be added to the passive voters list by sectional consent of all the other players. Rule 43. The initial value of each player's demerits tally shall be 0. In addition, I declare that the proposal "Phase Number [jwalrus]" is dead and that the name of my servant is "Baron Greenback" and that his species is "Toad". jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:16:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:16:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Xyzzy In-Reply-To: <20030120163156.GD89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > xyzzy [Psmith] > A proposal for a new rule. In light of a discussion with Ps, I declare this dead, and instead propose the following: Xyzzy II [Jota]: Once per turn, the active player (only) may invoke the magic word "xyzzy" to set their location to the Lounge, by posting intent to do so. "xyzzy" may not be used if the player has taken any action to change their location in the same turn. For the remainder of that turn, and for the full duration of the player's following turn, the player will be in a state of "chatting their life away". A player in that state may take no voluntary turn-dependent actions other than ending their turn. (Turn-dependent actions being those which can only be performed by the active player on their turn.) Whether or not one is in this "chatting" state is a part of the game state. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:17:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:17:41 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <3132484.1043081040@cornelius> References: <20030120094023.GB87916@spod-central.org> <3132484.1043081040@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120171741.GB90498@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Public Eye [jwalrus]: > "Whenever any change to the state of the game is made by a means other than > unanimous or sectional agreement, the player responsible must announce this > fact to all other players through the List. The change shall be considered > to have been made at the moment this is done." > > This should allow for rules (such as the one above) which specify what a > player may do without making it always necessary to include 'by posting > intent to do so'. Unanimous and sectional agreement are exempted as the > mechanism for those specifies that the decision must be taken through the > mailing list in any case. I don't see what's so bad about including "by posting intent to do so". We have several ways of changing game state: by unanimous agreement, by sectional consent, by individual action, by automatic occurrence. Making it clear in each case which this is seems a good idea to me. (I'd support a proposal that defined "action" as "something that requires posting intent", however.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:35:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:35:57 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal In-Reply-To: <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> References: <46065668.1042849191@cornelius> <20030120101600.GH87916@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120173557.GC90498@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > If You Have To Ask, You Can't Afford It [Psmith]: > > Any tally may be either positive, negative, or zero. A player may > not take an action by posting individual intent if as a possible > immediate consequence it could cause: > i) a currently non-negative tally associated with that player to become > negative, or > ii) a currently negative tally associated with that player to decrease > further. > Non-individual actions (for example, those requiring unanimous or > sectional consent), or penalties for non-action, may cause tallies to > go negative without restriction. Unanimous agreement: implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: baf, jwalrus, Jota Ratified, in effect as Rule 44 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:48:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:48:19 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Christmas Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120174819.GA90953@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > This is a proposal in two parts. The first is for a rule (per Rule 6); the > second is for a change to the map (per Rule 20). > > Merry Consumerism Christmas [Jota] > > I. A room on the map may have an associated "toll", which may also be > referred to as a "tax". A toll has a location (its room on the map), a > name, and an integer value. Any time a player enters (by movement or > other means described in the rules) a room with an associated toll, > that player loses a number of brownie points equal to the value of the > toll, and every other player receives a number of brownie points equal > to one half of that value, rounded up. Tolls will be considered details > of the map, as per Rule 20. > > II. The North Pole will have an associated toll called the "Elf Tax", with > the value 10. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:53:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:53:38 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Xyzzy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7309861.1043085218@cornelius> > Xyzzy II [Jota] That's pretty close to what I was thinking, too. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:53:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:53:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Christmas Proposal In-Reply-To: <20030120174819.GA90953@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > Merry Consumerism Christmas [Jota] > > > > I. A room on the map may have an associated "toll", which may also be > > referred to as a "tax". A toll has a location (its room on the map), a > > name, and an integer value. Any time a player enters (by movement or > > other means described in the rules) a room with an associated toll, > > that player loses a number of brownie points equal to the value of the > > toll, and every other player receives a number of brownie points equal > > to one half of that value, rounded up. Tolls will be considered details > > of the map, as per Rule 20. > > > > II. The North Pole will have an associated toll called the "Elf Tax", with > > the value 10. All players have supported this proposal. It will go into effect one hour from this timestamp. Section I will be Rule 45, and Section II will be reflected in the map. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:54:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:54:10 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Xyzzy In-Reply-To: References: <20030120163156.GD89655@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120175409.GA91025@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > Xyzzy II [Jota]: > Once per turn, the active player (only) may invoke the magic word > "xyzzy" to set their location to the Lounge, by posting intent to do > so. "xyzzy" may not be used if the player has taken any action to > change their location in the same turn. For the remainder of that turn, > and for the full duration of the player's following turn, the player will > be in a state of "chatting their life away". A player in that state > may take no voluntary turn-dependent actions other than ending their turn. > (Turn-dependent actions being those which can only be performed by the > active player on their turn.) Whether or not one is in this "chatting" > state is a part of the game state. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 17:54:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:54:37 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: The Sale of Indulgences [RC] Message-ID: The Sale of Indulgences[RC] Any player with more than one hundred brown points and more than one demerit may voluntarily decrement their brown points by one hundred and decrement their demerits by one. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:03:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120180321.GA91089@spod-central.org> Carbol, Roger wrote: > > To clarify, are you explictly voting against this proposal? > > No. But I am; nay. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:09:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:09:08 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120171741.GB90498@spod-central.org> References: <20030120171741.GB90498@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <8239858.1043086148@cornelius> > I don't see what's so bad about including "by posting intent to do so". > We have several ways of changing game state: by unanimous agreement, by > sectional consent, by individual action, by automatic occurrence. Making > it clear in each case which this is seems a good idea to me. Ok, in that case I'll declare my own proposal, "Public Eye [jwalrus]", dead, pursuant to Psmith's nay vote. > (I'd support a proposal that defined "action" as "something that requires > posting intent", however.) I'd happily do so too, but I don't currently see why we need a definition of "action". I'll also declare the proposal "Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]", which was vetoed by Psmith, dead and propose the following eerily-familiar replacement: Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus] "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of Commons. Once per turn, the active player may announce that the Magic Omnibus is being used to transport the active player or the active player's servant (but not both), if their location is the same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this happens, the location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported is changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be moved by any other means in the same turn after using the Magic Omnibus." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:06:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:06:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: The Sale of Indulgences [RC] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > The Sale of Indulgences[RC] > > Any player with more than one hundred brown points and > more than one demerit may voluntarily decrement their > brown points by one hundred and decrement their demerits > by one. I don't have any strong objections, I don't think. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:07:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:07:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120180321.GA91089@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > But I am; nay. Then I'll mark it dead. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:08:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:08:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <8239858.1043086148@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus] > "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location > on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of > Commons. Once per turn, the active player may announce that the Magic > Omnibus is being used to transport the active player or the active player's > servant (but not both), if their location is the same as that of the > Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from > stopping there). When this happens, the location of both the Omnibus and > the being being transported is changed to the new location. The Magic > Omnibus may not be used if the passenger has moved in the same turn and the > passenger may not be moved by any other means in the same turn after using > the Magic Omnibus." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:13:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:57 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: The Sale of Indulgences [RC] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8528943.1043086437@cornelius> > The Sale of Indulgences[RC] > > Any player with more than one hundred brown points and > more than one demerit may voluntarily decrement their > brown points by one hundred and decrement their demerits > by one. In general, I've been in favour of keeping the demerit system as separate as possible from the rest of the game, since it serves something of a meta-purpose within the framework of the game. However, if you think you're likely to get demerited and want to be able to buy it off with brownie points, I guess I'm not going to stop you, so aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:14:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:14:09 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <8239858.1043086148@cornelius> References: <20030120171741.GB90498@spod-central.org> <8239858.1043086148@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120181408.GB91089@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus] > "There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location > on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of > Commons. Once per turn, the active player may announce that the Magic > Omnibus is being used to transport the active player or the active player's > servant (but not both), if their location is the same as that of the > Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from > stopping there). When this happens, the location of both the Omnibus and > the being being transported is changed to the new location. The Magic > Omnibus may not be used if the passenger has moved in the same turn and the > passenger may not be moved by any other means in the same turn after using > the Magic Omnibus." Aye, and aye to Bus Fare [jwalrus] as well. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:18:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:18:38 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: <20030120114227.GA88702@spod-central.org> References: <20030120114227.GA88702@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120181838.GC91089@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > The following two proposals have each been agreed unanimously: > A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. > These servants will be part of the state of the game. No-one noticed that I'd cut and pasted the wrong proposal: this should read "The set of these servants", since that's the version of the proposal that was agreed on. Does the ratification fail (in which case I need to re-ratify it), or can we carry on as if the right rule had been ratified and just award me a demerit for deception? -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:23:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:23:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: <20030120181838.GC91089@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > No-one noticed that I'd cut and pasted the wrong proposal: this should > read "The set of these servants", since that's the version of the > proposal that was agreed on. Does the ratification fail (in which case > I need to re-ratify it), or can we carry on as if the right rule had > been ratified and just award me a demerit for deception? Arr. Unfortunately, that probably invalidates the ratification. Even if we wanted to demerit you for deception, the rules still say that the ratification message has to have the text of the proposal, which would mean that the message you sent wasn't a ratification message. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:24:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:24:51 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <8239858.1043086148@cornelius> References: <20030120171741.GB90498@spod-central.org> <8239858.1043086148@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120182451.GD91089@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >(I'd support a proposal that defined "action" as "something that requires > >posting intent", however.) > > I'd happily do so too, but I don't currently see why we need a definition > of "action". Convenience of shorthand. A proposal for a new rule: Active Voice [Psmith] A change to the state of the game which is described as being an "action" or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent to make that change to the list. In the absence of other restrictions, such an action may be taken at any time. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:29:04 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:29:04 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] Message-ID: > Convenience of shorthand. A proposal for a new rule: >=20 > Active Voice [Psmith] >=20 > A change to the state of the game which is described as=20 > being an "action" > or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent > to make that change to the list. In the absence of other=20 > restrictions, > such an action may be taken at any time.=20 I think this is different in intention than Public Eye, which was more of the form "An action MUST be effected by posting to the List." .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:27:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:27:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Arr. Unfortunately, that probably invalidates the ratification. Even if we > wanted to demerit you for deception, the rules still say that the > ratification message has to have the text of the proposal, which would > mean that the message you sent wasn't a ratification message. But the conditions have still been met, so you can just submit the correct ratification. Also, as this was an honest mistake, I intend to veto any proposal that you be demerited. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:35:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:35:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120182451.GD91089@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Active Voice [Psmith] > > A change to the state of the game which is described as being an "action" > or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent > to make that change to the list. In the absence of other restrictions, > such an action may be taken at any time. Big nay. Some rules (or proposed rules) allow actions when stating when they *may* be taken, with no specific clauses to prohibit them from being taken at times when they haven't been authorized. Active Voice would effectively authorize those actions to take place at any time, defeating the point of those earlier rules. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:36:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:36:01 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: <20030120114227.GA88702@spod-central.org> References: <20030120114227.GA88702@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120183601.GA91310@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously; implicitly by me as proponent, and explicitly by Jota, jwalrus, Roger, and baf.The map change and Rules 44 and 45 will come into effect in one hour from the timestamp of this post. There will be a room on the map with the name "the Servants' Quarters". A. Each player, current and future, will have an associated servant. The set of these servants will be part of the state of the game. B. Each servant is to have a location, which is a room on the map. The initial location of each servant is the Servants' Quarters. C. When a player leaves the game, his or her servant will cease to exist. A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. C. Players failing to give their servant a name and species in that time will receive one demerit. In addition, the assignment of the name and species of their servant will be turned over to be decided instead by sectional agreement of all players in the game excepting themselves. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:42:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:42:49 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120184249.GB91310@spod-central.org> Carbol, Roger wrote: > > Convenience of shorthand. A proposal for a new rule: > > > > Active Voice [Psmith] > > > > A change to the state of the game which is described as being an > > "action" or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player > > posting intent to make that change to the list. In the absence of > > other restrictions, such an action may be taken at any time. > > I think this is different in intention than Public Eye, > which was more of the form "An action MUST be effected by > posting to the List." Which I would consider too restrictive. We might want to allow scope for other methods of taking actions in future. (For example, by default at the end of your turn if you've not said you're not going to take that action.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:47:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:47:53 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: <20030120182451.GD91089@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120184752.GC91310@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Active Voice [Psmith] > > > > A change to the state of the game which is described as being an "action" > > or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent > > to make that change to the list. In the absence of other restrictions, > > such an action may be taken at any time. > > Big nay. Some rules (or proposed rules) allow actions when stating when > they *may* be taken, with no specific clauses to prohibit them from being > taken at times when they haven't been authorized. Active Voice would > effectively authorize those actions to take place at any time, defeating > the point of those earlier rules. "Once each turn" is a restrictive clause, and each rule or proposed rule that I can see that wants to restrict action-taking in this way does so. Are there any other cases of actions which we don't want happening at any time? -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 18:48:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:48:56 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] Message-ID: > > > Active Voice [Psmith] > > >=20 > > > A change to the state of the game which is described as being an > > > "action" or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player > > > posting intent to make that change to the list. In the=20 > absence of > > > other restrictions, such an action may be taken at any time. > >=20 > > I think this is different in intention than Public Eye, > > which was more of the form "An action MUST be effected by > > posting to the List." >=20 > Which I would consider too restrictive. We might want to allow scope > for other methods of taking actions in future. (For example, by > default at the end of your turn if you've not said you're not going to > take that action.) I'm not entirely sure that a default end-of-turn action is really voluntary. In some sense, the player, by default, involuntarily ends up taking the action. The whole 'If a player takes an action and no one knows about it, does it really happen?' is, I think, a theoretical vulnerability at worst. Also, we could probably ding anyone who tried it with a demerit under the Deception rule. .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:06:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:06:58 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120184752.GC91310@spod-central.org> References: <20030120182451.GD91089@spod-central.org> <20030120184752.GC91310@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030120190657.GA91479@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Admiral Jota wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > Active Voice [Psmith] > > > > > > A change to the state of the game which is described as being > > > an "action" or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant > > > player posting intent to make that change to the list. In the > > > absence of other restrictions, such an action may be taken at > > > any time. > > > > Big nay. Some rules (or proposed rules) allow actions when stating when > > they *may* be taken, with no specific clauses to prohibit them from being > > taken at times when they haven't been authorized. Active Voice would > > effectively authorize those actions to take place at any time, defeating > > the point of those earlier rules. > > "Once each turn" is a restrictive clause, Since there's apparently disagreement on that, I declare this proposal dead, and propose: Active Voice II [Psmith] A change to the state of the game which is described as being an "action" or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent to make that change to the list. In the absence of any other indication when such an action may be taken, it may be taken at any time. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:10:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:10:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Active Voice II [Psmith] In-Reply-To: <20030120190657.GA91479@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Active Voice II [Psmith] > > A change to the state of the game which is described as being an "action" > or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent > to make that change to the list. In the absence of any other indication > when such an action may be taken, it may be taken at any time. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:45:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:45:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Lists and Lists [Jota] Message-ID: I propose a rule: Lists and Lists [Jota] The term "the List" may be applied not only to the mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com, but also to any other list of the email addresses of all current players. Any time a player needs to post to the list, he or she may achieve this by sending a message to any such valid list. This should protect us from baf winning by kicking everyone off, or from a listserv malfunction completely derailing the game. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:54:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:54:20 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Lists and Lists [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14552044.1043092460@cornelius> > Lists and Lists [Jota] > The term "the List" may be applied not only to the mailing list > at nomic02@wurb.com, but also to any other list of the email > addresses of all current players. Any time a player needs to > post to the list, he or she may achieve this by sending a > message to any such valid list. Aye, on the understanding that we'll continue using the wurb.com list if at all possible to reduce confusion. While I remember, I also vote aye on the proposals "I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]" and "Active Voice II [Psmith]". jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:52:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:52:07 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Active Player In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120195206.GA91794@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A rule proposal: > > I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]: > The notion of which player is the "active player" shall be considered a > part of the state of the game. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:54:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:54:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratification of servants and named proposals In-Reply-To: <20030120183601.GA91310@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. My servant is "Grunk". His species is "orc". -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:54:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:54:35 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Lists and Lists [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120195435.GB91794@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > I propose a rule: > > Lists and Lists [Jota] > The term "the List" may be applied not only to the mailing list at > nomic02@wurb.com, but also to any other list of the email addresses of > all current players. Any time a player needs to post to the list, he or > she may achieve this by sending a message to any such valid list. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 19:59:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:59:00 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] servant clarification In-Reply-To: <20030120183601.GA91310@spod-central.org> References: <20030120183601.GA91310@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <14831867.1043092740@cornelius> > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. To clarify, my interpretation of this rule would be that as it does not specify an earliest time at which servants may be named, those of us who named our servants before the actual ratification of this rule have still done so and need not do so again. Does everyone else agree? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:00:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:00:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] servant clarification In-Reply-To: <14831867.1043092740@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > > B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. > > To clarify, my interpretation of this rule would be that as it does not > specify an earliest time at which servants may be named, those of us who > named our servants before the actual ratification of this rule have still > done so and need not do so again. Does everyone else agree? Interesting. Another possible interpretation is that it does specify an earliest time, but that the earliest time is 72 hours before the rule is effected. (That is, any point in time within 72 hours of the time of effect, before or after.) Either way, I'm fine with it. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:10:04 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:10:04 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] servant clarification In-Reply-To: <14831867.1043092740@cornelius> References: <20030120183601.GA91310@spod-central.org> <14831867.1043092740@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120201003.GA91885@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >A. Each servant is to have a name and a species. > >B. Players are expected to specify the name and species of their servant > > either within within 72 hours from the time this rule takes effect or > > within 72 hours of when they join the game, whichever is later. > > To clarify, my interpretation of this rule would be that as it does not > specify an earliest time at which servants may be named, those of us who > named our servants before the actual ratification of this rule have still > done so and need not do so again. Does everyone else agree? Since servants didn't exist until this rule came into effect, any post giving a name and species for them could only have been an expression of intent, I think, rather than fulfulling the requirement of this rule. And, since I haven't yet: My servant is called "Gideon Crawle". He is a steward. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:05:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:05:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <53427124.1043022456@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Two new rule proposals: > > Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: Aye. > Bus Fare [jwalrus]: Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:05:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:05:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Mobile Servitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Highly Mobile Servitude [Jota]: Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:09:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:09:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My servant is named Banford. His species is Brassica Oleracea. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:15:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:15:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Storage [Jota] Message-ID: A proposed rule: Storage [Jota] If a token's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then its location will be set to the Attic. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:19:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:19:11 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] servant clarification Message-ID: To reiterate on the side of safety, my servant is named Hugo and is of the species Betta Splendens. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:22:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:22:42 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: <53427124.1043022456@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120202241.GA91998@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > Two new rule proposals: > > > > Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: > > Aye. Magic Omnibus [jwalrus] is dead, baf. D'you mean Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus]? -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:23:13 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:23:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposal: Public Eye [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <3132484.1043081040@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Public Eye [jwalrus]: > "Whenever any change to the state of the game is made by a means other than > unanimous or sectional agreement, the player responsible must announce this > fact to all other players through the List. The change shall be considered > to have been made at the moment this is done." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:23:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:23:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Active Player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > A rule proposal: > > I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]: > The notion of which player is the "active player" shall be considered a > part of the state of the game. aye From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:38:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:38:07 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17179082.1043095087@cornelius> --On 20 January 2003 3:05 pm -0500 Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: >> Magic Omnibus [jwalrus]: > > Aye. Note that this proposal has been superceded by Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus] following Psmith's objection to the original. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:46:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:46:19 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Storage [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17670749.1043095579@cornelius> > Storage [Jota] > If a token's location ceases to exist or is removed from the > game, then its location will be set to the Attic. Aye. Also, rules from me: Indentured [jwalrus]: "If a servant's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then its location will be set to the Servants' Quarters." Emergency Escape Capsule [jwalrus]: "If the location of anything in the game ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then the location of that thing will be set to Saturn unless otherwise specified." Note that Emergency Escape Capsule would currently apply to players and to the Magic Omnibus. Also, to avoid any worrying about whether it's official or not, I shall reiterate: My servant is named Baron Greenback and is of the species Toad (bufo bufo). jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:47:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:47:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Storage [Jota] In-Reply-To: <17670749.1043095579@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Indentured [jwalrus]: > "If a servant's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then > its location will be set to the Servants' Quarters." Aye. > Emergency Escape Capsule [jwalrus]: > "If the location of anything in the game ceases to exist or is removed from > the game, then the location of that thing will be set to Saturn unless > otherwise specified." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:51:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:51:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratifications: HMS and Ac-tor Message-ID: The following two proposals have now been supported by all players: Highly Mobile Servitude [Jota]: Once per turn, the active player may choose to move his or her servant by posting intention to do so. This may be done before, after, or instead of moving oneself, at the player's discretion. I Am An *AC*-tor! [Jota]: The notion of which player is the "active player" shall be considered a part of the state of the game. One hour from the timestamp of this message they will go into effect as two new rules, whose numbers can be figured out later. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:48:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:48:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] servant clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > To reiterate on the side of safety, my servant is named > Hugo and is of the species Betta Splendens. I think I didn't name my servant until after the rule was ratified properly. It's still a Brassica oleracea named Banford. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:49:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:49:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120202241.GA91998@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Magic Omnibus [jwalrus] is dead, baf. D'you mean Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus]? No, I meant the first one. I'm reading these messages in order and replying to them as I go. That's the only way I can handle it. There's no rule against voting on dead proposals, is there? From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:53:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:53:56 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Storage [Jota] In-Reply-To: <17670749.1043095579@cornelius> References: <17670749.1043095579@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120205356.GA92217@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >Storage [Jota] > > If a token's location ceases to exist or is removed from the > > game, then its location will be set to the Attic. Aye. > Indentured [jwalrus]: > "If a servant's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then > its location will be set to the Servants' Quarters." Aye. > Emergency Escape Capsule [jwalrus]: > "If the location of anything in the game ceases to exist or is removed from > the game, then the location of that thing will be set to Saturn unless > otherwise specified." > > Note that Emergency Escape Capsule would currently apply to players and to > the Magic Omnibus. Also tolls, which I would consider a Bad Thing. Hence, nay. (I also note that none of these location-reverts-to rules deals with the case of the revert-to location being the one that's vanishing. This is something to be Careful of.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:52:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:52:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Storage [Jota] In-Reply-To: <17670749.1043095579@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Indentured [jwalrus]: > "If a servant's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then > its location will be set to the Servants' Quarters." Aye. > Emergency Escape Capsule [jwalrus]: > "If the location of anything in the game ceases to exist or is removed from > the game, then the location of that thing will be set to Saturn unless > otherwise specified." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:58:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:58:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > No, I meant the first one. I'm reading these messages in order and > replying to them as I go. That's the only way I can handle it. There's > no rule against voting on dead proposals, is there? In fact, I'd suggest that it's even impossible to vote on dead proposals. It's just posting messages containing combinations of N, A, Y, and E in response to random other messages, with no particular game meaning at all. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:03:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:03:16 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Tax Havens [jwalrus] Message-ID: <18687901.1043096596@cornelius> A proposal, for a rule and a map-change: Tax Havens [jwalrus] Introduce the following rule: "Any room on the map may have the property of being designated a 'tax haven'; whether or not a room is a tax haven shall be considered a detail of the map as per Rule 20. No toll may be attached to a room which is a tax haven; any toll whose location is a tax haven shall cease to exist immediately." And the proposed map-change: that the rooms Saturn and Blasted Heath become tax havens. (Yes, I could just have proposed that tolls don't teleport to Saturn if their location is destroyed, but I felt creative and there could be some interesting use for this involving tokens ocne some actually exist.) jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:01:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:01:23 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030120210122.GB92217@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > > No, I meant the first one. I'm reading these messages in order and > > replying to them as I go. That's the only way I can handle it. There's > > no rule against voting on dead proposals, is there? > > In fact, I'd suggest that it's even impossible to vote on dead proposals. > It's just posting messages containing combinations of N, A, Y, and E in > response to random other messages, with no particular game meaning at all. Splunge. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:02:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:02:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Tax Havens [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <18687901.1043096596@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Tax Havens [jwalrus] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 20:59:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:59:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Lists and Lists [Jota] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I propose a rule: > > Lists and Lists [Jota] > The term "the List" may be applied not only to the mailing list at > nomic02@wurb.com, but also to any other list of the email addresses of > all current players. Any time a player needs to post to the list, he or > she may achieve this by sending a message to any such valid list. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:04:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:04:15 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] proposals: Magic Omnibus / Bus Fare [jwalrus] Message-ID: >> No, I meant the first one. I'm reading these messages in order and >> replying to them as I go. That's the only way I can handle=20 >> it. There's >> no rule against voting on dead proposals, is there? >=20 > In fact, I'd suggest that it's even impossible to vote on=20 > dead proposals. It could theoretically be considered an attempt to deceive, but as we are clearly not fooled, it'd be kinda silly. .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:04:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:04:58 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Tax Havens [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <18687901.1043096596@cornelius> References: <18687901.1043096596@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120210458.GC92217@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > A proposal, for a rule and a map-change: > > Tax Havens [jwalrus] Aye. I also change my vote on Emergency Escape Capsule [jwalrus] to aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:00:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:00:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Storage [Jota] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > A proposed rule: > > Storage [Jota] > If a token's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then > its location will be set to the Attic. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:11:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:11:50 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone [jwalrus] Message-ID: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> Another rule proposal: She's Gone [jwalrus]: "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new location instead." jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:07:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:07:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Another rule proposal: > > She's Gone [jwalrus]: > "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically > first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new > location instead." Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:11:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:11:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: Lists and Storage Message-ID: The following two proposals have been supported by all players: Lists and Lists [Jota] The term "the List" may be applied not only to the mailing list at nomic02@wurb.com, but also to any other list of the email addresses of all current players. Any time a player needs to post to the list, he or she may achieve this by sending a message to any such valid list. Storage [Jota] If a token's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then its location will be set to the Attic. Each will be effected as a rule one hour from this timestamp. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:12:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:12:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > She's Gone [jwalrus]: > "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically > first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new > location instead." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:24:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:24:10 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> References: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120212409.GD92217@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Another rule proposal: > > She's Gone [jwalrus]: > "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically > first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new > location instead." Since the position of "The" on such a list is indeterminate, nay. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:20:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:20:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down Message-ID: Changes are being made way too fast for me to keep track of them in a timely manner and still do other stuff, like look for work. I had hoped that things would be easier if I just stopped making new proposals for a while, but I'm still committed to updating the web site with proposals from the rest of you. So I'm going to make a rule proposal: Slow Down [Carl Muckenhoupt] No player may propose changes to the rules while another proposal to change the rules by the same player is still under consideration. I fully expect this will be voted down immediately, in which case I'm going to start vetoing things more. If I feel like I've spent enough time lately on the site, and I don't see a pressing need for your proposal, down it goes, especially if it involves changes to the map. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:31:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:31:20 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> References: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> Message-ID: <20371983.1043098280@cornelius> Revised following Psmith's objection: She's Gone II [jwalrus]: "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new location instead. Rooms whose names consist solely of articles shall not be considered for this reckoning." While I'm at it, I declare my previous proposal, "She's Gone [jwalrus]", dead following Psmith's veto. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:30:31 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:30:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Outstanding proposals Message-ID: I just thought I'd recap my outstanding proposals for baf's sake, in case he missed anything while working his way through all his email. This proposal for three rules has been supported by jwalrus and Psmith explicitly and Roger and myself explicitly: A Token Proposal [Jota]: I. The set of "tokens" will be a part of the game state. A token must have a name and a location. That location may be any room, player, or servant. Tokens may be added, removed, or modified by unanimous agreement. II. "Carrying" a token will be defined as being that token's location. To "drop" a token one is carrying will be defined as setting its location equal to one's own location. To "pick up" a token whose location is the same as one's own is to set the token's location equal to oneself. III. At any point during a turn, the active player may choose to pick up any appropiate token, drop any carried token, or cause his or her servant to perform either of those actions by posting clear intent to do so. These actions may be taken as many times as desired, in whatever order desired, to the same or different tokens as desired, provided the action is not prohibited by any other rule or rules. This proposal for one rule has been supported by jwalrus and Psmith explicitly and Roger and myself implicitly: Xyzzy II [Jota]: Once per turn, the active player (only) may invoke the magic word "xyzzy" to set their location to the Lounge, by posting intent to do so. "xyzzy" may not be used if the player has taken any action to change their location in the same turn. For the remainder of that turn, and for the full duration of the player's following turn, the player will be in a state of "chatting their life away". A player in that state may take no voluntary turn-dependent actions other than ending their turn. (Turn-dependent actions being those which can only be performed by the active player on their turn.) Whether or not one is in this "chatting" state is a part of the game state. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:30:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:30:38 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down Message-ID: > Slow Down [Carl Muckenhoupt] > No player may propose changes to the rules while another proposal to > change the rules by the same player is still under consideration. I generally like it, although 'under consideration' looks kinda dodgy (especially considering we've just seen obvious evidence that players are considering dead proposals.) But not too dodgy to veto. .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:33:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:33:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Slow Down [Carl Muckenhoupt] > No player may propose changes to the rules while another proposal to > change the rules by the same player is still under consideration. > > I fully expect this will be voted down immediately, in which case > I'm going to start vetoing things more. If I feel like I've spent enough > time lately on the site, and I don't see a pressing need for your > proposal, down it goes, especially if it involves changes to the map. As that stands, I'm voting nay, but I'd be willing to consider something similar to it. E.g., no player may make more than one rule-change-related proposal every twelve hours, perhaps. Or even alternately, no player may propose changes to the rules while two other proposals [...], perhaps. Or something. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:33:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:33:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20371983.1043098280@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > She's Gone II [jwalrus]: > "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically > first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new > location instead. Rooms whose names consist solely of articles shall not be > considered for this reckoning." Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:37:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:37:34 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20745840.1043098654@cornelius> > Changes are being made way too fast for me to keep track of them > in a timely manner and still do other stuff, like look for work. > I had hoped that things would be easier if I just stopped making > new proposals for a while, but I'm still committed to updating > the web site with proposals from the rest of you. So I'm going > to make a rule proposal: > > Slow Down [Carl Muckenhoupt] > No player may propose changes to the rules while another proposal > to change the rules by the same player is still under > consideration. I think you're entirely right that the game needs to slow down a little; but I'm not sure that this is the best solution. For one thing, under the current wording, only changes which affect the rules are affected; I can still propose changes to the map, the very things you've said you want to avoid, without restriction. It seems as though it might be worth issuing an informal "slow down!" request and seeing whether that has any effect on the game over the next day or two. I'm enjoying the game, but it does feel as if posts are coming in fast enough that I could do nothing but sit here and play Nomic for the next three hours, and I don't think it'd hurt to take it a bit easier for a while. Note that I've not formally voted one way or another on your proposal. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:31:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:31:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20371983.1043098280@cornelius> Message-ID: A counterproposal: The's Gone [Carl Muckenhoupt] If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed to a room which no longer exists, its location will instead be changed to The, unless The no longer exists, in which case it will be removed from the map. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:39:36 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:39:36 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20371983.1043098280@cornelius> References: <19201760.1043097110@cornelius> <20371983.1043098280@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120213936.GE92217@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > She's Gone II [jwalrus]: > "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically > first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new > location instead. Rooms whose names consist solely of articles shall not be > considered for this reckoning." Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:41:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:41:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: <20745840.1043098654@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > It seems as though it might be worth issuing an informal "slow down!" > request and seeing whether that has any effect on the game over the next > day or two. I'm enjoying the game, but it does feel as if posts are coming > in fast enough that I could do nothing but sit here and play Nomic for the > next three hours, and I don't think it'd hurt to take it a bit easier for a > while. I wouldn't mind an informal slow-down. I do think part of today's high-speed playing may be a consequence of things being held up a bit over the weekend, and that the situation might work itself out after today. As an aside, wouldn't the brownie points for proposals have just magnified the problem? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:41:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:41:23 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: <20371983.1043098280@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120214123.GF92217@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > A counterproposal: > The's Gone [Carl Muckenhoupt] > If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, its location will instead be changed to > The, unless The no longer exists, in which case it will be removed from > the map. This could lead to things like the Magic Omnibus falling off the map, which I'd be unhappy about; nay. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:40:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:40:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > As an aside, wouldn't the brownie points for proposals have just magnified > the problem? Possibly. Or they might have encouraged more immediate vetos. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:45:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:45:25 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21216798.1043099125@cornelius> > A counterproposal: > The's Gone [Carl Muckenhoupt] > If at any time the rules require the location of something to be > changed to a room which no longer exists, its location will > instead be changed to The, unless The no longer exists, in which > case it will be removed from the map. The idea of, say, a player being removed from the map is sufficiently alarming that I'm not voting aye on this immediately. I'll wait to hear other players' responses to this before I decide whether or not it's really a good idea. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:42:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:42:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > A counterproposal: > The's Gone [Carl Muckenhoupt] > If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed > to a room which no longer exists, its location will instead be changed to > The, unless The no longer exists, in which case it will be removed from > the map. Hmm. That could risk a player being removed from the map entirely. That could be a bad thing. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:46:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:46:30 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: <20745840.1043098654@cornelius> References: <20745840.1043098654@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030120214630.GG92217@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >Slow Down [Carl Muckenhoupt] > >No player may propose changes to the rules while another proposal > >to change the rules by the same player is still under > >consideration. > > I think you're entirely right that the game needs to slow down a little; > but I'm not sure that this is the best solution. For one thing, under the > current wording, only changes which affect the rules are affected; I can > still propose changes to the map, the very things you've said you want to > avoid, without restriction. > > It seems as though it might be worth issuing an informal "slow down!" > request and seeing whether that has any effect on the game over the next > day or two. I'm enjoying the game, but it does feel as if posts are coming > in fast enough that I could do nothing but sit here and play Nomic for the > next three hours, and I don't think it'd hurt to take it a bit easier for a > while. It's a characteristic of most Nomic games that they start off fast and furious, settle down into a fairly sedate middle age, then tail off into lack of interest (or, sometimes, someone manages to wangle a win). I think it's self-correcting, to a large extent; you can always withhold voting (rescinding previous aye votes if necessary) if you want to get a breather from new changes. > Note that I've not formally voted one way or another on your proposal. Nor I. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:43:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:43:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: The Sale of Indulgences [RC] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > The Sale of Indulgences[RC] > > Any player with more than one hundred brown points and > more than one demerit may voluntarily decrement their > brown points by one hundred and decrement their demerits > by one. Nay. I like demerits the way they are: permanent stains on your record that not all the oceans can wash clean. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:42:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:42:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] A Token Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > A proposal for three rules. > > > A Token Proposal [Jota]: Aye. I've already approved a rule that mentions tokens, so I might as well approve the tokens. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:55:46 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:55:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: <20030120214630.GG92217@spod-central.org> Message-ID: I'd like to make a counter-proposal for a similar rule: Slow Up [Jota] No player may propose changes to the rules or to the details of the map while two other proposals by the same player for such changes are still under consideration (i.e. neither dead nor officially ratified). If things change such that such a rule is no longer desired, we can propose to have it rescinded then. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:53:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:53:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: <20030120214123.GF92217@spod-central.org> Message-ID: I'm declaring The's Gone to be dead, and replacing it with The's Gone II [Carl Muckenhoupt] a single proposal for a two-rule package If at any time the rules require the location of something to be a room which no longer exists, its location will instead be The. If The ceases to exist, it will immediately be automatically recreated on the map. (Note additional not-completely-obvious change: "be changed to" -> "be". This covers situations such as new players joining after the lounge is destroyed.) From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 21:55:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:55:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Slow Up [Jota] Aye From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 22:06:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:06:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Mass Murder Message-ID: Just for purposes of cleaning things up, I hereby declare dead any proposals under consideration which have been vetoed by anyone other than myself. (Anyone else is free to declare dead any proposals vetoed only by me.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 22:10:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:10:42 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22734240.1043100642@cornelius> > I'm declaring The's Gone to be dead, and replacing it with > The's Gone II [Carl Muckenhoupt] > a single proposal for a two-rule package > > If at any time the rules require the location of something to be > a room which no longer exists, its location will instead be > The. > > If The ceases to exist, it will immediately be automatically > recreated on the map. > > (Note additional not-completely-obvious change: "be changed > to" -> "be". This covers situations such as new players joining > after the lounge is destroyed.) True, but it's no longer clear from the wording of this rule that it would defer to the Storage, Indentured and Emergency Escape Capsule proposals; the previous version would have been fine as the location is only required to be changed to the storage rooms, whereas with this version the extant gamestate requires the location to be the room being destroyed, while the other rules, require it to be changed; it's not clear which rule takes precedence. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 22:24:26 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:24:26 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23557824.1043101466@cornelius> > Slow Up [Jota] > No player may propose changes to the rules or to the details of > the map while two other proposals by the same player for such > changes are still under consideration (i.e. neither dead nor > officially ratified). This feels less restrictive than baf's proposal, but I think I'll wait for a day or so and see if things slow down naturally. For what it's worth, I currently have six outstanding proposals, although some of them are ready to be ratified. I'm currently waiting to announce them until baf makes a decision on "Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus]" so that I can announce them all at once for the sake of simplicity. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 22:29:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:29:28 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] actions for this turn Message-ID: <23859878.1043101768@cornelius> In accordance with Rules 27, 30 and 46, I hereby announce that I am moving to the House of Commons and that my servant, Baron Greenback, is moving to Mornington Crescent. My turn is now over; Roger Carbol is the active player as of the timestamp on this message. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 22:28:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:28:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: <23557824.1043101466@cornelius> Message-ID: Aye on Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus] From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 22:52:04 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:52:04 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] four new rules: omnibus and fallback locations Message-ID: <25216429.1043103124@cornelius> I hereby announce the ratification of the proposals "Magic Omnibus II [jwalrus]", "Bus Fare [jwalrus]", "Indentured [jwalrus]" and "Emergency Escape Capsule [jwalrus]". "Bus Fare [jwalrus]" was implicitly approved by me and explicitly approved by all other players; the remaining three proposals were implicitly approved by me and Roger and explictly approved by the other three players. The following four rules shall therefore come into effect one hour from the timestamp on this message: Rule 50. There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of Commons. Once per turn, the active player may announce that the Magic Omnibus is being used to transport the active player or the active player's servant (but not both), if their location is the same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this happens, the location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported is changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be moved by any other means in the same turn after using the Magic Omnibus. Rule 51. When the Magic Omnibus is used to transport a player or servant the active player shall lose five brownie points. A player who has less than five brownie points may not use the Magic Omnibus. Rule 52. If a servant's location ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then its location will be set to the Servants' Quarters. Rule 53. If the location of anything in the game ceases to exist or is removed from the game, then the location of that thing will be set to Saturn unless otherwise specified. For administrative convenience I shall mention that the only change to the gamestate resulting from these proposals other than the addition of these four rules to the list of rules is that the Magic Omnibus now has a location, which is the House of Commons. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 23:17:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:17:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Outstanding proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's an official announcement of ratification for the following proposal for three rules (supported by jwal, Ps, and baf explicitly, and RC and myself implicitly): > A Token Proposal [Jota]: > > I. The set of "tokens" will be a part of the game state. A token must have > a name and a location. That location may be any room, player, or > servant. Tokens may be added, removed, or modified by unanimous > agreement. > > II. "Carrying" a token will be defined as being that token's location. To > "drop" a token one is carrying will be defined as setting its location > equal to one's own location. To "pick up" a token whose location is > the same as one's own is to set the token's location equal to oneself. > > III. At any point during a turn, the active player may choose to pick up > any appropiate token, drop any carried token, or cause his or her > servant to perform either of those actions by posting clear intent to > do so. These actions may be taken as many times as desired, in > whatever order desired, to the same or different tokens as desired, > provided the action is not prohibited by any other rule or rules. They'll go into effect as Rules 54-57, respectively, one hour from this timestamp. BTW, a minor nitpick: Rule 43 only has one part. The Part II listed on the website was technically just a map change that was in the same proposal. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 23:25:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:25:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Outstanding proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > They'll go into effect as Rules 54-57, respectively, Er, 54-56. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 20 23:28:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:28:41 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Outstanding proposals Message-ID: >> They'll go into effect as Rules 54-57, respectively, =20 > Er, 54-56. 54-40 or fight! ..Roger =20 NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 21 00:20:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:20:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Delivery Is Not Free Message-ID: I thought I'd make one last proposal tonight, and then call it quits for proposing anything else this evening. A bundle-proposal for three rules: Delivery Is Not Free [Jota] I. Some tokens may be designated "prize tokens". A prize token, in addition to its name and location, also has a value (a non-negative integer) and a destination (a room on the map). If a token's destination ceases to exist as a part of the map, then its destination will be set to West of Nowhere. If West of Nowhere no longer exists, its destination will be set to the room whose name is alphabetically last in the list of rooms, not counting articles. Rooms whose names consist solely of articles shall not be considered for this reckoning. II. Any player who drops a prize token in its destination room will be awarded a number of brownie points equal to its value. Any player whose servant drops a prize token in its destination room will be awarded a number of brownie points equal to half of its value, rounded up. In either case, that player may now choose what room the token's destination will be. If no selection is made by the end of the player's turn, the token's destination is unchanged. III. After a player has been awarded brownie points for a prize token being dropped in its destination room, that player is prohibited from picking up that token or causing his or her servant to do so until after the token has been picked up by at least one other player or servant. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 21 10:52:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:52:17 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Delivery Is Not Free In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <698252674.1043146337@pccl510.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> > Delivery Is Not Free [Jota] > > I. Some tokens may be designated "prize tokens". A prize token, > in addition to its name and location, also has a value (a non- > negative integer) and a destination (a room on the map) [...] I'm in favour of this in principle, but I'm a little wary of the phrase "some tokens may be designated prize tokens". I'm assuming that the intent is that a token's 'prize' status may be modified under the provisions of Rule 54, but another possible reading is that designating a token a prize token is an action which may be taken by unspecified individuals at an unspecified time. If everyone is of the opinion that this rule is sufficiently clear, I'll vote in favour of this proposal. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 21 11:09:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:09:21 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Delivery Is Not Free In-Reply-To: <698252674.1043146337@pccl510.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> References: <698252674.1043146337@pccl510.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20030121110921.GA97267@spod-central.org> nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > >Delivery Is Not Free [Jota] > > > >I. Some tokens may be designated "prize tokens". A prize token, > >in addition to its name and location, also has a value (a non- > >negative integer) and a destination (a room on the map) [...] > > I'm in favour of this in principle, but I'm a little wary of the phrase > "some tokens may be designated prize tokens". I'm assuming that the intent > is that a token's 'prize' status may be modified under the provisions of > Rule 54, but another possible reading is that designating a token a prize > token is an action which may be taken by unspecified individuals at an > unspecified time. Under Active Voice II, since this proposal doesn't use the term "action" or "voluntary", it's clear enough that this isn't meant to be an individual action. Vote for Active Voice II today! > If everyone is of the opinion that this rule is > sufficiently clear, I'll vote in favour of this proposal. I vote aye on this proposal. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 21 16:57:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:57:00 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Delivery Is Not Free In-Reply-To: <20030121110921.GA97267@spod-central.org> References: <20030121110921.GA97267@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <1547154.1043168220@cornelius> > Vote for Active Voice II today! Unless I'm mistaken, I voted for Active Voice II yesterday. > I vote aye on this proposal. I also vote aye on "Delivery Is Not Free [Jota]". jw From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 21 19:42:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:42:59 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Roger's Movements Message-ID: I move myself to The Dot-Com Bubble. Woo woo! I move Hugo to Saturn. I hereby end my active turn. ..Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 01:28:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:28:45 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] slowing down Message-ID: <32251895.1043198925@cornelius> Given the apparently overwhelming success of the voluntary slowdown, I'm of the opinion that a restriction on the number of proposals a player may have under consideration at once is no longer necessary and would only likely serve to cause problems if a proposal had to be made urgently in order to fix some flaw in the game. Therefore I vote nay on both "Slow Down [Carl Muckenhoupt]" and "Slow Up [Jota]". I'm not necessarily unwilling to be convinced to change this. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 01:55:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:55:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] slowing down In-Reply-To: <32251895.1043198925@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Given the apparently overwhelming success of the voluntary slowdown, I'm of > the opinion that a restriction on the number of proposals a player may have > under consideration at once is no longer necessary and would only likely > serve to cause problems if a proposal had to be made urgently in order to > fix some flaw in the game. Therefore I vote nay on both "Slow Down [Carl > Muckenhoupt]" and "Slow Up [Jota]". I'm not necessarily unwilling to be > convinced to change this. I'll mark Down dead since out of the two I prefer Up, but since I'm under no formal limit on proposals I can have open, I'll let Up live for the time being. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 01:57:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:57:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > The's Gone II [Carl Muckenhoupt] Since I've already given She's Gone II an aye, I should give this a nay, lest two conflicting proposals be passed. Nay. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 08:53:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:53:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] My turn Message-ID: The game slowed down so much I almost forgot to take my turn. I move myself to the Dot-Com Bubble (bringing my score from 10 to 12, and the Bubble's next reward to 4), and Grunk to Washington, DC. After that, I end my turn, making it baf's turn now. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 09:04:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:04:30 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] She's Gone II [jwalrus] In-Reply-To: References: <20030120214123.GF92217@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030122090430.GA4313@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > I'm declaring The's Gone to be dead, and replacing it with > The's Gone II [Carl Muckenhoupt] I declare this dead pursuant to Jota's nay vote. > (Note additional not-completely-obvious change: "be changed to" -> > "be". This covers situations such as new players joining after the lounge > is destroyed.) I think "be changed to" covers this also; "undefined -> the Lounge" is a change. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 18:26:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:26:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Delivery Is Not Free In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > I thought I'd make one last proposal tonight, and then call it quits for > proposing anything else this evening. A bundle-proposal for three rules: > > Delivery Is Not Free [Jota] Aye From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 18:36:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:36:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] turn Message-ID: My turn during phase 1: I move to the Dot-Com Bubble, earning 4 brownie points. I move Banford to Mornington Crescent, because I can't go there myself. My turn ends. It is now psmith's turn. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 19:13:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:13:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] map colors Message-ID: I have started indicating player and servant locations on the map at http://www.wurb.com/nomic/02/map. If anyone is dissatisfied with the color I have assigned to them, let me know. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 19:25:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:25:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] map colors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I have started indicating player and servant locations on the map at > http://www.wurb.com/nomic/02/map. If anyone is dissatisfied with the > color I have assigned to them, let me know. Hmm. I'm not actually seeing the colors on the players page. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 19:25:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:25:55 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Psmith's turn Message-ID: <20030122192554.GA7377@spod-central.org> I move Gideon Crawle to the North Pole. I move myself to The House of Commons. My turn is completed. It is now jwalrus' turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 19:21:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Blocking Message-ID: Rule proposal: Blocking [Carl Muckenhoupt] No player or servant may be moved to a room that is the location of another player or servant. (Note: The word "move" is defined in rule 26. This rule should not be taken as limiting automatic relocation of players or use of the Magic Autobus.) From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 20:38:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:38:38 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Blocking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030122203838.GA7797@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Blocking [Carl Muckenhoupt] > No player or servant may be moved to a room that is the location of > another player or servant. I think this is over-restrictive on movement. How about: Upstairs, Downstairs [Psmith] No servant may be moved to a room that is the location of a player other than the player with which that servant is associated. If, at the start of a player's turn, that player's servant is in such a room, the servant's location must be changed during that turn if possible to do so. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 20:39:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:39:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: Delivery Is Not Free In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Delivery Is Not Free [Jota] > > I. Some tokens may be designated "prize tokens". A prize token, in > addition to its name and location, also has a value (a non-negative > integer) and a destination (a room on the map). If a token's > destination ceases to exist as a part of the map, then its destination > will be set to West of Nowhere. If West of Nowhere no longer exists, > its destination will be set to the room whose name is alphabetically > last in the list of rooms, not counting articles. Rooms whose names > consist solely of articles shall not be considered for this reckoning. > > II. Any player who drops a prize token in its destination room will be > awarded a number of brownie points equal to its value. Any player > whose servant drops a prize token in its destination room will be > awarded a number of brownie points equal to half of its value, rounded > up. In either case, that player may now choose what room the token's > destination will be. If no selection is made by the end of the > player's turn, the token's destination is unchanged. > > III. After a player has been awarded brownie points for a prize token > being dropped in its destination room, that player is prohibited from > picking up that token or causing his or her servant to do so until > after the token has been picked up by at least one other player or > servant. The above proposal has been supported (explicitly by jwalrus, Psmith, and baf and implicitly by myself and Roger), so I'm calling it ratified. Rules 57-59, one hour from this timestamp. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 22:01:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:01:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Blocking In-Reply-To: <20030122203838.GA7797@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Upstairs, Downstairs [Psmith] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 22:59:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:59:08 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Blocking In-Reply-To: <20030122203838.GA7797@spod-central.org> References: <20030122203838.GA7797@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <40547414.1043276348@cornelius> > Upstairs, Downstairs [Psmith] Aye. Although I'm not going to vote against baf's more restrictive proposal just yet. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:14:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:14:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] my turn, also proposal Message-ID: <41487966.1043277289@cornelius> As active player, I would like to announce that I will not be moving this turn; my turn is now over and RogerCarbol is the new active player. In addition I submit the following proposal: Tokens: First Wave [jwalrus] Create the following tokens: - Prize token "*ROYAL HONEY*", location the North Pole, destination West Of Nowhere, value 10 - Prize token "scarlet emerald", location Mornington Crescent, destination Under the High Wall (on a resting), value 16 - Token "mind-control satellie uplink", location Attic jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:36:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:36:50 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] my turn, also proposal In-Reply-To: <41487966.1043277289@cornelius> References: <41487966.1043277289@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030122233650.GA8789@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > In addition I submit the following proposal: > > Tokens: First Wave [jwalrus] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:41:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:41:07 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Death By Apathy Message-ID: <20030122234107.GB8789@spod-central.org> Death By Apathy [Psmith] Any proposal that has been neither ratified nor declared dead within 168 hours from its original posting will, at that time, automatically be considered dead and removed from consideration. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:50:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:50:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Blocking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > Upstairs, Downstairs [Psmith] Aye. On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Aye. Since baf voted for UD, I'll vote nay for Blocking. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:53:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:53:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] my turn, also proposal In-Reply-To: <41487966.1043277289@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Tokens: First Wave [jwalrus] > Create the following tokens: > - Prize token "*ROYAL HONEY*", location the North Pole, destination West > Of Nowhere, value 10 > - Prize token "scarlet emerald", location Mornington Crescent, destination > Under the High Wall (on a resting), value 16 > - Token "mind-control satellie uplink", location Attic Aye. I'll join in and propose: Awwwk! [Jota] - Prize token "golden corknut", location West of Nowhere, destination the Lounge, value 27. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:53:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:53:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Death By Apathy In-Reply-To: <20030122234107.GB8789@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Death By Apathy [Psmith] > > Any proposal that has been neither ratified nor declared dead within > 168 hours from its original posting will, at that time, automatically > be considered dead and removed from consideration. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 22 23:58:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:58:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Blocking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Upstairs, Downstairs [Psmith] > > Aye. > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Aye. > > Since baf voted for UD, I'll vote nay for Blocking. And I'll declare it dead. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:19:42 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:19:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] Message-ID: A group of related rule proposals. Feel free to vote on them together or separately, or to suggest alternatives. Highway Robbery [Jota] "Stealing" a token carried by a player or servant who is in the same room as oneself will be defined as setting that token's location to oneself. This may only be done under circumstances described in later rules, and may only be done at most once in a given turn. I'll Watch Your Back [Jota] If a player and that player's servant are in the same location, no tokens carried by either may be stolen by any other player. I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] If the active player is ever in the same location as a servant which is carrying one or more tokens, the active player may choose to steal one of those tokens, provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. We're Bigger Than You [Jota] If the active player and that player's servant are ever both in the same location as another player who's carrying one or more tokens, the active player may choose to steal one of those tokens, provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:15:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:15:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] my turn, also proposal In-Reply-To: <41487966.1043277289@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Tokens: First Wave [jwalrus] > Create the following tokens: Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:50:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:50:14 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] votes in favour In-Reply-To: <20030122234107.GB8789@spod-central.org> References: <20030122234107.GB8789@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <47213008.1043283014@cornelius> > Death By Apathy [Psmith] Aye. > Awwwk! [Jota] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:58:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:58:09 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47687711.1043283489@cornelius> > Highway Robbery [Jota] > I'll Watch Your Back [Jota] > I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] > We're Bigger Than You [Jota] I like it, but am I right in thinking we still don't have a general actions mechanism? If so, I think the rules should specify a mechanism for announcing that you're stealing a token. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:50:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:50:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Personal prize tokens Message-ID: A rule proposal: Personal prize tokens [baf] Once per turn, the active player may create one prize token by posting an announcement of its creation, including the values of all the token's required properties. A token created in this way does not grant brownie points to its creator as a result of being dropped in its destination, but is a normal prize token in all other respects. (Motivation for this rule: It gives us a way to manipulate each other. For example, we could use this to create motivations for other players to leave the vicinity of the Dot-Com Bubble.) From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:51:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:51:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Death By Apathy In-Reply-To: <20030122234107.GB8789@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Death By Apathy [Psmith] > > Any proposal that has been neither ratified nor declared dead within > 168 hours from its original posting will, at that time, automatically > be considered dead and removed from consideration. aye From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 01:02:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:02:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: <47687711.1043283489@cornelius> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I like it, but am I right in thinking we still don't have a general actions > mechanism? If so, I think the rules should specify a mechanism for > announcing that you're stealing a token. How about: Highway Robbery II [Jota] "Stealing" a token carried by a player or servant who is in the same room as oneself will be defined as setting that token's location to oneself. This may be done by stating clear intent to do so to the list, but only under circumstances described in later rules, and only once in a given turn. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 00:53:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:53:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Highway Robbery [Jota] aye > I'll Watch Your Back [Jota] aye > I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] aye > We're Bigger Than You [Jota] aye From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 01:06:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:06:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Subject tags? Message-ID: This isn't a formal proposal or anything, just a suggestion. It might make it easier to keep track of posts if some sort of tagging were done in the subject line. Possibilities: [P] or Proposal: [R] or Ratified: [T] or Turn: -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 01:04:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:04:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Personal prize tokens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Personal prize tokens [baf] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 09:19:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:19:34 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Personal prize tokens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030123091934.GA12116@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > A rule proposal: > Personal prize tokens [baf] > Once per turn, the active player may create one prize token by posting an > announcement of its creation, including the values of all the token's > required properties. A token created in this way does not grant brownie > points to its creator as a result of being dropped in its destination, but > is a normal prize token in all other respects. > > (Motivation for this rule: It gives us a way to manipulate each > other. For example, we could use this to create motivations for other > players to leave the vicinity of the Dot-Com Bubble.) While a good idea in general, I'm not all that happy about the economy being inflated by individual action rather than unanimous consent. Shouldn't the creating player lose the brownie points that he's putting into the prize? (Or, at least, half of them, or some such scaling value?) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 09:29:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:29:20 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: U/D and Apathy Message-ID: <20030123092920.GB12116@spod-central.org> The following two proposals have been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rules 60 and 61 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: baf, jwalrus, Jota Upstairs, Downstairs [Psmith] No servant may be moved to a room that is the location of a player other than the player with which that servant is associated. If, at the start of a player's turn, that player's servant is in such a room, the servant's location must be changed during that turn if possible to do so. Death By Apathy [Psmith] Any proposal that has been neither ratified nor declared dead within 168 hours from its original posting will, at that time, automatically be considered dead and removed from consideration. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 09:39:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:39:00 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Votes Message-ID: <20030123093859.GC12116@spod-central.org> Awwwk! [Jota] Aye. Highway Robbery II [Jota] Aye. I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] Aye. We're Bigger Than You [Jota] Aye. (Under Active Voice II, Highway Robbery II could have just said "This action may be taken at most once in a given turn, and only under circumstances...". Vote for Active Voice II today!) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 09:52:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:52:38 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Votes In-Reply-To: <20030123093859.GC12116@spod-central.org> References: <20030123093859.GC12116@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030123095237.GD12116@spod-central.org> Oh, and... I'll Watch Your Back [Jota] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 10:35:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:35:25 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <264338017.1043318125@pccl509.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> > Highway Robbery II [Jota] Aye. Also aye, therefore, to I'll Watch Your Back [Jota], I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] and We're Bigger Than You [Jota]. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 10:36:47 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:36:47 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Subject tags? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <264420466.1043318207@pccl509.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> > [P] or Proposal: > [R] or Ratified: > [T] or Turn: Sounds helpful. Are you thinking that posts made in response to a proposal, say, should have the [P] removed from the subject line unless they contain proposals themselves? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 10:38:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:38:38 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] oh, and also Message-ID: <264531105.1043318318@pccl509.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Vote nay on the original Highway Robbery [Jota]. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 12:34:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:34:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] oh, and also In-Reply-To: <264531105.1043318318@pccl509.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > Vote nay on the original Highway Robbery [Jota]. I'll mark that dead, and now I'm just waiting for baf to vote on Highway Robbery II, so I can ratify the others (with a definition for 'stealing' intact). -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 12:36:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:36:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Subject tags? In-Reply-To: <264420466.1043318207@pccl509.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 nomic02@wurb.com wrote: > Sounds helpful. Are you thinking that posts made in response to a proposal, > say, should have the [P] removed from the subject line unless they contain > proposals themselves? It'd be useful. Although it'll be a lot easier to forget to remove them than to put them in, I think. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 12:38:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:38:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Votes In-Reply-To: <20030123093859.GC12116@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > (Under Active Voice II, Highway Robbery II could have just said "This > action may be taken at most once in a given turn, and only under > circumstances...". Vote for Active Voice II today!) But I *have* voted for it! Uh, haven't I? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 12:44:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 07:44:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Personal prize tokens In-Reply-To: <20030123091934.GA12116@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > While a good idea in general, I'm not all that happy about the economy > being inflated by individual action rather than unanimous consent. > Shouldn't the creating player lose the brownie points that he's > putting into the prize? (Or, at least, half of them, or some such > scaling value?) I'd be fine with it that way as well. Provided it's only something like one-half, and not the whole thing. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 22:46:24 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:46:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Xyzzy II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: The following rule has been supported implicitly by me (by proposing it), implicitly by Roger (by being on the passive voters list), implicitly by baf (by not voting within the first 72 hours), and explicitly by Psmith and jwalrus: > Xyzzy II [Jota]: > Once per turn, the active player (only) may invoke the magic word > "xyzzy" to set their location to the Lounge, by posting intent to do > so. "xyzzy" may not be used if the player has taken any action to > change their location in the same turn. For the remainder of that turn, > and for the full duration of the player's following turn, the player will > be in a state of "chatting their life away". A player in that state > may take no voluntary turn-dependent actions other than ending their turn. > (Turn-dependent actions being those which can only be performed by the > active player on their turn.) Whether or not one is in this "chatting" > state is a part of the game state. I declare it ratified, to go into effect an hour from this timestamp as Rule 62. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 23 23:27:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:27:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] Jota's Turn In-Reply-To: <41487966.1043277289@cornelius> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > As active player, I would like to announce that I will not be moving this > turn; my turn is now over and RogerCarbol is the new active player. Since that was now over 24 hours ago, I guess that makes it my turn. I'll start by moving myself to West of House and Grunk to Mornington Crescent. However, I'm not yet ending my turn, in case any interesting rules currently under consideration get ratified today. (That means Tokens: First Wave, jwal -- all voted and ready to announce :) ) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 01:26:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:26:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs Message-ID: Rule proposal: Time bombs [baf] A "time bomb" is a kind of token. In addition to its other properties, a time bomb has a "delay", which is a span of time. If a time bomb's location is a room, and has been the same room for a duration equal to the time bomb's delay, the time bomb will automatically "esplode" and cease to exist. (The effects of esplosion? To be decided in future proposals. Perhaps it destroys rooms.) From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 02:21:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:21:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Time bombs [baf] > A "time bomb" is a kind of token. In addition to its other properties, a > time bomb has a "delay", which is a span of time. If a time bomb's > location is a room, and has been the same room for a duration equal to the > time bomb's delay, the time bomb will automatically "esplode" and cease to > exist. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 02:26:13 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:26:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Highway Robbery II Message-ID: baf, I just wanted to check: did you miss that there was a Highway Robbery II, replacing Highway Robbery? I need your vote to ratify HRII, and I don't want to ratify the other stealing-related proposals that you did vote on without passing the one that actually defines stealing. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 09:49:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:49:06 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: Active Voice II Message-ID: <20030124094905.GA19881@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rule 63 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive), baf (72 hours) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota Active Voice II [Psmith] A change to the state of the game which is described as being an "action" or "voluntary" may be effected by the relevant player posting intent to make that change to the list. In the absence of any other indication when such an action may be taken, it may be taken at any time. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 09:57:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:57:23 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030124095723.GB19881@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Time bombs [baf] Aye. > (The effects of esplosion? To be decided in future proposals. Perhaps > it destroys rooms.) Eep! -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 15:22:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:22:20 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs Message-ID: >> Rule proposal: >> Time bombs [baf] >=20 > Aye. Aye. (I'd like to see, eventually, by rule or consensus, a decision about whether a token carried by a player should be considered in the same room the player is in, or not. I think the Theft proposal sort of dealt with this, but it's something worth resolving, I think.) .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 15:19:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:19:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Highway Robbery II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > baf, I just wanted to check: did you miss that there was a Highway Robbery > II, replacing Highway Robbery? I need your vote to ratify HRII, and I > don't want to ratify the other stealing-related proposals that you did > vote on without passing the one that actually defines stealing. Aye to it, then. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 15:21:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:21:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Personal prize tokens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > A rule proposal: > Personal prize tokens [baf] > Once per turn, the active player may create one prize token by posting an > announcement of its creation, including the values of all the token's > required properties. A token created in this way does not grant brownie > points to its creator as a result of being dropped in its destination, but > is a normal prize token in all other respects. I'm changing my vote on this to Nay. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 15:46:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:46:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > (I'd like to see, eventually, by rule or consensus, > a decision about whether a token carried by a player > should be considered in the same room the player is > in, or not. I think the Theft proposal sort of dealt > with this, but it's something worth resolving, I think.) Well, I've tried to phrase this proposal to be as unambiguous as possible - hence the "if the time bomb's location is a room" business. The term "location" is discussed in rules 54 and 55. As far as I'm concerned, a token has one location at a time, and if its location is a player, it isn't a room. But to clarify: the intention here is that the time bomb is only ticking when it's not being carried. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 15:56:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:56:20 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs Message-ID: > But to clarify: the intention here is that the time bomb is=20 > only ticking > when it's not being carried. I had a hunch that that was what you were getting at. I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to put a bomb on the Omnibus, but it looks a bit torturous at the moment. .. Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 24 16:27:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:27:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to put a bomb > on the Omnibus, but it looks a bit torturous at the moment. Rule 50 says that the bus can be used to transport players and servants, not game entities in general. I'd say that using the bus to transport an unescorted bomb falls under the heading of "changes to the state of the game not prescribed by the rules", and is therefore forbidden. If you literally mean dropping a token on the Omnibus, well, you'd have to be on the Omnibus yourself to do that, and there's currently no way (short of unanimous agreement) for that to happen. Transportation by Omnibus, as described in Rule 50, simply involves announcing that you and the omnibus are at the new location, not actually boarding the thing. Presumably this is because it's a *magic* Omnibus. (Also, Rule 54 states that the location of a token "may be any room, plyer, or servant", and the Omnibus is none of those things. However, that clause should probably not be taken as restrictive.) From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 00:33:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:33:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Time bombs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Carbol, Roger wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to put a bomb > > on the Omnibus, but it looks a bit torturous at the moment. > Rule 50 says that the bus can be used to transport players and servants, > not game entities in general. I'd say that using the bus to transport an > unescorted bomb falls under the heading of "changes to the state of the > game not prescribed by the rules", and is therefore forbidden. Yeah, but so is anything, until a rule defining and permitting it is created and ratified. So one could make a special rule about that, if one wanted. Not that I'm suggesting that, since the bomb doesn't even exist quite yet. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 00:34:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:34:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] Jota's Turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > However, I'm not yet ending my turn, in case any interesting rules > currently under consideration get ratified today. (That means Tokens: > First Wave, jwal -- all voted and ready to announce :) ) Oh, and my turn ended about an hour or so ago, so it's now baf's. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 00:39:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:39:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Four robbery rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following four proposals have been voted on and supported by all players. They take effect as Rules 64-67 one hour from now. Highway Robbery II [Jota] "Stealing" a token carried by a player or servant who is in the same room as oneself will be defined as setting that token's location to oneself. This may be done by stating clear intent to do so to the list, but only under circumstances described in later rules, and only once in a given turn. I'll Watch Your Back [Jota] If a player and that player's servant are in the same location, no tokens carried by either may be stolen by any other player. I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] If the active player is ever in the same location as a servant which is carrying one or more tokens, the active player may choose to steal one of those tokens, provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. We're Bigger Than You [Jota] If the active player and that player's servant are ever both in the same location as another player who's carrying one or more tokens, the active player may choose to steal one of those tokens, provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 00:41:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:41:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Personal prize tokens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Personal prize tokens [baf] > I'm changing my vote on this to Nay. Since it's not supported by its proposer, I'll mark it dead. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 01:45:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:45:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Slow Up [Jota] Since things seem to be going fine, I'll vote nay on that. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 02:11:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:11:43 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030125021143.GA25482@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A group of related rule proposals. Feel free to vote on them together or > separately, or to suggest alternatives. > > Highway Robbery [Jota] Nay, to keep things tidy. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 02:19:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:19:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: <20030125021143.GA25482@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > Highway Robbery [Jota] > Nay, to keep things tidy. I thought it was already dead, but if not, I mark it so now. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 02:23:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:23:50 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: I'm Bigger Than You [Jota] In-Reply-To: <20030125021143.GA25482@spod-central.org> References: <20030125021143.GA25482@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030125022350.GA25579@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Admiral Jota wrote: > > A group of related rule proposals. Feel free to vote on them together or > > separately, or to suggest alternatives. > > > > Highway Robbery [Jota] > > Nay, to keep things tidy. Ignore me; this had been declared dead in the "oh, and also" thread (which is probably why I missed it :-) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 04:29:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:29:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Awwwk! Message-ID: I haven't voted on Awwk! [Jota] yet, have I? Aye to it. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 04:43:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:43:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] my turn, also proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Awwwk! [Jota] > - Prize token "golden corknut", location West of Nowhere, destination the > Lounge, value 27. This proposal has been supported by all players (myself and Roger implicitly, the others explicitly). It will go into effect as the creation of a token one hour from this message's timestamp. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 04:47:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:47:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Awwwk! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Er, see my previous post, which I'd forgotten to tag. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 17:09:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:09:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Tokens, tax havens, She's Gone II Message-ID: <789755.1043514589@cornelius> The following proposals have been ratified by all players: Tokens: First Wave [jwalrus] has been ratified by myself and Roger implicitly and all other players explicitly, the other two have been approved by Jota and Psmith explicitly and by me (proponent), Roger (passive) and baf (timeout) implicitly. Tax Havens [jwalrus] "Any room on the map may have the property of being designated a 'tax haven'; whether or not a room is a tax haven shall be considered a detail of the map as per Rule 20. No toll may be attached to a room which is a tax haven; any toll whose location is a tax haven shall cease to exist immediately." The rooms Saturn and Blasted Heath shall become tax havens. She's Gone II [jwalrus]: "If at any time the rules require the location of something to be changed to a room which no longer exists, the room whose name is alphabetically first in the list of rooms, not counting articles, shall be the new location instead. Rooms whose names consist solely of articles shall not be considered for this reckoning." Tokens: First Wave [jwalrus] Create the following tokens: - Prize token "*ROYAL HONEY*", location the North Pole, destination West Of Nowhere, value 10 - Prize token "scarlet emerald", location Mornington Crescent, destination Under the High Wall (on a resting), value 16 - Token "mind-control satellie uplink", location Attic The following changes shall take effect one hour from the timestamp of this message: The rules in She's Gone II and the first part of Tax Havens shall come into effect as (I believe) Rules 68 and 69. The rooms Saturn and Blasted Heath shall become tax havens. The tokens described in Tokens: First Wave shall come into existence. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 17:15:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:15:29 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Time bombs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1130185.1043514929@cornelius> > Rule proposal: > Time bombs [baf] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 17:18:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:18:57 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey Message-ID: <1338404.1043515137@cornelius> A proposal for a new rule: This Game Needs A Monkey [jwalrus] The game shall contain a monkey which has a location on the map. The initial location of the monkey shall be Central Park. Once per turn, if the active player is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, he or she may move the monkey. Moving the monkey in this way shall be considered an action. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 21:30:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:30:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] My turn, phase 2 In-Reply-To: <789755.1043514589@cornelius> Message-ID: First, Banford will pick up the Scarlet Emerald. Then I will move Banford and myself to the North Pole. Then Banford will drop the Scarlet Emerald, and I will pick up both the Scarlet Emerald and the *ROYAL HONEY*. That's it. It's now Psmith's turn. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 21:33:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:33:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey In-Reply-To: <1338404.1043515137@cornelius> Message-ID: > This Game Needs A Monkey [jwalrus] It certainly does. Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 21:43:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 16:43:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Time bombs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following rule has been ratified. All players other than myself gave it an explicit aye. It goes into effect one hour from now, 5:45 PM EST. > Time bombs [baf] > A "time bomb" is a kind of token. In addition to its other properties, a > time bomb has a "delay", which is a span of time. If a time bomb's > location is a room, and has been the same room for a duration equal to the > time bomb's delay, the time bomb will automatically "esplode" and cease to > exist. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 22:22:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:22:51 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey In-Reply-To: <1338404.1043515137@cornelius> References: <1338404.1043515137@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030125222251.GB33229@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > A proposal for a new rule: > > This Game Needs A Monkey [jwalrus] A heartfelt aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 22:23:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:23:35 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Turn: Psmith Message-ID: <20030125222335.GC33229@spod-central.org> Gideon Crawle moves from The North Pole to West of Nowhere. Gideon Crawle picks up the golden corknut. I use the Magic Omnibus to transport myself to West of Nowhere. (-5 bp) My turn is completed. It is now jwalrus' turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 22:47:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:47:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Token icons? Message-ID: I would like to place icons representing tokens on the picture of the map on my site. Is anyone interested in creating some? They'll have to be small enough to fit in. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 22:55:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:55:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey In-Reply-To: <1338404.1043515137@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > A proposal for a new rule: > > This Game Needs A Monkey [jwalrus] > The game shall contain a monkey which has a location on the map. The > initial location of the monkey shall be Central Park. Once per turn, if the > active player is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, he or she may > move the monkey. Moving the monkey in this way shall be considered an > action. I note that you spelled "satellie" incorrectly. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 23:01:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [T] My turn, phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: <789755.1043514589@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030125230121.GA33742@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Then I will move Banford and myself to the North Pole. Have you paid your Elf Tax today? -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 23:01:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 18:01:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] My turn, phase 2 In-Reply-To: <20030125230121.GA33742@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Then I will move Banford and myself to the North Pole. > > Have you paid your Elf Tax today? I just remembered about that a few minutes ago myself. Ah well, the price of carelessness. From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 23:10:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:10:11 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [T] My turn, phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20030125230121.GA33742@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030125231011.GA33829@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > > Then I will move Banford and myself to the North Pole. > > > > Have you paid your Elf Tax today? > > I just remembered about that a few minutes ago myself. Ah well, the price > of carelessness. That's why I sent Crawle that way rather than going myself :-) Not that I mind; it's paid my bus fare. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sat Jan 25 23:18:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 18:18:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] BOMB IRAQ Message-ID: A two-part proposal: BOMB IRAQ [baf] Add to the map a room with the name "Iraq", and connections in the established pattern (that is, to Zrblm and Blasted Heath). Add to the rules: At any time when there are no time bombs in existence, one time bomb will be created, with location Iraq, delay 24 hours, and name "IRAQ BOMB", provided that Iraq is still on the map. (Note: If you think it's in poor taste, I'd gladly change the name of the room involved. Iraq was chosen, not so much for the political reasons or for the ifMUD in-joke, but as a way of establishing minimal connectivity for the new room, as well as a bridge to zrblm.) From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 02:27:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:27:32 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34252612.1043548051@cornelius> > I note that you spelled "satellie" incorrectly. Argh. Is it worth making a proposal to correct the typo? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 06:43:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:43:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey In-Reply-To: <1338404.1043515137@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > This Game Needs A Monkey [jwalrus] Aye -- I'm surprised no one had one for a servant. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 06:50:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:50:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Token icons? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I would like to place icons representing tokens on the > picture of the map on my site. Is anyone interested in creating > some? They'll have to be small enough to fit in. http://www.shelltown.com/~jota/mood/happy.gif -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 06:52:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:52:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] This Game Needs A Monkey In-Reply-To: <34252612.1043548051@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > I note that you spelled "satellie" incorrectly. > > Argh. Is it worth making a proposal to correct the typo? Hmm. I should have made the synonym rule create a synonym list, instead of just declaring them straight out. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 06:58:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 01:58:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] BOMB IRAQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > BOMB IRAQ [baf] [...] > (Note: If you think it's in poor taste, I'd gladly change the name of the > room involved. Iraq was chosen, not so much for the political reasons or > for the ifMUD in-joke, but as a way of establishing minimal connectivity > for the new room, as well as a bridge to zrblm.) Aye. I like a Zrblm connection. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 12:33:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:33:14 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [R] This game needs a monkey Message-ID: <1097848.1043584394@cornelius> The following proposal has been accepted by all players (myself and Roger implictly, baf, Jota and Psmith explicitly) and will come into effect one hour from the timestamp of this message: This Game Needs A Monkey [jwalrus] The game shall contain a monkey which has a location on the map. The initial location of the monkey shall be Central Park. Once per turn, if the active player is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, he or she may move the monkey. Moving the monkey in this way shall be considered an action. As a result of this proposal the above rule shall come into effect as Rule 71 and a monkey shall be created in Central Park. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 13:02:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:02:30 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Token icons? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2854384.1043586150@cornelius> > I would like to place icons representing tokens on the > picture of the map on my site. Is anyone interested in creating > some? They'll have to be small enough to fit in. I'm no Monet, but http://www.plover.net/~jwalrus/icons.gif jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 13:00:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 08:00:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] Message-ID: A proposal in five parts. The second part is for a new rule; the other four are for various changes to the game state. Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] I. Remove Rule 19 II. As a part of the game state, there will exist a "Table of Synonyms". Each row of this table may contain any number of words or phrases. Any words or phrases found in the same row of the table will be considered synonymous, for the purposes of this game. This table may be modified by unanimous agreement. III. A row containing the words "consent" and "agree" shall be added to the Table of Synonyms. IV. A row containing the phrases "brownie points" and "brown points" shall be added to the Table of Synonyms. V. A row containing the phrases "mind-control sattelie uplink" and "mind-control sattelite uplink" shall be added to the Table of Synonyms. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 13:05:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 08:05:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Token icons? In-Reply-To: <2854384.1043586150@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > I would like to place icons representing tokens on the > > picture of the map on my site. Is anyone interested in creating > > some? They'll have to be small enough to fit in. > > I'm no Monet, but http://www.plover.net/~jwalrus/icons.gif Ah, whoops. For some reason I thought he was asking for servants. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 17:46:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:46:14 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7970561.1043603173@cornelius> > A proposal in five parts. The second part is for a new rule; the > other four are for various changes to the game state. > > Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] Aye. If they're synonymous, does that entitle baf or anyone else maintaining public versions of the rules to use the 'correct' spellings in those? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 17:46:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:46:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] In-Reply-To: <7970561.1043603173@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > A proposal in five parts. The second part is for a new rule; the > > other four are for various changes to the game state. > > > > Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] > > Aye. > > If they're synonymous, does that entitle baf or anyone else maintaining > public versions of the rules to use the 'correct' spellings in those? I wouldn't call doing so an intentional deception, if that's what you mean. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 17:53:46 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:53:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Oops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rule proposal: Oops [baf] The player who proposes a change to be made by unanimous or sectional agreement may make corrections to its spelling, grammar, or punctuation at any time prior to its going into effect. If this is done, and there is sectional agreement among the other players that the meaning of the rule was changed, then the proposal will be revoked and the player who proposed it will receive one demerit. From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 17:54:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:54:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > A proposal in five parts. The second part is for a new rule; the other > four are for various changes to the game state. > > Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] Aye From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 18:27:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:27:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Token icons? In-Reply-To: <2854384.1043586150@cornelius> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I'm no Monet, but http://www.plover.net/~jwalrus/icons.gif Those look pretty decent. I'm not sure about the monkey and the bomb, so I offer alternative versions for those two. http://www.shelltown.com/~jota/icons2.gif -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 18:30:01 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:30:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Oops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Oops [baf] > The player who proposes a change to be made by unanimous or sectional > agreement may make corrections to its spelling, grammar, or punctuation > at any time prior to its going into effect. If this is done, and there is > sectional agreement among the other players that the meaning of the rule > was changed, then the proposal will be revoked and the player who proposed > it will receive one demerit. Hmm. I'm not voting yet, but isn't that the sort of thing that could prevent someone from mentioning if they made a mistake, out of fear of getting a black mark on their permanent record? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 19:05:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:05:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Slowing things down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Slow Up [Jota] Remembering somewhat belatedly that jwal gave this a veto, I mark it dead. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 20:57:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:57:11 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030126205711.GB40720@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A proposal in five parts. The second part is for a new rule; the other > four are for various changes to the game state. > > Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 20:58:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:58:16 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] BOMB IRAQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030126205816.GC40720@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > A two-part proposal: > BOMB IRAQ [baf] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 21:08:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: Ratified, all in favor. II becomes Rule 72, and the rest become various bits of game state, one hour from this message. > Er, That's What I Meant [Jota] > > I. Remove Rule 19 > > II. As a part of the game state, there will exist a "Table of Synonyms". > Each row of this table may contain any number of words or phrases. Any > words or phrases found in the same row of the table will be considered > synonymous, for the purposes of this game. This table may be modified > by unanimous agreement. > > III. A row containing the words "consent" and "agree" shall be added to > the Table of Synonyms. > > IV. A row containing the phrases "brownie points" and "brown points" > shall be added to the Table of Synonyms. > > V. A row containing the phrases "mind-control sattelie uplink" and > "mind-control sattelite uplink" shall be added to the Table of > Synonyms. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 21:12:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:12:09 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: high-security areas Message-ID: <20030126211208.GE40720@spod-central.org> A two-part proposal for one new rule and a change to details of the map. Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes [Psmith] Any room on the map may have the property of being designated a 'high-security area'; whether or not a room is a high-security area shall be considered a detail of the map as per Rule 20. No player may steal tokens carried by an entity whose location is a high-security area. Any time bomb whose location is a high-security area will be removed from the game immediately without esploding. "Washington, DC" and "The House of Commons" are high-security areas. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 21:18:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:18:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: high-security areas In-Reply-To: <20030126211208.GE40720@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes [Psmith] > > Any room on the map may have the property of being designated a > 'high-security area'; whether or not a room is a high-security area > shall be considered a detail of the map as per Rule 20. No player may > steal tokens carried by an entity whose location is a high-security > area. Any time bomb whose location is a high-security area will be > removed from the game immediately without esploding. > > "Washington, DC" and "The House of Commons" are high-security areas. Aye. Now, let's never make Iraq high-security. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 21:26:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:26:09 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage Message-ID: <20030126212608.GF40720@spod-central.org> A proposal for two new rules. Bomb Damage [Psmith] Each room on the map shall have a "damage" tally associated with it, recording the amount of unassigned damage it has received. Each such tally starts with an inital value of 0. Whenever a time bomb esplodes, its location's damage tally is incremented by one. The value of these tallies shall be part of the state of the game. If any damage tally is greater than 0, the active player may as an action decrement the tally by one and designate a letter in the name of the room that tally is associated with, that will no longer count for connectivity. Any connections to that room that are based solely on that letter are deleted. This action may be taken at most once per turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 21:30:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:30:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage In-Reply-To: <20030126212608.GF40720@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Bomb Damage [Psmith] Aye, although any incentive for such decrementing doesn't appear to exist yet -- except the incentive of cutting up the map, of course. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Sun Jan 26 23:38:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 23:38:27 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: synonymery Message-ID: <20030126233826.GA41804@spod-central.org> A proposal to modify the Table of Synonyms pursuant to rule 72. Er, That's What He Meant [Psmith] Add the word "agreement" to the "consent" line of the Table of Synonyms. Add the phrases "mind-control satellite uplink" and "mind-control satellie uplink" to the "mind-control sattelie uplink" line of the Table of Synonyms. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 00:18:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:18:45 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: synonymery In-Reply-To: <20030126233826.GA41804@spod-central.org> References: <20030126233826.GA41804@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <31522366.1043626725@cornelius> > A proposal to modify the Table of Synonyms pursuant to rule 72. > > Er, That's What He Meant [Psmith] That is indeed what I meant. Aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 00:21:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:21:03 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [T] no turn Message-ID: <31659984.1043626863@cornelius> I rather annoyingly seem to have missed my turn; it has in fact been Roger Carbol's turn since 22:23 on the 26th. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 00:25:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:25:43 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Oops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31940467.1043627143@cornelius> >> Oops [baf] >> The player who proposes a change to be made by unanimous or >> sectional agreement may make corrections to its spelling, >> grammar, or punctuation at any time prior to its going into >> effect. If this is done, and there is sectional agreement among >> the other players that the meaning of the rule was changed, then >> the proposal will be revoked and the player who proposed it will >> receive one demerit. This looks like a good idea in principle, but what about mistakes which change the meaning of the rule to something other than intended? jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 00:29:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:29:12 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] BOMB IRAQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32148487.1043627351@cornelius> > BOMB IRAQ [baf] Aye. Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes [Psmith] Aye. Bomb Damage [Psmith] Aye, although it seems a little complex. I suggest that informally we make it the responsibility of the player making the change to work out which connections are affected. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 00:31:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:31:15 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Oops In-Reply-To: <31940467.1043627143@cornelius> References: <31940467.1043627143@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030127003114.GA42103@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >>Oops [baf] > >>The player who proposes a change to be made by unanimous or > >>sectional agreement may make corrections to its spelling, > >>grammar, or punctuation at any time prior to its going into > >>effect. If this is done, and there is sectional agreement among > >>the other players that the meaning of the rule was changed, then > >>the proposal will be revoked and the player who proposed it will > >>receive one demerit. > > This looks like a good idea in principle, but what about mistakes which > change the meaning of the rule to something other than intended? These couldn't be reversed (at least, without incurring a demerit). However, I don't think this achieves all that much; most mistakes aren't spotted until after effectiveness, it seems. Is it worth appointing an Editor with power to make non-substantive alterations to rules and other descriptions of the game state? (For cases where this can't be done, such as name mismatches, we now have the Table of Synonyms.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 03:10:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:10:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: synonymery In-Reply-To: <20030126233826.GA41804@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > A proposal to modify the Table of Synonyms pursuant to rule 72. > > Er, That's What He Meant [Psmith] aye From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 03:16:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:16:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] BOMB IRAQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following has received "aye" votes from Psmith, Jota, and jwalrus. RC gave it an implicit "aye" by being on the Passive Voters list, and I gave it approval by proposing it. It goes into effect one hour from now, at 11:16 PM EST, Jan. 26, by which time I should have the modifications made to my picture of the map. > BOMB IRAQ [baf] > Add to the map a room with the name "Iraq", and connections in the > established pattern (that is, to Zrblm and Blasted Heath). > Add to the rules: > At any time when there are no time bombs in existence, one time bomb will > be created, with location Iraq, delay 24 hours, and name "IRAQ BOMB", > provided that Iraq is still on the map. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 03:17:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:17:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Oops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Oops [baf] There's been some objection to this, but no outright nays. I'm going to give it a nay; the new synonyms list seems adequate for typos made so far. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 03:21:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:21:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: high-security areas In-Reply-To: <20030126211208.GE40720@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes [Psmith] Aye. I note that, under the terms of this rule, it is still possible to carry time bombs into high security areas, as the location of the bomb is the player carrying it, not the room. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 03:26:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:26:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage In-Reply-To: <20030126212608.GF40720@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > If any damage tally is greater than 0, the active player may as an > action decrement the tally by one and designate a letter in the name > of the room that tally is associated with, that will no longer count > for connectivity. Any connections to that room that are based solely > on that letter are deleted. This action may be taken at most once per > turn. Something unclear to me: when you say "a letter in the name of the room", are we talking about a particular index in the name, or a particular letter of the alphabet? In other words, if one were to repait the Dot-Com Bubble by unlinking it from The North Pole (the O in Dot), would it also come unlinked from West of Nowhere (the O in Com)? From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 05:03:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:03:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Esplosions Message-ID: Rule proposal: Effect of Esplosion on Players [baf] When something esplodes, all players that have the same location as the esploding entity will immediately drop everything they are carrying and lose 2 brownie points. This is not intended as a counterproposal to anything else describing the effects of esplosions. Esplosions can have all kinds of effects. Also, notice that no mention is made of servants. A similar rule specifying the effect of esplosion on servants might be called for. Then again, it might be interesting to counterbalance the servants' weakness in the theft department with esplosion resistance. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 08:08:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:08:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: synonymery In-Reply-To: <20030126233826.GA41804@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > A proposal to modify the Table of Synonyms pursuant to rule 72. > > Er, That's What He Meant [Psmith] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 08:10:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:10:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Oops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Oops [baf] > > There's been some objection to this, but no outright nays. I'm going to > give it a nay; the new synonyms list seems adequate for typos made so far. I'll mark it dead, then. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 08:14:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:14:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Something unclear to me: when you say "a letter in the name of the room", > are we talking about a particular index in the name, or a particular > letter of the alphabet? In other words, if one were to repait the > Dot-Com Bubble by unlinking it from The North Pole (the O in Dot), would > it also come unlinked from West of Nowhere (the O in Com)? Mmm, that's a good point. I had assumed an index, but the proposal probably ought to be rewritten (and reproposed) to be clearer on that. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 08:14:58 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:14:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Esplosions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Effect of Esplosion on Players [baf] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:08:34 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:08:34 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: high-security areas In-Reply-To: References: <20030126211208.GE40720@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030127090834.GA45093@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes [Psmith] > > Aye. I note that, under the terms of this rule, it is still possible to > carry time bombs into high security areas, as the location of the bomb is > the player carrying it, not the room. Sure; you just can't plant them, and so they'll never esplode there. (We may want to add some penalty for attempting to do so...) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:18:32 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:18:32 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage In-Reply-To: <20030126212608.GF40720@spod-central.org> References: <20030126212608.GF40720@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030127091831.GB45093@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Bomb Damage [Psmith] Nay. A proposal for two new rules. Bomb Damage II [Psmith] Each room on the map shall have a "damage" tally associated with it, recording the amount of unassigned damage it has received. Each such tally starts with an inital value of 0. Whenever a time bomb esplodes, its location's damage tally is incremented by one. The value of these tallies shall be part of the state of the game. If any damage tally is greater than 0, the active player may as an action decrement the tally by one and designate a letter position in the name of the room that tally is associated with, that will no longer count for connectivity. Any connections to that room that are based solely on that position are deleted. This action may be taken at most once per turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:22:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:22:57 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: security and synonymery Message-ID: <20030127092257.GC45093@spod-central.org> The following proposals have been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rule 74 and changes to the map and to the Table of Synonyms in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota, baf Secure Beneath The Watchful Eyes [Psmith] Any room on the map may have the property of being designated a 'high-security area'; whether or not a room is a high-security area shall be considered a detail of the map as per Rule 20. No player may steal tokens carried by an entity whose location is a high-security area. Any time bomb whose location is a high-security area will be removed from the game immediately without esploding. "Washington, DC" and "The House of Commons" are high-security areas. Er, That's What He Meant [Psmith] Add the word "agreement" to the "consent" line of the Table of Synonyms. Add the phrases "mind-control satellite uplink" and "mind-control satellie uplink" to the "mind-control sattelie uplink" line of the Table of Synonyms. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:22:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:22:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Fallout In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Another proposed rule for after-effects of esplosions: Fallout [Jota] If any room has a "damage" tally with a positive value, that room will also have a tax with the name "Death Toll" and a value equal to twice the room's damage tally. If the damage tally goes to zero, the Death Toll will go away. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:23:41 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:23:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage In-Reply-To: <20030127091831.GB45093@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > Bomb Damage [Psmith] > Nay. Dead. > Bomb Damage II [Psmith] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:26:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Esplosions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030127092657.GD45093@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule proposal: > Effect of Esplosion on Players [baf] Aye. > Also, notice that no mention is made of servants. A similar rule > specifying the effect of esplosion on servants might be called for. Then > again, it might be interesting to counterbalance the servants' weakness in > the theft department with esplosion resistance. I suspect that this weakness is already counterbalanced by immunity to tolls and the inability to win Mornington Crescent; but we'll see. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:35:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:35:37 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Fallout In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030127093537.GE45093@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > Another proposed rule for after-effects of esplosions: > > Fallout [Jota] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:47:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:47:10 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposals: monkey business Message-ID: <20030127094710.GF45093@spod-central.org> Two separate proposals, since you might not agree with both. Monkeying Around [Psmith] At any point during a turn, the active player may as an action, if he or she is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, cause the monkey to pick up any appropriate token or drop any carried token. These actions may be taken as many times as desired, in whatever order desired, to the same or different tokens as desired, provided the action is not prohibited by any other rule or rules. Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith] At any point during a turn, the active player may as an action, if he or she is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, cause the monkey to alter the delay of any time bomb it is carrying to a value of the active player's choosing. This action may be taken at most once per turn. (Note that Monkeying Around does _not_ alter Rules 58 or 59; the monkey can't score a prize token nor does it reset a scored token.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:56:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:56:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposals: monkey business In-Reply-To: <20030127094710.GF45093@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Two separate proposals, since you might not agree with both. > > Monkeying Around [Psmith] Aye. If the monkey can carry tokens, perhaps they should be stealable as well. (Hmm. Does a servant outrank a monkey? Does a player outrank a monkey *with* a servan?) > Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith] Aye. > (Note that Monkeying Around does _not_ alter Rules 58 or 59; the > monkey can't score a prize token nor does it reset a scored token.) If stealing from monkeys is implemented, then there'll have to be a safeguard to prevent folks from stealing tokens they're not allowed to pick up yet, of course. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 09:56:06 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:56:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: bomb damage In-Reply-To: <20030127091831.GB45093@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Bomb Damage II [Psmith] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 10:04:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposals: monkey business In-Reply-To: References: <20030127094710.GF45093@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030127100456.GA45440@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > Monkeying Around [Psmith] > > Aye. If the monkey can carry tokens, perhaps they should be stealable as > well. (Hmm. Does a servant outrank a monkey? Does a player outrank a > monkey *with* a servan?) I'd be inclined to say that the monkey would be too agile to steal from. It should probably be able _to_ steal tokens (even in high-security areas, perhaps?). -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 10:18:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 05:18:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposals: monkey business In-Reply-To: <20030127100456.GA45440@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > I'd be inclined to say that the monkey would be too agile to steal > from. It should probably be able _to_ steal tokens (even in > high-security areas, perhaps?). Maybe. But not the uplink, of course, lest it become untouchable, along wit the rest of the simian's inventory. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 11:00:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:00:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servant icons Message-ID: Some icons that could be used to represent servants, with color coded frames: http://www.shelltown.com/~jota/servants.gif -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 17:23:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:23:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Boom Sha-Boom, Bit by Bit Message-ID: A proposal for the creation of a token. Boom Sha-Boom [Jota] A time bomb which is a prize token, with a delay of 72 hours, a value of 5, an initial location of the Attic, an initial destination of Zrblm, and the name "the King's Firecracker". And an independent proposal for the creation of a room. Bit by Bit [Jota] There shall be a room on the map with the name "Embedded CPU". -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 18:27:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:27:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Boom Sha-Boom, Bit by Bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Boom Sha-Boom [Jota] Aye. > Bit by Bit [Jota] Aye. If I have made no mistakes, this will be connected to Zrblm and Under the High Wall (on a resting). From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 20:20:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:20:18 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposals: monkey business In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44256016.1043698818@cornelius> > If stealing from monkeys is implemented, then there'll have to be > a safeguard to prevent folks from stealing tokens they're not > allowed to pick up yet, of course. If I'm correct in my reading of the rules, this problem actually already exists. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 20:22:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:22:08 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Servant icons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44366435.1043698928@cornelius> > Some icons that could be used to represent servants, with color > coded frames: http://www.shelltown.com/~jota/servants.gif I approve wholeheartedly. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 20:25:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:25:27 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44564660.1043699126@cornelius> > Effect of Esplosion on Players [baf] Aye. Bomb Damage II [Psmith] Aye. Fallout [Jota] Aye. Monkeying Around [Psmith] Aye. Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith] Not so sure; I'd prefer to see some cap on the value to which the timer can be set. Boom Sha-Boom [Jota] Aye. Bit by Bit [Jota] Aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 20:27:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:27:59 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Cruelty To Animals Message-ID: <44717410.1043699279@cornelius> A rule proposal: Cruelty to Animals [jwalrus]: If a time bomb esplodes in the location currently occupied by the monkey, the player who last caused the location of the time bomb or monkey, whichever was more recent, to be changed, shall lose 40 brownie points or all their brownie points, whichever is less. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 20:25:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:25:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Cruelty To Animals In-Reply-To: <44717410.1043699279@cornelius> Message-ID: > Cruelty to Animals [jwalrus]: Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 20:33:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:33:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Cruelty To Animals In-Reply-To: <44717410.1043699279@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Cruelty to Animals [jwalrus]: > If a time bomb esplodes in the location currently occupied by the monkey, > the player who last caused the location of the time bomb or monkey, > whichever was more recent, to be changed, shall lose 40 brownie points or > all their brownie points, whichever is less. Eep. Also, aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 21:50:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:50:49 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: bomb damage Message-ID: <20030127215049.GA49032@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rules 75 and 76 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota, baf Bomb Damage II [Psmith] Each room on the map shall have a "damage" tally associated with it, recording the amount of unassigned damage it has received. Each such tally starts with an inital value of 0. Whenever a time bomb esplodes, its location's damage tally is incremented by one. The value of these tallies shall be part of the state of the game. If any damage tally is greater than 0, the active player may as an action decrement the tally by one and designate a letter position in the name of the room that tally is associated with, that will no longer count for connectivity. Any connections to that room that are based solely on that position are deleted. This action may be taken at most once per turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 21:54:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:54:15 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: <44564660.1043699126@cornelius> References: <44564660.1043699126@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030127215414.GB49032@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith] > > Not so sure; I'd prefer to see some cap on the value to which the timer can > be set. Since the general tenor of opinion seems to be tree-hugging monkey protectionism rather than using them as suicide bombers, I vote nay on this proposal. > Boom Sha-Boom [Jota] Aye. > Bit by Bit [Jota] Aye. Cruelty to Animals [jwalrus] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so : : I must resort to wackiness." : : -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" : From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 22:00:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:00:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: <44564660.1043699126@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith] > > Not so sure; I'd prefer to see some cap on the value to which the timer can > be set. What if you were limited to settings in the range of one half the old time to double the old time? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 22:05:29 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:05:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Boom Sha-Boom, Bit by Bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Boom Sha-Boom [Jota] > A time bomb which is a prize token, with a delay of 72 hours, a value of > 5, an initial location of the Attic, an initial destination of Zrblm, and > the name "the King's Firecracker". > Bit by Bit [Jota] > There shall be a room on the map with the name "Embedded CPU". The above two proposals for the creation of a token and a room have been approved (explicit by baf, Ps, jwalrus and implicit by Roger and myself), and will take effect an hour from this message's timestamp. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 22:29:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:29:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] Jota's Turn Message-ID: It's been 24 hours since jwal's turn ended by default, which means that Roger's turn has also ended by default. I move myself to the Dot-Com Bubble (earning 8 brownie points in the process) and Grunk to Saturn. Then i end my turn. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 23:24:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:24:52 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: <20030127215414.GB49032@spod-central.org> References: <20030127215414.GB49032@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <55330140.1043709892@cornelius> >> Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith] >> > Since the general tenor of opinion seems to be tree-hugging > monkey protectionism rather than using them as suicide bombers, I > vote nay on this proposal. Aww. I'm all in favour of monkey bombing runs, I just saw the monkey as more of a sapper than a suicide bomber. In response to Jota's suggestion, I wouldn't really mind no lower limit, I just don't want to see a bomb removed from the game by someone setting its timer for three million years or somesuch. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Mon Jan 27 23:44:57 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:44:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: <55330140.1043709892@cornelius> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > Since the general tenor of opinion seems to be tree-hugging > > monkey protectionism rather than using them as suicide bombers, I > > vote nay on this proposal. > > Aww. I'm all in favour of monkey bombing runs, I just saw the monkey as > more of a sapper than a suicide bomber. In response to Jota's suggestion, I > wouldn't really mind no lower limit, I just don't want to see a bomb > removed from the game by someone setting its timer for three million years > or somesuch. I suggested the lower limit mainly because a relative upper limit (e.g. "two times the last setting") could pose a problem if the thing it's relative to was really small ("I set the delay to thirty seconds."). -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 04:26:22 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:26:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Boom Sha-Boom, Bit by Bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let it be noted that: (a) IRAQ BOMB has esploded (b) The esplosion took place after the Bomb Damage rules went into effect, so Iraq has sustained some damage (c) Because there is another time bomb in play, namely the King's Firecracker, there will not yet be a new IRAQ BOMB. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 04:30:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:30:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Esplosions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following rule goes into effect one hour from now, at 12:37 AM EST. It received ayes from psmith, jwalrus, and jota, RC voted passively, and I proposed it. > Effect of Esplosion on Players [baf] > When something esplodes, all players that have the same location as the > esploding entity will immediately drop everything they are carrying and > lose 2 brownie points. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 05:26:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:26:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I move myself and Banford to West of House. It is now psmith's turn. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 08:28:59 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:28:59 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <514259.1043742539@cornelius> > I suggested the lower limit mainly because a relative upper limit > (e.g. "two times the last setting") could pose a problem if the > thing it's relative to was really small ("I set the delay to > thirty seconds."). True, but if you set the delay to thirty seconds, will there really be time for you to end your turn and the next player to steal the satellite uplink and then use it to have the monkey adjust the timer before the bomb goes off? Why does the limit need to be relative? From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 09:15:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:15:55 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Boom Sha-Boom, Bit by Bit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030128091555.GA52826@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Let it be noted that: > (a) IRAQ BOMB has esploded > (b) The esplosion took place after the Bomb Damage rules went into effect, > so Iraq has sustained some damage Doh! I was reading the note on the map page as being 11:16 on the 24-hour clock, not 11:16 PM; ah well. Should the Death Toll be listed separately, or shall we just consider it implicit in the value of the damage tally? -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 09:19:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:19:48 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Boom Sha-Boom, Bit by Bit In-Reply-To: <20030128091555.GA52826@spod-central.org> References: <20030128091555.GA52826@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030128091947.GB52826@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Should the Death Toll be listed separately, or shall we just consider > it implicit in the value of the damage tally? On the other hand, Fallout hasn't been ratified yet, so this is moot. Iraq is safe for now :-) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 09:24:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:24:20 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Turn: Psmith Message-ID: <20030128092419.GC52826@spod-central.org> I move to West of House. I move Gideon Crawle to Mornington Crescent. I reduce Iraq's damage to 0 by designating its fourth letter 'Q' as being non-connective. My turn is completed. It is jwalrus' turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 10:53:17 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (nomic02@wurb.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:53:17 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [T] jwalrus' turn Message-ID: <5130607.1043751197@pccl510.pwf.cl.cam.ac.uk> I move myself to the Lounge and the Baron to Saturn. My turn is ended. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 12:35:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:35:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] many votes In-Reply-To: <514259.1043742539@cornelius> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Why does the limit need to be relative? I guess it doesn't, so long as it's big enough that no unreasonable setting would be denied. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 14:00:19 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:00:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up Message-ID: A two-part proposal -- a rule removal, and the rule's replacement. Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] I. Remove Rule 50. II. There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a location on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall be the House of Commons. Once per turn, the active player may announce that the Magic Omnibus is being used to transport the active player or the active player's servant (but not both), if their location is the same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this happens, the location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported is changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be moved by any other action in the same turn after using the Magic Omnibus. With the current Rule 50, things get really sticky if someone tries to use the bus to get the last 32 bp from the Bubble. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 14:31:00 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Irony Games Dice Server) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:31:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Testing -- wondering if this thing can send to the list Message-ID: <200301281431.h0SEV0C68269@mailbot.onlineplayer.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Testing -- wondering if this thing can send to the list jota@shelltown.com requested that 1 roll of a 2-sided die be rolled. Roll them bones ... your dice are Roll 1: 1. Mail was sent to you at jota@shelltown.com and to nomic02@wurb.com. (Mail addresses have not been confirmed.) --- Irony Games' public PGP key is available at http://www.irony.com/verifyroll.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBPjaUH7yfeleUG9SNAQH0eQIAtJBUQAsZi+VYBM/Ua0NMS+JTc/Yp4j1G twPlwok0YoMLkJXT4GxSiUlyHjvdk2YzLdPv0hgpDwT2U/JgbkAL9A== =/aNY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 14:27:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:27:02 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: random numbers Message-ID: <20030128142702.GA54116@spod-central.org> Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' [Psmith] A proposal for a new rule. A player may "roll a die" or "dice" to meet the requirement of a rule by causing the dice server at http://www.irony.com/mailroll.html to send a message to the list giving the result of rolling the specified number of dice with the specified number of sides. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 14:33:46 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:33:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: random numbers In-Reply-To: <20030128142702.GA54116@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' [Psmith] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 15:45:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:45:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: random numbers In-Reply-To: <20030128142702.GA54116@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' [Psmith] Aye From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 16:06:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:06:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] Aye. And to help others looking at it: the only change from rule 50 is that the clause prohibiting other movement now only affects movement through actions, not movement "by any other means". From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 16:07:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:07:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Fallout In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Fallout [Jota] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 16:34:12 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:34:12 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030128163411.GB55039@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A two-part proposal -- a rule removal, and the rule's replacement. > > Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] Aye, on the understanding that passing this proposal will not cause the Omnibus' location to be reset to the House of Commons. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 16:44:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:44:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants in the bubble Message-ID: Rule 52 states that servants are relocated to the Servants' Quarters when their location ceases to exist. Rule 29 states that when the Dot-Com Bubble bursts, everything in it gets moved to the lounge. Neither rule has a qualifying clause like "unless another rule states otherwise." Where does a servant in the dot-com bubble go when the bubble bursts? This is very important to me, and will effect Banford's actions on my next turn. (This kind of thing is the reason I wanted that rule stating that the rule with the greater number takes priority when rules contradict each other.) From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:03:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Servants in the bubble In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030128170343.GA55345@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Rule 52 states that servants are relocated to the Servants' Quarters when > their location ceases to exist. Rule 29 states that when the Dot-Com > Bubble bursts, everything in it gets moved to the lounge. Neither rule > has a qualifying clause like "unless another rule states otherwise." > Where does a servant in the dot-com bubble go when the bubble bursts? > This is very important to me, and will effect Banford's actions on my next > turn. Rule 29 says that the contents of the bubble are moved to the Lounge, _then_ that the bubble is removed. Hence, Rule 52 doesn't kick in, since by the time it would the servants are already in the Lounge. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:06:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:06:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Servants in the bubble In-Reply-To: <20030128170343.GA55345@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Rule 29 says that the contents of the bubble are moved to the Lounge, > _then_ that the bubble is removed. Hence, Rule 52 doesn't kick in, > since by the time it would the servants are already in the Lounge. Ah, OK. I'm willing to accept this. I was seeing the events as simultaneous, but I'll take them as occurring in the order they're listed in if that avoids the problem. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:10:53 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:10:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [R] Fallout In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following rule has been explicitly supported by Psmith, jwalrus, and baf, and implicitly supported by Roger and myself. It will go into effect as Rule 78, > Fallout [Jota] > If any room has a "damage" tally with a positive value, that room will > also have a tax with the name "Death Toll" and a value equal to twice the > room's damage tally. If the damage tally goes to zero, the Death Toll will > go away. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:29:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:29:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Tax haven Iraq Message-ID: I expect that the death toll in Iraq will eventually become intolerable because of unattended bombs. But I have a proposal to deal with it: Make Iraq a Tax Haven [baf] Make Iraq a tax haven. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:39:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:39:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Tax haven Iraq In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Make Iraq a Tax Haven [baf] > Make Iraq a tax haven. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:48:50 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:48:50 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34105100.1043776130@cornelius> > Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] As far as I can tell, the only difference between this and the current Rule 50 is the change of "may not be moved by any other means" to "may not be moved by any other action". I therefore vote nay on the basis that 'move' as defined by the rules is a distinct subset of 'change location' and that the current Rule 50 does not prevent a player who uses the Omnibus to enter a room which then immediately disappears from having their location changed (which is what Rule 29 specifies will happen to the contents of the bubble). jw From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:50:15 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:50:15 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Tax haven Iraq In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34190222.1043776215@cornelius> > Make Iraq a Tax Haven [baf] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:47:27 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:47:27 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Tax haven Iraq In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030128174726.GA55669@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I expect that the death toll in Iraq will eventually become intolerable > because of unattended bombs. But I have a proposal to deal with it: > > Make Iraq a Tax Haven [baf] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:51:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:51:20 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: random numbers In-Reply-To: <20030128142702.GA54116@spod-central.org> References: <20030128142702.GA54116@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <34255346.1043776280@cornelius> > Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' [Psmith] Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:50:30 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:50:30 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: <34105100.1043776130@cornelius> References: <34105100.1043776130@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030128175030.GB55669@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] > > As far as I can tell, the only difference between this and the current Rule > 50 is the change of "may not be moved by any other means" to "may not be > moved by any other action". I therefore vote nay on the basis that 'move' > as defined by the rules is a distinct subset of 'change location' and that > the current Rule 50 does not prevent a player who uses the Omnibus to enter > a room which then immediately disappears from having their location changed > (which is what Rule 29 specifies will happen to the contents of the bubble). But, if we're saying that the Rule 29 shift-to-lounge is happening before the bubble vanishes, then that _is_ a move (it's a change of location to a connected room), and hence would be forbidden by Rule 50 to an Omnibus passenger. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:46:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:46:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Tax haven Iraq In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following has received Aye votes from psmith, jota, and jwalrus. RC voted aye by being on the passive voter list, and I proposed it. It goes into effect one hour from now, at 1:50 PM EST. > Make Iraq a Tax Haven [baf] > Make Iraq a tax haven. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:57:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:57:52 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: dice rolling Message-ID: <20030128175752.GA55789@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rule 79 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota, baf Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' [Psmith] A player may "roll a die" or "dice" to meet the requirement of a rule by causing the dice server at http://www.irony.com/mailroll.html to send a message to the list giving the result of rolling the specified number of dice with the specified number of sides. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 17:58:04 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:58:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: <34105100.1043776130@cornelius> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] > > As far as I can tell, the only difference between this and the current Rule > 50 is the change of "may not be moved by any other means" to "may not be > moved by any other action". I therefore vote nay on the basis that 'move' > as defined by the rules is a distinct subset of 'change location' and that > the current Rule 50 does not prevent a player who uses the Omnibus to enter > a room which then immediately disappears from having their location changed > (which is what Rule 29 specifies will happen to the contents of the bubble). It *does* prevent them from having their location changed if that change of location is a movement -- "move" is defined quite clearly by the rules: Rule 26. To "move" something means to change its location on the map to a room connected to that location. And this is precisely what is done to anything which is in the Bubble when it bursts. Their locations on the map are changed to a room connected to the Bubble (unless someone changes the map so that the Lounge and the Dot-Com Bubble are no longer connected. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:03:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:03:43 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: <20030128175030.GB55669@spod-central.org> References: <20030128175030.GB55669@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <34997704.1043777023@cornelius> > But, if we're saying that the Rule 29 shift-to-lounge is > happening before the bubble vanishes, then that _is_ a move (it's > a change of location to a connected room), and hence would be > forbidden by Rule 50 to an Omnibus passenger. Eagh! I would say that this is more of a problem with the current definitions of movement and location change, but as the dot-com bubble seems to be in imminent danger of bursting and we therefore need a quick resolution of the issue, I change my vote on Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] to aye. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:02:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:02:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have a counterproposal that deals with this issue, but is more general: Move Means Move [baf] An entity whose location has changed will only be considered to "move" if a rule permitting the change of location uses the word "move" in reference to this change. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:03:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:03:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: <34997704.1043777023@cornelius> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Eagh! I would say that this is more of a problem with the current > definitions of movement and location change, but as the dot-com bubble > seems to be in imminent danger of bursting and we therefore need a quick > resolution of the issue, I change my vote on Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] to aye. And I change my vote to nay, because I dislike quick-and-dirty solutions. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:13:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:13:05 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030128181305.GB55789@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I have a counterproposal that deals with this issue, but is more general: > > Move Means Move [baf] > An entity whose location has changed will only be considered to "move" if > a rule permitting the change of location uses the word "move" in reference > to this change. Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:15:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:15:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > Eagh! I would say that this is more of a problem with the current > > definitions of movement and location change, but as the dot-com bubble > > seems to be in imminent danger of bursting and we therefore need a quick > > resolution of the issue, I change my vote on Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] to aye. > > And I change my vote to nay, because I dislike quick-and-dirty solutions. Curse you! Quick and dirty or not, it still addresses a problem with the Omnibus. There could well be made other rules that involved being moved (say, a bomb type that forced nearby players to move to an adjacent room) that would still reasonably use the word "move", but which shouldn't be automatically prevented by the Omnibus. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:15:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:15:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Move Means Move [baf] > An entity whose location has changed will only be considered to "move" if > a rule permitting the change of location uses the word "move" in reference > to this change. Nay, since baf doesn't like quick and dirty solutions to things. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:49:45 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:49:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Move Means Move [baf] > Nay, since baf doesn't like quick and dirty solutions to things. I should clarify: I'm not inherently opposed to this proposal; I just feel that baf's objection to OT-U applies just as much to this one, so it'd be hypocritical to block the other but not this one. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 18:49:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:49:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > Nay, since baf doesn't like quick and dirty solutions to things. Now that's just childish. But it's worth noting that jwalrus' concern that prompted him to change his vote is not founded. The immediate crisis has passed. There is currently no one in the room with the Omnibus, so no one can use it on their next turn, and I'd be very surprised if the Bubble still existed by the time anyone gets a chance to use it. So we do have time to debate the best way of handling this, rather than simply supporting Omnibus Tune-Up out of fear of being caught unprepared. I am swayed by Jota's example of a possible future rule that conflicts with Rule 50, but is not covered by Move Means Move. However, I am also offended by your snarky attitude and alarmed by what seems to be an attempt to take my proposal hostage. Even if Omnibus Tune-Up passes, I see value in Move Means Move; Rule 26 was never intended to apply to things like actions of the Omnibus, and the fact that it does as it stands is an error worth correcting. I am willing to be reasonable. Jota, I will change my "nay" vote on Omnibus Tune-Up [jota] if you apologize. I'm not even asking for you to change your vote on Move Means Move; just apologize for the comment appended to the nay, and I'll change my vote, and then you can consider the proposal on its merits rather than vetoing it out of pique. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:01:48 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:01:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I am swayed by Jota's example of a possible future rule that conflicts > with Rule 50, but is not covered by Move Means Move. However, I am also > offended by your snarky attitude and alarmed by what seems to be an > attempt to take my proposal hostage. I apologise for offense; I was responding to what I ahd perceived to be a petty move to block the Omnibus proposal on arbitrary grounds. > I am willing to be reasonable. Jota, I will change my "nay" vote on > Omnibus Tune-Up [jota] if you apologize. I'm not even asking for you to > change your vote on Move Means Move; just apologize for the comment > appended to the nay, and I'll change my vote, and then you can consider > the proposal on its merits rather than vetoing it out of pique. Done. My response was intended to make a point (that both proposals deserved the same consideration, and that it was no better to dismiss the one on grounds of being "quick and dirty" than to do so to the other), not to be nasty. And I fully agree that Move Means Move is of value, so I'll happily change my vote. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:01:39 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:01:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We are reconciled, and I call you brother. I hereby change my vote on Omnibus Tune-Up [jota] back to Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:08:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:08:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > > Move Means Move [baf] > > An entity whose location has changed will only be considered to "move" if > > a rule permitting the change of location uses the word "move" in reference > > to this change. > > Nay, since baf doesn't like quick and dirty solutions to things. I recant. Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:09:52 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:09:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > A two-part proposal -- a rule removal, and the rule's replacement. > > Omnibus Tune-Up [Jota] > > I. Remove Rule 50. > > II. There shall exist an entity called the Magic Omnibus which has a > location on the map. The initial location of the Magic Omnibus shall > be the House of Commons. Once per turn, the active player may announce > that the Magic Omnibus is being used to transport the active player or > the active player's servant (but not both), if their location is the > same as that of the Omnibus, to any other location (unless the Magic > Omnibus is prohibited from stopping there). When this happens, the > location of both the Omnibus and the being being transported is > changed to the new location. The Magic Omnibus may not be used if the > passenger has moved in the same turn and the passenger may not be > moved by any other action in the same turn after using the Magic > Omnibus. The above has been supported explicitly by Ps, jwal, and even baf, and implicitly by myself and RC. It goes into effect as Rule 79 (if I counted right) one hour from this timestamp. (And as some other rule number if I didn't.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:19:03 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:19:03 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: A Brighter, Better, Monkey Message-ID: <20030128191903.GA56233@spod-central.org> Or not so much brighter, actually. An alternative rule proposal to "Set the Controls...": Who Monkeyed With These Controls? At any point during a turn, the active player may as an action, if he or she is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, cause the monkey to alter the delay of any time bomb it is carrying, and roll one 100-sided die to determine the number of hours that the new delay will be set to. This action may be taken at most once per turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:25:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:25:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: A Brighter, Better, Monkey In-Reply-To: <20030128191903.GA56233@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Who Monkeyed With These Controls? I would, but I don't think that's a properly formed proposal, is it? -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:30:55 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:30:55 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: A Brighter, Better, Monkey In-Reply-To: <20030128191903.GA56233@spod-central.org> References: <20030128191903.GA56233@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030128193055.GA55231@spod-central.org> Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Or not so much brighter, actually. An alternative rule proposal to > "Set the Controls...": > > Who Monkeyed With These Controls? That's not a proposal. _This_ is a proposal... Who Monkeyed With These Controls? [Psmith] At any point during a turn, the active player may as an action, if he or she is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, cause the monkey to alter the delay of any time bomb it is carrying, and roll one 100-sided die to determine the number of hours that the new delay will be set to. This action may be taken at most once per turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:34:46 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:34:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: A Brighter, Better, Monkey In-Reply-To: <20030128193055.GA55231@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Who Monkeyed With These Controls? [Psmith] Aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 19:36:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:36:35 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty Message-ID: <20030128193635.GB56233@spod-central.org> A rule proposal, to prevent the evasion of (initially) Rule 60 by inaction. Dereliction of Duty [Psmith] If the rules require an action to be taken by the active player, that player may not declare his or her turn completed until that action has been taken. If the turn ends by the passage of time without the action having been taken, then by the sectional consent of all other players the state of the game may be changed to one which it would have been if the player had taken that action; furthermore, the player may be awarded a loss of up to ten brownie points and/or the receipt of one demerit by the aforementioned sectional consent. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 20:34:43 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:34:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: <20030128193635.GB56233@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Dereliction of Duty [Psmith] > > If the rules require an action to be taken by the active player, that > player may not declare his or her turn completed until that action has > been taken. If the turn ends by the passage of time without the action > having been taken, then by the sectional consent of all other players > the state of the game may be changed to one which it would have > been if the player had taken that action; furthermore, the player > may be awarded a loss of up to ten brownie points and/or the receipt of > one demerit by the aforementioned sectional consent. I can't see any real complaint, so aye. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 20:51:05 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:51:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! Message-ID: A proposal for three rules. Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! [Jota] I. "Stealing" a token carried by the monkey or any other entity capable of carrying tokens will be defined in the same manner that stealing from a player or servant is defined in Rule 64. II. If the active player carries the mind-control satellite uplink, then he or she may choose to cause the monkey to steal any appropriate token from any player or servant in the same room as the monkey, provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. (This applies even in rooms designated as high security areas.) III. If no player carries the mind-control satellite uplink, or if the active player carries the mind-control satellite uplink, then the active player or the active player's servant may choose to steal any appropriate token from the monkey, provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 21:00:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:00:49 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030128210049.GA56911@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > > A proposal for three rules. > > Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! [Jota] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Tue Jan 28 23:18:28 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:18:28 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53883500.1043795908@cornelius> > Move Means Move [baf] Aye. > Dereliction of Duty [Psmith] Aye. > Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! [Jota] Aye. > Who Monkeyed With These Controls? I'll vote for this if it's what everyone else wants, but it seems that huge variance in the effect of monkey with a bomb makes it strategically not very useful, which would be a shame. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 29 22:02:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:02:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: A Brighter, Better, Monkey In-Reply-To: <20030128191903.GA56233@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Who Monkeyed With These Controls? Aye. From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 29 22:07:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:07:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: <20030128193635.GB56233@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Dereliction of Duty [Psmith] I'll give this an aye. Also, I propose: Remove Rule 60 [baf] Remove rule 60. (Honestly, I wouldn't have approved Rule 60 in the first place if I had been paying sufficient attention. We had that whole discussion about required actions early on. I'm willing to support it without the offending clause; forbidding servants from entering rooms occupied by players strikes me as a significant restriction by itself.) From nomic02@wurb.com Wed Jan 29 22:17:23 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:17:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > I'll give this an aye. Also, I propose: > Remove Rule 60 [baf] > Remove rule 60. > > (Honestly, I wouldn't have approved Rule 60 in the first place if I had > been paying sufficient attention. We had that whole discussion about > required actions early on. I'm willing to support it without the > offending clause; forbidding servants from entering rooms occupied by > players strikes me as a significant restriction by itself.) That seems reasonable. Although I'd prefer to see the removal and the replacement in the same proposal; if we intend to keep the spirit of the rule, we probably shouldn't leave a time span in between the removal and replacement when the rule doesn't apply at all. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 04:06:46 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:06:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] Jota's Turn Message-ID: I move both myself and Grunk to the Attic. I pick up the uplink and the firecracker. Then I move the monkey to West of House. I'm not going to formally end my turn yet, in case baf votes on Monkey Hands. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 09:38:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:38:33 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: References: <20030128193635.GB56233@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030130093833.GB68711@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > > > Dereliction of Duty [Psmith] > > I'll give this an aye. Also, I propose: > Remove Rule 60 [baf] > Remove rule 60. > > (Honestly, I wouldn't have approved Rule 60 in the first place if I had > been paying sufficient attention. We had that whole discussion about > required actions early on. I'm willing to support it without the > offending clause; forbidding servants from entering rooms occupied by > players strikes me as a significant restriction by itself.) Ok, I'm confused here. Having refreshed my memory of the discussion (which occurred before I joined the game), the objection was to having rules which could be broken (by inaction) without specifying what happened if someone did. Dereliction of Duty specifies what happens, and is intended to ensure a) that incurring the penalty is never going to be preferable to taking the required action (since the action can effectively be forced on you by sectional consent), and b) that the other players can waive imposing a penalty if there's good reason for your not having been able to take the action I'm quite willing to remove the objectionable clause of Rule 60 and not pass Dereliction (and to veto any positive-requirement rules in the future), or alternatively to keep it and ratify the mechanism of enforcing it (and any future similar rules); but it seems logically inconsistent to pass both of these proposals. ("Dereliction of Duty [Psmith]" is now eligible for ratification. I won't do so until this discussion's resolved, of course.) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 18:19:35 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:19:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: <20030130093833.GB68711@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > I'm quite willing to remove the objectionable clause of Rule 60 and > not pass Dereliction (and to veto any positive-requirement rules in > the future), or alternatively to keep it and ratify the mechanism of > enforcing it (and any future similar rules); but it seems logically > inconsistent to pass both of these proposals. I think baf wants Rule 60 fixed so that, if someone fails to follow it, we don't *need* to invoke DoD in that case -- but is also willing to support DoD just in case we err in the future, and inadvertantly pass another law which might require its use. A sort of "belt and suspenders" approach. (Also, as an unrelated side note, I believe it's baf's turn.) -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 21:11:56 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:11:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [T] My turn Message-ID: I drop the Scarlet Emerald and the *ROYAL HONEY*. Banford picks them both up. I move Banford to Washington, DC and myself to the Dot-Com Bubble, lest it burst before my next turn. It is now Psmith's turn. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 21:36:09 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:36:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: <20030130093833.GB68711@spod-central.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Ok, I'm confused here. Having refreshed my memory of the discussion > (which occurred before I joined the game), the objection was to having > rules which could be broken (by inaction) without specifying what > happened if someone did. The discussion ended with an informal agreement between RC and myself to refuse to pass any rules involving required actions, so that a rule giving penalties for failing to perform such actions would be unnecessary. Since RC isn't really participating at this point, I'm sort of adopting his position, which was as much an aesthetic desire for elegance as anything else. But I'm not going to carry it to the point of refusing Dereliction of Duty [Psmith]; after all, I was the one who made the first proposal along those lines. Required actions are still to be avoided, and eliminated when noticed, but it's good to have an emergency procedure for dealing with them in case our vigilance fails us again. From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 21:49:11 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carl Muckenhoupt) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:49:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs Message-ID: Proposal: Upstairs, Schmupstairs [baf] Remove Rule 60. Add two rules: 1. No servant may be moved to a room that is the location of a player other than the player with which that servant is associated. 2. If a player's turn ends with his or her servant in the same location as another player, the servant's location will be immediately chagned to the Servants' Quarters. (A couple of things to note: The second rule could be abused as a way to teleport servants. I don't mind this, as the first makes it tricky to pull off. If the Servants' Quarters is occupied by a player, servants get to stay there. Which makes the place a little dangerous if you're carrying tokens.) From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 22:11:37 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:11:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Proposal: > Upstairs, Schmupstairs [baf] Aye. And at the same time, I'll vote nay on Remove Rule 60 [baf], since that's covered in this. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 23:31:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:31:44 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36663879.1043969504@cornelius> > Upstairs, Schmupstairs [baf] Aye. Also aye to Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith], since everyone else is in favour and I don't see the harm. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Thu Jan 30 23:30:16 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:30:16 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty Message-ID: > The discussion ended with an informal agreement between RC=20 > and myself to > refuse to pass any rules involving required actions, so that=20 > a rule giving > penalties for failing to perform such actions would be unnecessary. =20 > Since RC isn't really participating at this point, I'm sort=20 > of adopting > his position, which was as much an aesthetic desire for elegance as > anything else. =20 Yeah; sorry about that. Stupid real life. --Roger NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 10:49:38 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:38 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty In-Reply-To: References: <20030130093833.GB68711@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <20030131104938.GA77205@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Required actions are still to be avoided, and > eliminated when noticed, but it's good to have an emergency procedure for > dealing with them in case our vigilance fails us again. Ok, that's fair enough. Let's hope it's not needed, then :-) -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 10:54:02 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:54:02 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: Monkeying Around Message-ID: <20030131105401.GB77205@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rule 81 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive), baf (72 hours) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota Monkeying Around [Psmith] At any point during a turn, the active player may as an action, if he or she is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, cause the monkey to pick up any appropriate token or drop any carried token. These actions may be taken as many times as desired, in whatever order desired, to the same or different tokens as desired, provided the action is not prohibited by any other rule or rules. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 10:55:07 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:55:07 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: Dereliction of Duty Message-ID: <20030131105506.GC77205@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rule 82 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota, baf Dereliction of Duty [Psmith] If the rules require an action to be taken by the active player, that player may not declare his or her turn completed until that action has been taken. If the turn ends by the passage of time without the action having been taken, then by the sectional consent of all other players the state of the game may be changed to one which it would have been if the player had taken that action; furthermore, the player may be awarded a loss of up to ten brownie points and/or the receipt of one demerit by the aforementioned sectional consent. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 10:57:51 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:57:51 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030131105750.GD77205@spod-central.org> Carl Muckenhoupt wrote: > Proposal: > Upstairs, Schmupstairs [baf] > Remove Rule 60. > Add two rules: > 1. No servant may be moved to a room that is the location of a player > other than the player with which that servant is associated. > 2. If a player's turn ends with his or her servant in the same location as > another player, the servant's location will be immediately chagned to > the Servants' Quarters. Aye. I also vote aye on the same proposal with the spelling of 'changed' fixed. And I declare "Remove Rule 60 [baf]" dead pursuant to Jota's nay vote. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 11:01:20 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:01:20 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs In-Reply-To: <36663879.1043969504@cornelius> References: <36663879.1043969504@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030131110120.GE77205@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >Upstairs, Schmupstairs [baf] > > Aye. > > Also aye to Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith], since > everyone else is in favour and I don't see the harm. No they're not; I've voted nay on it. Everyone else _is_ in favour of "Who Monkeyed With These Controls? [Psmith]" -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 11:12:21 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:12:21 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Turn: Psmith's turn Message-ID: <20030131111220.GF77205@spod-central.org> I move from West of House to the Dot-Com Bubble. I gain 32 brownie points. The Dot-Com Bubble bursts pursuant to Rule 29. baf, Roger, and I are moved to the Lounge. The Dot-Com Bubble is removed from the map. Gideon Crawle hangs around Mornington Crescent getting bored. My turn is completed. It is now jwalrus' turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 13:44:10 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:44:10 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs In-Reply-To: <20030131110120.GE77205@spod-central.org> References: <20030131110120.GE77205@spod-central.org> Message-ID: <8023417.1044020650@cornelius> > No they're not; I've voted nay on it. Everyone else _is_ in > favour of "Who Monkeyed With These Controls? [Psmith]" Um, that's what I meant. Vote nay on "Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [Psmith]" and aye on "Who Monkeyed With These Controls? [Psmith]". jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 13:49:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:49:49 -0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [T] my turn Message-ID: <8361683.1044020989@cornelius> I move myself back to the House Of Commons, move the Baron to Washington, DC and end my turn. jw From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 15:24:40 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:24:40 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] Ratified: Who Monkeyed With These Controls? Message-ID: <20030131152439.GA78232@spod-central.org> The following proposal has been agreed unanimously and will come into effect as Rule 83 in one hour from the timestamp of this post. implicit aye: Psmith (proponent), Roger (passive) explicit aye: jwalrus, Jota, baf Who Monkeyed With These Controls? [Psmith] At any point during a turn, the active player may as an action, if he or she is holding the mind-control satellite uplink, cause the monkey to alter the delay of any time bomb it is carrying, and roll one 100-sided die to determine the number of hours that the new delay will be set to. This action may be taken at most once per turn. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 15:25:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:25:08 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Upstairs, Schmupstairs In-Reply-To: <8023417.1044020650@cornelius> References: <20030131110120.GE77205@spod-central.org> <8023417.1044020650@cornelius> Message-ID: <20030131152508.GB78232@spod-central.org> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Um, that's what I meant. Vote nay on "Set The Controls For The Heart Of The > Sun [Psmith]" And dead. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 20:23:33 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:23:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Were you waiting for *me*? [Jota] Message-ID: A proposal for three rules: Were you waiting for *me*? [Jota] I. As a part of the state of the game there will exist a list of players, initially empty, called the "Passive Turn-Takers". Any player may cause themselves to be added to or removed from the Passive Turn-Takers list by posting clear intent to do so. II. If a player on the Passive Turn-Takers list ends their turn by time-out without having taken any voluntary action on that turn, that player will be said to be "asleep at the switch". The turns of any player who is asleep at the switch will time out after six hours instead of twenty-four. III. If a player who is asleep at the switch either takes a voluntary action on their turn or expresses to the list that they do not intend to be asleep at the switch at that time, they will no longer be considered so at that point, and may not be considered to be so again until the end of their following turn. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 20:29:18 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:29:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Argh. Bah. [Jota] Message-ID: Bah. One additional rule to go with the other three, because Ps noted that I neglected to add: Argh. Bah. [Jota] Whether or not a player is asleep at the switch shall be considered a part of the state of the game. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 20:57:14 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:57:14 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Were you waiting for *me*? [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030131205714.GA80561@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > A proposal for three rules: > > Were you waiting for *me*? [Jota] Aye. > Argh. Bah. [Jota] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] : From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 21:17:08 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:17:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The following proposal has been supported explicitly by Ps and jwal, implicity by myself (proposer), RC (Passive Voter), and baf (time-out). It goes into effect as Rules 84-86 one hour from this timestamp. > Get Your Monkey Hands Out Of My Pocket! [Jota] > > I. "Stealing" a token carried by the monkey or any other entity capable of > carrying tokens will be defined in the same manner that stealing from a > player or servant is defined in Rule 64. > > II. If the active player carries the mind-control satellite uplink, then > he or she may choose to cause the monkey to steal any appropriate > token from any player or servant in the same room as the monkey, > provided it's not prohibited by any other rule. (This applies even in > rooms designated as high security areas.) > > III. If no player carries the mind-control satellite uplink, or if the > active player carries the mind-control satellite uplink, then the > active player or the active player's servant may choose to steal any > appropriate token from the monkey, provided it's not prohibited by > any other rule. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 21:44:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:44:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] Turns to date Message-ID: http://www.shelltown.com/~jota/nomic-turns.txt If anyone else wants to correct any errors or convert to HTML or anything, feel free. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 22:39:25 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:39:25 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Turns to date Message-ID: I'll go to the House of Commons from the Lounge. My turn endeth. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 22:47:54 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Carbol, Roger) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:47:54 -0700 Subject: [Nomic02] Another Prize Proposal Message-ID: Persuant to Rule 54 and Rule 57, I suggest the=20 following prize token: Name: The Bus Driver's Lunchbox Starting Location: Zrblm Destination: The Bus Driver's Lunchbox's destination at any time is exactly equal to the location of=20 the Magic Omnibus. Value: The value of The Bus Driver's Lunchbox is an integer between 1 and 18, to be determined when the prize is delivered to its Destination by the method described in Rule 79. .. Roger .. NOTICE:: This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity = named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally = privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a = person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the = intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, = or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in = it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in = error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or = delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by = us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and cooperation. From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 23:22:44 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Admiral Jota) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:22:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Listy Definitions [Jota] Message-ID: Two rules: Listy Definitions [Jota] I. If any list of things is said to be in "Standard Order", that will mean they are ordered according to case-insensitive alphabetical order, ignoring articles (the words "a", "an", "the") and non-alphabetic characters. Any items remaining will be at the end of that list, ordered alphabetically with articles included but non-alphabetic ignored. Any items still remaining will follow in numerical order if numerical, and at the very end of the list if not. II. If one item from a set is to be chosen by "Random Selection", the items (or names of the items, as appropriate) will be considered in Standard Order. A die will be rolled whose number of sides is the same as the number of items in the list; if no appropriate die is available, the next largest die will be used instead. The number rolled will be used as an index (where "1" indicates the first item in Standard Order) to select the item; if the value exceeds the number of items on the list, it will be rerolled. -- _/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_ \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/ From nomic02@wurb.com Fri Jan 31 23:30:49 2003 From: nomic02@wurb.com (Dylan O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:30:49 +0000 Subject: [Nomic02] [P] Listy Definitions [Jota] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030131233048.GA81378@spod-central.org> Admiral Jota wrote: > Two rules: > > Listy Definitions [Jota] Aye. -- : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ : : "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with : : locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / : : To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] :