Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] votes

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:29:31 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Aidan McLoughlin wrote:
>89: None, i am undecided on this one, I agree with Henry about the problem
>with the dishonesty factor regarding the SoT, but there is some useful
>clarification in there too.  Surely we can trust the SoT?  Anyway, can
>someone please give me "0000utc" in "Greenwich Mean Time" or some other
>time zone i don't understand where utc is. 

While Henry's comment is valid, I didn't change anything related to how
quickly the SoT had to act.  In fact, as the rules stand right NOW with
them being private submissions, the SoT could in fact 'ignore' them the
same way as Henry specified in his objections.  All this proposal does is
add a way of ordering events.  I agree that right now the rules rely in
trusting the various secretaries, and perhaps some sort of 'speed' rule
should be implemented.  However, it's useless to talk about how fast
something must be done without having a way of specifiying the time at
which things occur.  I do hope Henry will reconsider and vote for this
proposal, and I suspect someone in the next batch will (after this
discussion) be defining some sort of speed rule.

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:53:21 -0400

>same way as Henry specified in his objections.  All this proposal does is
	Not legally.  The votes were still sent and are still legal.  Any
system can fall apart if players cheat, under your proposal any secretary
(the SoT was just an example) could LEGALLY block anything by filtering out
mail.
	Other than that I have no problem with your proposal.  If you could
fix it so that it says something like "when received or 24 hours after
being sent, whichever comes first." And perhaps say that all mail sent to
the list is valid when the list gets it, regardless of whether the message
was public or private.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:58:50 -0700 (PDT)

>(the SoT was just an example) could LEGALLY block anything by filtering out

I don't quite agree with you there since their server (which is what
datestamps the message) has still recieved it.  

>the list is valid when the list gets it, regardless of whether the message

The problem is that you don't *know* or have anyway to validate when it
was 'sent'.  I could claim it was sent 3 days ago and just got held up at
a router someplace.  That's exactly the sort of ambiguity I was trying to
removed.  I thought i specified that mail to the list was stamped with the
list.  If I didn't, and this passes, I will fix it.  If it fails, I will
fix it and repropose.

--JT

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 16:54:33 -0400

>datestamps the message) has still recieved it.
	I may be alone, but I wouldn't consider Earthlink having gotten the
message to be the same as me receiving it.

>list.  If I didn't, and this passes, I will fix it.  If it fails, I will
	I won't vote for it, because the scamability is too big, but I will
vote for a fixed version.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:47:34 -0700 (PDT)

>message to be the same as me receiving it.

*shrug* I would. :)  Earthlink stuck it in your mailbox at X time, that is
the time in the header of the message, thus is the earliest possible time
it was recievable by you.

>vote for a fixed version.

Okay, let me proto-propose the following.
If this seems reasonable, I'll then retract the current one and propose
this in it's stead.

PROTO-PROPOSAL Timing
Amend Section 0-2 'Accessibility' by adding the following OYE delmited
text to the end of the section.
OYE
A message is considered to be recieved by a person when it has been
recieved by the computer which serves as host for the mailbox associated
with that player.
OYE

Retitle section 0-3 to 'Timeline'. Amend section 0-3 to read in full as
delimited by TICK_TOCK

TICK_TOCK
A Macronomic week begins every Wednesday at 0000UTC.

Public messages sent to the official list (if such a list exists)
shall be deemed to have occured at the time they are recieved by the
machine hosting the official list. Otherwise, they shall be deemed to
have occured at the time the message was recieved by the Secratary of
the Central Committee.

Private and Personal message are deemed to have happened at the
earliest time which the message was recieved by the relevant person or
persons, or by the machine hosting the official list, if such a list
exists and the message was private and sent to the list.

If a game action is specified to happen every day and the time of the
action isn't specified, then the action occurs at 0001UTC on the day
specified.

If a game action is specified to happen every week and the time of the
action isn't specified, then the action occurs at 0001UTC on Wednesday
of that week.

If a game action is specified to occur every month, and the time of
the action isn't specified, then the action occurs at 0001UTC on the
first Wednesday of that month.

If a game action is specified to occur every year, and the time of the
action isn't specified, then the action occurs at 0001UTC on April 1st.

If multiple actions are specified within a single message, then those
actions occur in order an infinitesimal amount of time apart.

TICK_TOCK
Move section 0-3 to section 0-1-0-x where x is the lowest positive unused
integer that would create a legal section.

END-PROTO-PROPOSAL

Does this adequately address your issues with the first one Henry?
If not, how would you see it changed?

--JT

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:04:37 -0400

>it was recievable by you.
	I wonder if this is a perception difference between people who
operate their own server and those who don't.  Nontheless, I believe that
using the normal English definition of the word, it wouldn't count.

>If not, how would you see it changed?
	That's fine.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:40:33 -0700 (PDT)

>using the normal English definition of the word, it wouldn't count.

I don't know if that is the source of the perception or not, but even
before I ran my own server/domain, I considered mail recieved by me when
it showed up in my mailbox, which is maintained by the mail server.

--JT

>>If not, how would you see it changed?

Okay.  I will look up the proposal number and retract it shortly.

--JT