Subject: [MacroNomic] Huh?

From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:45:13 +0200

I've got some questions.
First, are the proposals no longer sent out by mail, or am I
on the wrong list?
Second, is it just Lambda that profits from the knowledge
about others' proposals, or am I excluded somehow?
Third, I need more ideas... does anyone want words or
terms?

Ember

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT)

>First, are the proposals no longer sent out by mail, or am I

You are on the right list.  The proposals are now 'privately' submitted
and do not get distributed until today.

>about others' proposals, or am I excluded somehow?

See above.. he's the only one with prior knowledge, and I intend to make
using that prior knowledge a crime. (I think it should be a criminal
crime, but could be persuaded otherwise)

In other news, the assets page is done and will be uploaded shortly.
I perform my weekly trades with Towsner and Lambda (they are now listed on
the assets page btw), and ask if there are other perpetual trades that
people please remind me of them so that they get performed :)
I also use the State Mines to aquire one Term.

Now for votes:
94: AGAINST - My main objection to this is that it currently reads "The
              only players who may vote on a case are those who can vote
              on its parent case." and this proposal still leaves that
              broken wording in there.  It should read (imho), "The only
              players who may vote on a penalty...."
96: AGAINST - Again, I'm voting against this for a minor cosmetic detail.
              In this case it is that the sentance 'The Secretary of
	      Economics is MacroNomic's Customs Officer'.  I also don't
              want to have to track extra-nomic stuff, and so if this does
              pass, I will be offing the SoE to either Towsner or Lambda
              if they want it, or to someone else if they don't.

98, 99, 101: FOR
105, 106: FOR

107: AGAINST - I like the alternate way of winning and happen to agree
               that there shouldn't be 2 rewards.

108: AGAINST - This has two problems.  The first is that I see no problem
               with having games end in a draw, and forcing a winner
               either excludes a large portion of possibly fun sub-games,
               or forces rules to be changed specifically for here.  My
               second objection is that it was intended to allow multiple
               copies of a sub-game to be running at the same time, and
               this explicitly forbids it.

109, 110: FOR

--JT

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