From Sxejmaso@a... Sun Nov 26 18:08:56 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 02:08:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 20025 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 02:08:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 02:08:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 02:08:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.55] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Nov 2000 02:08:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:08:53 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <8vsfnl+f23i@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 30 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 152.163.197.204 From: Sxejmaso@a... Hope you enjoy:) Jon A Grimm From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Nov 27 17:15:32 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 01:15:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 6104 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 01:15:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 01:15:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 02:16:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.25] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Nov 2000 01:15:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:15:19 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Howdy! Message-ID: <8vv0v7+3dg6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 493 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.160.140.237 From: "Jon A Grimm" Welcome aboard folks:) I guess we could go ahead and begin if you want to. I know a couple of other folks who will be joining us in a day or two, that will make five of us which I think is a good number to start with, What do yall think? Is there anything we need to change about the ruleset before we begin play? Something that you have found that makes computer play easier or something? BTW I am a little green at this, but once things get rolling I will fall right into it. JAG From rsholmes@m... Tue Nov 28 12:15:14 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 20:15:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 66609 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 20:15:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 20:15:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 20:15:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.117] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Nov 2000 20:15:11 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:15:10 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Howdy! Message-ID: <9013oe+6tml@e...> In-Reply-To: <8vv0v7+3dg6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 411 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jon A Grimm" wrote: > Welcome aboard folks:) > > I guess we could go ahead and begin if you want to. I know a couple > of other folks who will be joining us in a day or two, that will make > five of us which I think is a good number to start with, What do yall > think? I think it'd be best to wait. Be sure there really are five or so of us before starting. From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Nov 28 17:35:36 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 01:35:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 9031 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 01:35:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 01:35:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 01:35:24 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 01:35:24 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:35:19 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <901mgn+qvdl@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 52 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.142.130.74 From: "Jon A Grimm" Jeff Weston is now amongst us... Welcome Jeff. JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Nov 28 17:37:26 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 01:37:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 16498 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 01:37:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 01:37:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 01:37:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 01:37:25 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:37:18 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Howdy! Message-ID: <901mke+4hpq@e...> In-Reply-To: <9013oe+6tml@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 151 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.142.130.74 From: "Jon A Grimm" > > I think it'd be best to wait. Be sure there really are five or so of > us before starting. I concur. I will remin them that we are here. JAG From jjweston@p... Tue Nov 28 20:00:25 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 04:00:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 74422 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 04:00:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 04:00:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 04:00:24 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjriu24169 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:00:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001128200014.01116318@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:00:14 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Welcome In-Reply-To: <901mgn+qvdl@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 01:35 AM 11/29/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Jeff Weston is now amongst us... Welcome Jeff. Thank you for the welcome. I am glad I found this game when I did. I've always wanted to play in a fresh game of Nomic with the original ruleset, but was hesistant to start a game myself. Now I don't need to start one. ;-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Nov 28 20:42:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 04:42:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 51036 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 04:42:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 04:42:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 04:42:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.117] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 04:42:16 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:42:01 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Welcome Message-ID: <9021ep+kq27@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001128200014.01116318@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 743 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.142.130.74 From: "Jon A Grimm" > Thank you for the welcome. I am glad I found this game when I did. I've > always wanted to play in a fresh game of Nomic with the original ruleset, > but was hesistant to start a game myself. Now I don't need to start one. ;-) > > - - - > Jeffrey J. Weston I have played in two 'real-life' games but have never played on the internet before. I was (and still am a little) a little leery of setting one up, but the idea of joining a game that had two years worth of rules to peruse didn't appeal to me too much so here we are. Hopefully we will have a couple of other folks joining our little party in the next day or two and we can start the fun and games... now that the ball seems to be rolling I am itching to start. :) JAG From kevan@s... Wed Nov 29 03:38:28 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 11:38:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 70204 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 11:38:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 11:38:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 12:39:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 11:38:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:38:24 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Welcome Message-ID: <902prg+unso@e...> In-Reply-To: <9021ep+kq27@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1138 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > I have played in two 'real-life' games but have never played on the > internet before. I was (and still am a little) a little leery of > setting one up, but the idea of joining a game that had two years > worth of rules to peruse didn't appeal to me too much so here we are. Two years seems a bit of an exaggeration - BB Nomic (http://nomic.net/~g2) has only been going a month, is still running slowly and simply enough for new people to jump aboard, and could really use some new blood. Once the Administrator wakes up, anyway. Running an Internet Nomic before you've played one seems a particularly brave thing to do, anyway - appropriate kudos to you. It'll be interesting to see a Nomic involve without overwhelming input from veterans, really. > Hopefully we will have a couple of other folks joining our little > party in the next day or two and we can start the fun and games... > now that the ball seems to be rolling I am itching to start. :) Mm, count me in, anyway. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "I came back to my old city with fierce determination, and I couldn't find my way out of the station." From kevan@s... Wed Nov 29 03:58:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 11:58:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 52400 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 11:58:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 11:58:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 11:58:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 11:58:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:58:50 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Howdy! Message-ID: <902r1q+86bm@e...> In-Reply-To: <8vv0v7+3dg6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 816 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Is there anything we need to change about the ruleset before we begin > play? Something that you have found that makes computer play easier > or something? Bits and pieces, but nothing that can't be fixed during the course of the game, really. It'll be refreshing to play a Nomic from the initial Suber ruleset for a change. One thing about the Nomic itself, though - does it have a name? As you've doubtless noticed, online Nomics tend to give themselves names (typically "[Something] Nomic"), if only to distinguish them from one another. It'd make conversation and linking and bookmarking and whatnot rather easier if we gave this one a moniker. (Although I suppose we could establish one by Proposal, really.) Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "The son and the heir of nothing in particular." From jjweston@p... Wed Nov 29 08:32:46 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 16:32:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 11872 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 16:32:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 16:32:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 17:33:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jjweston@p... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2000 16:32:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:32:38 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Howdy! Message-ID: <903b36+ga77@e...> In-Reply-To: <8vv0v7+3dg6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 718 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.84.211.245 From: "Jeff Weston" Five sounds like a decent number to start with. I would wait until they are actually around first though... I would recommend setting a date for when you want to start and let everyone know about it. Perhaps this weekend? Also, I have let a few of my friends know about this game. If we wait until the weekend to start, it will give them a few days to get aboard if they desire. --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jon A Grimm" wrote: > Welcome aboard folks:) > > I guess we could go ahead and begin if you want to. I know a couple > of other folks who will be joining us in a day or two, that will make > five of us which I think is a good number to start with, What do yall > think? From rsholmes@m... Wed Nov 29 14:29:35 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 22:29:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 52921 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 22:29:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 22:29:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 22:29:35 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007C6D61@m...>; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:29:34 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA08060; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:29:33 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Howdy! References: <902r1q+86bm@e...> Date: 29 Nov 2000 17:29:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:58:50 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Kevan " writes: > One thing about the Nomic itself, though - does it have a name? As > you've doubtless noticed, online Nomics tend to give themselves names > (typically "[Something] Nomic"), if only to distinguish them from one > another. It'd make conversation and linking and bookmarking and > whatnot rather easier if we gave this one a moniker. Well, the eGroups name is n_omic, which is no stupider than a lot of Nomic names. Pronounced, I would assume, "enn-omic" (long or short o according to taste!). -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Nov 29 14:35:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 22:35:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 36143 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 22:34:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 22:34:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 22:34:13 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007C6DBD@m...>; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:34:13 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09197; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:34:12 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Welcome References: <902prg+unso@e...> Date: 29 Nov 2000 17:34:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:38:24 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Kevan " writes: > Two years seems a bit of an exaggeration - BB Nomic > (http://nomic.net/~g2) has only been going a month, is still running > slowly and simply enough for new people to jump aboard, and could > really use some new blood. Once the Administrator wakes up, anyway. Hmm, it's been a while since lilith was heard from and considerably longer for Doug, so even if the Admin admins it's not obvious to me BB Nomic has a future... still, doesn't hurt to try, eh? In fact, a "hey, what's up, can I join?" message from a newcomer might be what the game needs. And if not, we could always kidnap the ruleset for a new Nomic... I'd hate to see all the time I spent on that Adjudication proposal go to waste... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From Sxejmaso@a... Wed Nov 29 17:09:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 01:09:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 60738 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 01:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 01:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 01:09:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.30] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 01:09:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:09:25 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Welcome Message-ID: <9049c5+u3tb@e...> In-Reply-To: <902prg+unso@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 843 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.162.101.20 From: "Jon A Grimm" > > Two years seems a bit of an exaggeration - BB Nomic > (http://nomic.net/~g2) has only been going a month, is still running > slowly and simply enough for new people to jump aboard, and could > really use some new blood. Once the Administrator wakes up, anyway. > Maybe I will go take a looksie. The other one I thought of joining eems to be stagnating at the gate. > Running an Internet Nomic before you've played one seems a > particularly brave thing to do, anyway - appropriate kudos to you. > It'll be interesting to see a Nomic involve without overwhelming > input from veterans, really. I used to play in the micronationalist movement a little, I even led acouple of governments so I am thinking and hoping that Nomic will not be any worse than that. :) > > Mm, count me in, anyway. > > Kevan > > -- Cool:) JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Wed Nov 29 17:13:02 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 01:13:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 72417 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 01:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 01:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 02:14:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.4.67] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 01:13:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:12:59 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Howdy! Message-ID: <9049ir+huqb@e...> In-Reply-To: <902r1q+86bm@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 647 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.162.101.20 From: "Jon A Grimm" > > One thing about the Nomic itself, though - does it have a name? As > you've doubtless noticed, online Nomics tend to give themselves names > (typically "[Something] Nomic"), if only to distinguish them from one > another. It'd make conversation and linking and bookmarking and > whatnot rather easier if we gave this one a moniker. > > (Although I suppose we could establish one by Proposal, really.) > > Kevan > I thought of Penguinomic... but then I rethought it...yall might not have liked that so I just chose a simple name like nomic but it was already taken in Egroups so n_omic was born. I am all for a name change. JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Wed Nov 29 17:16:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 01:16:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 81960 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 01:16:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 01:16:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 01:16:13 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.4.67] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 01:16:13 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:16:08 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Howdy! Message-ID: <9049oo+8u3q@e...> In-Reply-To: <903b36+ga77@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 619 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.162.101.20 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeff Weston" wrote: > Five sounds like a decent number to start with. I would wait > until they are actually around first though... I would recommend > setting a date for when you want to start and let everyone know about > it. Perhaps this weekend? > > Also, I have let a few of my friends know about this game. If we > wait until the weekend to start, it will give them a few days to get > aboard if they desire. > That is good. I might be hard to reach till about Sunday afternoon or so but I will do my best at keeping up here in the begining. JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Wed Nov 29 19:17:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 03:17:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 54520 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 03:17:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 03:17:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 04:18:53 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.69] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 03:17:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:17:44 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Administrative Stuff Message-ID: <904gso+klhd@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 270 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.162.101.20 From: "Jon A Grimm" Welcome to Benjamin Gimpert. I will be updating the player roster at our site at http://eud.sphosting.com/nomic.html. Is anybody here not a player? And Kevan, do you have a last name? I dont guess it really matters except for rule 201, which might be changed. JAG From kevan@s... Thu Nov 30 01:48:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 09:48:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 46970 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 09:48:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 09:48:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 10:49:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.104] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 09:48:47 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:48:40 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Nomic Name Message-ID: <9057po+895h@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 377 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Well, the eGroups name is n_omic, which is no stupider than a lot of > Nomic names. Pronounced, I would assume, "enn-omic" (long or short o > according to taste!). Or "Nunderscorenomic", I suppose... (Or maybe we could have the second letter of the Nomic's name randomised every week.) K. -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "And you curse my soul if I don't want petrol." From rsholmes@m... Thu Nov 30 07:55:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 15:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 53166 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 15:55:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 15:55:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 16:56:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 15:55:50 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:55:43 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: DocNomic Message-ID: <905t9v+r5pq@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 152 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " I'm soliciting interest in an Imperial Nomic variant I call DocNomic: Have a look... From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Nov 30 16:55:12 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 00:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 14012 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 00:55:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 00:55:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 00:55:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.116] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2000 00:55:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:55:07 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Nomic Name Message-ID: <906stb+p159@e...> In-Reply-To: <9057po+895h@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 199 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.139.28.86 From: "Jon A Grimm" > > Or "Nunderscorenomic", I suppose... > > (Or maybe we could have the second letter of the Nomic's name > randomised every week.) > > K. > Both cool ideas...but I LOVE the second one:) JAGH From n_omic@egroups.com Thu Nov 30 18:48:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95079 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 02:48:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 02:48:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 02:48:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.99] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2000 02:48:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 38402 invoked by uid 65534); 1 Dec 2000 02:48:22 -0000 Date: 1 Dec 2000 02:48:22 -0000 Message-ID: <975638902.38399@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Notify: From: To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /players.html Uploaded by : Sxejmaso@a... Description : You can access this file at the URL http://www.egroups.com/files/n_omic/players%2Ehtml To learn more about eGroups file sharing, please visit http://www.egroups.com/help/files.html Regards, Sxejmaso@a... From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Nov 30 18:53:06 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 02:53:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 53489 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 02:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 02:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 02:53:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.43] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2000 02:53:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:53:02 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: More Admin Stuff.... Message-ID: <9073qe+s5gv@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 369 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.139.28.86 From: "Jon A Grimm" Aint I busy little beaver? Players Roster has been uploaded to the egroups site and the eud.sphosting.com/players.html site. Kevan has the honour of being the first player due to rule 201. i would ask that he wait till the weekend before he proposes anything so we can see ifn anybody else wants in at the begining... but after that it is your call Kevan:) JAG From jjweston@p... Thu Nov 30 23:45:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 07:45:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 10913 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 07:45:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 07:45:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 07:45:56 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjrqt05428 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:45:55 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001130234544.01169b08@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:45:44 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] More Admin Stuff.... In-Reply-To: <9073qe+s5gv@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 02:53 AM 12/1/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Aint I busy little beaver? > >Players Roster has been uploaded to the egroups site and the >eud.sphosting.com/players.html site. > >Kevan has the honour of being the first player due to rule 201. i >would ask that he wait till the weekend before he proposes anything >so we can see ifn anybody else wants in at the begining... but after >that it is your call Kevan:) Sweet... Busting at the seems with anticipation! ;-) Seems my friends aren't too interested in playing at this time. Ah well... Sorry to get your hopes up. Looking forward to the first proposal this weekend though... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From kevan@s... Fri Dec 01 08:53:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 16:53:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 4650 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 16:52:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 16:52:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 16:52:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.104] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2000 16:52:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:52:37 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 301 : Naming Ceremony Message-ID: <908l0l+9h4t@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1448 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " Enact a new Mutable Rule with the following indented text:- This Nomic shall have two official names. The first official name shall be "N_omic" (pronounced "Nunderscorenomic"). The second official name shall be either Naomic, Neomic, Nhomic, Niomic, Nnomic, Noomic, Nuomic or Nyomic. This name may only be altered through means specified by the ruleset. Any Player may post a message to the mailing list with the subject line "Age of [name]", where "[name]" is one of the possible second official names of N_omic. Upon posting such a message, N_omic's second official name shall become that stated in the subject line, and the Player who posted the message shall lose five points in payment for the ceremony. Upon this Rule's enactment, N_omic's second official name shall be set to "Nuomic" and this paragraph shall automatically remove itself from the ruleset. { Sorry for not waiting 'til the weekend, but I'm probably not going to be around much during it. This is a Proposal to establish an official name for the Nomic, anyway, and to play a bit with the "changing name" joke. It might be interesting if the Nomic acted differently depending on its second name; Nhomic only permitting repeal proposals, Neomic only allowing new enactments, Noomic seeing double-points for everyone, Nyomic requiring all proposals to be submitted in limerick form, or whatever. Just a starting point. } From kevan@s... Fri Dec 01 08:57:27 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 16:57:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 62594 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 16:57:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 16:57:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 16:57:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.104] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2000 16:57:25 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:57:23 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR 301 Message-ID: <908l9j+jsgc@e...> In-Reply-To: <908l0l+9h4t@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 172 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " Oh, and I vote in favour of this proposal, unsurprisingly. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "This is the last song I will ever sing. No, I've changed my mind again." From jjweston@p... Fri Dec 01 09:16:08 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 17:16:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 88090 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 17:15:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 17:15:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 17:15:20 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjrsf07001 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:15:19 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001201091510.01116f20@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:15:10 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: vote FOR 301 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston I vote YES for proposal 301. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 01 11:01:49 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 19:01:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8840 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 19:00:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 19:00:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.106) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 20:02:04 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by dfw7sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjrsm09188 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:00:58 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 301 : Naming Ceremony To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a July 24, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:50:46 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/01/2000 01:06:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Just thought of one small improvement to the proposal. The third paragraph states that "Any player may post a message to the mailing list..." Yet we have not defined any sort of mail list for the game. I would suggest that the new rule state something along the lines of "Any player may send a message to all the other players..." That way we can enact another rule that specifies exactly how messages should be passed to all the players. The reason I suggest this approach is because of a proposal I am considering that would specify the official mailing list for this Nomic. Since I have experienced problems with eGroups, I am going to put an emergency backup clause in the proposal, to allow gameplay to continue even if eGroups drops off of the face of the earth. Referencing a mailing list elsewhere in the rules will make it difficult to use the emergency backup method. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 01 11:29:44 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 19:29:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 48723 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 19:29:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 19:29:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 19:29:35 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007D56A8@m...>; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:29:35 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01829; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:29:34 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR 301 [explained] References: <908l0l+9h4t@e...> Date: 01 Dec 2000 14:29:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:52:37 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... ... but I would like to see early proposals addressing some less frivolous issues. I've never played by the Suber initial ruleset before. Now that I am I'm starting to see lots of things I'd like to see change. One of the first will be making Rule 105 mutable and amending it. Requiring all players to participate in all votes is a recipe for early Nomic-death -- as I read it, if I never submitted this vote, the game would be over. Specification of the forum(s) in which the Nomic takes place is important. There are others but those are the first that come to mind. -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 01 11:42:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 19:42:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 64906 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 19:41:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 19:41:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sjc3-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.122) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 19:41:42 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by sjc3sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjrso24361 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:41:42 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR 301 [explained] To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a July 24, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:37:38 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/01/2000 01:47:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... I wouldn't ammend rule 105. I would create a new rule that specifies that if a player doesn't send a required message, such as a rule proposal or a vote, after a specified length of time they are dropped from the game. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - rsholmes@m... wrote: One of the first will be making Rule 105 mutable and amending it. Requiring all players to participate in all votes is a recipe for early Nomic-death -- as I read it, if I never submitted this vote, the game would be over. From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 01 13:02:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 21:02:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 13449 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 21:02:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 21:02:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 21:02:28 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007D6366@m...>; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 16:02:28 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA22429; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 16:02:27 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR 301 [explained] References: Date: 01 Dec 2000 16:02:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:37:38 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... JJWeston@T... writes: > I wouldn't ammend rule 105. I would create a new rule that specifies > that if a player doesn't send a required message, such as a rule proposal > or a vote, after a specified length of time they are dropped from the game. That would address permanent dropouts, I guess, but wouldn't allow for temporary absences. As it is, anytime someone goes on a two-week vacation, the game's frozen for two weeks. Not good. For that matter, the ruleset does not define the term "player". It should. -- Doctroid From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 01 18:31:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 02:31:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 56010 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 02:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 02:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 02:31:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2000 02:31:48 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:31:44 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: ADMIN: Welcome Message-ID: <909mug+6jh7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 107 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.142.201.193 From: "Jon A Grimm" to Eric Strathmeyer. Are you wanting to play or just observe? I'll be happy to add you to the list:) JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 01 18:35:03 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 02:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 43267 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 02:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 02:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 02:35:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.117] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2000 02:35:03 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:34:59 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Vote FOR : Proposal 301 : Naming Ceremony Message-ID: <909n4j+rejo@e...> In-Reply-To: <908l0l+9h4t@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1574 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.142.201.193 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Kevan " wrote: > Enact a new Mutable Rule with the following indented text:- > > This Nomic shall have two official names. The first official > name shall be "N_omic" (pronounced "Nunderscorenomic"). > > The second official name shall be either Naomic, Neomic, > Nhomic, Niomic, Nnomic, Noomic, Nuomic or Nyomic. This name > may only be altered through means specified by the ruleset. > > Any Player may post a message to the mailing list with the > subject line "Age of [name]", where "[name]" is one of the > possible second official names of N_omic. > > Upon posting such a message, N_omic's second official name > shall become that stated in the subject line, and the Player > who posted the message shall lose five points in payment for > the ceremony. > > Upon this Rule's enactment, N_omic's second official name > shall be set to "Nuomic" and this paragraph shall > automatically remove itself from the ruleset. > > { Sorry for not waiting 'til the weekend, but I'm probably not > going to be around much during it. > > This is a Proposal to establish an official name for the > Nomic, anyway, and to play a bit with the "changing name" > joke. > > It might be interesting if the Nomic acted differently > depending on its second name; Nhomic only permitting repeal > proposals, Neomic only allowing new enactments, Noomic seeing > double-points for everyone, Nyomic requiring all proposals > to be submitted in limerick form, or whatever. Just a starting > point. } From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Fri Dec 01 18:37:00 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 02:37:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 47184 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 02:36:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 02:36:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 03:37:19 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22178 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:36:13 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <37779507@d...> Date: 01 Dec 2000 21:36:13 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] ADMIN: Welcome To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... i'll play... From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 01 18:42:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 02:42:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 66847 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 02:42:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 02:42:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 03:43:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.55] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2000 02:42:26 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:42:25 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: ADMIN: Welcome Message-ID: <909nih+shh2@e...> In-Reply-To: <37779507@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 221 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.142.201.193 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > i'll play... Great:) We are still in the informal parts of the game so you can (and probably by the letter of the ruleset need to) vote on Prop 301. JAG From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Fri Dec 01 18:53:03 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 02:53:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 90782 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 02:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 02:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 02:53:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Received: from [10.1.10.68] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2000 02:53:02 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:52:55 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST Proposal 301` Message-ID: <909o67+d9mb@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 13 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 129.170.168.33 From: "Eric Strathmeyer" I say "nay". From jjweston@p... Fri Dec 01 22:26:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 06:26:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 33311 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 06:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 06:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 06:26:52 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjruf17805 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:26:51 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001201222642.01169568@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:26:42 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Prop 301 tally. One more vote needed... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Here are the votes I've seen for 301. Just need Benjamin Gimpert to cast the final vote... Kev YES Ben - Jon YES Doc YES Eric NO Jeff YES - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 01 22:35:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 06:35:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 29444 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 06:35:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 06:35:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 07:36:24 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.64.8e927e3 (4463) for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:35:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <64.8e927e3.2759f222@a...> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:35:14 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Prop 301 tally. One more vote needed... To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Yep... I have posted just such a tally at http://eud.sphosting.com/current.html From jjweston@p... Fri Dec 01 22:37:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 06:37:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 32723 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 06:37:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 06:37:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 06:37:33 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjrug27388 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:37:29 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001201223716.01169568@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:37:16 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Prop 301 tally. One more vote needed... In-Reply-To: <64.8e927e3.2759f222@a...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 01:35 AM 12/2/2000 EST, you wrote: >Yep... I have posted just such a tally at >http://eud.sphosting.com/current.html Heh... I've also entertained myself by created two database tables for N_omic at eGroups... :-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 01 22:41:28 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 06:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 66279 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 06:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 06:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 06:41:28 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.8.ceb5774 (4463) for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:41:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8.ceb5774.2759f392@a...> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:41:22 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Prop 301 tally. One more vote needed... To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Help yourself. I tried doing that yesterday but it kept making everything alpahbetical and while we are running alphabetially it doesn't look that way due to keeping identities secret and what not... If you can do it help yourself. I will maintain the eud.sphosting pages. JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 01 22:57:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 06:57:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 40199 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 06:57:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 06:57:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 06:57:04 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.a1.dd99f0c (4463) for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:56:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 01:56:55 EST Subject: ADMIN To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... BTW- I have updated the site at http://eud.sphosting.com/nomic.html to include Eric in the roster and a current proposals page. JAG From jjweston@p... Sat Dec 02 01:34:00 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 09:34:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 99884 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 09:34:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 09:34:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 09:33:59 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjrus21509 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:33:55 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001202013345.010f3870@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:33:45 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: To keep this Nomic moving, I invoke judgement. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston In accordance with rule 212, I invoke judgement. I have a disagreement regarding rule 105 regarding the definition of "player". With respect to the vote on proposal 301, this Nomic appears to be stuck while waiting for Benjamin Gimpert to cast his vote. I have examined the eGroups message archive and have not found even one message from Benjamin Gimpert. I feel that his status as player in this Nomic is questionable at best. To ensure this Nomic doesn't fall apart even before it gets off the ground, I suggest we consider that Benjamin Gimpert is not a player at this time. If we ever hear from him, we can reinstate him as a player at that time. Now correct me if I'm wrong, I feel that according to rule 212 I am the judge for settling this particular question, since I would preceed Kevan in the order of play. If that is the case, I feel compelled to agree with myself. If no one has disagreements over this matter, I would say lets continue the game with Jon Grimm's turn. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Sat Dec 02 12:05:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 20:05:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 54158 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 20:05:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 20:05:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 20:05:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2000 20:05:15 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:05:08 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: CONSENT: Re: To keep this Nomic moving, I invoke judgement. Message-ID: <90bklk+tkei@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001202013345.010f3870@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 288 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.162.75.243 From: "Jon A Grimm" As per rule 212 the judgement needs the consent of the majority of the players before play can continue, so I grant my consent. Gimpert never stated to me or this board whether he wanted to play or just observe. He was placed on the Roster on the chance that he wanted to play. JAG From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Sat Dec 02 12:33:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 20:33:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 54026 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 20:32:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 20:32:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 20:32:34 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26263 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:32:33 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <37799951@d...> Date: 02 Dec 2000 15:32:33 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] CONSENT: Re: To keep this Nomic moving, I invoke judgement. To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I consent. From Sxejmaso@a... Sat Dec 02 16:13:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 00:13:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 51140 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 00:12:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 00:12:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 00:12:38 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.5f.da6d626 (3864) for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:12:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5f.da6d626.275ae9ee@a...> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:12:30 EST Subject: Just awonderin--- To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Has everyone here read 1984 by Orwell? JAG From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Sat Dec 02 16:24:54 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 00:24:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 35883 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 00:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 00:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 01:25:30 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA32610 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:24:24 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <37807908@d...> Date: 02 Dec 2000 19:24:24 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Just awonderin--- To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... yup From Sxejmaso@a... Sat Dec 02 16:28:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 00:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 47786 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 00:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 00:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 00:28:58 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.af.3f65867 (3864) for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:28:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:28:53 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Just awonderin--- To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Maybe I am detecting a possible theme here for n_omic... I'll wait to see if the others have read it. JAG From jjweston@p... Sat Dec 02 19:25:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 03:25:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 76158 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 03:25:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 03:25:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 04:26:32 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjrxl22401 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 03:25:25 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001202192519.010f5408@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:25:19 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Just awonderin--- In-Reply-To: <5f.da6d626.275ae9ee@a...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston nope At 07:12 PM 12/2/2000 EST, you wrote: >Has everyone here read 1984 by Orwell? > >JAG > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Sat Dec 02 20:31:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 04:31:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 49958 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 04:31:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 04:31:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 04:31:47 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjrxq22168 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:31:46 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001202203140.010c99a0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:31:40 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Just need one more to consent... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston All we need is one more player to consent to my judgement to continue this game... Doctroid? Kevan? - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Sun Dec 03 15:03:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 23:03:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 98854 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 23:02:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 23:02:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r17.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.71) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 23:02:40 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.59.3b11a3e (26121) for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:02:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <59.3b11a3e.275c2b07@a...> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:02:31 EST Subject: ADMIN To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Page at eud.sphosting.com/nomic.html updated and I believe current up to 03 December @ 5:10 PM CST. JAG From kevan@s... Mon Dec 04 02:10:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 4 Dec 2000 10:10:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 30125 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2000 10:10:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2000 10:10:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Dec 2000 10:10:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2000 10:10:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:10:37 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Just awonderin--- Message-ID: <90fqit+gqhe@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 606 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Maybe I am detecting a possible theme here for n_omic... I'll wait to see if > the others have read it. "Detecting"? Where? Anyway, I've read the book and have, indeed, gone so far as to push a Nomic in its direction already, a couple of years back; http://members.tripod.com/pelmet Stealing Nomic theme ideas from quality literature seems a good idea, but I think I'd rather try something that hadn't been done before. Hm. Although it depends what exactly gets proposed, I suppose. K. -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." From kevan@s... Mon Dec 04 02:13:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 4 Dec 2000 10:13:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 35855 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2000 10:13:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2000 10:13:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Dec 2000 11:14:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2000 10:13:33 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:13:31 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Just need one more to consent... Message-ID: <90fqob+ts6g@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001202203140.010c99a0@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 205 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > All we need is one more player to consent to my judgement to continue this > game... Doctroid? Kevan? I agree with the judgment. K. -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "No U-turns, no emergency debates." From jjweston@p... Mon Dec 04 07:56:11 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 4 Dec 2000 15:56:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 53845 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2000 15:55:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Dec 2000 15:55:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Dec 2000 15:55:16 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjsdb00879 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:55:15 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001204075507.0116c840@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 07:55:07 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Just need one more to consent... In-Reply-To: <90fqob+ts6g@e...> References: <3.0.6.32.20001202203140.010c99a0@m...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 10:13 AM 12/4/2000 -0000, you wrote: >> All we need is one more player to consent to my judgement to >continue this >> game... Doctroid? Kevan? > >I agree with the judgment. Alright... With Kevan's consent, Benjamin Gimpert is dropped. Prop 301 fails. Kevan loses 10 points for it failing. Kevan receives 8 points for receiving 80% favorable votes for his proposal. Play can now continue with Jon Grimm. Whew! - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Dec 04 17:44:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Dec 2000 01:44:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 26102 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 01:44:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2000 01:44:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 02:45:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.52] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2000 01:44:30 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:44:25 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: PROPOSAL302: Defining Players Message-ID: <90hh9p+7hp6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 448 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.160.171.7 From: "Jon A Grimm" Proposal 302: Defining Players 1. Rule 105 is hereby transmuted to a mutable rule. 2. Rule 105 is amended to read: A player is any person who posts eir desire to play on the mailing list for N_omic located at http://www.egroups.com/group/n_omic. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule- changes, unless the eligible voter has announced eir absence to the other players in advance. From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Dec 04 17:53:27 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Dec 2000 01:53:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 53532 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 01:53:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2000 01:53:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 02:54:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.59] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2000 01:53:08 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:53:06 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Just need one more to consent... Message-ID: <90hhq2+672a@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001204075507.0116c840@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 712 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.160.171.7 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > At 10:13 AM 12/4/2000 -0000, you wrote: > >> All we need is one more player to consent to my judgement to > >continue this > >> game... Doctroid? Kevan? > > > >I agree with the judgment. > > Alright... With Kevan's consent, Benjamin Gimpert is dropped. Prop 301 > fails. Kevan loses 10 points for it failing. Kevan receives 8 points for > receiving 80% favorable votes for his proposal. Play can now continue with > Jon Grimm. Cool! i have already proposed proposal 302. SpHosting got spammed last night so for the time being I am unable to update my N_omic pages and Dune is about to come on...so I will update it tommorrow I hope. JAG From jjweston@p... Mon Dec 04 22:31:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Dec 2000 06:31:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 11478 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 06:31:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Dec 2000 06:31:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 06:31:33 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjsfi00854 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 06:31:32 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001204223121.0116ae28@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:31:21 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL302: Defining Players In-Reply-To: <90hh9p+7hp6@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Hmm... If this proposal even legal? I was under the impression that proposals can make only one adjustment to the rules. Is this not the case? At 01:44 AM 12/5/2000 -0000, Jon Grimm wrote: >Proposal 302: Defining Players > >1. Rule 105 is hereby transmuted to a mutable rule. > >2. Rule 105 is amended to read: A player is any person who posts eir >desire to play on the mailing list for N_omic located at >http://www.egroups.com/group/n_omic. Every player is an eligible >voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule- >changes, unless the eligible voter has announced eir absence to the >other players in advance. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From kevan@s... Tue Dec 05 01:57:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Dec 2000 09:57:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 57105 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 09:57:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2000 09:57:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 10:58:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.2.117] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2000 09:57:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:57:29 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Legality of Proposal 302 Message-ID: <90ie69+opl7@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001204223121.0116ae28@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 736 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Hmm... If this proposal even legal? I was under the impression that > proposals can make only one adjustment to the rules. Is this not the case? Indeed:- 103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. Since Jon's Proposal isn't a legal Rule Change, I guess that means we're still waiting for him to propose a Rule Change (ignoring his Proposal just as we'd ignore any other message that wasn't a legal Rule Change). Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "I play postal chess with a man who doesn't know me." From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Dec 05 18:01:26 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 02:01:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 20162 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 02:01:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 02:01:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r17.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.71) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 02:01:24 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.d9.d376f3d (4184) for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:01:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:01:20 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL302: Transmutation of rule 105 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... In a message dated 12/5/00 12:32:39 AM Central Standard Time, jjweston@p... writes: Prop 302 redeaux: << 1. Rule 105 is hereby transmuted to a mutable rule. >> JAG From jjweston@p... Tue Dec 05 22:54:25 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 06:54:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 40534 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 06:54:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 06:54:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 07:55:29 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjsjb28988 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:54:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001205225415.010f3af8@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:54:15 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: vote AGAINST prop 302 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston I would rather solve our "players" problem by enacting new rules, instead of messing with rule 105. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 06 00:56:45 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 08:56:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 36683 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 08:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 08:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 09:57:50 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA30769 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:56:44 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <37953767@d...> Date: 06 Dec 2000 03:56:43 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL302: Transmutation of rule 105 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I vote against proposal 302. From kevan@s... Wed Dec 06 03:15:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 11:15:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 85429 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 11:15:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 11:15:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 11:15:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.113] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Dec 2000 11:15:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 11:15:20 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 302 Message-ID: <90l748+v1ra@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001205225415.010f3af8@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 618 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > I would rather solve our "players" problem by enacting new rules, instead > of messing with rule 105. Hm, curious; what Enactment did you have in mind that would work alongside an intact "Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." in Rule 105? I vote FOR Proposal 302 because it seemed like a good idea, anyway, even if it's now unable to pass with one person against it. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "When I had my loft converted back into a loft, the neighbours came around and scoffed and called me retro." From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 06 07:13:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 15:13:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 39871 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 15:13:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 15:13:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 15:13:38 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F3941@m...>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:13:38 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13733; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:13:37 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 302 References: <90l748+v1ra@e...> Date: 06 Dec 2000 10:13:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Wed, 06 Dec 2000 11:15:20 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Kevan " writes: > I vote FOR Proposal 302 because it seemed like a good idea, anyway, > even if it's now unable to pass with one person against it. I too vote FOR, for similar reasons. -- Doctroid From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 06 08:15:30 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 16:15:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 49820 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 16:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 16:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 16:15:26 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjskn21855 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:15:25 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001206081517.01125790@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:15:17 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 302 In-Reply-To: <90l748+v1ra@e...> References: <3.0.6.32.20001205225415.010f3af8@m...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 11:15 AM 12/6/2000 -0000, Kevan wrote: >Hm, curious; what Enactment did you have in mind that would work >alongside an intact "Every eligible voter must participate in every >vote on rule-changes." in Rule 105? Short answer... Make a new rule to drop inactive players, as I have suggested before. Please read below for a more verbose explanation. The potential ammendment to 105 that Jon Grimm had posted would not solve our current problem. It would not deal with players that mysteriously disappear without a trace. If players have a long absence, say two weeks, while announcing their absence will solve voting issues, the game will still grind to a halt when it is their turn, or if someone invokes judgement while they are the judge, or for any number of issues that may come up due to future rule changes. Instead of going through and ammending every single rule that requires a player response to ignore absent players, I would rather enact a new rule that removes inactive or absent players. That way every contigency is handled. I would make a new rule that defines how new players are added. I would also add a clause somewhere that says if a player is dropped, and then later added, they have the same status as when they left the game. I strongly feel that playing around with immutable rules for this purpose is dangerous, since it then opens them up for further modification. I don't see how making 105 immutable is required for solving this problem. If you can show me that we have a problem that can only be solved by transmuting 105, then I'll consider it. A second problem with the proposed ammendment is that it mentions a mailing list. Instead of mentioning a mailing list in the proposal, I would much rather see it require new players to communicate their desire to play to all the rest of the players. Then I'd create just one rule that would define how to communicate to all players by mentioning the mailing list. If the mailing list ever needs to change, it would be a real pain to have to ammend a dozen rules that mention it. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From kevan@s... Wed Dec 06 09:00:44 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 17:00:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 3915 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 17:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 17:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 18:01:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.101] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Dec 2000 17:00:42 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 17:00:37 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Mutating Rule 105 Message-ID: <90lrbl+24ud@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001206081517.01125790@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1572 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Instead of going through and ammending every single rule that requires a > player response to ignore absent players, I would rather enact a new rule > that removes inactive or absent players. That way every contigency is > handled. I would make a new rule that defines how new players are added. I > would also add a clause somewhere that says if a player is dropped, and > then later added, they have the same status as when they left the game. That seems reasonable. Maybe a bit misleading in its terminology (I'd be more comfortable with "active players" and "absent players" than "players" and "non-players"), but a good plan. > I strongly feel that playing around with immutable rules for this purpose > is dangerous, since it then opens them up for further modification. I don't > see how making 105 immutable is required for solving this problem. If you > can show me that we have a problem that can only be solved by transmuting > 105, then I'll consider it. Well, the desperately immediate problem with this Nomic is that - under Rule 105 - all players are required to cast a Vote before a Turn can proceed; if a single player wanders away, the Nomic dies. I guess we can get around this with a new Rule that says "If a Proposal's been up for more than 48 hours, anyone who's not voted on it automatically votes FOR. This is considered 'participation' for the purposes of Rule 105.", or something, though, leaving 105's mutability untouched. Fair enough. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "I'm just a clean-living all-Earth youth." From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 06 10:30:49 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 18:30:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 72614 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 18:30:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 18:30:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 18:30:48 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F51CD@m...>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:30:48 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05711; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:30:47 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Mutating Rule 105 References: <90lrbl+24ud@e...> Date: 06 Dec 2000 13:30:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Wed, 06 Dec 2000 17:00:37 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Kevan " writes: > That seems reasonable. Maybe a bit misleading in its terminology (I'd > be more comfortable with "active players" and "absent players" than > "players" and "non-players"), but a good plan. But then 105 would still have to be modified, since "absent player" presumably is a subclass of "player". -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 06 10:41:25 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 18:41:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 11897 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 18:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 18:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 18:41:24 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F529D@m...>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:41:24 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08118; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:41:23 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Mutating Rule 105 References: <90lrbl+24ud@e...> Date: 06 Dec 2000 13:41:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Wed, 06 Dec 2000 17:00:37 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 28 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Kevan " writes: > I guess we can get around this with a new Rule that says "If a > Proposal's been up for more than 48 hours, anyone who's not voted on > it automatically votes FOR. This is considered 'participation' for > the purposes of Rule 105.", or something, though, leaving 105's > mutability untouched. Fair enough. I see nothing in the ruleset that restrict votes to "for" or "against"; in particular, no reason the "default" vote in Kevan's proposed rule couldn't be "abstain". But whether the default is "for", "against", or "abstain", it seems to me Kevan's proposed rule amounts to defining 48 hours of non-participation as participation, thereby rendering Rule 105 more or less meaningless. If that's the only fix that'll get support, I'll go along. But fundamentally I regard 105 as a bad rule in an email Nomic, and the best way to deal with it is to transmute it and fix it. By the way, I just noticed Rule 203 says A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Does this mean if everyone votes AGAINST a proposal, it passes? ;-) -- Doctroid From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 06 11:09:15 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Dec 2000 19:09:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 52610 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2000 19:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2000 19:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Dec 2000 19:09:15 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06652 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:09:14 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <37972008@d...> Date: 06 Dec 2000 14:09:14 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Mutating Rule 105 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: Does this mean if everyone votes AGAINST a proposal, it passes? ;-) --- end of quote --- ooo... constitutional intent! From kevan@s... Thu Dec 07 07:49:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 15:49:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 59634 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 15:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 15:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 15:49:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.2.207] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Dec 2000 15:49:20 -0000 Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:49:10 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Mutating Rule 105 Message-ID: <90obhm+l22u@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1820 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > > I guess we can get around this with a new Rule that says "If a > > Proposal's been up for more than 48 hours, anyone who's not voted on > > it automatically votes FOR. This is considered 'participation' for > > the purposes of Rule 105.", or something, though, leaving 105's > > mutability untouched. Fair enough. > > I see nothing in the ruleset that restrict votes to "for" or > "against"; in particular, no reason the "default" vote in Kevan's > proposed rule couldn't be "abstain". Well, except that - at least until unanimity expires or gets replaced - any Proposal with idle Voters would fail, when they defaulted to "abstain" (or "pass" or "maybe" or "I'm too lazy to vote"). > But whether the default is "for", "against", or "abstain", it seems to > me Kevan's proposed rule amounts to defining 48 hours of > non-participation as participation, thereby rendering Rule 105 more or > less meaningless. If that's the only fix that'll get support, I'll go > along. Well, it only takes one person to be against a Proposal for it to fail, so that seemed the only way that'd get support. > But fundamentally I regard 105 as a bad rule in an email > Nomic, and the best way to deal with it is to transmute it and fix it. Mm. Actually I don't think there's any reason why we can't propose to enact a new Rule which says; "When this Rule enacts, transmute 105. Amend it in such-and-such a way. Transmute it back. Then repeal this rule." Rather than all that tedious mucking around with separate Proposals. > By the way, I just noticed Rule 203 says > > A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among > the eligible voters. > > Does this mean if everyone votes AGAINST a proposal, it passes? ;-) Heh. K. -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "I gazed a gazely stare." From jjweston@p... Thu Dec 07 07:55:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 15:55:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 59432 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 15:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 15:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 16:56:24 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjsod17240 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:55:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001207075510.011238b0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:55:10 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Prop 302 fails. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston With 3 votes for, and 2 votes against, proposal 302 fails. Jon Grimm loses 10 points for it failing, and gains 7 points for receiving 60% favorable votes. Play now continues with Doctroid... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Thu Dec 07 08:49:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 16:49:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 42476 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 16:49:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 16:49:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 16:49:11 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007FB6A8@m...>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:49:11 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00243; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:49:10 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Mutating Rule 105 References: <90obhm+l22u@e...> Date: 07 Dec 2000 11:49:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Kevan "'s message of "Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:49:10 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Kevan " writes: > Mm. Actually I don't think there's any reason why we can't propose to > enact a new Rule which says; "When this Rule enacts, transmute 105. > Amend it in such-and-such a way. Transmute it back. Then repeal this > rule." Rather than all that tedious mucking around with separate > Proposals. I'd argue that, first, if that's legal it renders nonsensical Rule 103's limitation of one action for a rule-change; second, that it "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" under Rule 111, even if disguised as a single rule-change; and third, that Rule 109's "Transmutation... must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect" means that a rule cannot transmute another rule -- only a transmute proposal can. I'd grant that reasonable people could argue otherwise, of course. I also am not fond of Rule 103's limitation of one action for a rule-change, but it's not at the top of my to-undo list. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Dec 07 09:39:27 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 17:39:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 84163 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 17:39:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 17:39:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 17:39:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007FBDEB@m...>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:39:25 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10381; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:39:25 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 303: Player status Date: 07 Dec 2000 12:39:24 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Add a rule: ===== Any person may become a Player at any time by informing the current Players of their desire to do so, subject to restrictions by other rules or portions of this rule. A Player shall lose 10 points and become a Reyalp upon (1) announcing their desire to do so to the other Players (and optionally stating a maximum time duration for their Reyalp status) or (2) failing to cast a vote on a Proposal within 72 hours of its posting. Reyalps are not Players, but they continue to hold points, which may be increased or decreased only as consequences of actions they took or failed to take while they were Players. (Comment: The foregoing means e.g. that a Player who proposes a Rule that gets defeated loses 10 points even if he becomes a Reyalp before the defeat. However, if the rules were to specify e.g. a 10 point penalty for failing to post the word "green" on St Patrick's Day, a Player who was a Reyalp for the duration of St Patrick's Day would not incur the penalty. This parenthesized text is not part of the proposed Rule.) Reyalps may become Players again by informing the current Players of their desire to do so. If they do not do so within the time limit they announced, or within 21 days if no such announcement was made, then they cease to be Reyalps and their points are lost. ===== -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Thu Dec 07 11:54:38 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 19:54:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 71885 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 19:54:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 19:54:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.106) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 20:55:42 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by dfw7sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjsot19329 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:54:36 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 303: Player status To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:39:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/07/2000 02:00:07 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Under rule 111 I would like to propose an ammendment to your proposal. For your second case of a player becoming a reyalp, you only handle cases where a player has not voted. What about cases where its a player's turn, and they haven't made a proposal for a long time? What about when judgement is invoked and the player who is the judge doesn't give judgement for a long time? There are additional conditions that may arise as the rules are adjusted. I would recomend that the second case of a player becoming a reyalp read as such: (2) failing to send a required communication within 72 hours after such communication can initially occur. (This would initially include, but is not limited to: making a proposal when it is their turn, voting on a proposal, making a judgement when somone invokes judgement, if they are the judge.) Perhaps the proponent can find a better wording, but you get the picture. There are a number of situations that can stop this game cold. It would be nice to handle as many as we can with one swipe... ;-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Thu Dec 07 13:34:14 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 21:34:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 46689 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 21:34:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 21:34:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 21:34:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007FD6A1@m...>; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:33:24 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06392; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:33:23 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 303: Player status References: Date: 07 Dec 2000 16:33:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:39:25 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 53 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... JJWeston@T... writes: > I would recomend that the second case of a player becoming a reyalp > read as such: (2) failing to send a required communication within 72 hours > after such communication can initially occur. (This would initially > include, but is not limited to: making a proposal when it is their turn, > voting on a proposal, making a judgement when somone invokes judgement, if > they are the judge.) An outstanding suggestion. I believe Rule 111 does indeed allow this sort of amendment process (though it appears to have been intended for amendment of proposals that are useless or worse, not merely suboptimal, but I think it can be argued a suboptimal proposal is of questionable value). If so, I request Prop 303 be considered amended as stated. That is: ======= Add a rule: ===== Any person may become a Player at any time by informing the current Players of their desire to do so, subject to restrictions by other rules or portions of this rule. A Player shall lose 10 points and become a Reyalp upon (1) announcing their desire to do so to the other Players (and optionally stating a maximum time duration for their Reyalp status) or (2) failing to send a required communication within 72 hours after such communication can initially occur. Reyalps are not Players, but they continue to hold points, which may be increased or decreased only as consequences of actions they took or failed to take while they were Players. (Comment: The foregoing means e.g. that a Player who proposes a Rule that gets defeated loses 10 points even if he becomes a Reyalp before the defeat. However, if the rules were to specify e.g. a 10 point penalty for failing to post the word "green" on St Patrick's Day, a Player who was a Reyalp for the duration of St Patrick's Day would not incur the penalty. This parenthesized text is not part of the proposed Rule.) Reyalps may become Players again by informing the current Players of their desire to do so. If they do not do so within the time limit they announced, or within 21 days if no such announcement was made, then they cease to be Reyalps and their points are lost. ===== ======= -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Thu Dec 07 13:41:56 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Dec 2000 21:41:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 71107 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2000 21:41:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Dec 2000 21:41:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2000 21:41:55 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjspa13378 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:41:46 GMT Subject: vote FOR prop 303 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:41:51 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/07/2000 03:47:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Sounds fantastic to me! ;-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Fri Dec 08 01:20:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Dec 2000 09:20:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 59174 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2000 08:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2000 08:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Dec 2000 09:41:56 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20920 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:40:50 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38023577@d...> Date: 08 Dec 2000 03:40:50 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Vote FOR amended version of 303 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I'll vote FOR the new amended version of proposal 303. This is the version (copied directly from Doctroid's message) that I am voting for: ======= Add a rule: ===== Any person may become a Player at any time by informing the current Players of their desire to do so, subject to restrictions by other rules or portions of this rule. A Player shall lose 10 points and become a Reyalp upon (1) announcing their desire to do so to the other Players (and optionally stating a maximum time duration for their Reyalp status) or (2) failing to send a required communication within 72 hours after such communication can initially occur. Reyalps are not Players, but they continue to hold points, which may be increased or decreased only as consequences of actions they took or failed to take while they were Players. (Comment: The foregoing means e.g. that a Player who proposes a Rule that gets defeated loses 10 points even if he becomes a Reyalp before the defeat. However, if the rules were to specify e.g. a 10 point penalty for failing to post the word "green" on St Patrick's Day, a Player who was a Reyalp for the duration of St Patrick's Day would not incur the penalty. This parenthesized text is not part of the proposed Rule.) Reyalps may become Players again by informing the current Players of their desire to do so. If they do not do so within the time limit they announced, or within 21 days if no such announcement was made, then they cease to be Reyalps and their points are lost. From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 08 06:48:21 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Dec 2000 14:48:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 67415 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2000 14:48:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2000 14:48:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Dec 2000 15:49:26 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00800821@m...>; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 9:48:21 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA14721; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:48:20 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR amended version of 303 References: <38023577@d...> Date: 08 Dec 2000 09:48:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "08 Dec 2000 03:40:50 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 4 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... I also vote FOR P303 as amended. -- Doctroid From kevan@s... Fri Dec 08 07:18:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Dec 2000 15:18:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 79634 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2000 15:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2000 15:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Dec 2000 15:18:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Dec 2000 15:18:22 -0000 Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:17:16 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Vote FOR amended version of 303 Message-ID: <90qu1s+rkis@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 116 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > I also vote FOR P303 as amended. Likewise. K. -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "Emotional baggage accessorised." From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 08 18:30:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Dec 2000 02:30:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 81363 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2000 02:30:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2000 02:30:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r17.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.71) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Dec 2000 02:30:49 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.58.46e1a4d (4257) for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:30:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <58.46e1a4d.2762f352@a...> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:30:42 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Vote FOR amended version of 303 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Ditto. JAG From jjweston@p... Mon Dec 11 19:45:44 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Dec 2000 03:45:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 75266 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 03:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Dec 2000 03:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 03:45:41 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtet14318 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:45:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211194532.011239b0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:45:32 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Prop 303 passes! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston With Jon Grimm's affirmative vote for 303 on Friday, prop 303 passes. Yay! Our first successfull proposal! :-) Doctroid gets 12 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now continues with Eric Strathmeyer. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Tue Dec 12 04:46:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Dec 2000 12:46:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 35998 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 12:46:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Dec 2000 12:46:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 12:46:47 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08285 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:46:47 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38089810@d...> Date: 12 Dec 2000 07:46:47 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Proposal 304 -- Amend Rule 203 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Rule 203 is hereby ammended to read: A rule-change is NOT adopted if there is more than one (1) vote AGAINST that proposal. If all eligible voters have voted on a proposal, and it is not rejected on the basis of the preceding sentence, then and only then will that proposal be adopted. (Clarification: Under this rule, a proposal can suffer one 'against' vote without failing. It will take two or more votes against in order to reject the rule. Any suggestions on rewording the rule to eliminate [or add] loopholes will be happily considered. This parenthesized text is not part of the proposal.) From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Dec 12 17:06:03 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 01:06:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 46730 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 01:06:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 01:06:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.4) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 01:06:01 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.c6.e785ec9 (4250) for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:05:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:05:38 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic]VOTE FOR: Proposal 304 -- Amend Rule 203 (NIM) To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... N I M = no internal message From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Dec 12 17:11:52 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 01:11:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 15205 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 01:11:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 01:11:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 01:11:51 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.a0.d538493 (4250) for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:11:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:11:45 EST Subject: Mr Weston... To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... For the next few weeks my time is severly limited. I will only have about enough time each night to read my mail and vote. Could you possibly build a table at the n_omic egroup site showing the game state for me for the duration? I will try to update the website, but it will be in a catch as catch can type manner. JAG From Nomic1@a... Tue Dec 12 17:52:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 01:52:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 34372 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 01:52:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 01:52:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 02:53:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.69] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 01:52:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:52:46 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: [N_omic]. New member. DISCUSSION TOPIC: egroups.com Message-ID: <916kpe+k83p@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1421 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.248 From: "Feyd " Hello, I'm the newest player to N_omic. I'm glad to be in on the first floor (e-floor?). Anyway, after reading all of the messages and reading the complete ruleset, I would like to open the following topic for discussion (in preparation to making a proposal, eh?). How much should we count on using http://www.egroups.com to run N_omic? For example, votes could be tabulated using the "POLL" feature. egroup Polls have the following properties: Visible: Results are visible to all members during polling Results are hidden until polling is over Anonymity: Voting is anonymous (only a vote count is displayed) Voting is enumerated (identity of the voter is displayed with each vote) Conclude poll: Manually On Distribution: Send results to the entire group via email Send results to the person who created the poll via email This would make things a log easier, and would allow transition to non-turn-based proposals if such were to be proposed ;-). Possible downsides: How would ammendments be added to the poll? What would stop a Player from extending the time of a poll illegally? The above is meant as a way to practically use the environment to shape the Nomic. One turn/person/month is going to drag any PBeM down I think. Oh, and a question::: Am I now a "Player"? May I vote on Prop 304? Feyd From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Tue Dec 12 19:37:11 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 03:37:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 48715 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 03:37:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 03:37:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 03:37:10 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06875 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:37:09 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38111288@d...> Date: 12 Dec 2000 22:37:09 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic]VOTE FOR: Proposal 304 -- Amend Rule 203 (NIM) To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: N I M = no internal message --- end of quote --- ? From jjweston@p... Tue Dec 12 22:06:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 06:06:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 78691 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 06:06:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 06:06:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:06:17 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtiu07510 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:06:15 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001212220607.0111ffb8@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:06:07 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Mr Weston... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 08:11 PM 12/12/2000 EST, you wrote: >For the next few weeks my time is severly limited. I will only have about >enough time each night to read my mail and vote. Could you possibly build a >table at the n_omic egroup site showing the game state for me for the >duration? I will try to update the website, but it will be in a catch as >catch can type manner. Jon, I don't think the database feature of eGroups can adequately handle the game state for a N_omic game. It can help with tracking votes, and proposal summaries (which I'm already doing), but tracking the ruleset and the full text of proposals and judgements really needs a web site. I took the liberty of quickly slapping together a replica of the N_omic web site on my own server. I can mantain this site until you get a chance to get back up to speed. If you are unable to continue maintenance of your site, I would be willing to continue maintaining the one I've developed. The site can be found here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/ Its current as of today. Let me know if you find any inaccuracies in it. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Tue Dec 12 22:09:04 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 06:09:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 87754 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 06:09:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 06:09:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:09:03 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtiu11193 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:09:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001212220854.0111ffb8@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:08:54 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [N_omic]. New member. DISCUSSION TOPIC: egroups.com In-Reply-To: <916kpe+k83p@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 01:52 AM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Hello, >I'm the newest player to N_omic. I'm glad to be in on the first [snip] >Oh, and a question::: Am I now a "Player"? May I vote on Prop 304? Well, with your first line it looks like you are declaring your intent to play. With rule 303, which was enacted Friday the 8th, you are now officially a player. Not only "may" you vote on prop 304, but according to rule 105 you *must* vote on prop 304. ;-) Welcome aboard! You've been added to the player list maintained at: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/ - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Tue Dec 12 22:11:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 06:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 46253 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 06:11:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 06:11:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 06:11:16 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtiu13900 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:11:15 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001212221108.0111ffb8@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:11:08 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: vote FOR prop 304. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Tue Dec 12 22:40:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 06:40:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 9775 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 06:40:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 06:40:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 07:41:22 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtiw19371 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:40:16 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001212224005.01673fe0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:40:05 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Need player's surnames... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Kevan and Feyd, Would you kindly provide your surname so I can properly place you in the players list? Rule 202 requires that players take turns by alternating in alphabetical order by surname. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 06:17:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 14:17:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28799 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 14:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 14:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 15:18:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 14:17:09 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:17:01 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Need player's surnames... Message-ID: <9180ct+ot3o@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001212224005.01673fe0@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 631 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > Kevan and Feyd, > > Would you kindly provide your surname so I can properly place you in the > players list? Rule 202 requires that players take turns by alternating in > alphabetical order by surname. POO..hm, wait, not a POO, but a question: In looking at 202, what happens if I refuse to give a surname (or do not have one)? Would this imply that I am not allowed to take turns (i.e. suggest proposals) or vote? Technically, I think that looking at the definion of my registered Name (according to egroups), my surname is "". Is this sufficient? Feyd From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 06:22:41 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 14:22:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 53854 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 14:22:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 14:22:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 14:22:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 14:22:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:22:27 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR :: Proposal 304 -- Amend Rule 203 Message-ID: <9180n3+ot3s@e...> In-Reply-To: <38089810@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 757 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " To be clear, the proposal I am voting for is listed below: --- In n_omic@egroups.com, frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > Rule 203 is hereby ammended to read: > > A rule-change is NOT adopted if there is more than one (1) vote AGAINST that > proposal. If all eligible voters have voted on a proposal, and it is not > rejected on the basis of the preceding sentence, then and only then will that > proposal be adopted. > > (Clarification: Under this rule, a proposal can suffer one 'against' vote > without failing. It will take two or more votes against in order to reject the > rule. Any suggestions on rewording the rule to eliminate [or add] loopholes > will be happily considered. This parenthesized text is not part of the > proposal.) From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 13 06:34:06 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 14:34:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 38554 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 14:34:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 14:34:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 14:34:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0081B113@m...>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 9:34:04 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA10205; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:34:03 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST: Proposal 304 -- Amend Rule 203 References: <38089810@d...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 09:34:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "12 Dec 2000 07:46:47 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > Rule 203 is hereby ammended to read: > > A rule-change is NOT adopted if there is more than one (1) vote AGAINST that > proposal. If all eligible voters have voted on a proposal, and it is not > rejected on the basis of the preceding sentence, then and only then will that > proposal be adopted. No no no! I remind you of the text of Rule 203: > 203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous > among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of > the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to > require only a simple majority. Unanimity is required ONLY in the first two circuits. After that it reverts to majority. P304 wants to impose near-unanimity forever. I vote AGAINST. -- Doctroid From kevan@s... Wed Dec 13 07:50:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 15:50:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11250 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 15:50:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 15:50:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 15:50:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 15:50:17 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:50:12 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE AGAINST: Proposal 304 -- Amend Rule 203 Message-ID: <9185rk+go61@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 440 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > No no no! Quite right. It still requires all eligible voters to vote, as well, which we should really be sorting out. I too vote AGAINST. And I half-wonder if it'd be quicker to start again with a sharper Ruleset; this game's proving to be rather sluggish and unexciting, thus far, to be honest. Too much basic stuff to sort out, too lengthy a business to get it sorted. Hm. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "You see; ennui." From kevan@s... Wed Dec 13 08:01:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:01:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 19987 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:01:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:01:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mo.egroups.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:01:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 16:01:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:01:19 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Need player's surnames... Message-ID: <9186gf+59nh@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001212224005.01673fe0@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 210 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Would you kindly provide your surname so I can properly place you in the > players list? It's still "Davis". Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before." From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 08:04:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:04:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 45142 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:04:32 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtki20090 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:04:31 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213080255.0117a128@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:02:55 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Prop 304 fails. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston With 4 votes FOR it and 2 votes AGAINST it, prop 304 fails. Eric loses 10 points for it failing. Eric gains 9 points for receiving 66.66% percent favorable votes. Play now continues with myself. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 08:04:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:04:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 45179 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:04:32 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtki20096 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:04:31 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213080421.01178718@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:04:21 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need player's surnames... In-Reply-To: <9180ct+ot3o@e...> References: <3.0.6.32.20001212224005.01673fe0@m...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 02:17 PM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Technically, I think that looking at the definion of my registered >Name (according to egroups), my surname is "". Is this sufficient? I suppose... I'll place you next to Kevan, since he too has not given us a surname. I'll rank you two by first names then. Your turn will come after mine. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 08:06:25 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:06:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 93278 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:06:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:06:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 17:07:29 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtki23504 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:06:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213080615.01178718@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:06:15 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need player's surnames... In-Reply-To: <9186gf+59nh@e...> References: <3.0.6.32.20001212224005.01673fe0@m...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 04:01 PM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: >> Would you kindly provide your surname so I can properly place you >in the >> players list? > >It's still "Davis". Cool, thanks. I guess I didn't see it when you posted it earlier. I'll still place Feyd in front of Kevan. If anyone has a problem with this ordering of players, invoke judgement on it. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 08:16:49 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:16:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 85614 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:16:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:16:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:16:45 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtkj11882 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:16:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213081632.01178718@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:16:32 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 305. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Create a new rule: The official mailing list of N_omic is n_omic@egroups.com, available through this web site: http://www.egroups.com/group/n_omic Any game related communication that must go to all players must be sent through this mailing list. If the official mailing list is unable to function in this capacity for any reason, players may directly email all other players as an emergency backup until a new mailing list is available. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 13 08:21:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:21:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 45283 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:21:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:21:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:21:49 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11732 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:21:48 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38121664@d...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:21:48 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: suggestion.... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... perhaps the next person could propose a rule such as: "Once this rule is enacted, the game shall enter Limbo. Definition of Limbo: 1. While in Limbo no points shall be awarded. 2. In Limbo, rules may be adopted by a simple majority, and will be adopted when a majority of voters vote FOR a rule (except where noted below). 3. Any player who voted AGAINST a rule that failed is able to suggest alterations to the rule that would cause them to vote FOR it. If the player who proposed the failed rule wishes so, he may propose an altered version if he believes it will succeed. A rule may only be re-proposed once. 4. Rules enacted in Limbo may NOT alter the way players accumulate points, or the way players win. [add more stuff here] 5. Any rule proposed in Limbo which violates point 4 (above) or wishes to ammend this rule (i.e., the entire definition of Limbo) can only be passed by a unanimous FOR vote. 6. Limbo will be ended by a majority vote [or a unaimous one if that's what we want]. 7. When Limbo ends, this rule shall remove itself from the ruleset. " This way we could hammer down some basic rules quickly and easily... From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 13 08:23:11 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:23:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 25516 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:23:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:23:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 17:24:16 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12994 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:23:10 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38121706@d...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:23:10 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: VOTE FOR Proposal 305. To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 08:28:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:28:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 69824 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 17:29:53 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 16:28:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:28:40 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR Proposal 305. Message-ID: <91883p+7ghb@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213081632.01178718@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 686 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: "Feyd " The proposal I am voting for is as follows --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > Create a new rule: > > The official mailing list of N_omic is n_omic@egroups.com, available > through this web site: > > http://www.egroups.com/group/n_omic > > Any game related communication that must go to all players must be sent > through this mailing list. If the official mailing list is unable to > function in this capacity for any reason, players may directly email all > other players as an emergency backup until a new mailing list is available. > > - - - > Jeffrey J. Weston > jjweston@p... > PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc > - - - From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 08:45:52 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:45:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 83620 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:45:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:45:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:45:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.125] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 16:45:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:45:49 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Counter Re: suggestion.... Message-ID: <91893t+vl92@e...> In-Reply-To: <38121664@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1937 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: "Feyd " Instead of this "limbo", I would much prefer to keep the current system and focus on the problem rules in question. The only rules inhibiting the game are rules 201 and 202. Both are mutable, and can be updated as needed. What you are proposing below is a suspension of both 201 and 202, possibly 204, in the same piece of legislation. This is clearly illegal within rule 103. We're going to have to tough it out for a few days until we get a faster, more flexible system in place. As a side note, what we are doing in game is modifying rules. If we suspend the game rules to allow us to modify rules, I don't think we have really achieved anything anyway. Feyd --- In n_omic@egroups.com, frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > perhaps the next person could propose a rule such as: > > "Once this rule is enacted, the game shall enter Limbo. > > Definition of Limbo: > 1. While in Limbo no points shall be awarded. > 2. In Limbo, rules may be adopted by a simple majority, and will be adopted > when a majority of voters vote FOR a rule (except where noted below). > 3. Any player who voted AGAINST a rule that failed is able to suggest > alterations to the rule that would cause them to vote FOR it. If the player > who proposed the failed rule wishes so, he may propose an altered version if he > believes it will succeed. A rule may only be re-proposed once. > 4. Rules enacted in Limbo may NOT alter the way players accumulate points, or > the way players win. [add more stuff here] > 5. Any rule proposed in Limbo which violates point 4 (above) or wishes to > ammend this rule (i.e., the entire definition of Limbo) can only be passed by a > unanimous FOR vote. > 6. Limbo will be ended by a majority vote [or a unaimous one if that's what we > want]. > 7. When Limbo ends, this rule shall remove itself from the ruleset. " > > This way we could hammer down some basic rules quickly and easily... From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 08:52:02 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 16:52:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 25365 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 16:52:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 16:52:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 16:52:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.51] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 16:51:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:51:57 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Need player's surnames... Message-ID: <9189fd+nsd0@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213080421.01178718@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 778 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > At 02:17 PM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: > >Technically, I think that looking at the definion of my registered > >Name (according to egroups), my surname is "". Is this sufficient? > > I suppose... I'll place you next to Kevan, since he too has not given us a > surname. I'll rank you two by first names then. Your turn will come after > mine. You cannot just "suppose" to change (or is this just a technical interpretation of) rule 201. However, as Kevan has submitted a surname other than "", this point is moot. Also, to more fully comply with your request, I hereby state that my surname is the empty string, denoted by "". Thus my full name is "Feyd", 'Feyd', or Feyd. I love this game Feyd From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 13 09:01:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 17:01:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 92149 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 17:01:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 17:01:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 17:01:48 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01779 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:01:48 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38123214@d...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 12:01:48 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need player's surnames... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- Feyd wrote: You cannot just "suppose" to change (or is this just a technical interpretation of) rule 201. However, as Kevan has submitted a surname other than "", this point is moot. --- end of quote --- Well basically he was invoking judgement... I don't think he was the official judge, but I do believe that a majority would have upheld his decision... and he didn't receive any compensation for judging, so it's all good... don't get too technical or the game gets tedious From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 09:22:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 17:22:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 95523 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 17:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 17:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 17:22:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.99] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 17:22:36 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:22:32 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Tedious Rule Mongering Re: Need player's surnames... Message-ID: <918b8o+qg70@e...> In-Reply-To: <38123214@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1828 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > --- Feyd wrote: > You cannot just "suppose" to change (or is this just a technical > interpretation of) rule 201. However, as Kevan has submitted a > surname other than "", this point is moot. > --- end of quote --- > > Well basically he was invoking judgement... I don't think he was the official > judge, but I do believe that a majority would have upheld his decision... and > he didn't receive any compensation for judging, so it's all good... > don't get too technical or the game gets tedious Actually, I wasn't trying to be tedious, I was trying to get people to think critically about what they are doing early in the game. And to provoke conversation about...well, anything. Currently we are moving rather slowly because of the ruleset, I figure anything to generate interest and conversation is good . Even if it is to correct me ;-). It is definitely NOT my goal to rulemonger the game to death! However, if someone wishes to propose the title "Tedious Rule Monger" and assign me a point every time I pose annoying questions, I'll take it ROTFL. Back to the point, if he was invoking judgement (which, by the way, I think would rule that under "legislative intent" would be sorted by surname then firstname) then he should actually invoke it. To make a judgment based on the fact that you believe that the majority "would have upheld [your] opinion" is a poor precedent. The idea I am pursuing here is to pick small, obvious arguments where the winner is obvious, to set clear precedent for future cases. I guess since I'm the one raising the stink over this I had better submit a proposal on my turn to deal with it in the future. Anyone have anything they feel needs to be attached? Feyd "Tedious Rule Monger" From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 13 10:21:00 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 18:21:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 87311 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 18:21:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 18:21:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 19:22:05 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07589 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:20:58 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38125433@d...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 13:20:58 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Tedious Rule Mongering Re: Need player's surnames... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- Feyd wrote: To make a judgment based on the fact that you believe that the majority "would have upheld [your] opinion" is a poor precedent. --- end of quote --- Hmm... You see, I think that that's a good precedent, as long as anyone can voice their opposition to a ruling and request that someone invoke (captial-J) Judgment. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Dec 13 10:22:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 18:22:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 54113 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 18:22:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 18:22:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 18:22:08 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29402 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:22:07 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38125476@d...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 13:22:07 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Request to become a Reyalp To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... As I will be able to check my email sporadically at best for the next two and a half weeks, I would like to become a Reyalp. I'll be back (fer sher) on Jan 2nd. Have fun =) From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 13 10:39:29 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 18:39:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 53229 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 18:39:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 18:39:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 18:39:28 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0081C6FE@m...>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:39:12 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02841; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:39:10 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 305. References: <3.0.6.32.20001213081632.01178718@m...> Date: 13 Dec 2000 13:39:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: Jeff Weston's message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:16:32 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 3 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... -- Doctroid From n_omic@egroups.com Wed Dec 13 10:54:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47564 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 18:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 18:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 18:54:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.33] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 18:54:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 16211 invoked by uid 65534); 13 Dec 2000 18:54:04 -0000 Date: 13 Dec 2000 18:54:04 -0000 Message-ID: <976733644.16208@egroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll From: n_omic@egroups.com To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: New poll for n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the n_omic group: Would you support a proposal written as follows? I. A Player makes a Proposal by posting that proposal to this space. Once posted, a proposal may NOT be ammended. Settings on polls are as follows: Choice 1 "Yes" Choice 2 "No" Choice 3 "Abstain" Visible: Results are hidden until polling is over. Anonymity: Voting is Enumerated Conclude poll: Polling Date + 2 days. [[Note that anyone who does NOT vote becomes a Reyalp per 303]] II. Once the poll is complete, the results of the poll plus any other valid votes created or imposed by later rules will be counted and the proposal status will be determined. II. A proposal may not be edited in any way once it has been posted. o Yes o No o Abstain To vote, please visit the following web page: http://www.egroups.com/polls/n_omic Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups web site listed above. Thanks! From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 11:04:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 19:04:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 80086 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 19:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 19:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 20:05:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.93] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 19:04:33 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:04:31 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: New poll for n_omic Message-ID: <918h7v+hk7h@e...> In-Reply-To: <976733644.16208@egroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 315 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: "Feyd " Yikes, everything looks cool about this method except the POLL page, which looks absolutely awful. Oh well, that's why I played with it rather than Proposed it. Maybe a poll like the above where the subject line is "Proposal 307a" would be better... Any other discussion on why this is a good/bad idea? Feyd From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 13 11:12:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 19:12:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 54276 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 19:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 19:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 19:12:54 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0081C9EF@m...>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:12:55 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11249; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:12:54 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New poll for n_omic References: <976733644.16208@egroups.com> Date: 13 Dec 2000 14:12:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: n_omic@egroups.com's message of "13 Dec 2000 18:54:04 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 56 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... n_omic@egroups.com writes: > Would you support a proposal written as > follows? Lord, no... > I. A Player makes a Proposal by > posting that proposal to this space. > Once posted, a proposal may NOT be > ammended. Hey guys... "amended" has ONE "m"... > Settings on polls are as > follows: > Choice 1 "Yes" > Choice 2 "No" > Choice 3 "Abstain" I note that the eGroups polling mechanism allows you to change your vote at any time. That'd be a significant change, and not one I'd like. > Visible: Results are hidden until > polling is over. And so would that. > II. A proposal may not be edited in > any way once it has been posted. And so would that. And another change is that you would not be able to make a proposal by email. I'd like to avoid having to bring up the eGroups site as much as possible, because I've found it tends to be slow and the user interface somewhat frustrating -- cutting a proposal and pasting into an email discussing the proposal, for example, is a pain; on my system if I tried to do that with this poll it'd look like this: Would you support a proposal written as follows? I. A Player makes a Proposal by posting that proposal to this space. Once posted, a proposal may NOT be ammended. Settings on polls are as follows: Choice 1 "Yes" Choice 2 "No" Choice 3 "Abstain" (et cetera). Note also that the formatting of your poll question has gotten munged, not only above but on the eGroups poll page -- your line breaks have been ignored. Bleacccch. > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Bugger that! -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Wed Dec 13 12:05:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 28613 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 20:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 20:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 21:06:23 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtky09453 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:05:05 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need player's surnames... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:29:14 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/13/2000 02:10:57 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Sorry for my long winded message here. I've found myself with a little bit of time to ponder the situation... ;-) Actually, I was trying to solve the problem without invoking judgement. I proposed an unofficial sollution to the problem and suggested that if someone didn't like it, they could invoke judgement to get an official decision. Since Feyd has submitted a surname of "", then his placement in the players list is either last, or first depening on if you think "" comes before A, or after Z. The only real difference between the two is that if he is placed first, his second proposal will come after rule 203 has been ammended to require only a simple majority. If he is placed last, his second proposal will still require unaminity to pass. As support for placing Feyd first, the Unix 'sort' command places a blank line first when sorting a file. As support for placing Feyd last, it would make it more for fair for him to play with the same conditions as everyone else. I have simply chosen to place Feyd first. If someone wants an official decision, they should invoke judgement. This message, along with my earlier message, are not invoking judgement. I am simply trying to solve the problem using the simplest method that could possibly work. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Eric wrote: >Well basically he was invoking judgement... I don't think he was the official >judge, but I do believe that a majority would have upheld his decision... and >he didn't receive any compensation for judging, so it's all good... > >don't get too technical or the game gets tedious From JJWeston@T... Wed Dec 13 12:05:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 28664 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtky09480 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:05:06 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] suggestion.... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:56:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/13/2000 02:10:58 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Interesting idea... However with 110 intact, you wouldn't be able to overrule any immutable rules. Point 2 is in conflict with rule 105. I'm kinda curious what basic rule changes need to be made in this fashion... With 303 in place, we've handled the large issue of players disapearing. If 305 passes, we'll have secured an official mailing list. If game speed is an issue, we can always ammend rule 303 to allow less time for communications to occur. On another note... I would consider transmuting 105 if we first eliminate the condition in the second paragraph of 202 that implies that all players are voting on a proposal. Ammending 105 to allow proposals to pass immediately when they have sufficient FOR votes may help speed things up. When 203 is automatically ammended to require only a simple majority, it will make it easier to pass proposals. While it won't speed up the game, it will give the illusion of a faster game by allowing rule changes to happen more often. It should also make it more fun... In any case, things seem to be speeding up a little bit more now. I'll try to be a little more aggressive about moving the game along by posting when proposals pass or fail, who's turn it is, etc... I totally spaced out this weekend when I didn't realize that 303 actually passed on Friday. Of course, this isn't my official capacity. I originaly started posting such messages to help move the game along. It looks like it helps, so I'll keep on doing it. ;-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Eric wrote: >perhaps the next person could propose a rule such as: > >"Once this rule is enacted, the game shall enter Limbo. From JJWeston@T... Wed Dec 13 12:05:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 20:05:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 72360 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 20:05:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 20:05:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 20:05:23 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtky09572 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:05:10 GMT Subject: Test message. To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:53:56 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/13/2000 02:11:02 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... eGroups seems to be ignoring me, since it ignored my last couple messages. Just trying to figure out whats wrong... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Wed Dec 13 12:59:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 20:59:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 52804 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 20:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 20:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 20:59:42 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0081D6C8@m...>; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:59:43 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06038; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:59:42 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] suggestion.... References: Date: 13 Dec 2000 15:59:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:56:28 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... JJWeston@T... writes: > On another note... I would consider transmuting 105 if we first > eliminate the condition in the second paragraph of 202 that implies that > all players are voting on a proposal. Ammending 105 to allow proposals to > pass immediately when they have sufficient FOR votes may help speed things > up. I don't think things need to be speeded up, actually. This Nomic is moving considerably more slowly than, say, DocNomic... but so what? An online game of Rock, Paper, Scissors would move even faster, presumably, but that's because it's a different game -- as are n_omic and DocNomic. And there are, so I understand, online Nomics that move more deliberately than this one. If this game were dragging out because people weren't fulfilling their responsibilities that'd be one thing. But this one moves slowly by the nature of its rules, and I think that's fine. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 13 13:58:54 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 13 Dec 2000 21:58:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 83048 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 21:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2000 21:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 22:59:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Dec 2000 21:58:53 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:58:45 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Tradition of Judgement RE: Tedious Rule Mongering Message-ID: <918rel+6n0h@e...> In-Reply-To: <38125433@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1066 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > --- Feyd wrote: > To make a judgment based on the fact that you believe that the majority "would > have upheld [your] opinion" is a poor precedent. > --- end of quote --- > > Hmm... You see, I think that that's a good precedent, as long as anyone can > voice their opposition to a ruling and request that someone invoke (captial-J) > Judgment. > --- End of Quote --- Would it not be preferable to base precedent solely on Rule of Law, rather than (mutable) player opinion? Ah, but your point is that nothing has been invoked, and if anyone feels it is unfair they can invoke RoL via Judgement. I do not want to dip this discussion to deeply into "what if" scenarios; I would rather stay grounded in the Rules and established precedent. Precedent shows that common-sense rulings have helped pull the game back from potential deadlock (Judgement #1 was a pretty clear step to remove dead-weight). I accept the argument you put forth. Feyd Can I still be "Tedious Rule Monger"? From Sxejmaso@a... Wed Dec 13 19:00:44 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 03:00:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 82016 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 03:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 03:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 04:01:48 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.b9.991d925 (4003) for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:00:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:00:37 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Mr Weston... To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Thank you very very much. JAG From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 23:29:41 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 07:29:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 86345 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 07:29:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 07:29:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 07:29:39 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtmr26228 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:29:37 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213232917.0117e360@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:29:17 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Tedious Rule Mongering Re: Need player's surnames... In-Reply-To: <918b8o+qg70@e...> References: <38123214@d...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 05:22 PM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Back to the point, if he was invoking judgement (which, by the way, I >think would rule that under "legislative intent" would be sorted by >surname then firstname) then he should actually invoke it. To make a >judgment based on the fact that you believe that the majority "would >have upheld [your] opinion" is a poor precedent. The idea I am [snip] Actually, I think its a great precedent. Think about how many things in this game have been decided by consent, rather than by invoking judgement... Rule 106 requires rule changes to be written down. We have decided that typing out rule changes and emailing them to all players is an acceptable substitute. Rule 111 was strected to allow an amendment to be made to a proposal that wasn't neccessarily destructive of play. Rule 201 doesn't specify which player starts the game. We decided to start with the surname that would occur earliest alphabetically. There are probably others, but you can see my point. This game would be forever bogged down in Inoking Judgement if we had to get an official ruling on every single point. By simply making a decision that everyone will agree with, the game can proceed without any difficulty. Invoking judgement is always an option if an official decision is desired. This was used in the case of Judgement 1 where Jon had decided to include a player and there was a disagreement about that decision. Judgement was invoked. A decision was made. The game continued, after some time... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 23:36:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 07:36:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 62965 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 07:36:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 07:36:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 07:36:19 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtms04081 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:36:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213233008.0117e360@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:30:08 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Request to become a Reyalp In-Reply-To: <38125476@d...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 01:22 PM 12/13/2000 EST, you wrote: >As I will be able to check my email sporadically at best for the next two and a >half weeks, I would like to become a Reyalp. > >I'll be back (fer sher) on Jan 2nd. Okay... Eric loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. The site has been updated. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 23:36:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 07:36:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 98624 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 07:36:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 07:36:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 08:37:25 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtms04094 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:36:19 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213233525.01685a88@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:35:25 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New poll for n_omic In-Reply-To: <976733644.16208@egroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 06:54 PM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: >Would you support a proposal written as >follows? No! No! No! Sorry.... Just wanted to be clear on the point. First of all, the polling mechanism isn't really suited to our current needs. Secondly, the method of voting can change at any time via the ruleset. The polls would be unable to cope with all the changes. Third, its just another thing to tie us to eGroups that would haunt us if they ever went away, or if they finished merging with Yahoo and their name, site, and/or url changes. I see nothing wrong with sending votes to the mailing list. It allows us great flexibility for working with the voting mechanism. This is important because I feel impending change coming that way... ;-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 23:43:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 07:43:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 78304 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 07:43:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 07:43:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 07:43:58 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtms12068 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:43:57 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213234349.01685a88@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:43:49 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Partial voting results for proposal 305. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston ?, Feyd : for Davis, Kevan : no vote yet Grimm, Jon : no vote yet Holmes, Rich : for Weston, Jeffrey : for Kevan? Jon? - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 13 23:47:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 07:47:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 77254 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 07:47:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 07:47:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 07:47:42 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtmt15851 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:47:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001213234721.01685a88@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:47:21 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Suggestion for the mailing list. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Can the mailing list be set so that new subscribers don't have to be approved by the owner? Jon, if you get too busy to approve new list subscriptions, it may hamper those who wish to join the game, or just spectate. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From kevan@s... Thu Dec 14 02:40:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 10:40:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 55315 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 10:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 10:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 10:40:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2000 10:40:47 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:40:41 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Vote FOR 305 Message-ID: <91a839+83fu@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213234349.01685a88@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 299 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > ?, Feyd : for > Davis, Kevan : no vote yet > Grimm, Jon : no vote yet > Holmes, Rich : for > Weston, Jeffrey : for > > Kevan? Forgive my being in an inconsiderate timezone. I vote FOR. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "Half a world away, it's the middle of the night." From kevan@s... Thu Dec 14 02:43:47 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 10:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 11978 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 10:43:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 10:43:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 10:43:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.2.207] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2000 10:43:46 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:43:43 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Suggestion for the mailing list. Message-ID: <91a88v+ev95@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213234721.01685a88@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 631 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.42.164.32 From: "Kevan " > Can the mailing list be set so that new subscribers don't have to be > approved by the owner? Jon, if you get too busy to approve new list > subscriptions, it may hamper those who wish to join the game, or just > spectate. Mm, actually making the archives publicly readable would stop any curious potential players storming off in apathy. I do tend to cancel subscriptions and wander off, if a mailing list tells me I need to wait for approval before I can even read the archives to see if it's an interesting enough list to be worth joining. Tch. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "This is boredom you can afford." From Nomic1@a... Thu Dec 14 07:00:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 15:00:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 62522 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 15:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 15:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 16:01:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.230] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2000 15:00:49 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:00:44 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Mutual Consent verses Judgement WAS: Tedious Rule Mongering Message-ID: <91anas+k1l2@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213232917.0117e360@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1527 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.74 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > At 05:22 PM 12/13/2000 -0000, you wrote: >>To make a > >judgment based on the fact that you believe that the majority "would > >have upheld [your] opinion" is a poor precedent. The idea I am > [snip] > > Actually, I think its a great precedent. Think about how many things in > this game have been decided by consent, rather than by invoking judgement... > > --- examples --------- > There are probably others, but you can see my point. This game would be > forever bogged down in Inoking Judgement if we had to get an official > ruling on every single point. > Invoking judgement is always an option if an official decision is desired. > This was used in the case of Judgement 1 where Jon had decided to include a > player and there was a disagreement about that decision. Judgement was > invoked. A decision was made. The game continued, after some time... Good points. I yield. Interesting discussion all around. In retrospect, I think that my initial argument is flawed based on rule 116, which states: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." Order of play is based upon surname, but that rule does not further refine what to do in case of ties, in which case any solution is probably acceptable under 116. Oh well, enough meandering. Feyd From Nomic1@a... Thu Dec 14 13:41:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 14 Dec 2000 21:41:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 31902 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2000 21:41:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Dec 2000 21:41:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Dec 2000 21:41:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.230] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Dec 2000 21:41:14 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:41:00 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Call for Comments: Potential Proposal Message-ID: <91bepc+rah2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2880 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " As soon as the current vote ends (we are missing one player), I believe it will be my turn. I am published the following text for comment. If anyone sees a problem with it, please say something and I'll change it before actually submitting it for vote. I don't know if the definitions below should be so tight (i.e. "tedious" ;-), or if that is a good thing. If y'all think this is too ambitions for now, say so and I'll come up with something else. Feyd ------------------------------------------------------- Creation of Game State & Administration Officer Article 1: In all rules following this, and in all Articles following this Article, the symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the symbol "]]" will be used to end comments. Text with comments has no affect on a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification. Article 2: A. The "Game State" is defined as all information necessary and pertinent to administration of this game as it exists at that moment. A Game State always exists. This information is as follows: i. The current Ruleset ii. A list of current Players, Reyalps, and their point totals iii. The current Player iv. All Current Officers v. Current and Pending Proposals vi. Completed and Pending Judgments B. The Game State may be altered by a new rule without explicating amending this Article [[Article 2. This is so that if a "Widget" is added to the game state it can be added without having to amend here.]]. Article 3: A. A position named "Honorable Administrator to the Masses" (also referred to as the "HAM") is hereby created. The HAM has the following duties: i. Maintain the Game State in a timely fashion. The Game State must be updated no less than once a week. B. In payment for his services, the HAM is awarded 5 + (total number of Players / 2) points, rounded down, each Monday at 5:00 PM. C. The HAM may designate a new HAM by posting to the official list that he is passing the title to a new Player, and that player posts a reply to the official list stating that he accepts the position of HAM. D. If the HAM resigns or becomes a Reyalp without designating a new HAM (or if he designates a new HAM but that person does not accept the title before the HAM resigns or becomes a Reyalp), an immediate vote will be held to Name a new HAM using the existing voting standard. Players may nominate themselves for the Office, and only players so Nominated may be voted for. E. Upon approval of this Proposal, the Honorable Administrator to the Masses will become "Jeff Weston". This paragraph will then self- edit to become a comment surrounded by the comment symbols. [[Jeff is currently acting like our administrator, we might as well make it official and pay him for it.]] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Dec 14 16:02:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 00:02:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 58065 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 00:02:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 00:02:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 00:02:15 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.73.971791c (4260) for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:02:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <73.971791c.276ab97a@a...> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:02:02 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestion for the mailing list. To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Yeah I need to check on that... it is irritating... From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Dec 14 16:10:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 00:10:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 44456 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 00:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 00:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 00:10:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.126] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 00:10:52 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:10:04 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE FOR: Proposal 305. Message-ID: <91bngs+m5hb@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213081632.01178718@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 642 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.143.94.223 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > Create a new rule: > > The official mailing list of N_omic is n_omic@egroups.com, available > through this web site: > > http://www.egroups.com/group/n_omic > > Any game related communication that must go to all players must be sent > through this mailing list. If the official mailing list is unable to > function in this capacity for any reason, players may directly email all > other players as an emergency backup until a new mailing list is available. > > - - - > Jeffrey J. Weston > jjweston@p... > PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc > - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Dec 14 16:11:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 00:11:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 83633 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 00:11:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 00:11:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 00:11:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.126] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 00:10:57 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:10:23 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE FOR: Proposal 305. Message-ID: <91bnhf+hct1@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001213081632.01178718@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 642 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.143.94.223 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Jeff Weston wrote: > Create a new rule: > > The official mailing list of N_omic is n_omic@egroups.com, available > through this web site: > > http://www.egroups.com/group/n_omic > > Any game related communication that must go to all players must be sent > through this mailing list. If the official mailing list is unable to > function in this capacity for any reason, players may directly email all > other players as an emergency backup until a new mailing list is available. > > - - - > Jeffrey J. Weston > jjweston@p... > PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc > - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Dec 14 16:26:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 00:26:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 89532 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 00:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 00:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 00:26:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.4.74] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 00:26:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:26:20 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Comments: Potential Proposal Message-ID: <91bofc+e6c7@e...> In-Reply-To: <91bepc+rah2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 448 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.143.94.223 From: "Jon A Grimm" The only thing I am a little wary of is 200 points wins the game so the HAM will have a definite advantage... but other than that i think it is a good idea. Oh, and if Jeff Weston will take the job I am more than happy to let him. This job I am working so much overtime on will not be completed till 1 February or so, so my time is very strapped and I will not be able to fullfill any HAM duties... and his pages look pretty cool too:) JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Dec 14 16:32:49 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 00:32:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 6225 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 00:32:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 00:32:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 00:32:24 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.4.74] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 00:32:24 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:32:18 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Suggestion for the mailing list. Message-ID: <91boqi+23jf@e...> In-Reply-To: <73.971791c.276ab97a@a...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 306 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.143.94.223 From: "Jon A Grimm" --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Sxejmaso@a... wrote: > Yeah I need to check on that... it is irritating... OK I think I have opened up the whole e-group except for issues where I think privacy may be a concern. Any questions comments or concerns please tell me and I will try to fix them expeditiously. JAG From JJWeston@T... Thu Dec 14 17:17:00 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 01:16:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 58570 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 01:16:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 01:16:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sjc3-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.122) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 01:16:35 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by sjc3sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtpl13064 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:16:35 GMT Subject: Proposal 305 passes! To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:16:32 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/14/2000 07:22:16 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... With 5 votes for, and 0 votes against, proposal 305 passes! Jeff Weston receives 14 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. This completes the first circuit of turns. We now start the second circuit of turns with Feyd. The web site has been updated to reflect this new rule. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From JJWeston@T... Thu Dec 14 17:45:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 01:45:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 38047 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 01:45:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 01:45:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ashd1-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.245) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 01:45:46 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr0.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtpn29894 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:45:58 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Call for Comments: Potential Proposal To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:45:42 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/14/2000 07:51:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Interesting proposal. The main technical problem with the proposal is that it clearly consists of several rule changes compounded. It looks like you were aware of this yourself since you split it into three articles... I would suggest that each article is a proposal in and of itself, and as such I would recommend proposing each article seperately. I will comment on the articles as if they are seperate proposals. -- Feyd wrote: Article 1: In all rules following this, and in all Articles following this Article, the symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the symbol "]]" will be used to end comments. Text with comments has no affect on a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification. -- I respond: Why limit it to just rules following this one? Seems a little wordy. Why are you using double square brackets to start and end comments? I might recommend something along these lines: Rules can contain comments. Comments start with the '[' character, and end with the ']' character. Comments have no effect on a rule and are used purely for example and clarification. -- Feyd wrote: Article 2: A. The "Game State" is defined as all information necessary and pertinent to administration of this game as it exists at that moment. A Game State always exists. This information is as follows: [SNIP] B. The Game State may be altered by a new rule without explicating amending this Article [[Article 2. This is so that if a "Widget" is added to the game state it can be added without having to amend here.]]. -- I respond: Not sure what to think about this one... The rules already imply that this information is already kept. I feel its dangerous to make the ruleset part of the gamestate, since whoever maintains the gamestate could be given some control over the rules. It would be nice to have a method to officially track current players and their respective stats however. I'm curious what others think. -- Feyd wrote: Article 3: A. A position named "Honorable Administrator to the Masses" (also referred to as the "HAM") is hereby created. The HAM has the following duties: [SNIP] -- I respond: You put a lot of effort into defining how HAMs get elected, pass on their post, etc... Its possible that future offices may be created (article 2 implies it), and it would be nice to have a general rule describing how offices in general can be handled. Then more specific rules can be enacted to create specific offices and the roles involved with them. The HAM sure gets a lot of points... ;-) I have a small problem with the time the points get earned. You didn't specify a timezone. Since not every player lives in the same timezone, you'll need to specify a timezone with any time you give, so that everyone can know "exactly" what time you are talking about. I would encourage everyone to use the same timezone (perhaps GMT?) when placing times into the ruleset to avoid timezone confusion... Some interesting ideas you have there. I look forward to seeing how they work out. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From Nomic1@a... Thu Dec 14 20:36:06 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 04:36:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 47591 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 04:36:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 04:36:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 04:36:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.98] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 04:36:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:35:11 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Comments: Potential Proposal Message-ID: <91c71v+2a29@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 4296 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.248 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, JJWeston@T... wrote: >Interesting proposal. The main technical problem with the proposal is >that it clearly consists of several rule changes compounded. Nope. It is several *NEW* rules combined. Nothing in the proposal amends any rules. If you look through the rule set there are several example of rules with multiple clauses. The only difference is that the clauses below are more disjointed, and longer . I don't think that is forbidden by 103, which only denotes how rule-CHANGES work, not how NEW rules are composed. > you were aware of this yourself since you split it into three >articles... I would suggest that each article is a proposal in and >of itself, and as such If I haven't convinced you, then I will do that. Uninamity is a tough nut to crack, which is why I'm asking for Comments first. ;-) > -- Feyd wrote: > Article 1: > In all rules following this, and in all Articles following this > Article, the symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the > symbol "]]" will be used to end comments. Text with comments has no > affect on a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification. > -- I respond: > >Why limit it to just rules following this one? Seems a little wordy. >Why are you using double square brackets to start and end comments? ------------ Feyd responds... If it affects THIS Article then the text between the [[ and ]] become comments and the rule becomes ..."following this Article, the symbol "" will be used to end comements." once the rule goes into effect. I can tighten it to say, "in all rules following this", but then I can't use comments in Articles II. or III. The reason I used [[ and ]] is that is seems to be a standard in the Nomics I have looked at, much like using e, em, eir is. > > -- Feyd wrote: > Article 2: > A. The "Game State" is defined as all information necessary and > pertinent to administration of this game as it exists at that > moment. A Game State always exists. This information is as follows: > [SNIP] > > B. The Game State may be altered by a new rule without explicating > amending this Article [[Article 2. This is so that if a "Widget" is > added to the game state it can be added without having to amend > here.]]. > -- I respond: > >Not sure what to think about this one... The rules already imply that >this information is already kept. I feel its dangerous to make the >ruleset part of the gamestate, since whoever maintains the gamestate >could be given some control over the rules. Oof. Good point. I will remove ruleset from the gamestate. Was the rest of the gamestate ok? > -- Feyd wrote: > Article 3: > A. A position named "Honorable Administrator to the Masses" (also > referred to as the "HAM") is hereby created. The HAM has the > following duties: > [SNIP] > -- I respond: > >You put a lot of effort into defining how HAMs get elected, pass on >their post, etc... Its possible that future offices may be created >(article 2 implies it), and it would be nice to have a general rule >describing how offices in general can be handled. Then more specific >rules can be enactedto create specific offices and the roles >involved with them. ---------- I reply ------------------ Future rules creating officers can invoke this Rule in terms of how players are elected (i.e. "The Foo-Officer is electes as per Rule 306."). I didn't want to limit how different officers were elected (for example, the "Tedious Rule Monger" Officer might automatically pass to the person who last mentions a rule by number. If I set rules on how officers are elected, then a new rule would have to first ammend 306 before proposing a new officer. >The HAM sure gets a lot of points... ;-) I have a small problem with > the time the points get earned. You didn't specify a timezone. I will specify a timezone. I purposefully gave too many points in order to force discussion and an amendment. It worked LOL. Besides, as the author pointed out, "I made the point system boring so it would be quickly changed." If someone will suggest an amendment I will incorporate it. Thanks to those who have commented! I plan to leave the comment period open until around 5:00 CST tomorrow, and then make a proposal. Feyd From jjweston@p... Fri Dec 15 00:25:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 08:25:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 60807 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 08:25:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 08:25:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 08:25:21 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtqn11242 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:25:20 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001215002508.01672a38@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:25:08 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Comments: Potential Proposal In-Reply-To: <91c71v+2a29@e...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 04:35 AM 12/15/2000 -0000, Feyd wrote: >--- In n_omic@egroups.com, JJWeston@T... wrote: >>Interesting proposal. The main technical problem with the proposal is >>that it clearly consists of several rule changes compounded. > >Nope. It is several *NEW* rules combined. Nothing in the proposal >amends any rules. If you look through the rule set >there are several example of rules with multiple clauses. The only >difference is that the clauses below are more disjointed, and longer >. I don't think that is forbidden by 103, which only denotes how >rule-CHANGES work, not how NEW rules are composed. Take a look at the definition of a rule change in rule 103. You said yourself that your proposed proposal is "several *NEW* rules combined." >From 103, one possible rule change is the enactment of a mutable rule. I would argue that this is indeed several rule changes rolled into one. However, having said that, there is nothing in the rules that says this is *illegal*. Rule 111 only mentions two or more rule changes compounded as a basis for suggesting amendments or arguing against the proposal before voting starts. You are more than welcome to make your proposal, and have us vote on it, as is. I have an even better argument against making such a compounded new rule. Once those three totally unrelated things are combined into one rule, it becomes fairly difficult to split them apart and deal with them seperately. An example: Assume your proposal passes as posted. Lets say we really like the "comments" clause and we want to make it immutable. However, we don't want the "gamestate" and "HAM" clauses to be immutable as well. In order to seperate out the "comments" clause, we'd have to make a new rule that contains *just* the comments clause. We'd also have to ammend the old rule to remove the comments clause. The order of those two changes is problematic either way. If we make the new rule first, we have two rules covering the same topic and conflicting with each other. If we remove the "comments" clause from the old rule first, we lose an integral part of the ruleset while waiting for it to be added back. Possibly a third rule change could be used to smooth the transition, but I'm not certain how. And don't forget the "transmute" rule change, which is what we wanted to do in the first place. You have 3, possibly 4 rule changes required for this one simple change. I truly believe that rules should focus on just one thing. I feel it will make things easier in the long run. My voting will reflect that opinion. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From jjweston@p... Fri Dec 15 00:29:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 08:29:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 69369 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 08:29:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 08:29:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 08:29:56 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtqn15980 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:29:55 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001215002947.01672a38@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:29:47 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Comments: Potential Proposal In-Reply-To: <91c71v+2a29@e...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 04:35 AM 12/15/2000 -0000, Feyd wrote: >>Why limit it to just rules following this one? Seems a little wordy. >>Why are you using double square brackets to start and end comments? > >------------ Feyd responds... >If it affects THIS Article then the text between the [[ and ]] become >comments and the rule becomes ..."following this Article, the >symbol "" will be used to end comements." once the rule goes into >effect. I can tighten it to say, "in all rules following this", but >then I can't use comments in Articles II. or III. I sense the tedious rule mongering aspect coming up again... I do see your point. To be truly technically correct, I would spell out the comment characters as such: A comment starts with a left square bracket and ends with a right square bracket. However, one could argue that by surrounding the [ or ] in quotes would indicate you are referring to the actual character, and not trying to start a comment. But I digress. Do what you feel is best and we will vote appropriately. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Nomic1@a... Fri Dec 15 06:23:32 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 14:23:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 79678 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 14:23:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 14:23:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 14:23:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.211] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 14:23:31 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:23:25 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Back to TRM -- Brief comment Message-ID: <91d9gt+nvvc@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001215002947.01672a38@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 684 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " >I sense the tedious rule mongering aspect coming up again... I do >see your point. To be truly technically correct, I would spell out >the comment characters as such. One quick comment on "Tedious Rule Mongering" -- which I freely admit is a term that I coined. I'm not sure that's a bad thing (obviously not, or I wouldn't have called myself that even in jest). Rules are important. In a game of making rules, it because even more important that these rules are clear and accurate, and given to only a single interpretation by reasonable persons in both letter and intent. Just look at the recent US election to see what happens when rules are not crystal clear. ;-). From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 15 08:24:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 16:24:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 47779 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 16:24:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 16:24:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 16:24:49 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008280F0@m...>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:24:49 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20660; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:24:48 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Back to TRM -- Brief comment References: <91d9gt+nvvc@e...> Date: 15 Dec 2000 11:24:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:23:25 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 8 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Feyd " writes: > Just look at the recent US election Must we? ;-) -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 15 08:32:14 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 16:32:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 70612 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 16:32:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 16:32:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 16:32:13 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00828193@m...>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:32:13 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA22148; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:32:12 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Call for Comments: Potential Proposal References: Date: 15 Dec 2000 11:32:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:45:42 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... JJWeston@T... writes: > Why limit it to just rules following this one? Seems a little wordy. > Why are you using double square brackets to start and end comments? I might > recommend something along these lines: Some TRM here: the phrase "all rules following this" is ambiguous; it could mean "all rules enacted after this one" or "all rules with a higher rule number than this one". I *think* the current ruleset makes these two concepts synonymous, but that could in theory change. Anyway, as Mr Weston says, it could be more neatly applied to all rules (if, as someone else pointed out, you spell out the delimiter characters instead of using them). > The HAM sure gets a lot of points... It seems to me the point system is another place where the Suber rules reflect a bias toward in-person play. With the time involved in setting up and running an online Nomic, and no artificial deadlines like "we have to finish playing by midnight", even the 200 points for email play seems to threaten cutting the game short just as it gets interesting. Personally I think a typical online Nomic is better if it's open-ended, with no termination condition other than, perhaps, unanimous consent to shut down. In this game as in so many others but more so, winning isn't the point; playing is. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Fri Dec 15 09:15:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 17:15:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 74294 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 17:15:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 17:15:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 17:15:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.124] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 17:15:39 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:15:35 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Points.. Message-ID: <91djjn+u8ip@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1018 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: "Feyd " >> The HAM sure gets a lot of points... >It seems to me the point system is another place where the Suber rules >reflect a bias toward in-person play. With the time involved in >setting up and running an online Nomic, and no artificial deadlines >like "we have to finish playing by midnight", even the 200 points for >email play seems to threaten cutting the game short just as it gets >interesting. Personally I think a typical online Nomic is better if >it's open-ended, with no termination condition other than, perhaps, >unanimous consent to shut down. In this game as in so many others but >more so, winning isn't the point; playing is. Personally, I don't see the point system staying around much longer. There are too many ways to change it by amending mutable rules, or simply proposing new ones. This includes: The concept of a RESET, that says if someone wins you just reset points, make the last winner then HAM, and keep going. Making the points needed to win 2**32 or such. etc. etc. From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 15 09:20:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 17:20:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21461 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 17:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 17:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 18:21:23 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008287A0@m...>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:20:18 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA05232; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:20:16 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Comments: Potential Proposal References: <3.0.6.32.20001215002508.01672a38@m...> Date: 15 Dec 2000 12:20:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: Jeff Weston's message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:25:08 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 36 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Jeff Weston writes: > Take a look at the definition of a rule change in rule 103. You said > yourself that your proposed proposal is "several *NEW* rules combined." > From 103, one possible rule change is the enactment of a mutable rule. I > would argue that this is indeed several rule changes rolled into one. I'm not a big fan of Rule 103's absolute prohibition on combining rule changes into one proposal. One finds e.g. cases in which similar language is used in several rules, and if that language ends up needing to be changed, I see no reason not to allow a proposal to change it whereever it occurs. But Jeff's point: > I have an even better argument against making such a compounded new rule. > Once those three totally unrelated things are combined into one rule, it > becomes fairly difficult to split them apart and deal with them seperately. [...] > I truly believe that rules should focus on just one thing. I feel it will > make things easier in the long run. My voting will reflect that opinion. is well taken. The "Potential Proposal" tries to do too many disparate things. Hmm, if this were an in-person game, all this "potential proposal" discussion would be illegal under Suber's ruleset. Presumably it's legal in email games only because there's no way to enforce such a provision. The intent seems to be that you don't get a non-binding vote before deciding whether to ask for a binding (and point-scoring) vote. Not that I actually have a problem with such discussion -- just pointing out it appears to be contrary to the intent of Suber's ruleset, while not actually being illegal. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Fri Dec 15 09:27:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 17:27:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 47272 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 17:26:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 17:26:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 17:26:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.99] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 17:26:56 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:25:41 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 306: Definition of Comments Message-ID: <91dk6l+8aa2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 616 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " Hey guys, I decided that I was being way to ambitions with my previous suggestions. This is my first rule, I thought I had better simplify. I'll try to be more grandious next time ;-) ---------------------Begin Proposal Text------------------------- Proposal 306: Comment The symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the symbol "]]" will be used to end comments. Text within comments has no affect on a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification of intent. In this proposal the comment symbols do NOT denote comments. -------------------- End Proposal Text ------------------------- From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 15 09:38:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 17:38:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 79272 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 17:38:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 17:38:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 18:39:14 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00828919@m...>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:38:08 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09379; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:38:08 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 306: Definition of Comments References: <91dk6l+8aa2@e...> Date: 15 Dec 2000 12:38:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:25:41 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 5 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... ... provided, of course, one corrects it by replacing "affect" with "effect"! -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 15 09:55:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 17:55:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 33120 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 17:55:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 17:55:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sjc3-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.122) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 18:56:53 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by sjc3sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtrz10075 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:55:47 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Call for Comments: Potential Proposal To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:55:44 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/15/2000 12:01:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... I agree! Anyone for transmuting rule 112? - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Doctroid wrote: It seems to me the point system is another place where the Suber rules reflect a bias toward in-person play. With the time involved in setting up and running an online Nomic, and no artificial deadlines like "we have to finish playing by midnight", even the 200 points for email play seems to threaten cutting the game short just as it gets interesting. Personally I think a typical online Nomic is better if it's open-ended, with no termination condition other than, perhaps, unanimous consent to shut down. In this game as in so many others but more so, winning isn't the point; playing is. From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 15 10:01:41 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 18:01:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28515 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 18:01:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 18:01:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 19:02:44 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtsa17548 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:01:24 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 306: Definition of Comments To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:01:35 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/15/2000 12:07:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Arguing that the misused word "affect" could make the rule unclear, under rule 111 I suggest ammending the proposal to replace "affect" with "effect". - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Feyd wrote: Proposal 306: Comment The symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the symbol "]]" will be used to end comments. Text within comments has no affect on a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification of intent. In this proposal the comment symbols do NOT denote comments. From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 15 10:09:30 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 18:09:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 52608 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 18:09:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 18:09:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.106) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 19:10:35 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by dfw7sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtsa06009 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:09:29 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 306: Definition of Comments To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:09:26 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/15/2000 12:15:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Another suggested ammendment... Take the word "proposal" from the second paragraph and replace it with "rule". If the proposal passes, it becomes a rule and the second paragraph would make no sense. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Feyd wrote: [SNIP] In this proposal the comment symbols do NOT denote comments. From Nomic1@a... Fri Dec 15 11:04:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 19:04:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 40350 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 19:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 19:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 19:04:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.33] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 19:04:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:03:59 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 306: Definition of Comments Message-ID: <91dpuv+mhgi@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 643 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: "Feyd " > Another suggested ammendment... Take the word "proposal" from the > second paragraph and replace it with "rule". If the proposal passes, it > becomes a rule and the second paragraph would make no sense. I agree to both these ammendments. I do not understand procedure under current ruleset. Amendment: Change "affect" to "effect" Amendment: Chage "Proposal" in second paragraph to "Rule". Are these added to the proposal, or is the proposal just changed now and vote begins anew? Obviously Doctroid's vote on the original proposal is void. If there is no established procedure, do we wing it until a rule is proposed? Feyd From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 15 11:21:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 19:21:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 68002 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 19:21:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 19:21:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 19:21:33 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008292C7@m...>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:21:33 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28949; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:21:32 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR amended [n_omic] Re: Proposal 306: Definition of Comments References: <91dpuv+mhgi@e...> Date: 15 Dec 2000 14:21:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:03:59 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Feyd " writes: > > Another suggested ammendment... Take the word "proposal" from > the > > second paragraph and replace it with "rule". If the proposal > passes, it > > becomes a rule and the second paragraph would make no sense. > > I agree to both these ammendments. I do not understand procedure > under current ruleset. > Amendment: Change "affect" to "effect" > Amendment: Chage "Proposal" in second paragraph to "Rule". > > Are these added to the proposal, or is the proposal just changed now > and vote begins anew? > > Obviously Doctroid's vote on the original proposal is void. If there > is no established procedure, do we wing it until a rule is proposed? I vote FOR the proposal as amended. -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 15 11:23:26 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 19:23:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 91428 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 19:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 19:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 19:23:25 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtsf04773 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:23:10 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Proposal 306: Definition of Comments To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:23:22 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/15/2000 01:29:07 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Good questions... For guidance, I'll bring up the pertinent portion of rule 111: "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote." You decide the final form for the proposal we are to vote on. This can easily be handled by posting a new proposal 306 that contains the amendments you accept. You also decide when to end debate and vote. Perhaps when you post the new proposal, you can also declare the debate has ended. Since the proposal will show up in a new form, I would argue that the votes start off with a clean slate and everyone would have to cast a vote for the amended proposal. If you still feel there is ambiguity for how to handle this situation, you can examine the message archive for how the same procedure was used for proposal 303. If this still doesn't make it clear to you, invoke judgement. I see no reason for us to "wing it until a rule is proposed." - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Feyd wrote: I agree to both these ammendments. I do not understand procedure under current ruleset. Amendment: Change "affect" to "effect" Amendment: Chage "Proposal" in second paragraph to "Rule". Are these added to the proposal, or is the proposal just changed now and vote begins anew? Obviously Doctroid's vote on the original proposal is void. If there is no established procedure, do we wing it until a rule is proposed? From Nomic1@a... Fri Dec 15 12:31:45 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 20:31:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 52978 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 20:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 20:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 20:31:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.133] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2000 20:31:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:31:34 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal: Amended 306a Message-ID: <91dv36+jm97@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 691 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " To help differentiate between Proposal 306 and the amended proposal, I am calling this 306a. This will still become rule 306 as one would expect, it is just for easy of reference. I also hereby end all discussion on this rule. The official voting period starts now. --------------------Begin Proposal Text------------------------- Proposal 306a: Comment The symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the symbol "]]" will be used to end comments. Text within comments has no effect on a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification of intent. In this rule the comment symbols do NOT denote comments. -------------------- End Proposal Text ------------------------- From JJWeston@T... Fri Dec 15 13:09:15 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Dec 2000 21:09:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 1478 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2000 21:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2000 21:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chi6-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.98) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2000 22:10:19 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by chi6sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjtsm04285 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:09:13 GMT Subject: vote FOR ammended proposal 306a To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:09:09 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/15/2000 03:14:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Sat Dec 16 13:49:28 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 21:49:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 87377 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 21:49:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 21:49:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 21:49:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.209] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 21:49:26 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:49:25 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR---Proposal: Amended 306a Message-ID: <91go15+niq2@e...> In-Reply-To: <91dv36+jm97@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 439 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 152.163.207.49 From: "Jon A Grimm" > > --------------------Begin Proposal Text------------------------- > Proposal 306a: Comment > The symbol "[[" will be used to start comments and the symbol "]]" > will be used to end comments. Text within comments has no effect on > a rule, and is used purely for example and clarification of intent. > > In this rule the comment symbols do NOT denote comments. > > -------------------- End Proposal Text ------------------------- From jjweston@p... Sun Dec 17 12:24:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Dec 2000 20:24:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 30535 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2000 20:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Dec 2000 20:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2000 21:25:37 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtzt24578 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:24:31 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001217122422.010f6bc0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:24:22 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Kevan: You have 24 hours to vote on proposal 306. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Kevan, Still waiting for your vote on the amended proposal 306. You have 24 hours to vote before you become a Reyalp. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From kevan@s... Sun Dec 17 12:39:06 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: kevan@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Dec 2000 20:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 72445 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2000 20:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Dec 2000 20:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2000 20:39:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: kevan@s... Received: from [10.1.2.110] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Dec 2000 20:38:39 -0000 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:34:58 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Vote FOR 306, and Yalpery Message-ID: <91j81i+ukj0@e...> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001217122422.010f6bc0@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 438 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 212.188.135.49 From: "Kevan " > Still waiting for your vote on the amended proposal 306. You have 24 hours > to vote before you become a Reyalp. I vote FOR Proposal 306 and declare my intention to become a Reyalp. Too much traffic when I'm asleep or elsewhere, and too little time to keep myself up to the Nomic's rather drawn-out speed, I'm afraid. All the best with the rest of it. Kevan -- http://uncertain.org/~kevan "Don't try to wake me in the morning." From jjweston@p... Sun Dec 17 12:45:01 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Dec 2000 20:45:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 81934 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2000 20:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Dec 2000 20:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2000 20:45:01 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjtzu15545 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:44:59 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001217124451.010f6bc0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:44:51 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 306 passes! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston With 5 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 306 passes! Feyd gets 15 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Per his request, Kevan is now a Reyalp. He loses 10 points for doing so. He will remain in that status until January 7th, 2001, since no date was specified for him leaving Reyalp status. Play now continues with Jon Grimm. The web site will be updated with the latest rule change soon. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From joejava@d... Sun Dec 17 14:45:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Dec 2000 22:45:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 83662 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2000 22:45:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Dec 2000 22:45:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.14) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2000 22:45:58 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-216-76-128-95.rdu.bellsouth.net [216.76.128.95]) by mail2.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id RAA00238 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:45:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007901c06c67$fe245880$5f804cd8@c...> To: Subject: New Player Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:39:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" Greetings fellow n_omicans, I'm looking to get started. Where are the rules? I can find the initial state and the current rules on eGroups. Hopefully it's also mirrored somehwere other than eGroups as that sites has been slower than death lately. ready to roll Joel From jjweston@p... Sun Dec 17 16:12:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 00:12:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 44870 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 00:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 00:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 00:12:51 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjuai22807 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:12:50 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001217161241.01683ab0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:12:41 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New Player In-Reply-To: <007901c06c67$fe245880$5f804cd8@c...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston At 05:39 PM 12/22/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Greetings fellow n_omicans, > >I'm looking to get started. Where are the rules? I can find the initial >state and the current rules on eGroups. Hopefully it's also mirrored >somehwere other than eGroups as that sites has been slower than death >lately. > >ready to roll >Joel Hello Joel, Welcome to N_omic. I have a web-site with the up to date rules. Take a look: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic I'll go ahead and add you to the player roster right now. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From joejava@d... Sun Dec 17 16:28:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 00:28:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 10076 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 00:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 00:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail0.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 00:28:38 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-216-76-128-172.rdu.bellsouth.net [216.76.128.172]) by mail0.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id TAA25349 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:28:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b301c06c76$56ddefa0$ac804cd8@c...> To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] New Player Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 19:21:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" > Welcome to N_omic. I have a web-site with the up to date rules. Take a look: > >http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic > > I'll go ahead and add you to the player roster right now. Thanks. Guess I just have to relax and wait for my turn to come up. -J From Nomic1@a... Sun Dec 17 18:44:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 02:44:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 10818 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 02:44:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 02:44:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 03:45:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Dec 2000 02:44:05 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:44:03 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: New Player Message-ID: <91jtlj+ph0g@e...> In-Reply-To: <00b301c06c76$56ddefa0$ac804cd8@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 172 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.249 From: "Feyd " > > Guess I just have to relax and wait for my turn to come up. Nah, I'm sure you can cause trouble in other ways besides taking your turn to propose rules Feyd From JJWeston@T... Mon Dec 18 10:48:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 18:48:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 34428 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 18:48:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 18:48:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ashd1-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.245) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 18:48:30 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr0.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjudf05527 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:48:43 GMT Subject: Jon Grimm, its your turn. To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:48:27 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/18/2000 12:54:16 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... You have 50 hours left to make a proposal... Gee... Can anyone tell I'm anxious to keep this game moving? ;-) - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Dec 18 16:38:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 00:38:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 46592 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 00:38:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 00:38:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r18.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.72) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 00:38:08 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.c6.ed2a90a (4003) for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:38:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:38:03 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jon Grimm, its your turn. To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Already?! OK- Proposal 30? ---begin--- All proposals must end with the phrase 'All Hail the mighty Jon!' ---end--- From JJWeston@T... Mon Dec 18 17:32:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 01:32:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 46923 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 01:32:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 01:32:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 01:32:24 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjueg01270 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:32:07 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jon Grimm, its your turn. To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:20:52 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/18/2000 07:38:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Yeah, Kevan asked to become a Reyalp, so your turn came up faster than normal. Your proposal number is 307. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Jon Grimm wrote: Already?! OK- Proposal 30? ---begin--- All proposals must end with the phrase 'All Hail the mighty Jon!' ---end--- From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Dec 18 17:36:23 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 01:36:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 59488 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 01:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 01:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 01:36:22 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.41.5120d25 (4003) for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:36:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41.5120d25.2770158b@a...> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:36:11 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 307 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... I am majorly sick so I will keep this proposal short and sweet.... << ---begin--- All proposals must end with the phrase 'All Hail the mighty Jon!' ---end--- >> From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Dec 18 17:39:08 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 01:39:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 76682 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 01:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 01:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.2) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 02:40:13 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.84.ee14ef8 (4003) for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:38:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <84.ee14ef8.2770162d@a...> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:38:53 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR: Proposal 307 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... WORSHIP ME YE MORTALS! From rsholmes@m... Mon Dec 18 17:55:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 01:55:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 21231 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 01:55:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 01:55:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 01:55:27 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0083799F@m...>; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:55:27 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA16479; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:55:26 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 307 References: <41.5120d25.2770158b@a...> Date: 18 Dec 2000 20:55:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sxejmaso@a...'s message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:36:11 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Sxejmaso@a... writes: > I am majorly sick so I will keep this proposal short and sweet.... > > << ---begin--- > All proposals must end with the phrase 'All Hail the mighty Jon!' > > ---end--- >> I take it this is a proposed new rule, and not, say, a proposed amendment to an existing rule? I note that no mention is made of what happens if a proposal not ending with the prescribed phrase is submitted... -- Doctroid From joejava@d... Mon Dec 18 18:10:38 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 02:10:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 57233 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 02:10:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 02:10:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail0.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.12) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 02:10:36 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-163-217.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.163.217]) by mail0.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id VAA09466 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:10:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00f201c06d4d$be719cc0$d9a3d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 307 Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:03:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" >I note that no mention is made of what happens if a proposal not >ending with the prescribed phrase is submitted... Typical nomic proposal, you can leave that up to further proposals. -J From joejava@d... Mon Dec 18 18:14:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 02:14:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 52572 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 02:14:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 02:14:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 02:14:12 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-163-217.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.163.217]) by mail1.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id VAA14522 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:14:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00f901c06d4e$3f3ccdc0$d9a3d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Vote AGAINST: Proposal 307 Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:07:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" That's my story and I'm sticking to it. -J From JJWeston@T... Mon Dec 18 18:22:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 02:22:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 52850 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 02:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 02:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.86) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 02:22:39 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjuej00357 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:22:23 GMT Subject: Vote AGAINST proposal 307 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:16:03 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/18/2000 08:28:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From Nomic1@a... Tue Dec 19 06:57:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 14:57:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 36616 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 14:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 14:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 14:57:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Dec 2000 14:57:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:57:25 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR: Proposal 307 (more inside) Message-ID: <91nt0l+2e22@e...> In-Reply-To: <41.5120d25.2770158b@a...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 363 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Sxejmaso@a... wrote: > << ---begin--- > All proposals must end with the phrase 'All Hail the mighty Jon!' > ---end--- >> Note: I would not vote for this proposal if there were a chance of it passing. I like the approach very much, but feel it is just a tad to "JON" oriented. If you had suggested "FEYD", then maybe.... Feyd From Nomic1@a... Tue Dec 19 07:02:35 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 15:02:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 31929 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 15:02:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 15:02:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 15:02:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.99] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Dec 2000 15:02:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:02:23 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Online Voting and Rule 204 Message-ID: <91nt9v+8en8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 494 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " This rule states that: "If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each. " This really favors the last voter(s), as they can see that a rule will pass even if they vote NO. Doing so will give them an easy 10 point. This is ok for tabletop when you can write down your votes and then show them all at once. We don't have that available here. Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? Feyd From joejava@d... Tue Dec 19 08:06:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 16:06:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 64513 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 16:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 16:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.14) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 16:06:06 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-162-204.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.162.204]) by mail2.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id LAA06320 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:06:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000c01c06dc2$75ab0880$cca2d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Online Voting and Rule 204 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 10:59:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" >This really favors the last voter(s), as they can see that a rule >will pass even if they vote NO. Doing so will give them an easy 10 >point. This is ok for tabletop when you can write down your votes >and then show them all at once. We don't have that available here. > >Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? There are alot of rules that favor or assume tabletop play that should be struck from the rules. I have my next few proposals that will fix these things and bring it more into a more online version of nomic. Just out of curiosity, what's everyones experience with nomics? I've been a semi-active member of Ackanomic for a couple of years and ran and played in imperial nomics. What about everyone else? -J From joejava@d... Tue Dec 19 08:16:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 16:16:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 70794 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 16:16:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 16:16:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail0.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 16:16:47 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-162-204.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.162.204]) by mail0.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id LAA20817 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:16:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001101c06dc3$f3c1f980$cca2d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Online Voting and Rule 204 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:09:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" >>Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? One way that I just thought of would be to build a voting bot for receiving proposals, alerting the list of proposals and collecting the votes and tabulating them once the voting period has passed. I'll be hapy to provide resources for accomplishing this. -J From Nomic1@a... Tue Dec 19 09:49:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 17:49:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 58213 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 17:49:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 17:49:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 17:49:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.1.38] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Dec 2000 17:49:19 -0000 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:49:17 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Online Voting and Rule 204 Message-ID: <91o72t+ak9u@e...> In-Reply-To: <001101c06dc3$f3c1f980$cca2d6d1@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 585 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Joel Ricker" wrote: > > >>Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? >One way that I just thought of would be to build a voting bot for receiving >proposals, alerting the list of proposals and collecting the votes and >tabulating them once the voting period has passed. I'll be hapy to provide >resources for accomplishing this. We could just as easily use the POLL mechanism, which is already in place. you can't put the TEXT of the rule there, but you can set then Proposal # to vote on, and can easily tabulate votes... Feyd From JJWeston@T... Tue Dec 19 10:21:04 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 18:21:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 1570 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 18:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 18:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chi6-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.98) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 19:22:09 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by chi6sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjugv00337 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:21:03 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Online Voting and Rule 204 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:21:00 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/19/2000 12:26:51 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... I suppose that's *one* way to solve the problem... I had thought about something along those lines, but abandoned that thinking in favor of a much simpler solution...just repealing rule 204. Of course, I really don't see anything wrong with 204. I kinda like the aspect of working the system to get points. ;-) But others may disagree... In reality, it looks like the whole point aspect of this game will go away pretty soon anyways. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Joel Ricker wrote: >>Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? One way that I just thought of would be to build a voting bot for receiving proposals, alerting the list of proposals and collecting the votes and tabulating them once the voting period has passed. I'll be hapy to provide resources for accomplishing this. From JJWeston@T... Tue Dec 19 10:26:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 18:26:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 83140 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 18:26:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 18:26:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sjc3-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.122) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 18:26:52 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by sjc3sosrv11.alter.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjugv18926 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:26:51 GMT Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Online Voting and Rule 204 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:26:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/19/2000 12:32:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... We had already discussed the polling mechanism... First of all, all moderators and whoever created the poll get to see the votes. Gives them an unfair advantage. Secondly, players can change their votes before voting is concluded - a change from our current setup. Third, voting may be delayed while waiting for the poll to close. Fourth, some people have expressed a dislike for the eGroups polling mechanism. If it came down to a choice between using eGroups polling and repealing 204, I would repeal 204. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Feyd wrote: We could just as easily use the POLL mechanism, which is already in place. you can't put the TEXT of the rule there, but you can set then Proposal # to vote on, and can easily tabulate votes... From rsholmes@m... Tue Dec 19 12:32:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 20:32:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 72571 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 20:32:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 20:32:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 20:32:39 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0083BE81@m...>; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:32:39 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13332; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:32:37 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Online Voting and Rule 204 References: <91nt9v+8en8@e...> Date: 19 Dec 2000 15:32:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:02:23 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 24 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Feyd " writes: > This rule states that: > "If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the > players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points > each. " > > > This really favors the last voter(s), as they can see that a rule > will pass even if they vote NO. Doing so will give them an easy 10 > point. This is ok for tabletop when you can write down your votes > and then show them all at once. We don't have that available here. > > Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? What problem? That's no problem, it's a feature. Another way of stating it is that it discourages players from voting in haste. I have no qualms whatsoever about that rule. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Tue Dec 19 12:35:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 20:35:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 94127 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 20:35:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 20:35:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 21:36:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0083BEA4@m...>; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:35:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13731; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:35:05 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Online Voting and Rule 204 References: <91o72t+ak9u@e...> Date: 19 Dec 2000 15:35:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:49:17 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Feyd " writes: > --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Joel Ricker" wrote: > > > > >>Any suggestions on a rule to fix this problem? > >One way that I just thought of would be to build a voting bot for > receiving > >proposals, alerting the list of proposals and collecting the votes > and > >tabulating them once the voting period has passed. I'll be hapy to > provide > >resources for accomplishing this. > > We could just as easily use the POLL mechanism, which is already in > place. you can't put the TEXT of the rule there, but you can set > then Proposal # to vote on, and can easily tabulate votes... We've been through that. There are a number of reasons why the poll mechanism is lousy for vote-taking, and as far as I'm concerned one of them is precisely what you're favoring it for: that it doesn't allow votes to be seen until the voting period is over. I prefer votes to be public immediately -- I just like having that information available. Not a very persuasive reason, I know, but as I said, there are lots of other reasons. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Tue Dec 19 12:35:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 20:35:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 81892 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 20:35:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 20:35:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 20:35:40 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0083BEB2@m...>; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:35:40 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA13931; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:35:39 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST: [n_omic] Proposal 307 References: <41.5120d25.2770158b@a...> Date: 19 Dec 2000 15:35:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sxejmaso@a...'s message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:36:11 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 3 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Tue Dec 19 14:43:00 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 19 Dec 2000 22:43:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 90498 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 22:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2000 22:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ashd1-1.relay.mail.uu.net) (199.171.54.245) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 23:44:05 -0000 Received: from mother.thoughtworks.com by mr0.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mother.thoughtworks.com [204.178.39.204]) id QQjuhm14780 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:43:13 GMT Subject: Proposal 307 fails. To: n_omic@egroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:42:54 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/19/2000 04:48:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... With 2 votes for and 3 votes against, proposal 307 fails. Jon Grimm loses 10 points for it failing, but gets 6 points for receiving 40% favorable votes. Play now continues with Rich Holmes. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Tue Dec 19 17:31:04 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 01:31:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 53105 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 01:31:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 01:31:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 01:31:03 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0083D26B@m...>; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:31:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA20709; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:31:02 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 308 Date: 19 Dec 2000 20:31:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:42:54 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 43 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Add a rule: -- BEGIN -- There are two types of Players, Labelled and Unlabelled. When it is an Unlabelled Player's turn, it is the job of the Judge to select one label and stick it to the Unlabelled Player's forehead, making em a Labelled Player. Each label has a single word on it, chosen from a list of valid words. The Judge then must inform the other Players, except the one whose turn it is, what the word is, using a private channel such as direct email. A Player of course cannot see eir own label, and can determine its word only indirectly, e.g. by logical deduction or by getting another Player to tell em. When a new Player joins the game, the Judge must inform the new Player of the labels of all the Labelled Players except the Judge emself, using a private channel such as direct email. The Judge must also add one word to the list of valid label words, and announce it to all Players. The Player whose turn it is must inform the new Player of the Judge's label, if e has one, using a private channel such as direct email. When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, the Judge must remove one word from the list of valid label words, and announce it to all Players. Any Players having that word on their labels are informed of that fact, and become Unlabelled Players. Labels may not be removed or altered except as specifically provided by the rules. The list of valid label words may not be modified except as specifically provided by the rules. When this Rule takes effect, the list of valid label words shall be Rock, Scissors, and Paper. This paragraph will then repeal itself. -- END -- This rule of course does nothing substantive, in the sense that it causes Players to be labelled but defines no purpose or consequences for the labels. That's left to future rules. -- Doctroid From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Dec 19 19:22:15 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 03:22:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 4103 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 03:22:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 03:22:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 03:22:14 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.3b.e072e9d (4466) for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:21:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3b.e072e9d.27717fd6@a...> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:21:58 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 308 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... This interests me tremendously... I am inclined to vote in favour but give me some time to ponder on it... JAG From joejava@d... Tue Dec 19 19:27:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 03:27:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 18799 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 03:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 03:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail0.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 03:27:50 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-216-76-128-32.rdu.bellsouth.net [216.76.128.32]) by mail0.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id WAA24816 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:27:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001201c06e21$b19238a0$20804cd8@c...> To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 308 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:20:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" >This interests me tremendously... I am inclined to vote in favour but give me >some time to ponder on it... Waiting to see if you are the last to vote? ;) Sounds like fun. I vote FOR proposal 308. -J From rsholmes@m... Tue Dec 19 21:22:46 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 05:22:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 8540 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 05:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 05:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 06:23:50 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0083E171@m...>; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 0:22:44 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA12755; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:22:44 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 308 References: <001201c06e21$b19238a0$20804cd8@c...> Date: 20 Dec 2000 00:22:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Joel Ricker"'s message of "Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:20:52 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Joel Ricker" writes: > Waiting to see if you are the last to vote? ;) Can't use that scam^H^H^H^Hfeature yet, we're still in the unanimity phase! -- Doctroid From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 20 01:22:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 09:22:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 62137 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 09:22:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 09:22:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 09:22:51 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjuiq29139 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:06:10 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001219220436.01124308@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:04:36 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR proposal 308. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Sounds interesting. I'd like to see where this takes us... - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Nomic1@a... Wed Dec 20 06:31:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 14:31:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 37517 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 14:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 14:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 15:32:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.25] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Dec 2000 14:31:09 -0000 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:31:06 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR proposal 308. Message-ID: <91qfra+f8s3@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 76 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " I have no idea where this is going, but I see no reason to oppose it. Feyd From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 20 08:11:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 20 Dec 2000 16:11:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 89552 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2000 16:11:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Dec 2000 16:11:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2000 16:11:58 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjuke20444 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:11:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001220081140.010fb9a0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:11:40 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Okay Jon Grimm, we wait with anticipation for your vote... ;-) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Proposal 308 rests on your shoulders now. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From Sxejmaso@a... Wed Dec 20 18:23:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 21 Dec 2000 02:23:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 47162 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2000 02:23:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Dec 2000 02:23:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Dec 2000 02:23:18 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.92.e0384e6 (4461) for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:23:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <92.e0384e6.2772c391@a...> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:23:13 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Okay Jon Grimm, we wait with anticipation for your vote... ;-) To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Well well well all the POWER is mine.... BWAHAHAHA!... Ok I vote FOR as well JAG From jjweston@p... Wed Dec 20 22:56:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 21 Dec 2000 06:56:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 31378 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2000 06:56:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Dec 2000 06:56:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net) (192.48.96.19) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Dec 2000 07:57:41 -0000 Received: from picard by wodc7mr3.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjuml27844 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 06:56:35 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001220225624.016795d0@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:56:24 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 308 passes! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston With 5 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 308 passes! Rich Holmes gets 17 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. The valid list of label words is now set to: Rock, Scissors, and Paper. The last paragraph of rule 308 repeals itself. The rule does not specify what state the current players are in. My assumption is that all current players and reyalps are Unlabelled. Play now continues with Joel Ricker. Joel Ricker is an Unlabelled player. As the judge, Rich Holmes has the responsibility of placing a label on Joel Ricker's forehead and informing the rest of us of the label via private email. The web site has been updated to accomodate this rule change. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From joejava@d... Thu Dec 21 16:52:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 00:52:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 16468 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 00:52:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 00:52:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.14) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 01:53:28 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-160-57.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.160.57]) by mail2.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id TAA12637 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:52:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001d01c06bb1$24a5c140$39a0d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Proposal 309 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:50:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" Add a rule based on the followed --BEGIN-- & --END-- delimited text: --BEGIN-- [[ Money, get away. Get a good job with good pay and you're okay. Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team. ]] The currency of N_omic is the Grok. When a player joins N_omic, that player receives 50 Groks. Groks can be transferred between players by way of the giving player stating the transfer and listing the person receiving the Groks. If this proposal passes, each player is awarded 50 Groks and this sentence is deleted. --END-- [[ I had some better ideas but I still need to flesh them out. This will get things going. ]] From rsholmes@m... Thu Dec 21 18:58:41 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 02:58:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 93622 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 02:58:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 02:58:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 02:58:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00846537@m...>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:58:24 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA17487; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:58:23 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 308 passes! References: <3.0.6.32.20001220225624.016795d0@m...> Date: 21 Dec 2000 21:58:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: Jeff Weston's message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:56:24 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 26 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Jeff Weston writes: > As the judge, Rich Holmes has the responsibility of placing a label on Joel > Ricker's forehead and informing the rest of us of the label via private email. I have done so. For the convenience of future Judges, here's the email addresses of all present players, in order: "Feyd " ,Sxejmaso@a...,rsholmes@m...,"Joel Ricker" ,Jeff Weston Now that the proposal has passed I can point out a flaw therein: it doesn't fully deal with how to treat Reyalps. Probably they should be treated exactly the same way as Players as far as their own label is concerned -- they keep their label when/if they come back, unless their label word gets stricken from the list in which case they become unlabelled, etc. And should Reyalps get notified when a player gets labelled? Probably better to send them updates when they come back. I did not send notification of Joel's label to our two Reyalps. And yes, it should have specified that new players are Unlabelled, as were all of us until now... -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Fri Dec 22 08:52:30 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 16:52:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 89232 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 16:52:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 16:52:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 16:52:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBMHldS27840 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:47:46 -0800 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:47:39 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Heading out of town for a few weeks... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Greetings everyone! Today I leave on vacation for a couple of weeks. I will still have spotty internet access and will continue to play the game. I will also attempt to keep the web-site updated, but that may occur more slowly than it has been in the last week or so. For email that must be directly sent to me, please use this address: jjweston@k... I will not have access to my other email addresses during the next couple of weeks. From jjweston@k... Fri Dec 22 09:08:47 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 17:08:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 35953 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 17:08:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 17:08:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 17:08:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBMI39Y27867 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:03:15 -0800 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:03:09 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR proposal 309 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Don't see any reason to vote against it... From rsholmes@m... Fri Dec 22 11:19:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 19:19:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 95706 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 19:19:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 19:19:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 20:20:36 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00848E3F@m...>; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:19:31 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA25401; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:19:30 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 309 References: <001d01c06bb1$24a5c140$39a0d6d1@c...> Date: 22 Dec 2000 14:19:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Joel Ricker"'s message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:50:10 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Joel Ricker" writes: > Add a rule based on the followed --BEGIN-- & --END-- delimited text: > > --BEGIN-- > > The currency of N_omic is the Grok. When a player joins N_omic, that player > receives 50 Groks. Groks can be transferred between players by way of the > giving player stating the transfer and listing the person receiving the > Groks. > > If this proposal passes, each player is awarded 50 Groks and this sentence > is deleted. > > --END-- Hmm, I'd kind of prefer that the recipient have some say in whether the transaction takes place, given that there almost undoubtedly will turn out to be some downsides to having lots of Groks, but that can be fixed later if necessary... -- Doctroid From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 22 14:16:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 22:16:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 53466 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 22:16:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 22:16:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 22:16:19 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.f8.5eed230 (4597) for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:16:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:16:14 EST Subject: Vote FOR... [n_omic] Proposal 309 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... I have no problems with this at all. From Sxejmaso@a... Fri Dec 22 14:18:33 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 22:18:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 58356 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 22:18:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 22:18:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 22:18:33 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.22.f9b53b6 (4597) for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:18:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <22.f9b53b6.27752d36@a...> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:18:30 EST Subject: Winter Holidays To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... I will be around for Friday and Saturday and part of Sunday but I will be somewhat distracted. Sunday and Monday I will have limited access but will still be around. JAG ---maybe I can get to work on the eud.sphosting.com pages From Nomic1@a... Fri Dec 22 14:32:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 22:32:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 92560 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 22:32:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 22:32:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 23:33:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.129] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Dec 2000 22:32:49 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:32:46 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR... [n_omic] Proposal 309 Message-ID: <920kqe+5a6a@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 60 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 204.116.99.173 From: "Feyd " I see no explicit reason to vote against this... sure Feyd From joejava@d... Fri Dec 22 15:39:56 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 22 Dec 2000 23:39:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 8751 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2000 23:39:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2000 23:39:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.14) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2000 23:39:55 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-160-34.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.160.34]) by mail2.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id SAA10907 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:39:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001401c06c70$2f1de840$22a0d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Re: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 309 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:37:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" Doctroid said: >Hmm, I'd kind of prefer that the recipient have some say in whether >the transaction takes place, given that there almost undoubtedly will >turn out to be some downsides to having lots of Groks, but that can be >fixed later if necessary... I just mainly wanted to be clear on the fact that you give not take so someone couldn't say I take 30 Groks from Doctroid, for example. -J From rsholmes@m... Sat Dec 23 12:02:25 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 23 Dec 2000 20:02:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 88880 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2000 20:02:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Dec 2000 20:02:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Dec 2000 20:02:24 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0084B4A4@m...>; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:02:24 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22522; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:02:23 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 309 References: <001401c06c70$2f1de840$22a0d6d1@c...> Date: 23 Dec 2000 15:02:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Joel Ricker"'s message of "Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:37:42 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Joel Ricker" writes: > I just mainly wanted to be clear on the fact that you give not take so > someone couldn't say > > I take 30 Groks from Doctroid, for example. Of course, understood -- I wouldn't have voted in favor if that sort of transaction were permitted! "I give 30 Groks to Doctroid" with no requirement that I accept isn't problematic yet, but could be someday... -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Sat Dec 23 23:47:08 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 24 Dec 2000 07:47:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 51113 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2000 07:47:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2000 07:47:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2000 07:47:07 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBO8g8P28834 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:42:09 -0800 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:42:08 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 309 passes! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 5 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 309 passes! Joel receives 19 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Per rule 309, everyone is awarded 50 groks. The last paragraph of rule 309 deletes itself. Play now continues with Jeff Weston. Jeff Weston is an unlabelled player. As the judge, Joel Ricker must place a label on Jeff Weston's forehead and inform everyone else of the label. The web site has been updated with the latest rule change. I will make my proposal shortly. On another note, Rich Holmes, could you please mail me Joel Ricker's label to this email address? I forget his label and don't have access to the email you sent earlier. From jjweston@k... Sat Dec 23 23:48:14 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 24 Dec 2000 07:48:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 77580 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2000 07:48:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2000 07:48:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2000 08:49:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBO8hFP28842 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:43:15 -0800 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:43:15 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 310 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Rule 112 is hereby transmuted to a mutable rule. From jjweston@k... Sat Dec 23 23:50:19 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 24 Dec 2000 07:50:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 80523 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2000 07:50:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2000 07:50:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2000 07:50:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBO8jK228850 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:45:20 -0800 Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:45:20 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 309 - correction Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Joel only receives 18 points for proposal 309, not 19 as I had previously stated. From rsholmes@m... Tue Dec 26 11:46:44 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 26 Dec 2000 19:46:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 27336 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2000 19:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Dec 2000 19:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Dec 2000 19:46:39 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008517E1@m...>; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:46:38 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA23038; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:46:38 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR: [n_omic] Proposal 310 References: Date: 26 Dec 2000 14:46:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:43:15 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 6 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Rule 112 is hereby transmuted to a mutable rule. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Tue Dec 26 12:05:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 26 Dec 2000 20:05:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 97820 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2000 20:05:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Dec 2000 20:05:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Dec 2000 20:05:28 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBQKxgS01711 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:59:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:59:42 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: 12 hours left to vote for proposal 310 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" In accordance with rule 303, there are about 12 hours left to vote on proposal 310 before you become a Reyalp... From joejava@d... Tue Dec 26 15:25:05 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: joejava@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 26 Dec 2000 23:25:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 3900 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2000 23:25:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Dec 2000 23:25:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail0.bna.bellsouth.net) (205.152.150.12) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Dec 2000 00:26:09 -0000 Received: from ceo (host-209-214-160-188.rdu.bellsouth.net [209.214.160.188]) by mail0.bna.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with ESMTP id SAA14143 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:25:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001a01c06f92$c25a9ac0$bca0d6d1@c...> To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 310 Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:22:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Joel Ricker" > Rule 112 is hereby transmuted to a mutable rule. Joel From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Dec 26 16:14:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 27 Dec 2000 00:14:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 69673 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2000 00:14:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Dec 2000 00:14:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Dec 2000 01:15:19 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.26.f140156 (3997) for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:14:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <26.f140156.277a8e50@a...> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:14:08 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 310 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... Yes I consent as well JAG From Nomic1@a... Thu Dec 28 15:03:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 28 Dec 2000 23:03:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 76937 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2000 23:03:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Dec 2000 23:03:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2000 23:03:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Dec 2000 23:03:56 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:03:55 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR 310 Message-ID: <92ggsr+b3o0@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 136 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.249 From: "Feyd " although I think I missed the deadline and and a reyalp. If so I state my intention to become a player again. Feyd MERRY CHRISTMAS! From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Dec 28 18:57:11 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 29 Dec 2000 02:57:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 67899 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2000 02:57:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Dec 2000 02:57:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2000 02:57:10 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.9f.f286d75 (7094) for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:57:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9f.f286d75.277d577f@a...> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:57:03 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR 310 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... I voted for 310 but am not sure it ever got through the egroups thingy... I dont remember it being sent back to me.... JAG From jjweston@k... Fri Dec 29 17:15:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 30 Dec 2000 01:15:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 78388 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2000 01:15:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Dec 2000 01:15:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Dec 2000 01:15:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBU298803654 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:09:08 -0800 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:09:08 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 310 passes! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Sorry for the delay on this message... Been busy over here. With 4 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 310 passes. (Feyd's vote wasn't included since he was a reyalp at the time.) Jeff receives 19 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Feyd missed the deadline for voting and became a reyalp, losing 10 points in the process. He has since stated his intention to rejoin the game. This completes the second complete circuit of turns. Since rule 203 has not been amended, it is automatically changed to require only a simple majority to pass proposals, per rule 203. The word "unanimous" is stricken from the rule and replaced with the phrase, "a simple majority". The game now continues with the third circuit of turns, starting with Feyd. Feyd is an unlabelled player. As the judge, Jeff Weston must place a label on Feyd's forehead and inform everyone else of the label. The web site has been updated with the latest rule changes. I have created a new page called the Rule Graveyard where I will store the original versions of rules we amend, repeal, or otherwise mutilate. From Nomic1@a... Sat Dec 30 20:12:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 31 Dec 2000 04:12:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 58657 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2000 04:12:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Dec 2000 04:12:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2000 05:13:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.110] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Dec 2000 04:12:49 -0000 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:12:41 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 211: More money Message-ID: <92mbnp+tbnn@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 421 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.248 From: "Feyd " Ammend rule 207 as follows: Article 1: For any vote, a player may spent 100 groks for ONE additional vote. This vote must be placed at the same time that the player's normal vote is cast. The last person to vote on an issue must spent 150 groks for the extra vote instead of 100. A player may gain no more than one additional vote in this manner. All such votes are counted toward point total calculations. Feyd From Sxejmaso@a... Sun Dec 31 14:59:24 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 31 Dec 2000 22:59:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 54638 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2000 22:59:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Dec 2000 22:59:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2000 22:59:21 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.da.60c2d5 (16934) for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:59:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:59:13 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 211: More money To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 110 From: Sxejmaso@a... OK I can do this. I was going to bribe folks to support me but this makes it easier. JAG From jjweston@k... Sun Dec 31 20:53:25 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 1 Jan 2001 04:53:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 85625 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 04:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Jan 2001 04:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 05:54:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f015kN408795 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 21:46:24 -0800 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 21:46:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 211: More money In-Reply-To: <92mbnp+tbnn@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" A few suggestions... This should actually be proposal 311, but I think that's what you meant. You don't specify *how* to amend rule 207. Does your text replace the existing text? Are you adding new paragraphs to the rule? It looks like you are replacing the rule. The big problem here is that you don't mention the one vote that players have in the first place. Under rule 111, I propose the following amendments to your proposal: - Insert this sentence at the front of the first paragraph, "Each player has one vote." - The word "spent" in the first paragraph should be "spend". On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Feyd wrote: > Ammend rule 207 as follows: > > Article 1: > For any vote, a player may spent 100 groks for ONE additional vote. > This vote must be placed at the same time that the player's normal > vote is cast. The last person to vote on an issue must spent 150 > groks for the extra vote instead of 100. > > A player may gain no more than one additional vote in this manner. > > All such votes are counted toward point total calculations. From engels@w... Tue Jan 02 08:05:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 2 Jan 2001 16:05:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 25795 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2001 16:05:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2001 16:05:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2001 16:05:02 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f02G4xS05925 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:04:59 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f02G4xX01274 for n_omic@egroups.com; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:04:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101021604.f02G4xX01274@w...> Subject: New player To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:04:59 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I want to become a player. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From Nomic1@a... Tue Jan 02 09:19:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 2 Jan 2001 17:19:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 61200 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2001 17:19:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Jan 2001 17:19:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2001 17:19:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Jan 2001 17:19:06 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:19:05 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 311: More money (ammended as suggested by Jeffrey) Message-ID: <92t2i9+j9v0@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1030 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " Thanks for the suggestions.. the amended proposal is below. We should think about making firmer rules for how proposals are "in discussion" versus when they are in "voting". --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > A few suggestions... This should actually be proposal 311, >but I think that's what you meant. Right.. I would never try to scam! honest! ========= Text of proposal 311 ============= Amend rule 207 to read as follows: Article I: Each player has one vote per proposal. This is also known as the player's "normal" or "standard" vote. Article II: For each proposal, a player may spent 100 groks for ONE additional vote. This vote must be placed at the same time that the player's normal vote is cast. The last person to vote on an issue must spent 150 groks for the extra vote instead of 100 groks. A player may gain no more than one additional vote in this manner. All such votes are counted toward point total calculations. =============== END amendment ========= Feyd From engels@w... Tue Jan 02 12:08:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 2 Jan 2001 20:08:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 81571 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2001 20:06:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Jan 2001 20:06:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2001 20:06:17 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f02K6BS18107 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:06:12 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f02K6BC02467 for n_omic@egroups.com; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:06:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101022006.f02K6BC02467@w...> Subject: Player To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:06:11 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I would like to become a player (seems my original message did not get through). -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 02 17:15:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 01:15:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 6927 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 01:15:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 01:15:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 02:16:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0327nG10027 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:07:55 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:07:49 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Player In-Reply-To: <200101022006.f02K6BC02467@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Welcome to N_omic Andre. I will add you to the player list. You receive 50 groks for joining the game, per rule 309. Per rule 308 I must add a new label to the list of valid labels. I add "pistol". I must also privately email Andre the labels of all labelled players. As the current player, Feyd must privately email Andre what my label is. On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > I would like to become a player (seems my original message did not get > through). From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Tue Jan 02 18:42:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 02:42:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 99354 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 02:42:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 02:42:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 02:42:56 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA30021 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:42:55 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38383717@d...> Date: 02 Jan 2001 21:42:55 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: I'm back... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... and swamped with proposals and votes.... If anyone would be kind enough to summarize some of the activity from the past couple of weeks, I'd reeeeally appreciate it... otherwise I guess I'll start digging through archives... From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 02 22:34:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 06:34:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 83910 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 06:34:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 06:34:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 06:34:07 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f037QUF10209 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:26:30 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:26:30 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I'm back... In-Reply-To: <38383717@d...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Welcome back! I've updated your status on the player roster. I have a web site with a list of all proposals if you want to look at that instead of the archives. It's located here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/proposals.html On 2 Jan 2001 frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > and swamped with proposals and votes.... > > If anyone would be kind enough to summarize some of the activity from the past > couple of weeks, I'd reeeeally appreciate it... > > otherwise I guess I'll start digging through archives... From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 02 22:36:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 06:36:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 87892 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 06:36:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 06:36:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 06:36:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f037SWx10221 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:28:32 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:28:32 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 311 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Tue Jan 02 23:21:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 07:21:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 48334 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 07:21:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 07:21:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 07:21:20 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA09535 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 02:21:19 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38387651@d...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 02:21:19 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: ok... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I vote FOR proposal 311 and I request that someone sends me a list of everyone's labels except for my own. and also that someone (rich, maybe?) explain to me what the hell is the big deal with the labels! =P (also, are we in "majority mode" yet? or are we still in unimous mode?) From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 03 08:10:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 16:10:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 96191 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 16:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 16:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 16:10:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2001 16:10:24 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:07:40 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR 311 Message-ID: <92vioc+cb2g@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: "Feyd " From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 03 12:03:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 20:03:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 96592 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 20:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 20:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 20:03:52 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0086881B@m...>; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:03:52 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25239; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:03:51 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Re: Proposal 311: More money (ammended as suggested by Jeffrey) References: <92t2i9+j9v0@e...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 15:03:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:19:05 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Feyd " writes: > ========= Text of proposal 311 ============= > Amend rule 207 to read as follows: > > Article I: > Each player has one vote per proposal. This is also known as the > player's "normal" or "standard" vote. > > Article II: > For each proposal, a player may spent 100 groks for ONE additional > vote. This vote must be placed at the same time that the player's > normal vote is cast. The last person to vote on an issue must spent > 150 groks for the extra vote instead of 100 groks. > > A player may gain no more than one additional vote in this manner. > All such votes are counted toward point total calculations. > =============== END amendment ========= -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 03 12:06:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 20:06:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 8069 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 20:06:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 20:06:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 21:07:49 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00868864@m...>; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:06:44 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA25558; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:06:43 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] ok... References: <38387651@d...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 15:06:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "03 Jan 2001 02:21:19 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > and I request that someone sends me a list of everyone's labels except for my > own. The current Judge is supposed to do that, and the current Player is supposed to tell you the Judge's label. Not that others can't confirm what they tell you, but those are the ones who are *required* to tell you. > and also that someone (rich, maybe?) explain to me what the hell is the > big deal with the labels! =P The labels are a setup waiting for a punch line. Frankly, I have no idea what -- if any -- use will be made of the labels! Just seemed like something that could evolve into an interesting theme. > (also, are we in "majority mode" yet? or are we still in unimous mode?) As of Feyd's proposal, we're in majority mode. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 03 13:31:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 21:31:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 89455 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 21:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 21:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 21:31:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2001 21:31:14 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:30:31 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Hey Doctroid, do you not like the prop or just scamming point? Message-ID: <9305ln+o1lf@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " x From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 03 13:31:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 21:31:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 91871 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 21:31:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 21:31:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 22:33:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jan 2001 21:31:55 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:31:49 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Player Message-ID: <9305o5+v3u3@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 230 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: "Feyd " I must also privately email Andre the labels of all labelled > players. As the current player, Feyd must privately email Andre what my > label is. Done. I just sent him my current list, it had better match yours . Feyd From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Jan 03 13:39:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 21:39:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 22057 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 21:39:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 21:39:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 22:40:48 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21784 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:39:41 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38412714@d...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 16:39:41 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Player To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... alright.... someone needs to email me labels.... From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 03 14:44:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 22:44:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 35046 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 22:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 22:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 22:44:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0086957A@m...>; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:44:03 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12656; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:44:03 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Player References: <38412714@d...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 17:44:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "03 Jan 2001 16:39:41 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > alright.... someone needs to email me labels.... And already the defects in my own rule, which I so kindly pointed out after it passed ;-) , rear their ugly head... The rules don't mandate that Reyalps get informed about who has what label. But I recommend treating a re-entering Reyalp the same as a newcomer in that regard, e.g. the Judge sends em all the labels except the Judge's (and the ex-Reyalp's!! Not that Frederick has one yet.), and the player whose turn it is (is there an easier term than "player whose turn it is"?) sends em the Judge's label. -- Doctroid From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Jan 03 14:45:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 22:45:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 75852 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 22:45:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 22:45:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 22:45:26 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24813 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:45:24 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38415740@d...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 17:45:24 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Player To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: (is there an easier term than "player whose turn it is"?) --- end of quote --- "current player"? From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 03 14:46:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 3 Jan 2001 22:46:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 40849 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2001 22:46:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jan 2001 22:46:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2001 22:46:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0086959B@m...>; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:46:01 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12982; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:46:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Hey Doctroid, do you not like the prop or just scamming point? References: <9305ln+o1lf@e...> Date: 03 Jan 2001 17:46:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Feyd "'s message of "Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:30:31 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Feyd " writes: > x Not that I feel the need to justify myself... but I dislike the proposal. Not for any particular defects, it just doesn't appeal to me. I'll be happy to take the points, of course, but the points aren't the point... -- Doctroid From jjweston@p... Wed Jan 03 23:59:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 4 Jan 2001 07:59:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 79520 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2001 07:59:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2001 07:59:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net) (198.5.241.87) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2001 07:59:16 -0000 Received: from picard by mr2.ash.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: [63.84.211.245]) id QQjwmg21613 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:43:06 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010103234252.016b4e88@m...> X-Sender: mail198193@m... X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:42:52 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Player In-Reply-To: References: <38412714@d...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Jeff Weston Okay... As the current judge, I feel I have taken all the actions required of my by the rules regarding Eric. I have not created a new label for having him rejoin the game. I have sent him a list of the labels of all the players, but only because he requested it, not because I felt it was required by the rules. If anyone feels I have not followed the rules in this regard, now is a good time to invoke judgement. At 05:44 PM 1/3/2001 -0500, Doctroid wrote: >frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > >> alright.... someone needs to email me labels.... > >And already the defects in my own rule, which I so kindly pointed out >after it passed ;-) , rear their ugly head... > >The rules don't mandate that Reyalps get informed about who has what >label. But I recommend treating a re-entering Reyalp the same as a >newcomer in that regard, e.g. the Judge sends em all the labels except >the Judge's (and the ex-Reyalp's!! Not that Frederick has one yet.), >and the player whose turn it is (is there an easier term than "player >whose turn it is"?) sends em the Judge's label. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@p... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/personal-key.asc - - - From engels@w... Thu Jan 04 06:59:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 4 Jan 2001 14:59:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 10550 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2001 14:59:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2001 14:59:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2001 14:59:09 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f04Ex8A26838 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:59:08 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f04Ex7N00798 for n_omic@egroups.com; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:59:07 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101041459.f04Ex7N00798@w...> Subject: 311 vote AGAINST To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:59:07 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I vote AGAINST Proposal 311. One man, one vote, me says. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Thu Jan 04 13:32:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 4 Jan 2001 21:32:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 65671 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2001 21:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2001 21:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2001 22:32:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f04MMxe11516 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:23:25 -0800 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: 20 hours left to vote on proposal 311 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Jon Grimm and Joel Ricker, Still waiting for your vote on proposal 311. You have about 20 hours left to cast your vote before you become Reyalps. Now both of you can't scam 10 points out of the deal... If both of you vote "against" it fails... ;-) For determining time left to vote on proposals, I'm using the eGroups time stamp in the archives. You will become a reyalp if your vote is received after the 72 hour mark... From Sxejmaso@a... Thu Jan 04 16:38:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 00:38:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 29778 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 00:38:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 00:38:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 00:38:28 -0000 Received: from Sxejmaso@a... by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id a.34.f180b8d (9623) for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:38:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34.f180b8d.2786717e@a...> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:38:22 EST Subject: Re: [n_omic] 20 hours left to vote on proposal 311 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 114 From: Sxejmaso@a... Nah I vote for it. JAG From rsholmes@m... Thu Jan 04 16:50:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 00:50:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 33923 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0086EDDF@m...>; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:50:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03526; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:50:02 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Outage Date: 04 Jan 2001 19:50:02 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... To: DocNomic@egroups.com Subject: Outage Gcc: nnml+private:mail.archive-mail --text follows this line-- Our computer system will be down for upgrading from 10:30 pm GMT on Friday, January 5, 2001, through 1:00 pm GMT Monday, January 8, 2001 I *probably* won't be forced into Reyalp status by that, but keep it in mind, please... -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Thu Jan 04 19:13:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 03:13:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 13583 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 03:13:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 03:13:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 03:13:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jan 2001 03:13:12 -0000 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:13:11 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Once more, really sorry Kevan Message-ID: <933e47+6mh8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 212 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.248 From: "Feyd " Kevan, I just keep losing the email with the password you send me -- I'm on a bastard email system that eats read mail. Can you give it to me one more time and I'll write it down I promise. Feyd the Flighty From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 05 00:39:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 08:39:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 69755 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 08:38:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 08:38:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 08:38:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f059UhY11904 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:30:44 -0800 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:30:43 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Once more, really sorry Kevan In-Reply-To: <933e47+6mh8@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Uh... Isn't this a DocNomic issue? I don't think Kevan is subscribed to this mailing list anymore. On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Feyd wrote: > Kevan, > > I just keep losing the email with the password you send me -- I'm on > a bastard email system that eats read mail. Can you give it to me > one more time and I'll write it down I promise. > > Feyd the Flighty From Nomic1@a... Fri Jan 05 06:17:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 14:17:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 72111 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 14:17:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 14:17:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 14:17:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jan 2001 14:17:14 -0000 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 14:17:07 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Once more, really sorry Kevan Message-ID: <934l13+btj5@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 337 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: "Feyd " --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Uh... Isn't this a DocNomic issue? I don't think Kevan is > subscribed to this mailing list anymore. Uh... yes it is. And no he isn't. I thought I was sending him private email. Sigh. I guess I'll try again > > Feyd the Flighty ^ apparently very From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 05 10:41:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 18:41:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 66826 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 18:27:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 18:27:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 19:28:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f05JJ5J12373 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:19:06 -0800 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:19:04 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 311 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 4 votes for and 2 votes against, proposal 311 passes. Joel Ricker loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp for not voting within 72 hours after the amended proposal was posted. Feyd receives 13 points for receiving 66.7% favorable votes. Andre Engels and Rich Holmes receive 10 points each for voting against a winning proposal. Play now continues with Andre Engels. Andre Engels is an unlabelled player. As the judge, Feyd must place a label on Andre Engels' forehead and inform everyone else of the label. From engels@w... Fri Jan 05 11:12:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 19:12:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 24947 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 18:55:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 18:55:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 19:56:29 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f05ItMS27089 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:55:23 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f05ItM801661 for n_omic@egroups.com; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:55:22 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101051855.f05ItM801661@w...> Subject: Proposal 312 To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:55:22 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Let a Rule be created with the following text: If a player wins the game, the game does not end. Instead, all players have their number of points reset to zero, and their number of Groks to 50 plus 20 times the number of times they have won the game. From rsholmes@m... Fri Jan 05 12:18:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 20:18:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 21068 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 20:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 20:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 20:04:32 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0087261E@m...>; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:04:31 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14333; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:04:30 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 312 References: <200101051855.f05ItM801661@w...> Date: 05 Jan 2001 15:04:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:55:22 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 10 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > Let a Rule be created with the following text: > > If a player wins the game, the game does not end. Instead, all players have > their number of points reset to zero, and their number of Groks to 50 plus > 20 times the number of times they have won the game. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 05 12:22:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 20:22:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 37837 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 20:09:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 20:09:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 20:09:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f05L05512465 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:00:48 -0800 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:00:05 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Administrative Note Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Up until proposal 310, I've been assuming that players vote for their own proposals, due to unaminity requirements. Since now only a simple majority is required, and there is a potential benefit to voting against your own proposals, I'm no longer assuming that you vote for your own proposals. You must now state what your vote is on your own proposals. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Fri Jan 05 12:24:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 20:24:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 25351 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 20:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 20:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 20:10:24 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25764 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:10:21 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38493913@d...> Date: 05 Jan 2001 15:10:21 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 312 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I vote AGAINST. (i'd like the game to end.. =P) From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 05 12:31:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 20:31:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 60530 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 20:15:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 20:15:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 21:16:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f05L6ea12474 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:06:52 -0800 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:06:40 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 312 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From Nomic1@a... Fri Jan 05 13:32:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 21:32:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 63223 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 21:30:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 21:30:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 22:31:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.132] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jan 2001 21:30:27 -0000 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 21:30:17 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 312 Message-ID: <935ed9+2o8k@e...> In-Reply-To: <200101051855.f05ItM801661@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 325 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Andre Engels wrote: > Let a Rule be created with the following text: > > If a player wins the game, the game does not end. Instead, all players have > their number of points reset to zero, and their number of Groks to 50 plus > 20 times the number of times they have won the game. From Nomic1@a... Fri Jan 05 14:06:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 5 Jan 2001 22:06:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 33891 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2001 22:06:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2001 22:06:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 22:06:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.211] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jan 2001 22:06:23 -0000 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:06:17 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Vote AGAINST Proposal 312 Message-ID: <935ggp+h8cv@e...> In-Reply-To: <935ed9+2o8k@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 275 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Sorry, should have given my reasons... I vote against the proposal because I would prefer to start tabula rosa between games, rather than back up a step and keep going. Also, a restart should be even, without giving weight to previous winners. All IMHO, of course. Feyd From jjweston@k... Sat Jan 06 11:52:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Jan 2001 19:52:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 36943 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2001 19:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2001 19:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jan 2001 19:52:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f06KhV013074 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:43:32 -0800 Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:43:31 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Feyd, what is Andre's label? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Still haven't received notification of Andre's label... From Nomic1@a... Sat Jan 06 13:27:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 6 Jan 2001 21:27:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 71340 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2001 21:27:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2001 21:27:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Jan 2001 21:27:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Jan 2001 21:27:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 21:26:56 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: *Sent. If you didn't receive please ping me. Feyd Message-ID: <9382j0+82ea@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.248 From: Nomic1@a... From jjweston@k... Sat Jan 06 23:58:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 7 Jan 2001 07:58:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 99629 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2001 07:58:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Jan 2001 07:58:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Jan 2001 07:58:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f078oGA13300 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:50:16 -0800 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:50:16 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] *Sent. If you didn't receive please ping me. Feyd In-Reply-To: <9382j0+82ea@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Got it. Although, in the future, please use jjweston@k... to send private email to me. My access to my other email address will be limited for a couple of weeks. From engels@w... Mon Jan 08 00:40:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Jan 2001 08:40:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 25276 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2001 08:40:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2001 08:40:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2001 09:41:28 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f088eLA13909 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:40:21 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f088b4D06289 for n_omic@egroups.com; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:37:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101080837.f088b4D06289@w...> Subject: Vote To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:37:03 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I vote FOR Proposal 312. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 08 07:55:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Jan 2001 15:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 79560 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2001 15:54:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Jan 2001 15:54:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2001 16:55:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f08GjN318015 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:45:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:45:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Jon Grimm: 3 hours left to vote on 312... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Still waiting for Jon Grimm's vote. You have three hours left. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 08 08:14:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 8 Jan 2001 16:14:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 76239 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2001 16:13:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2001 16:13:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2001 16:13:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f08H44818051 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:04:06 -0800 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:04:04 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Kevan is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Kevan has not rejoined the game within the given time frame. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Feyd must remove one label from the list of valid labels. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 08 16:05:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 00:05:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25009 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 00:03:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 00:03:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 00:03:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f090rla18495 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:53:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:53:47 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 312 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 3 votes for and 2 votes against, proposal 312 passes. Jon Grimm did not vote within the 72 hour time frame, so he loses 10 points and becomes a reyalp. Andre Engels gains 13 points for receiving 60% favorable votes. Feyd and Eric receive 10 points each for voting against a winning proposal. Play now continues with Rich Holmes. Rich Holmes is an unlabelled player. As the judge, Andre Engels must place a label on Rich's forehead and inform everyone else of the label. However, Andre probably should wait until Feyd announces which label he has removed from the list of valid labels. The web site has been updated with this rule change. From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 08 19:04:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 03:04:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 78441 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 03:03:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 03:03:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 03:03:30 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0087F0E3@m...>; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:03:30 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13042; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:03:29 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 313 References: Date: 08 Jan 2001 22:03:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:53:47 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Add a rule: Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on an infinite 2-dimensional grid. Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules. The first Player to reach Row Zero (i.e., any square whose y coordinate is zero) without crossing it gains 100 points, and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1, 20)*5) (where n is the number of Players and Reyalps) in any order e chooses. A new Player entering the game is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j) where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the nearest integer. At the moment this rule is enacted, Feyd is on square (0, 20); Andre is on square (5, 20); Jon is on square (10, 20); Rich is on square (15, 20); Joel is on square (20, 20); Eric is on square (25, 20); and Jeff is on square (30, 20) [[order determined by player number]]. This paragraph will then self-repeal. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 09 08:18:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 16:18:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 62791 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 16:14:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 16:14:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 16:14:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f09G3ML18994 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:04:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:03:22 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 313 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Looks like there is a typo in the fourth paragraph: On 8 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > The first Player to reach Row Zero (i.e., any square whose y > coordinate is zero) without crossing it gains 100 points, and must > immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), > (10, 20), ... ((n-1, 20)*5) (where n is the number of Players and > Reyalps) in any order e chooses. The phrase "((n-1, 20)*5)" looks like it should read as: ((n-1)*5, 20) From Nomic1@a... Tue Jan 09 08:40:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 16:40:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 88121 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 16:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 16:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 16:37:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Jan 2001 16:37:56 -0000 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:37:52 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Removing Lable: I hereby remove lable "Scissors" Message-ID: <93fep0+37rq@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 63 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Is the list of current lables currently listed anywhere? Feyd From Nomic1@a... Tue Jan 09 08:43:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 16:43:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 86721 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 16:41:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 16:41:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 16:41:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Jan 2001 16:41:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:41:09 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Can we call the amended proposal "313a" or such so they don't get confused? Message-ID: <93fev5+jfen@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 569 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Looks like there is a typo in the fourth paragraph: > > On 8 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > The first Player to reach Row Zero (i.e., any square whose y > > coordinate is zero) without crossing it gains 100 points, and must > > immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), > > (10, 20), ... ((n-1, 20)*5) (where n is the number of Players and > > Reyalps) in any order e chooses. > > The phrase "((n-1, 20)*5)" looks like it should read as: > > ((n-1)*5, 20) From engels@w... Tue Jan 09 10:06:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 18:06:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 91456 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 18:00:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 18:00:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 18:00:39 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f09I0bh18880 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:00:38 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f09I0b801273 for n_omic@egroups.com; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:00:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101091800.f09I0b801273@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Can we call the amended proposal "313a" or such so they don't get confused? In-Reply-To: <93fev5+jfen@e...> from "Nomic1@a..." at "Jan 9, 2001 4:41: 9 pm" To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:00:37 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels It's okay with me to call the amended proposal 313a. However, please do note that it's not a proposal (yet). If Rich (or I) ends the discussion and decides to adopt the amendment, 313a becomes proposal 313. If not, it will not be voted upon. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 09 10:45:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 18:45:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 15829 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 18:40:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 18:40:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 18:40:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f09JUO919135 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:30:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:30:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Removing Lable: I hereby remove lable "Scissors" In-Reply-To: <93fep0+37rq@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Is the list of current lables currently listed anywhere? I keep the current list of valid labels at this url: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/players.html I will go ahead and remove scissors from the list. From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 09 10:49:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 18:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 40033 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 18:44:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 18:44:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 19:45:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f09JZ6B19143 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:35:12 -0800 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:35:05 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Removing Lable: I hereby remove lable "Scissors" In-Reply-To: <93fep0+37rq@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" I know of no one with this label. Will someone please let me know if my label is "Scissors"? From rsholmes@m... Tue Jan 09 11:56:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 19:56:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 13230 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 19:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 19:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 19:55:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00882964@m...>; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:55:10 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA15826; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:55:09 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 313 References: Date: 09 Jan 2001 14:55:09 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 31 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... [[Sorry, tried to get clever with a macro and it bit me.]] Add a rule: Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on an infinite 2-dimensional grid. Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules. The first Player to reach Row Zero (i.e., any square whose y coordinate is zero) without crossing it gains 100 points, and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of Players and Reyalps) in any order e chooses. A new Player entering the game is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j) where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the nearest integer. At the moment this rule is enacted, Feyd is on square (0, 20); Andre is on square (5, 20); Jon is on square (10, 20); Rich is on square (15, 20); Joel is on square (20, 20); Eric is on square (25, 20); and Jeff is on square (30, 20) [[order determined by player number]]. This paragraph will then self-repeal. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 10 07:08:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 10 Jan 2001 15:08:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 90897 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2001 15:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jan 2001 15:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2001 15:04:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0AFsfT19756 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:55:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:54:41 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 313 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 10 07:16:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 10 Jan 2001 15:16:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 74509 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2001 15:13:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jan 2001 15:13:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2001 15:12:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2001 15:12:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:12:54 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR AMENDED Proposal 313 (as stated below) Message-ID: <93hu5m+u4iv@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1296 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... This looks kinda similar to another nomic I read through, but I'm sure we'll change things soon enough. Feyd --- In n_omic@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: > Add a rule: > > Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on an infinite 2-dimensional > grid. > > Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). > > Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as > specified by the Rules. > > The first Player to reach Row Zero (i.e., any square whose y > coordinate is zero) without crossing it gains 100 points, and must > immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), > (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of Players and > Reyalps) in any order e chooses. > > A new Player entering the game is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j) where > n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of > the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the > nearest integer. > > At the moment this rule is enacted, Feyd is on square (0, 20); Andre > is on square (5, 20); Jon is on square (10, 20); Rich is on square > (15, 20); Joel is on square (20, 20); Eric is on square (25, 20); and > Jeff is on square (30, 20) [[order determined by player number]]. > This paragraph will then self-repeal. > > -- > Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 10 09:47:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 10 Jan 2001 17:47:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 54879 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2001 17:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jan 2001 17:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2001 17:36:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00887902@m...>; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:36:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09231; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:36:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] VOTE FOR AMENDED Proposal 313 (as stated below) References: <93hu5m+u4iv@e...> Date: 10 Jan 2001 12:36:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:12:54 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > This looks kinda similar to another nomic I read through, but I'm > sure we'll change things soon enough. We'd better... given that there's no way to move yet! -- Doctroid From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Jan 10 10:15:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 10 Jan 2001 18:15:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 43927 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2001 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jan 2001 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2001 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08833 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:01:19 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38680574@d...> Date: 10 Jan 2001 13:01:19 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: vote FOR 313 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... what the hell... i'll vote FOR it... From jjweston@k... Thu Jan 11 16:15:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Jan 2001 00:15:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 23135 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2001 00:05:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jan 2001 00:05:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Jan 2001 01:06:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0C0tQr20798 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:55:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: 20 hours left to vote on proposal 313 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Andre and Rich, you have about 20 hours left to cast your vote for proposal 313. From rsholmes@m... Fri Jan 12 07:34:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Jan 2001 15:34:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 30120 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2001 15:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jan 2001 15:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Jan 2001 15:32:20 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00893F56@m...>; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:32:20 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29964; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:32:19 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 313 as amended References: Date: 12 Jan 2001 10:32:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "09 Jan 2001 14:55:09 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 3 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... -- Doctroid From engels@w... Fri Jan 12 12:07:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Jan 2001 20:07:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 76237 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2001 20:07:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jan 2001 20:07:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jan 2001 20:07:25 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0CK7NT01592 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:07:23 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0CK7Mk00433 for n_omic@egroups.com; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:07:23 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101122007.f0CK7Mk00433@w...> Subject: Vote To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:07:22 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels What the heck, I'll vote FOR Proposal 313. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 12 14:46:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Jan 2001 22:46:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 83930 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2001 22:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jan 2001 22:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jan 2001 22:45:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0CNYnk21641 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:34:59 -0800 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:34:49 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 313 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 5 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 313 passes. Rich Holmes gains 22 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Feyd is placed on square (0, 20). Andre is placed on square (5, 20). Jon is placed on square (10, 20). Rich is placed on square (15, 20). Joel is placed on square (20, 20). Eric is placed on square (25, 20). Jeff is placed on square (30, 20). The last paragraph of rule 313 repeals itself. Play now coninues with Eric Strathmeyer. Eric is an unlabelled player. As the judge, Rich Holmes must place a label on Eric's forehead and inform everyone else what it is. The web site has been updated with the latest rule changes. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 15 07:16:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 15:16:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 60152 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 15:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 15:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 15:14:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0FG1tG26973 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:02:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:01:55 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Eric - Its Your Turn Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Eric, you have about 8 and a half hours left to make a proposal before becoming a Reyalp. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Mon Jan 15 12:10:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 20:10:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 86913 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 19:50:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 19:50:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 19:50:48 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA30361 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:50:46 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38869464@d...> Date: 15 Jan 2001 14:50:46 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Proposal 314 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Feyd's name is hereby changed to Feyd Unaway. If this proposal passes, everyone but Feyd will get 50 groks, and this paragraph will remove itself from the ruleset. [[ Evil.... ]] From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 15 12:49:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 20:49:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 24854 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 20:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 20:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 20:31:08 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008A1742@m...>; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:31:08 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04612; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:31:07 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 314 References: <38869464@d...> Date: 15 Jan 2001 15:31:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "15 Jan 2001 14:50:46 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > Feyd's name is hereby changed to Feyd Unaway. > > If this proposal passes, everyone but Feyd will get 50 groks, and this > paragraph will remove itself from the ruleset. > > [[ Evil.... ]] What is this, National Gang Up On Feyd month? ;-) (Anyone not playing DocNomic probably won't understand...) -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 15 12:49:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 20:49:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 13838 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 20:32:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 20:32:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 20:32:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0FLLRv27149 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:21:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:21:27 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 314 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Mon Jan 15 13:11:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 21:11:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 85516 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 20:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 20:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 21:53:18 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17794 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:52:10 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38872668@d...> Date: 15 Jan 2001 15:52:09 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 314 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: What is this, National Gang Up On Feyd month? ;-) --- end of quote --- No... It was simply me rolling out of bed this afternoon, seeing that I only had a few hours left to make up a proposal and simply typing the first thing that came to the my mind... I hope Feyd realizes it's all in good fun.... From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 15 13:21:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 21:21:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 28589 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 21:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 21:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 21:01:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008A198A@m...>; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:01:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA09093; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:01:05 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST: [n_omic] Proposal 314 References: <38869464@d...> Date: 15 Jan 2001 16:01:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "15 Jan 2001 14:50:46 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > Feyd's name is hereby changed to Feyd Unaway. > > If this proposal passes, everyone but Feyd will get 50 groks, and this > paragraph will remove itself from the ruleset. > > [[ Evil.... ]] -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 15 14:19:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 15 Jan 2001 22:19:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 47876 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2001 21:54:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Jan 2001 21:54:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2001 22:55:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Jan 2001 21:54:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:54:30 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 314 Message-ID: <93vrim+a1s8@e...> In-Reply-To: <38872668@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 556 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > I hope Feyd realizes it's all in good fun.... Of course I do. Mommy says that sticks and stones may break my bones, but worms will never hurt me. Unless enacted into a Rule. Even if those words are said by wicked, evil, unrightous shell of a man who can only make his light shine brighter by putting someone elses out! Because I'm a brave little soldier. Besides, I'm not afraid of worms either. Feyd Hmmm. How many groks will you pay me to vote for this proposal? From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 17 07:10:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Jan 2001 15:10:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 22530 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2001 15:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jan 2001 15:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jan 2001 15:06:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0HFsWu28408 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:54:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:54:32 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Waiting for votes on proposal 314... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Feyd, Andre, and Eric... Still waiting for your vote. You have about 29 hours left to cast your vote. From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 17 07:22:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Jan 2001 15:22:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 31063 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2001 15:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jan 2001 15:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jan 2001 15:18:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.116] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jan 2001 15:18:17 -0000 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:18:13 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 314 Message-ID: <944d3l+ok3p@e...> In-Reply-To: <38869464@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 141 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... I could perhaps have stomached "Feyd Away", but this is just too much. And to add insult to injury you cut me out of the cash LOL. Feyd From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Jan 17 07:44:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 17 Jan 2001 15:44:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 55172 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2001 15:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jan 2001 15:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Jan 2001 16:35:41 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07023 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:34:28 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <38955377@d...> Date: 17 Jan 2001 10:34:28 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for votes on proposal 314... To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... sorry... forgot we had to vote for our own. I vote FOR proposal 314 From jjweston@k... Thu Jan 18 07:09:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 18 Jan 2001 15:09:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 77502 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 15:05:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Jan 2001 15:05:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Jan 2001 16:06:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0IFqxI29161 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:03 -0800 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:52:59 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Waiting for Andre's vote... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Andre, you have about 5 hours left to vote on proposal 314... From jjweston@k... Thu Jan 18 14:52:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 18 Jan 2001 22:52:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 77148 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 22:27:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jan 2001 22:27:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jan 2001 22:27:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0INFte29464 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:15:57 -0800 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:15:55 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 314 fails Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 1 vote for and 3 votes against, proposal 314 fails. Eric loses 10 points for it failing. Eric gains 6 points for receiving 25% favorable votes. Andre did not vote within the time limit, so he loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. Play now continues with myself. I will be making a proposal shortly. From jjweston@k... Thu Jan 18 15:49:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 18 Jan 2001 23:49:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 66064 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 23:28:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jan 2001 23:28:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 00:29:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0J0GRN29530 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:16:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:16:27 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 315 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Amend rule 202 to read in full: A player's turn consists of three phases. The first phase is the "Purchase" phase. Players automatically get to propose one rule change per turn, but additional rule change proposals may be purchased during this phase for 50 Groks a piece. The player announces such a purchase by sending a message to the other players indicating how many additional rule change proposals that they wish to purchase. The player must have an adequate supply of Groks in their possesion to make this purchase. Even if the player does not wish to purchase any additional rule change proposals, the player must still announce this to the other players. The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. Players propose as many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. Each proposed rule change is a seperate entity, each with their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the label of the proposal is "Propsal x" where x is the number of the proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is the highest number. The third phase is the "Voting" phase. The proposal from phase two is now voted on. If it is adopted, the proposed rule changes are enacted one at a time starting with the lowest numbered rule change, and ending with the highest numbered rule change. If any single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that proposal, are discarded and not enacted. The player loses five points for each rule change discarded in this fashion. The player is awarded the number of points computed by subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the highest numbered rule change and multiplying that result by the fraction of favorable votes the player's proposal received. From jjweston@k... Thu Jan 18 16:13:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 19 Jan 2001 00:13:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 35895 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 23:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jan 2001 23:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 00:55:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0J0gos29545 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:42:57 -0800 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:42:50 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 315 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Thu Jan 18 16:16:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 19 Jan 2001 00:16:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 57147 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 23:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jan 2001 23:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jan 2001 23:56:48 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01464 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:56:47 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39029299@d...> Date: 18 Jan 2001 18:56:46 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 315 To: n_omic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... i vote for From Nomic1@a... Fri Jan 19 10:47:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 19 Jan 2001 18:47:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 1455 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2001 18:36:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jan 2001 18:36:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 19:37:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.155] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2001 18:36:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:35:49 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR proposal 315 Message-ID: <94a1e5+ehpv@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 311 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Amend rule 202 to read in full: I'm not really sure I like the "multiple Proposal" thing, but since everything is voted on one thumbs up/down, it seems fair. And it will allow faster building of particular rule directions. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Fri Jan 19 11:12:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 19 Jan 2001 19:12:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 92907 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2001 19:00:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jan 2001 19:00:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 19:00:58 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008C1C16@m...>; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:00:58 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08866; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:00:57 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Proposal 315 References: Date: 19 Jan 2001 14:00:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:16:27 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 4 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... OK, *now* I'm scamming points! ;-) -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Fri Jan 19 11:55:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 19 Jan 2001 19:55:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 55861 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2001 19:47:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jan 2001 19:47:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 19:47:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.110] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2001 19:47:27 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:47:21 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Proposal 315 Message-ID: <94a5k9+s517@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 95 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: > OK, *now* I'm scamming points! ;-) ROTFL. From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 19 11:55:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 19 Jan 2001 19:55:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 55482 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2001 19:47:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jan 2001 19:47:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 20:48:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0JKYbW30300 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:35:24 -0800 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:34:37 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 315 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 3 votes for and 1 vote against, proposal 315 passes. Jeff gains 18 points for receiving 75% favorable votes. Rich Holmes scams^H^H^H^H^Hgains 10 points for voting against a successful proposal. This completes the third complete circuit of turns. Play now continues with Feyd, starting off the fourth circuit of turns. The web site has been updated with this rule change. From jjweston@k... Sat Jan 20 15:27:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 20 Jan 2001 23:27:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 6346 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2001 23:27:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Jan 2001 23:27:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jan 2001 23:27:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0L0FDS31019 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:15:13 -0800 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:15:13 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Feyd: It's your turn. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From ross@b... Sun Jan 21 09:20:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 21 Jan 2001 17:20:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 12404 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2001 17:20:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jan 2001 17:20:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2001 17:20:02 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id MAA28267 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:20:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03460 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:20:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:20:00 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: New player? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I would like to become a player. Ross Schulman ross@b... From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 21 12:00:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 21 Jan 2001 20:00:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 5387 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2001 20:00:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jan 2001 20:00:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2001 20:00:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0LKleN03083 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:47:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:47:39 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New player? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > I would like to become a player. > > Ross Schulman > ross@b... Welcome to N_omic Ross! I have added you to the player list I maintain at: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic You receive 50 Groks for joining the game, per rule 309. You are placed on square (35, 20), per rule 313. As the current judge, I will privately email you a list of the labels of all the players. As the current player, Feyd will privately email you what my label is. I also have to add one word to the list of valid label words. I will make that announcement soon. Let me know if you have any questions. From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 21 12:01:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 21 Jan 2001 20:01:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 64016 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2001 20:01:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jan 2001 20:01:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2001 21:02:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0LKn3Z03091 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:49:04 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:49:03 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Added Label: Stapler Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Ross Schulman has joined the game. Per rule 308, I add "Stapler" to the list of valid labels. From htowsner@s... Sun Jan 21 17:19:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 01:19:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 85194 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 01:19:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 01:19:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 02:20:50 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0M1Jid25685 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:19:45 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:19:38 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: New player Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner I would like to join n_omic...the rules don't seem to actually say how one does this, but just announcing my intent to do so seems to be traditional. -- Henry Towsner Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 21 18:07:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 02:07:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 48098 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 02:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 02:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 02:07:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0M2tAk03255 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:55:10 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:55:10 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > I would like to join n_omic...the rules don't seem to > actually say how one does this, but just announcing my intent to do > so seems to be traditional. Welcome to N_omic Henry! You may be looking at an older version of our ruleset. Rule 303 of the current rules explains how to join. As luck would have it, you did the right thing anyways. The up to date web site can be found here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/ I have added you to the player list maintained at the above site. You receive 50 Groks for joining the game, per rule 309. You are placed on square (40, 20), per rule 313. As the current judge, I will privately email you a list of the labels of all the players. As the current player, Feyd will privately email you what my label is. I also have to add one word to the list of valid label words. I will make that announcement soon. Let me know if you have any questions. From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 21 18:08:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 02:08:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 48835 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 02:08:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 02:08:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 02:08:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0M2u6T03263 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:56:06 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:56:06 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Added Label: Rag Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 21 18:13:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 02:13:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 60507 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 02:13:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 02:13:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 02:13:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0M30uu03279 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:00:56 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:00:56 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Feyd: 18 hours left to start your turn... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Feyd, You have about 18 hours left to start your turn before becoming a Reyalp. From Nomic1@a... Sun Jan 21 18:44:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 02:44:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 37261 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 02:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 02:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 02:44:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.113] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 02:44:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:43:53 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal: Rule 316: Movement Message-ID: <94g6p9+8aro@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 689 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.248 From: Nomic1@a... Create a new rule as follows: Movement: A player may move along the y axis for a cost of abs[(10 - y1) * (10 - y2)] grocks. Where: y1 is the starting Y coordinate and y2 is the ending Y coordinate. (y1 - y2) < max (2, total number of players) (y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) 10 - y1 <> 0 10 - y2 <> 0 Cost: The grocks paid are given to the current player at the highest Y coordinate. If more than one player is at the highest Y coordinate, the grocks are evenly split between all such players. =============end rule============= [[was thinking odd things about movement and geometry...has great potential for abuse - I kinda like that ]] Feyd From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 21 19:18:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 03:18:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 22786 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 03:18:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 03:18:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 03:18:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0M45dp03336 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:05:39 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:05:39 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: Rule 316: Movement In-Reply-To: <94g6p9+8aro@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Create a new rule as follows: > > > Movement: > A player may move along the y axis for a cost of abs[(10 - y1) * (10 - > y2)] grocks. Where: > y1 is the starting Y coordinate and y2 is the ending Y coordinate. > (y1 - y2) < max (2, total number of players) > (y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > 10 - y1 <> 0 > 10 - y2 <> 0 > > > Cost: > The grocks paid are given to the current player at the highest Y > coordinate. If more than one player is at the highest Y coordinate, > the grocks are evenly split between all such players. A few questions When can such movement occur? How does a player announce such movement? What do we do about fractional amounts of Groks left over when splitting them amongst multiple players? A couple notes... You don't provide a method to travel UP the Y axis. That may have been your intent, but I'm not sure. Also, you misspelled Grok. On another note, you skipped phase one of your turn. A minor detail, but rule 201 does state that "parts of turns may not be skipped." Under rule 111 I would suggest the following amendments to the proposal: Specify when players may make moves of this sort. Specify how players announce their movements. Specify how fractional amounts of Groks are dealt with when splitting them amongst multiple players. If you intend players to be able to move both directions on the Y axis, make the appropriate adjustments. You may want to specify that a player must have sufficient Groks in their possesion to make the move. We don't want players spending Groks that they don't have... Also, please spell Grok correctly. From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 22 06:45:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 14:45:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 12232 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 14:44:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 14:44:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 14:44:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.1.35] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 14:44:13 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:43:49 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Feyd: Phase 1 of turn Message-ID: <94hgv5+eb3h@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 252 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... Good point. From my re-read of #315 I don't think that the above proposal is valid, since I made it out of order. I'll take phase 1 now and rewrite 316. I will not spend any additional Groks on my turn; I will only make a single proposal. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 22 08:05:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 16:05:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 22401 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 15:56:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 15:56:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 15:56:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008CF2F8@m...>; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:56:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01761; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:56:56 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: Rule 316: Movement References: <94g6p9+8aro@e...> Date: 22 Jan 2001 10:56:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:43:53 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 59 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Movement: > A player may move along the y axis But you're the only Player *on* the y axis! Are you the only one allowed to move? I wouldn't put it past you, but I think it's more likely you meant "may move parallel to the y axis". > for a cost of abs[(10 - y1) * (10 - > y2)] grocks. Where: > y1 is the starting Y coordinate and y2 is the ending Y coordinate. Implying, then that any move off or onto the 10th row is free? Very odd... oh, but you ruled that out... > (y1 - y2) < max (2, total number of players) > (y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > 10 - y1 <> 0 > 10 - y2 <> 0 I'm not sure I understand. Let's see. There now are 6 Players (and 3 Reyalps), and we're all at y1=20. That means 20 - y2 < 6 or y2 > 14 y2 - 20 > -2 or y2 > 18 so the first condition is weaker than the second, and we all can move to any row above row 18 we can afford. No, I don't think that's what you meant. Should that second line be (y1 - y2) > min (-2, -(total number of players)) ? If so, that means 20 - y2 < 6 or y2 > 14 20 - y2 > -6 or y2 < 26 Or in other words, one can move up to 5 squares. Right? >From row 20 to row 15 costs 50 Groks, from 15 to 10 would be free, but that's not allowed. (The third and fourth conditions could be more clearly stated as y1 <> 10, y2 <> 10.) But you could go 15 to 11 for 5 Groks, then 11 to 9 for 1 Grok, 9 to 5 for 5 Groks, and 5 to 0 for 50 Groks. And those Groks go to the other players... and currently we all have 50 Groks... hmmm. Interesting. I do think it's a shame movement in the x direction isn't exploited, but hey, this is Nomic... Oh, and I think you could replace "max (2, number of players)" with "number of players". The only time those two quantities differ is when the number of players is 1 or 0, and in that case I don't think there's a heckuva lot of point in playing... -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 22 08:08:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 16:08:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 59543 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 15:59:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 15:59:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 17:00:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.110] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 15:58:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:57:21 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" Message-ID: <94hl91+jcql@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1499 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... Proposal 316: Movement Amend rule 315 as follows: I. Change the first sentence to read: "A player's turn consists of four phases. " II. Add the following text to the end of the rule: The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may move along the Y axis for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2) * 2 | + 10 groks, where the following is true: i. y1 is the starting Y coordinate and y2 is the ending Y coordinate. ii. (y1 - y2) < max (2, total number of players) iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) iv. 10 - y1 <> 0 v. 10 - y2 <> 0 vi. The player has the groks in eir possession to pay for the move. The groks paid are given to the current player at the greatest Y coordinate. If more than one player is at the highest Y coordinate, the groks are evenly split between all such players (fractions are dropped). The player announces the move by stating the move from (X1,Y1) to (X2,Y2), and the total grok cost. If any of the above conditions are false then the player does not move and loses no groks. If all conditions hold then the gamestate is updated to show the move and the groks subtracted from the player's total and distributed. [[ Note that movement may be made in either direction along the Y axis as long as the movement conditions are met. The function "|x|" denotes the absolute value of X. Example: A player at (10,5) could move to (10,3) for 80 groks. Example: A player at (-1,5) could move to (-1,7) for 40 groks. ]] From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 22 08:16:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 16:16:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 50893 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 16:06:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 16:06:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 16:06:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008CF4A2@m...>; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:06:19 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03204; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:06:17 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New player References: Date: 22 Jan 2001 11:06:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:55:10 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Welcome to N_omic Henry! You may be looking at an older version of > our ruleset. I see you posted the URL for the "other" site to the NBB. It's unfortunate that your site says "This is not the 'official' web site" or whatever. Actually, nothing in the rules mandates any web site so I think yours is as official as anyone's. It might reduce confusion to remove that disclaimer. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 22 08:51:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 16:51:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 85009 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 16:41:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 16:41:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 16:41:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.238] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 16:41:14 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:41:10 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: "Official Page" -- link updated... Message-ID: <94hnr6+96iv@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 367 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > I think yours is as official as anyone's. It might reduce confusion > to remove that disclaimer. I posted the link there. Updated. Do we want to keep everyone's X/Y coordinates in an egroups database here, or just keep everything's on Jeff's website? anyone? Feyd From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 09:06:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 17:05:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 28600 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 16:55:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 16:55:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 16:55:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0MHgHw03774 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:42:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:42:17 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 22 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > > Welcome to N_omic Henry! You may be looking at an older version of > > our ruleset. > > I see you posted the URL for the "other" site to the NBB. It's > unfortunate that your site says "This is not the 'official' web site" > or whatever. Actually, nothing in the rules mandates any web site so > I think yours is as official as anyone's. It might reduce confusion > to remove that disclaimer. Good point... I put that disclaimer up because the rules don't specify an "official" site. The site is up purely for reference, not because the rules mandate it. I'll take it down off of the front page, but I ought to leave it up on the rules page. If I make a mistake when adjusting the rule set, the web site is not the authoritative version. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 09:12:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 17:12:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 61357 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:02:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 17:02:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 17:02:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0MHnYx03788 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:49:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:49:34 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] "Official Page" -- link updated... In-Reply-To: <94hnr6+96iv@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: > > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > I think yours is as official as anyone's. It might reduce confusion > > to remove that disclaimer. > > I posted the link there. Updated. What official page are you talking about? The rules don't specify one... > Do we want to keep everyone's X/Y coordinates in an egroups database > here, or just keep everything's on Jeff's website? That information can be stored anywhere until a proposal specifies otherwise. I will continue updating my site regardless. If a proposal comes up requiring that game data be stored in eGroups, I will oppose it. We'd be in very bad shape if eGroups could no longer support that functionality at some point. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 09:20:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 17:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 18988 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:09:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 17:09:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 17:09:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0MHtUX03798 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:56:17 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:55:30 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" In-Reply-To: <94hl91+jcql@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) I think you need a negative sign in front of "total number of players". From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 22 10:22:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 18:22:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 68957 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 18:09:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 18:09:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 19:10:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008D074C@m...>; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:09:01 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04568; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:09:00 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" References: Date: 22 Jan 2001 13:08:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:55:30 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > > I think you need a negative sign in front of "total number of > players". And, at the risk of repeating myself, I think the left hand side should have been (y1 - y2). -- Doctroid From ross@b... Mon Jan 22 12:06:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 20:06:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 3884 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 19:52:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 19:52:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 19:52:01 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id OAA20619 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:52:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12766 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:52:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:51:59 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On 22 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > > > iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > > > > I think you need a negative sign in front of "total number of > > players". > > And, at the risk of repeating myself, I think the left hand side > should have been (y1 - y2). > > Actually, I think one or the other, but not both... either keep it (y2 - y1) and put in a negative sign in front of total num... or no negative sign and make it (y1 - y2). I think that makes the most mathematical sense (although I'll be damned if I understand what Feyd is trying to do here.) : ) -Ross From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 22 12:08:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 20:08:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 37797 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 19:51:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 19:51:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 19:51:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.116] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 19:51:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:50:43 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" -- amendment to item iii. Message-ID: <94i2uj+bktj@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 927 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... Doc, I see what you are saying now. Please amend Proposal 316 item iii. as follows: iii.(y2 - y1) < max (2, total number of players) [[I think this clearer than iii.(y1 - y2) > min (-2, -total number of players) although the effect is the same. Apparently I was thinking of one method of doing the math and switched methods mid-stream. The intended purpose of item iii is to govern movment away from the y axis in the same way that item ii allows movement towards. ...perhaps I should seek the services of a pschiatreist. ]] Feyd --- In n_omic@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > > I think you need a negative sign in front of "total number of > > players". > And, at the risk of repeating myself, I think the left hand side > should have been (y1 - y2). > Doctroid From ross@b... Mon Jan 22 12:23:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 20:23:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 48856 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 20:07:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 20:07:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 21:08:10 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id PAA07090 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:07:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14505 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:07:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:07:03 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On 22 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > > > iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > > > > I think you need a negative sign in front of "total number of > > players". > > And, at the risk of repeating myself, I think the left hand side > should have been (y1 - y2). > > Okay, I'll try this again... last one didn't go through, I apologize for a possible repeat. Actually, I think one or the other, but not both... either keep it (y2 - y1) and put in a negative sign in front of total num... or no negative sign and make it (y1 - y2). I think that makes the most mathematical sense (although I'll be damned if I understand what Feyd is trying to do here.) : ) -Ross From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Mon Jan 22 12:28:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 20:28:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 34183 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 20:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 20:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 21:13:04 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28962 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:11:58 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39169992@d...> Date: 22 Jan 2001 15:11:57 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" -- amendment to item iii. To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: Please amend Proposal 316 item iii. as follows: --- end of quote --- could we have a restating of the entire proposal so we can vote on it? (pwease?) From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 22 12:32:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 20:32:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 73359 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 20:15:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 20:15:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 20:15:27 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008D1795@m...>; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:14:51 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA09888; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:14:49 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" -- amendment to item iii. References: <94i2uj+bktj@e...> Date: 22 Jan 2001 15:14:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:50:43 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Doc, I see what you are saying now. Please amend Proposal 316 item > iii. as follows: > > iii.(y2 - y1) < max (2, total number of players) With this amendment, I vote FOR. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 12:35:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 20:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 50821 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 20:17:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 20:17:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 20:17:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0MKqhP03905 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:53:17 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:52:43 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" In-Reply-To: <94hl91+jcql@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may move along > the Y axis for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2) * 2 | + 10 groks, > where the following is true: > i. y1 is the starting Y coordinate and y2 is the ending Y > coordinate. > ii. (y1 - y2) < max (2, total number of players) > iii.(y2 - y1) > min (-2, total number of players) > iv. 10 - y1 <> 0 > v. 10 - y2 <> 0 > vi. The player has the groks in eir possession to pay for the move. I just saw another problem... Rich Holmes is correct. With iii written as (y2 - y1) > ... you place no limit on you far someone may move in the positive Y direction. An example: Moving from Y = 20 to Y = 100. y1 = 20 y2 = 100 y1 - y2 = -80 (satisfies condition ii) y2 - y1 = 80 (satisfies condition iii) Is this what you intended? As it is now, condition iii is already covered by condition ii. To limit moving in the positive Y direction, you could remove condition iii and rewrite condition ii as follows: | ( y1 - y2 ) | < num_players On another note, conditions iv and v could be made simpler as follows: iv. y1 <> 10 v. y2 <> 10 From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 22 13:07:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 21:07:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 54686 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 20:46:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 20:46:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 20:46:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.116] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 20:46:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:45:30 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" (with amendment ) Message-ID: <94i65a+oush@e...> In-Reply-To: <94hl91+jcql@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1692 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Since you said "pwease". This is the same text that Doctroid voted on. Feyd --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Nomic1@a... wrote: > Proposal 316: Movement > Amend rule 315 as follows: > > I. Change the first sentence to read: > "A player's turn consists of four phases. " > > II. Add the following text to the end of the rule: > > The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may move along > the Y axis for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2) * 2 | + 10 groks, > where the following is true: > i. y1 is the starting Y coordinate and y2 is the ending Y > coordinate. > ii. (y1 - y2) < max (2, total number of players) > iii.(y2 - y1) < max (2, total number of players) > iv. 10 - y1 <> 0 > v. 10 - y2 <> 0 > vi. The player has the groks in eir possession to pay for the move. > > The groks paid are given to the current player at the greatest Y > coordinate. If more than one player is at the highest Y coordinate, > the groks are evenly split between all such players (fractions are > dropped). > > The player announces the move by stating the move from (X1,Y1) to > (X2,Y2), and the total grok cost. If any of the above conditions are > false then the player does not move and loses no groks. If all > conditions hold then the gamestate is updated to show the move and > the groks subtracted from the player's total and distributed. > > [[ > Note that movement may be made in either direction along the Y axis > as long as the movement conditions are met. > The function "|x|" denotes the absolute value of X. > Example: A player at (10,5) could move to (10,3) for 80 groks. > Example: A player at (-1,5) could move to (-1,7) for 40 groks. > ]] From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 22 13:23:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 21:23:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 95048 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 21:00:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 21:00:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 21:00:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.102] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2001 21:00:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:00:44 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Jeff has better math skills than Feyd Message-ID: <94i71s+ijtb@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 979 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > I just saw another problem... Rich Holmes is correct. With iii > written as (y2 - y1) > ... you place no limit on you far someone may move > in the positive Y direction. An example: > Moving from Y = 20 to Y = 100. > > y1 = 20 > y2 = 100 > > y1 - y2 = -80 (satisfies condition ii) > y2 - y1 = 80 (satisfies condition iii) This has been updated in the amendment. egroups must be lagging post order again. Currently this example would cost 1410 groks. That in itself might be considered a deterent... > suggest ii. | ( y1 - y2 ) | < num_players > iv. y1 <> 10 > v. y2 <> 10 Better mathematical implementation than mine. However, I don't think it's worth an amendment to update, as the results are the same. It's been a while since I got my degree, and I've never used the math part of it . Feyd "Maybe I can't add, but I KNOW WHAT I LIKE!" From ross@b... Mon Jan 22 13:29:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 21:29:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 64055 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 21:06:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 21:06:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 22:07:47 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id QAA20552 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:06:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18459 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:06:39 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:06:38 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR 316 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On 22 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nomic1@a... writes: > > > Doc, I see what you are saying now. Please amend Proposal 316 item > > iii. as follows: > > > > iii.(y2 - y1) < max (2, total number of players) > > With this amendment, I vote FOR. > > With this amendment, I too vote FOR. Ross From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Mon Jan 22 13:36:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 21:36:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 45241 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 21:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 21:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 22:15:23 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14520 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:14:16 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39173626@d...> Date: 22 Jan 2001 16:14:16 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: vote AGAINST proposal 316 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... From ross@b... Mon Jan 22 13:53:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 21:53:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 85161 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 21:30:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 21:30:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 21:30:35 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id QAA25583 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:30:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20060 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:30:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:30:33 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] VOTE FOR 316 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Oh bloody hell, just ignore me. : ) From ross@b... Mon Jan 22 14:01:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 22:01:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 25887 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 21:29:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 21:29:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 22:30:31 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id QAA15908 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:29:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20035 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:29:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:29:24 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: vote YES on proposal 316 In-Reply-To: <94i71s+ijtb@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > I just saw another problem... Rich Holmes is correct. With iii > > written as (y2 - y1) > ... you place no limit on you far someone > may move > > in the positive Y direction. An example: > > Moving from Y = 20 to Y = 100. > > > > y1 = 20 > > y2 = 100 > > > > y1 - y2 = -80 (satisfies condition ii) > > y2 - y1 = 80 (satisfies condition iii) > > This has been updated in the amendment. egroups must be lagging post > order again. Currently this example would cost 1410 groks. That in > itself might be considered a deterent... > > > suggest ii. | ( y1 - y2 ) | < num_players > > iv. y1 <> 10 > > v. y2 <> 10 > Better mathematical implementation than mine. However, I don't think > it's worth an amendment to update, as the results are the same. It's > been a while since I got my degree, and I've never used the math part > of it . > > Feyd "Maybe I can't add, but I KNOW WHAT I LIKE!" Okay, so its not just me... although egroups appears to be just dropping any attempt at messages I send. In anycase, I would like to vote YES on this amendment of the proposal. -Ross From htowsner@s... Mon Jan 22 14:56:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 22:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 79687 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 22:32:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 22:32:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 22:31:55 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0MMVod17847 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:31:50 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <94i65a+oush@e...> References: <94i65a+oush@e...> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:31:47 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote YES on Proposal 316 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner I also vote YES on the amended proposal. -- Henry Towsner Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 15:31:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 23:31:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 58661 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 23:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 23:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 23:06:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0MNrEj04063 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:53:36 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:53:14 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 316 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 15:44:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 22 Jan 2001 23:44:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 23665 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 23:18:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 23:18:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 23:18:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0N04Ua04072 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:05:17 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:04:30 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" (with amendment ) In-Reply-To: <94i65a+oush@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Since you said "pwease". This is the same text that Doctroid voted > on. > Feyd > > --- In n_omic@egroups.com, Nomic1@a... wrote: > > Proposal 316: Movement > > Amend rule 315 as follows: I just realized this will be a very boring rule. No one can currently afford any available moves... Right now, the cheapest move would be the one getting us as close as possible to y=10. With 6 players, the biggest move we can make is five. | ( 10 - 20 ) * ( 10 - 15 ) * 2 | + 10 = 110 Smaller hops would just cost more. The real question is... Since you can't skip parts of your turn, will Rich Holmes win by paradox since he won't be able to make a move? From htowsner@s... Mon Jan 22 16:13:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 00:13:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 12889 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 23:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 23:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 00:48:35 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0MNlTd23300 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:47:29 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:47:24 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" (with amendment ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > Smaller hops would just cost more. The real question is... Since >you can't skip parts of your turn, will Rich Holmes win by paradox since >he won't be able to make a move? I don't think so. It says "a player *may* move" and also "If any of the above conditions are false then the player does not move and loses no groks" which implies that making a meaningless, invalid move will suffice. -- Henry Towsner Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law From ross@b... Mon Jan 22 16:18:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 00:18:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 15452 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 23:52:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jan 2001 23:52:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 00:53:21 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id SAA15526 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:52:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29404 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:52:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:52:14 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" (with amendment ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > Smaller hops would just cost more. The real question is... Since > you can't skip parts of your turn, will Rich Holmes win by paradox since > he won't be able to make a move? > I don't think so... the relevant part of the rule reads > The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may move along ^^^ > the Y axis for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2) * 2 | + 10 groks, So a player doesn't have to move at all, e can simply elect to not move during eis fourth phase. -Ross From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 22 17:07:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 01:07:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 60360 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 00:33:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 00:33:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 01:34:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008D3981@m...>; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:33:21 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06276; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:33:19 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" (with amendment ) References: Date: 22 Jan 2001 19:33:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:04:30 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > I just realized this will be a very boring rule. No one can > currently afford any available moves... Right now, the cheapest move would > be the one getting us as close as possible to y=10. With 6 players, the > biggest move we can make is five. > > | ( 10 - 20 ) * ( 10 - 15 ) * 2 | + 10 = 110 Hmm, Feyd slipped that factor of 2 in without my noticing. I noticed the + 10 but not the * 2. Had I noticed, I'd've voted against... For that matter, even without the * 2, nobody can afford to move right now -- and there's no way to get more Groks unless someone gives 'em to you. But, hey, this is Nomic, right? -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 22 18:40:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 02:40:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 33966 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 02:12:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 02:12:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 02:12:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0N2xxV04160 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:00:01 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:59:59 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd Phase 2: Proposal 316 "Movement" (with amendment ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > > Smaller hops would just cost more. The real question is... Since > > you can't skip parts of your turn, will Rich Holmes win by paradox since > > he won't be able to make a move? > > > > I don't think so... the relevant part of the rule reads > > The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may move along > ^^^ > > the Y axis for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2) * 2 | + 10 groks, > > So a player doesn't have to move at all, e can simply elect to not move > during eis fourth phase. Fair enough... I did see the "may" as well. I was just wondering out loud if the higher precedence rule 201 would prevent you from skipping that phase even with the "may" there. But on second looking, you engage in phase 4 regardless, and may choose to do nothing during that phase. Also, the ability to make nonsense moves and have them ignored also solves the problem. I did *not* see that originally... Ah well. Now if only Feyd would submit a vote, we could move on... From Nomic1@a... Tue Jan 23 06:01:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 14:01:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 21996 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 14:01:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 14:01:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 14:01:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2001 14:01:02 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:00:58 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: I vote FOR 316 (plus comments) Message-ID: <94k2qq+94d6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 252 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... I intentially made the cost greater than the current number of groks. I assume that will change over time and I wanted a way for people to spend large amounts of currency . Of course, an easy alternative is to recruit another 5 players... Feyd From ross@b... Tue Jan 23 06:16:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 14:16:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 20345 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 14:14:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 14:14:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 14:14:55 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id JAA23060 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:14:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23972 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:14:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:14:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I vote FOR 316 (plus comments) In-Reply-To: <94k2qq+94d6@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Well, since Feyd brought it up... I DO know of a mailing list I could send to about this Nomic, if people want more players... I don't know how many it would bring in (if, indeed, any), but I can try. -Ross On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > I intentially made the cost greater than the current number of > groks. I assume that will change over time and I wanted a way for > people to spend large amounts of currency . > > Of course, an easy alternative is to recruit another 5 players... > > Feyd > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 23 09:03:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 17:03:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 99056 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 16:55:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 16:55:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 16:55:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0NHgO804707 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:42:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:42:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I vote FOR 316 (plus comments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Well, since Feyd brought it up... > I DO know of a mailing list I could send to about this Nomic, if people > want more players... I don't know how many it would bring in (if, indeed, > any), but I can try. Well, I for one do not mind bringing in more players. However, with more players comes longer waits between each individual players' turns... From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Tue Jan 23 09:15:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 17:15:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 32400 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 17:04:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 17:04:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 18:05:54 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15940 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:04:48 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39211840@d...> Date: 23 Jan 2001 12:04:47 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: new players To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: Well, I for one do not mind bringing in more players. However, with more players comes longer waits between each individual players' turns... --- end of quote --- Yeah.... and it's nice that there aren't any bad apples in the barrel yet... From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 23 09:35:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 17:35:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 78528 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 17:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 17:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 18:24:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0NIACc04799 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:10:24 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:10:12 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 316 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 4 votes for and 2 votes against, proposal 316 passes. Feyd gains 17 points for receiving 66.7% favorable votes. Eric Strathmeyer and Jeff Weston gain 10 points each for voting against a winning proposal. Play now continues with Rich Holmes. The web site has been updated with the latest rule change. From engels@w... Tue Jan 23 09:48:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 17:48:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 44359 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 17:38:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 17:38:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 17:38:39 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0NHccq05190 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:38:38 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0NHcR601897 for n_omic@egroups.com; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:38:27 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101231738.f0NHcR601897@w...> Subject: Back & Vote To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:38:27 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Sorry for not announcing my vacation, I have been away for a week. I vote AGAINST Proposal 316. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From Nomic1@a... Tue Jan 23 13:05:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 21:05:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 67658 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 20:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 20:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 20:46:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.133] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2001 20:46:55 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:46:46 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: new players Message-ID: <94kqjm+10ds0@e...> In-Reply-To: <39211840@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 128 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... > > Yeah.... and it's nice that there aren't any bad apples in the barrel yet... HEY, I thought *I* was the bad apple! Feyd From Nomic1@a... Tue Jan 23 13:07:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 21:07:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 87079 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 20:47:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 20:47:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 21:48:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.133] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2001 20:47:45 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:47:41 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Feyd: Phase 4 (movement) Message-ID: <94kqld+gbmg@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 79 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Since 316 passes I must now take phase 4. I choose not to make a move. Feyd From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 23 14:32:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 23 Jan 2001 22:32:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 24980 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2001 22:09:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Jan 2001 22:09:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 23:11:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0NMucb04928 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:56:50 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:56:38 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Back & Vote In-Reply-To: <200101231738.f0NHcR601897@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Sorry for not announcing my vacation, I have been away for a week. Welcome back Andre. I have updated your status on the web site. I have not adjusted whose turn it is. If you think you should go now instead of Rich, go ahead and make your case. > I vote AGAINST Proposal 316. Proposal 316 passed before you made your vote, so unfortunately I don't think it counts. From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 24 06:57:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 14:57:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 2220 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 14:54:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 14:54:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 14:54:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.125] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jan 2001 14:53:57 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:53:49 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Interesting delimma: whose turn is it/who is Judge? [NOT A POINT OF ORDER YET] Message-ID: <94mq9t+tnin@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1868 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > > Sorry for not announcing my vacation, I have been away for a week. > Welcome back Andre. I have updated your status on the web site. I have not adjusted whose turn it is. If you think you should go now instead > of Rich, go ahead and make your case. By #303, if Andre was a reyalp when 316 passed then can't vote. If he was a reyalp when Feyd ended phase 4 of his turn (phase 4 was created by 316, then play would roll TO Rich (#201). Let's take these one at a time: 1. Does Andre's vote count? The amended Proposal #316 was made in message 304 on Date: Mon Jan 22, 2001 1:50pm. A player has 72 hours to act on a proposal. Andre was not a player at that time, he was a reyalp (for failing to vote on 315 or 314). All player votes were complete at Date: Tue Jan 23, 2001 8:00am (message 322). Andre did not post (and thus become a player) until message 327 (Date: Tue Jan 23, 2001 11:38am). His vote doesn't count. 2. Whose turn is it? Andre stated his reentry into the game (and thus return to player status) in message 327 (Date: Tue Jan 23, 2001 11:38am). Feyd did not end phase 4 of is turn until message 329 (Date: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:47pm). Thus Andre was a player when Feyd's turn ended. It is Andre's turn. If anyone disagrees with this please raise a point of Order. Note that when you raise the point of order you should also state whom you think the judge should be, based on whose turn you think it is currently. If a point of order is raise then I will either use the above as a basis for judgement if I am judge, or submit it to the judge for consideration. Feyd > > I vote AGAINST Proposal 316. > > Proposal 316 passed before you made your vote, so unfortunately I > don't think it counts. From ross@b... Wed Jan 24 07:25:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 15:25:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 88914 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 15:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 15:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 15:19:11 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id KAA08401 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:19:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23466 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:19:09 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:19:08 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Interesting delimma: whose turn is it/who is Judge? [NOT A POINT OF ORDER YET] In-Reply-To: <94mq9t+tnin@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > 2. Whose turn is it? > Andre stated his reentry into the game (and thus return to player > status) in message 327 (Date: Tue Jan 23, 2001 11:38am). Feyd did > not end phase 4 of is turn until message 329 (Date: Tue Jan 23, 2001 > 2:47pm). Thus Andre was a player when Feyd's turn ended. It is > Andre's turn. > I'm inclined to disagree. As I see it, on your last turn, Feyd, you don't get a fourth phase because the ruleset we were operating under when the last vote was cast was that voting was the final phase of a player's turn. Once all of the votes of the active players were cast (which happened at Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:00:58 -0000 (at least, that's when I received it)), Feyd's turn was over, then the changes were commited to the ruleset, then play passed to Rich and only then did Andre convey his interest in becoming a player again. What the question really is: which happens first, the end of Feyd's turn or the implementation of the new rule? In addition, if it is Rich's turn right now, as I believe it is, Andre would certainly be Judge if someone invoked judgment. I don't see any clauses having to do with a conflict of interest situation in Judging so is this a problem? -Ross From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 24 07:50:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 15:50:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 81286 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 15:41:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 15:41:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 15:41:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jan 2001 15:41:16 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:41:13 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: Interesting delimma: whose turn is it/who is Judge? [NOT A POINT OF ORDER YET] Message-ID: <94mt2p+72vr@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1572 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Ross B. Schulman" wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > 2. Whose turn is it? > I'm inclined to disagree. As I see it, on your last turn, Feyd, you don't > get a fourth phase because the ruleset we were operating under when the > last vote was cast was that voting was the final phase of a player's > turn. Once all of the votes of the active players were cast (which > happened at Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:00:58 -0000 (at least, that's when I > received it)), Feyd's turn was over, then the changes were commited to the > ruleset, then play passed to Rich and only then did Andre convey his > interest in becoming a player again. > What the question really is: which happens first, the end of Feyd's turn > or the implementation of the new rule? Very good point. I do not know the answer to this question. Both are instantenious events happening simultaniously. This is a good candidate for a Point Of Order. Again, since this is addressing whose turn it is, who is the judge? > In addition, if it is Rich's turn right now, as I believe it is, Andre > would certainly be Judge if someone invoked judgment. I don't see any > clauses having to do with a conflict of interest situation in Judging so > is this a problem? The last judgement we has was a Point of Order made by Jeff Weston, also judged by Jeff Weston. Precedent would point to conflict of interest not being sufficient reason for a judge not to perform is duties. However there is procedure in place to reverse a judgement. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 24 08:45:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 16:45:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 1182 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 16:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 16:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 17:35:43 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008E033E@m...>; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:34:38 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23174; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:34:37 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Interesting delimma: whose turn is it/who is Judge? [NOT A POINT OF ORDER YET] References: <94mt2p+72vr@e...> Date: 24 Jan 2001 11:34:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:41:13 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 32 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Seems to me what it boils down to is whether Feyd's turn ended at the end of Phase Three or if there was a legitimate Phase Four to go through first. And that depends on when his rule-change took effect. Rule 107 states: No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application. So the *earliest* the rule-change could have taken effect was at the completion of the vote, which also was the moment Phase Three ended. If the rule-change and the end of vote were simultaneous than there's no way to answer the question of whether Feyd gets a Phase Four or not. If they were not simultaneous, then there's a clear answer. So in order not to have an unresolvable situation, we have to designate one event as occurring (infinitesimally) before the other. And since the rule-change cannot take place any earlier than the completion of the vote, the only option is to designate it as occurring (infinitesimally) later. Si Feyd's turn ended with Phase Three and it became my turn, and *then* Feyd's rule-change took effect. That's my take, anyway. On the other hand, if it'd help any, I'd be more than happy to yield my turn to Andre. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 24 09:25:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 17:25:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 81038 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 17:12:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 17:12:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 18:13:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0OHxA605484 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:59:18 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:59:10 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Interesting delimma: whose turn is it/who is Judge? [NOT A POINT OF ORDER YET] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" My take on the whole situation... I direct you to rule 315, that was in effect immediately before proposoal 316 passed. The third paragraph reads as such: The third phase is the "Voting" phase. The proposal from phase two is now voted on. If it is adopted, the proposed rule changes are enacted one at a time starting with the lowest numbered rule change, and ending with the highest numbered rule change. If any single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that proposal, are discarded and not enacted. The player loses five points for each rule change discarded in this fashion. The player is awarded the number of points computed by subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the highest numbered rule change and multiplying that result by the fraction of favorable votes the player's proposal received. There seem to be several mini-phases in phase three. 1) Everyone votes. 2) If proposal is adopted, the rule changes are enacted one at a time. 3) Points are distributed. The key phrase is in mini-phase two: "one at a time". This seems to imply that events in phase three occur in a certain order and not simultaneously. I would argue that Feyd did indeed have a phase four to his turn, and it is now Andre's turn. As for conflict of interest in judges... I direct you to rule 212 paragraph 4: Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge. Settling issues of judge legitamacy and jurisdiction sure seems like a conflict of interest, yet the rules explicitly state that it is allowed. Another note... Suppose judgement is invoked? We still don't know who the current judge would be... Rule 212 provides clear direction. Our discussion boils down to how does Feyd's turn end. Essentially questioning the exact events of passing proposal 316. The last paragraph of rule 212 states: "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked." Since the argument is about the completion of Feyd's turn, I would argue it still is Feyd's turn and the judge would be myself. I love this game. ;-) From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 24 10:39:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 18:39:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 58194 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 18:24:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 18:24:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 18:24:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.66] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jan 2001 18:24:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:23:54 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: My take on Jeff's Take...(very good analysis, BTW) Message-ID: <94n6jq+qdh9@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 838 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > My take on the whole situation... I direct you to rule 315, > was in effect immediately before proposoal 316 passed. The third >There seem to be several mini-phases in phase three. 1) Everyone > votes. 2) If proposal is adopted, the rule changes are enacted one at a > time. 3) Points are distributed. If this is true then phase 3 ends when "points are distributed". This would be after the rule goes into effect, so there is an implied "4) phase ends" here. Thus there is time between when the rule goes into effect and the end of the turn. > which Judgment was invoked." Since the argument is about the completion of > Feyd's turn, I would argue it still is Feyd's turn and the judge would be myself. > I love this game. ;-) I do too!! Feyd From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 24 11:13:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 19:13:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 58763 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 19:01:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 19:01:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 20:02:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008E1CFF@m...>; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:12 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01034; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:11 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My take on Jeff's Take...(very good analysis, BTW) References: <94n6jq+qdh9@e...> Date: 24 Jan 2001 14:01:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:23:54 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > My take on the whole situation... I direct you to rule 315, > > was in effect immediately before proposoal 316 passed. The third > > >There seem to be several mini-phases in phase three. 1) Everyone > > votes. 2) If proposal is adopted, the rule changes are enacted one > at a > > time. 3) Points are distributed. > > If this is true then phase 3 ends when "points are distributed". > This would be after the rule goes into effect, so there is an > implied "4) phase ends" here. Thus there is time between when the > rule goes into effect and the end of the turn. I'll buy that... -- Doctroid From ross@b... Wed Jan 24 11:15:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 19:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5827 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 19:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 19:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 19:04:05 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id OAA04469 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:04:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06628 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:04:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:04:03 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My take on Jeff's Take...(very good analysis, BTW) In-Reply-To: <94n6jq+qdh9@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > My take on the whole situation... I direct you to rule 315, > > was in effect immediately before proposoal 316 passed. The third > > >There seem to be several mini-phases in phase three. 1) Everyone > > votes. 2) If proposal is adopted, the rule changes are enacted one > at a > > time. 3) Points are distributed. > > If this is true then phase 3 ends when "points are distributed". > This would be after the rule goes into effect, so there is an > implied "4) phase ends" here. Thus there is time between when the > rule goes into effect and the end of the turn. Okay, yes, I see what you're saying and I agre with you now that its put that way. > > which Judgment was invoked." Since the argument is about the > completion of > > Feyd's turn, I would argue it still is Feyd's turn and the judge > would be myself. > I for one can concur at this point that it's now Andre's turn and don't see a need to call for judgment. Since Rich seems okay with that too, should we just continue then? > > I love this game. ;-) > > I do too!! I've never played before this but I'm having a great time so far. : ) -Ross From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 24 11:38:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 19:38:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 38987 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 19:26:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 19:26:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 19:26:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0OKCtj05718 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:13:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:12:55 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Looks like we continue with Andre... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Looks like the general consensus is to continue the game with Andre's turn. I have updated the player list to reflect this. If anyone still disagrees, invoke judgement. From engels@w... Wed Jan 24 12:15:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 20:15:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 1429 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 20:00:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 20:00:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 20:00:34 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0OK0WK20856 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:00:33 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0OK0Wq01809 for n_omic@egroups.com; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:00:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101242000.f0OK0Wq01809@w...> Subject: Proposal 317 To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:00:32 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Purchase phase: I do not buy an extra Proposal. Proposal phase: I make the following Proposal: Let rule 210 be repealed. (comment: has no effect on this game anyway). Andre From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 24 12:35:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 20:35:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 53674 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 20:21:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 20:21:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 20:21:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0OL7Jm05775 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:07:45 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:07:18 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 317 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 24 13:03:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 21:03:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 35563 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 20:50:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 20:50:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 20:50:26 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008E2BEF@m...>; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:50:25 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28136; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:50:24 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR Re: [n_omic] Proposal 317 References: <200101242000.f0OK0Wq01809@w...> Date: 24 Jan 2001 15:50:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:00:32 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 6 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > Let rule 210 be repealed. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Wed Jan 24 13:12:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 21:12:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 41035 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 20:55:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 20:55:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 20:55:33 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0OKtWd29010 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:55:32 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:55:28 -0800 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 317 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner -- Henry Towsner Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law From ross@b... Wed Jan 24 13:32:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 21:32:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 11912 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 21:17:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 21:17:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 21:17:15 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id QAA05150 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:17:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15881 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:17:13 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:17:13 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 317 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Just scamming for points, that's all. From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 24 13:33:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 21:33:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 83949 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 21:12:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 21:12:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 22:13:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.208] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jan 2001 21:12:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:12:27 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 317 Message-ID: <94ngfr+hd3g@e...> In-Reply-To: <200101242000.f0OK0Wq01809@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 67 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... It's not interesting, and does nothing to advance plotlines. Feyd From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Jan 24 13:45:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 21:45:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 23669 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 21:31:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 21:31:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 22:32:36 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19741 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:31:29 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39276524@d...> Date: 24 Jan 2001 16:31:28 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: vote AGAINST 317 To: n_omic@egroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 24 14:07:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 22:07:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 12845 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 21:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 21:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 21:52:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0OMcl105826 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:38:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:38:47 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 317 In-Reply-To: <39276524@d...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Wow... Either a lot of people are scamming points, or people just don't like repealing rules. ;-) Now if only Andre would throw in his vote, we can move on... From Nomic1@a... Wed Jan 24 14:54:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_1_2); 24 Jan 2001 22:54:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 49272 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2001 22:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jan 2001 22:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2001 22:38:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.113] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jan 2001 22:38:40 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:38:23 -0000 To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Don't forget phase 4 of your turn after you Vote andre. Message-ID: <94nlgv+8ahi@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 241 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@egroups.com, "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Wow... Either a lot of people are scamming points, or people just > don't like repealing rules. ;-) > > Now if only Andre would throw in his vote, we can move on... From engels@w... Thu Jan 25 06:08:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2); 25 Jan 2001 14:08:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 68968 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2001 14:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Jan 2001 14:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Jan 2001 15:07:24 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0PE6Hf02710 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:06:17 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0PE6Gb00612 for n_omic@egroups.com; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:06:16 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101251406.f0PE6Gb00612@w...> Subject: Vote To: n_omic@egroups.com Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:06:15 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I vote FOR Proposal 317. Proposal 317 passes, with 4 votes FOR and 3 votes AGAINST. Points: I gain 15 points for having a 4/7 vote in favor of my proposal. Feyd, Ross Schulman and Eric Strathmeyer gain 10 points for voting AGAINST a passing propposal. I end my turn. It is now Rich Holmes's turn, and I am the Judge. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Thu Jan 25 07:35:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2); 25 Jan 2001 15:35:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 57107 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2001 15:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Jan 2001 15:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Jan 2001 15:28:54 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008E8449@m...>; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:28:54 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26803; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:28:53 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 318 Date: 25 Jan 2001 10:28:53 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 66 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Phase 1: I was going to buy a second rule-change, but changed my mind when I refreshed my memory as to how much a second rule-change costs. 50 Groks! Given that not only is that all any of us have, but none of us have a source of income, I don't think that rule is going to see much use for a while... So I'll just submit the first rule-change, and if the second one still makes any sense when it's my turn again, I'll submit it then (or I'll sell it in the meantime to another player to post for only 20 Groks...) On its own, this rule-change will have little if any practical effect, but it sets up the infrastructure for a more interesting subgame. Phase 2: Rule-change 318: Amend Rule 313 to read as follows [[NB lines with vertical bars have been changed]]: | Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on a 2-dimensional grid. | | Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range | over all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates | range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players | and Reyalps. | | "Row i" refers to squares with y coordinate equal to i. "File i" | refers to squares with x coordinate equal to i. | | Some Rows have Labels. When a new Label word is chosen, the person | who chooses it must also select a Unlabelled Row between Row 1 and Row | k+10 to Label with that word, where k is the new number of valid | Label words, and announce that choice to all Players. No Label may be | applied to Row 10. | | When a Label word is removed from the list of valid Label words, the | Row with that Label becomes Unlabelled. | | No Row may ever have more than one Label. | | When this rule is enacted, Row 8 receives the Label "Rock"; Row 9 | receives the Label "Paper"; Row 11 receives the Label "Pistol"; Row 12 | receives the Label "Stapler"; and Row 13 receives the Label "Rag". | This paragraph will then repeal itself. Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules. | Each Player who reaches Row 0 without crossing it gains 100 points, and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of | Players and Reyalps), one Player or Reyalp per square, in any order e chooses. A new Player entering the game is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j) where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the nearest integer. -- Doctroid From ross@b... Fri Jan 26 04:25:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 12:25:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 72091 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 12:25:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 12:25:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 12:25:26 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id HAA13930 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:25:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17847 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:25:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:25:24 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 318 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On 25 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > | Each Player who reaches Row 0 without crossing it gains 100 points, > and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, > 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of > | Players and Reyalps), one Player or Reyalp per square, in any order > e chooses. I noticed this problem while I was reading over the last rule... I think you mean; (where n is the number of the Player or Reyalp currently being placed). Otherwise, everyone would end up on the same point (40 in this case: (9-1)*5). Am I wrong? -Ross From rsholmes@m... Fri Jan 26 08:19:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 16:19:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 92688 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 16:18:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 16:18:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 17:19:46 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008EFDB1@m...>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:18:41 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05968; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:18:40 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 318 References: Date: 26 Jan 2001 11:18:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:25:24 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > On 25 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > | Each Player who reaches Row 0 without crossing it gains 100 points, > > and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, > > 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of > > | Players and Reyalps), one Player or Reyalp per square, in any order > > e chooses. > > I noticed this problem while I was reading over the last rule... I think > you mean; (where n is the number of the Player or Reyalp currently being > placed). Otherwise, everyone would end up on the same point (40 in this > case: (9-1)*5). > > Am I wrong? Yes... I perhaps could have stated it more precisely if more obtusely: the Player who wins the subgame must put the set of Players/Reyalps {P1, P2, ... Pn} in a 1-1 correspondance with the set of squares {(0,20), (5,20), (10,20) ... ((n-1)*5,20)}, the correspondance being chosen by the Player who wins the subgame. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 26 09:00:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 17:00:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 90946 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 17:00:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 17:00:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 17:00:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0QHkOR07352 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:46:37 -0800 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:46:24 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 318 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 25 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Rule-change 318: > > Amend Rule 313 to read as follows [[NB lines with vertical bars have > been changed]]: > > | Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on a 2-dimensional grid. > | > | Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range > | over all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates > | range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players > | and Reyalps. So it looks like the X coordinates shrink and expand when players leave and enter the game. What happens to players who are outside of the grid when it shrinks? From engels@w... Fri Jan 26 09:39:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 17:39:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 13457 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 17:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 17:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 17:38:40 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0QHcbf22030 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:38:38 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0QHcb400736 for n_omic@egroups.com; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:38:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101261738.f0QHcb400736@w...> Subject: Vote To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:38:37 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I vote FOR Proposal 318. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Fri Jan 26 12:23:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 20:23:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 57801 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 20:23:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 20:23:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 20:23:22 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008F1B30@m...>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:23 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27889; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:21 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 318 References: Date: 26 Jan 2001 15:23:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:46:24 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > What happens to players who are outside of the > grid when it shrinks? Yeah, I realized I omitted that after I posted... Shall I post an amended version that fixes it? -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Fri Jan 26 12:26:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 20:26:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 96430 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 20:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 20:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 20:25:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jan 2001 20:25:32 -0000 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:25:32 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 318 Message-ID: <94smfs+a901@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 396 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... Please do. Call it "proposal 318[[a]]" or something so we know what version we're voting on. Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > > What happens to players who are outside of the > > grid when it shrinks? > > Yeah, I realized I omitted that after I posted... > > Shall I post an amended version that fixes it? > > -- > Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Fri Jan 26 13:23:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 21:23:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 30048 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 21:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 21:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 21:22:58 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008F21B1@m...>; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:22:50 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA08405; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:22:44 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 318[[a]] Date: 26 Jan 2001 16:22:44 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 57 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Rule-change 318: Amend Rule 313 to read as follows [[NB lines with vertical bars have been changed from the current ruleset]]: | Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on a 2-dimensional grid. | | Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range | over all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates | range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players | and Reyalps. | | "Row i" refers to squares with y coordinate equal to i. "File i" | refers to squares with x coordinate equal to i. | | Some Rows have Labels. When a new Label word is chosen, the person | who chooses it must also select a Unlabelled Row between Row 1 and Row | k+10 to Label with that word, where k is the new number of valid | Label words, and announce that choice to all Players. No Label may be | applied to Row 10. | | When a Label word is removed from the list of valid Label words, the | Row with that Label becomes Unlabelled. | | No Row may ever have more than one Label. | | When this rule is enacted, Row 8 receives the Label "Rock"; Row 9 | receives the Label "Paper"; Row 11 receives the Label "Pistol"; Row 12 | receives the Label "Stapler"; and Row 13 receives the Label "Rag". | This paragraph will then repeal itself. Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules. | Each Player who reaches Row 0 without crossing it gains 100 points, and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of | Players and Reyalps), one Player or Reyalp per square, in any order e chooses. | When a new Player enters the game, files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are added | to the board and the new Player is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j), where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the nearest integer. | When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or | Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the | departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x | coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a | Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player | was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed | from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps. -- Doctroid From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Fri Jan 26 13:35:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 26 Jan 2001 21:35:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 60346 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 21:34:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jan 2001 21:34:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 21:34:50 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24464 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:34:48 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39378437@d...> Date: 26 Jan 2001 16:34:48 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: vote AGAINST 318 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I think all these fomulae are annoying.... I'd be much happier with a "pay 5 groks to move a space." type of rule From jjweston@k... Fri Jan 26 20:48:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 27 Jan 2001 04:48:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 36058 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2001 04:48:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jan 2001 04:48:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2001 05:49:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0R5Z5U07732 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:35:06 -0800 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:35:05 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 318 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" From ross@b... Sat Jan 27 04:54:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 27 Jan 2001 12:54:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 88768 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2001 12:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jan 2001 12:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2001 12:54:29 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id HAA11853 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:54:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04027 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:54:28 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:54:28 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 318 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" If only because Rich's proposals end up interesting. I'll trust that this will too. From jjweston@k... Sat Jan 27 09:08:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 27 Jan 2001 17:08:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 31735 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2001 17:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jan 2001 17:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2001 17:08:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0RHsNe08198 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:54:24 -0800 Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:54:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Joel Ricker is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Joel Ricker did not come out of Reyalp status within the specified time frame. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre Engels must remove one word from the list of valid label words and announce it to all players. From rsholmes@m... Sat Jan 27 10:26:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 27 Jan 2001 18:26:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 32248 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2001 18:26:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Jan 2001 18:26:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2001 19:27:21 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008F5BAE@m...>; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:26:16 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28331; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:26:15 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR [n_omic] Proposal 318[[a]] References: Date: 27 Jan 2001 13:26:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "26 Jan 2001 16:22:44 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 69 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... rsholmes@m... writes: > Rule-change 318: > > Amend Rule 313 to read as follows [[NB lines with vertical bars have > been changed from the current ruleset]]: > > | Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on a 2-dimensional grid. > | > | Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range > | over all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates > | range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players > | and Reyalps. > | > | "Row i" refers to squares with y coordinate equal to i. "File i" > | refers to squares with x coordinate equal to i. > | > | Some Rows have Labels. When a new Label word is chosen, the person > | who chooses it must also select a Unlabelled Row between Row 1 and Row > | k+10 to Label with that word, where k is the new number of valid > | Label words, and announce that choice to all Players. No Label may be > | applied to Row 10. > | > | When a Label word is removed from the list of valid Label words, the > | Row with that Label becomes Unlabelled. > | > | No Row may ever have more than one Label. > | > | When this rule is enacted, Row 8 receives the Label "Rock"; Row 9 > | receives the Label "Paper"; Row 11 receives the Label "Pistol"; Row 12 > | receives the Label "Stapler"; and Row 13 receives the Label "Rag". > | This paragraph will then repeal itself. > > Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as > specified by the Rules. > > | Each Player who reaches Row 0 without crossing it gains 100 points, > and must immediately move all Players and Reyalps to squares (0, > 20), (5, 20), (10, 20), ... ((n-1)*5, 20) (where n is the number of > | Players and Reyalps), one Player or Reyalp per square, in any order > e chooses. > > | When a new Player enters the game, files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are added > | to the board and the new Player is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j), > where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean > value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, > rounded to the nearest integer. > > | When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or > | Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the > | departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x > | coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a > | Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player > | was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed > | from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps. > > -- > Doctroid > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Sat Jan 27 13:13:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 27 Jan 2001 21:13:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 85234 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2001 21:13:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jan 2001 21:13:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Jan 2001 21:13:17 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0RLDGW28987 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:13:16 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:13:14 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 318 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 28 12:02:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 28 Jan 2001 20:02:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 40129 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2001 20:02:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2001 20:02:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jan 2001 20:02:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0SKmDC13260 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:48:13 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:48:13 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Feyd's vote. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Feyd, you have about 25 and a half hours to cast your vote on proposal 318. From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 28 13:42:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 28 Jan 2001 21:42:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 30415 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2001 21:41:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2001 21:41:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Jan 2001 22:42:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0SMR8Q13330 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:27:08 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:27:07 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Voting History Added to N_omic Web Site Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" We have enough players now that the eGroups/YahooGroups database could no longer store our voting history. I've added a new page to the N_omic web site that contains the voting history. It can be found here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/voteHistory.html From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 28 16:08:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 00:08:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 55423 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 00:08:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 00:08:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 00:08:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0T0sQn13429 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:54:27 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:54:26 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: While you're at it Feyd... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Hey Feyd, When you send in your vote, don't forget to announce what label you remove as well please. From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 28 16:26:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 00:26:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 17318 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 00:26:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 00:26:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 00:26:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0T1BoD13452 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:11:50 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:11:50 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: More problems with proposal 318... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Just noticed that once proposal 318 passes, Henry Towsner will be on an X coordinate outside of the allowable range. This is the result of Joel Ricker leaving the game while proposal 318 is still being voted on. Anyone have any suggestions on how to resolve the issue? From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 28 16:34:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 00:34:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 15230 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 00:32:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 00:32:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 00:32:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0T1ITb13462 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:18:29 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:18:29 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New Gamestate Web Page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" In anticipation of proposal 318 passing, I've created a new gamestate web page. It will hold game data not specific to any player. The players page will still hold player specific data, while the gamestate will hold data applicable to the game in general. It can be found here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/gamestate.html Please note that it currently contains data specified in proposal 318. This is in anticipation of it passing and is not an accurate picture of the gamestate at this time. From jjweston@k... Sun Jan 28 22:25:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 06:25:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 36919 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 06:25:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 06:25:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 06:25:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0T7BTO13610 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:11:30 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:11:29 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] While you're at it Feyd... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > Hey Feyd, > > When you send in your vote, don't forget to announce what label > you remove as well please. Whoops! Wasn't thinking. Andre is the current judge. Andre, please remove a label soon, not Feyd... Feyd, please vote soon... From Nomic1@a... Mon Jan 29 07:15:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 15:15:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 70104 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 15:14:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 15:14:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 15:14:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.59] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2001 15:14:27 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:14:24 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR 318 Message-ID: <9541cg+ho7h@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... From engels@w... Mon Jan 29 09:26:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 17:26:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 61451 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 17:15:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 17:15:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 17:15:41 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0THFeH20065 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:15:40 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0THFdV01117 for n_omic@egroups.com; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:15:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101291715.f0THFdV01117@w...> Subject: Vote & label To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:15:38 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I vote FOR Proposal 318. I remove the label 'Pistol'. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From engels@w... Mon Jan 29 09:27:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 17:27:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 39890 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 17:19:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 17:19:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 18:20:46 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0THJeu19211 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:19:40 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0THJd401133 for n_omic@egroups.com; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:19:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101291719.f0THJd401133@w...> Subject: Proposal 318 results To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:19:39 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Proposal 318 has passed. Points for this Proposal: Rich gains 19 points for getting 5/7 votes in favor of his proposal. Eric and Jeff both gain 10 points for voting against a passing proposal. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 29 09:32:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 17:32:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 75669 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 17:25:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 17:25:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 17:25:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0TIAdb14086 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:10:45 -0800 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:10:39 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 318 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 5 votes for and 2 votes against, proposal 318 passes. Rich gains 19 points for gaining 71% (5/7) favorable votes. Eric and Jeff gain 10 points each for voting against a winning proposal. Rule-change 318 is enacted. Row 8 receives the label "Rock". Row 9 receives the label "Paper". Row 11 receives the label "Pistol". Row 12 receives the label "Stapler". Row 13 receives the label "Rag". Paragraph 7 repeals itself from rule 318. Play now continues with Rich Holmes' fourth phase. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 29 09:34:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 17:34:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 61561 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 17:26:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 17:26:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 17:26:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0TIBrj14090 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:12:15 -0800 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:11:53 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Andre, please remove a label. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" You are responsible for removing a label from the list of valid labels, due to Joel Ricker leaving the game. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 29 09:39:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 17:39:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 81010 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 17:33:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 17:33:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 18:34:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0TIIK914148 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:18:27 -0800 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:18:20 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote & label In-Reply-To: <200101291715.f0THFdV01117@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > I vote FOR Proposal 318. Hmm... I thought you already voted on this. No matter. I had you recorded as a YES vote. > I remove the label 'Pistol'. "Pistol" is removed from the list of valid labels. Row 11 becomes unlabelled. Eric, your label was "Pistol" you are now unlabelled. From jjweston@k... Mon Jan 29 09:44:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 17:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 71924 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 17:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 17:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 17:37:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0TIMLw14170 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:22:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:22:21 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Henry currently occupies square (40, 20). However, the X coordinates only go up to 39, according to rule 318. Any thoughts on how to resolve this? From rsholmes@m... Mon Jan 29 10:11:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 18:11:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 52006 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 18:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 18:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 18:03:43 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008FED31@m...>; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:03:42 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19679; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:03:41 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. References: Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:03:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:22:21 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Henry currently occupies square (40, 20). However, the X > coordinates only go up to 39, according to rule 318. Any thoughts on how > to resolve this? The easiest thing, I think, would be to agree to handle it as if Joel's departure had occurred just after passage of Rule 318, instead of just before. That is, Joel was on File 20; therefore everyone on File 20 or above moves down 5 files: Ross 35 -> 30 Eric 25 -> 20 Henry 40 -> 35 Jeff 30 -> 25 -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Mon Jan 29 12:58:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 29 Jan 2001 20:58:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 3557 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2001 20:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2001 20:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 20:49:46 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0TKnfW07504 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:49:41 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:49:39 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >The easiest thing, I think, would be to agree to handle it as if >Joel's departure had occurred just after passage of Rule 318, instead >of just before. > >That is, Joel was on File 20; therefore everyone on File 20 or above >moves down 5 files: But that isn't actually what happened.... Should we adopt a game state out of convenience, or is there a better solution? Rule 318 says: a) "Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on a 2-dimensional grid" b) "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y)" c) "The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps" d) "Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules." Conclusions: 1) Prior to Joel leaving I was at the square (40, 20) 2) (40, 20) ceased to be a square 3) Since (40, 20) is not a square, I must be at a different square 4) This does not contradict (d) because I was not moved from one square to another (since (40,20) was not a square when I moved) 5) Therefore I am at a square on the board, but we do not know which one -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Mon Jan 29 20:48:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 04:48:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 21008 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 04:39:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 04:39:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 05:40:17 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23023 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:39:11 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39501386@d...> Date: 29 Jan 2001 23:39:11 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: The easiest thing, I think, would be to agree to handle it as if Joel's departure had occurred just after passage of Rule 318, instead of just before. That is, Joel was on File 20; therefore everyone on File 20 or above moves down 5 files: Ross 35 -> 30 Eric 25 -> 20 Henry 40 -> 35 Jeff 30 -> 25 -- Doctroid --- end of quote --- I would support this judgment From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Mon Jan 29 20:53:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 04:53:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 88028 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 04:38:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 04:38:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 05:39:40 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22314 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:38:33 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39501354@d...> Date: 29 Jan 2001 23:38:33 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote & label To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: "Pistol" is removed from the list of valid labels. Row 11 becomes unlabelled. Eric, your label was "Pistol" you are now unlabelled. --- end of quote --- Hmm... I liked "Pistol" =( oh well From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 30 11:06:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 19:06:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 67260 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 18:50:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 18:50:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 19:51:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0UJZLP15145 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:35:27 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:35:21 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" It looks like we need an official ruling on this, so I hereby Invoke Judgement. Rich Holmes suggested that we act as if Joel left after proposal 318 passed. While this may conveniently solve the problem, it is not what actually happened. I leave it in the hands of the judge to determine what to do. I feel that only a judge can adopt a solution like what Rich Holmes suggests. I don't feel that the players can just agree to it, because it isn't what really happened. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Tue Jan 30 11:30:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 19:30:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 59828 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 19:08:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 19:08:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 20:09:10 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18696 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:08:04 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39535534@d...> Date: 30 Jan 2001 14:08:04 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: It looks like we need an official ruling on this, so I hereby Invoke Judgement. Rich Holmes suggested that we act as if Joel left after proposal 318 passed. While this may conveniently solve the problem, it is not what actually happened. I leave it in the hands of the judge to determine what to do. I feel that only a judge can adopt a solution like what Rich Holmes suggests. I don't feel that the players can just agree to it, because it isn't what really happened. --- end of quote --- ok. whoever is the judge should say that, then. who's the judge? From rsholmes@m... Tue Jan 30 11:47:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 19:47:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 54152 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 19:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 19:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 19:27:58 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00907F3F@m...>; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:27:58 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01801; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:27:57 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 318 Passes References: Date: 30 Jan 2001 14:27:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:10:39 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 7 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Oh, yeah. Fourth phase. I move to (-18644,329+18.33i), which is an invalid move, so you can ignore it. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 30 12:04:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 20:04:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 30505 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 19:40:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 19:40:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 20:41:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0UKP3x15192 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:25:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:25:03 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position In-Reply-To: <39535534@d...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 30 Jan 2001 frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > --- You wrote: > It looks like we need an official ruling on this, so I > hereby Invoke Judgement. Rich Holmes suggested that we act as if Joel left > after proposal 318 passed. While this may conveniently solve the problem, > it is not what actually happened. I leave it in the hands of the judge to > determine what to do. I feel that only a judge can adopt a solution like > what Rich Holmes suggests. I don't feel that the players can just agree to > it, because it isn't what really happened. > --- end of quote --- > > ok. whoever is the judge should say that, then. Only if the judge feels that is the best solution... > who's the judge? Its still Rich's turn, so Andre is the judge. From rsholmes@m... Tue Jan 30 12:10:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 30 Jan 2001 20:10:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 48266 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 19:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2001 19:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 19:52:29 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0090837D@m...>; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:52:30 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07937; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:52:28 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position References: <39535534@d...> Date: 30 Jan 2001 14:52:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d...'s message of "30 Jan 2001 14:08:04 EST" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... writes: > who's the judge? Andre was when the point was raised. Personally I think Henry's objection to my suggestion is well taken. After all, since Joel's departure occurred before my rule-change passed, my suggestion would constitute moving players from one square to another not in accordance with the rules, and the rules specifically prohibit that. So I actually think Henry's suggestion is better: grant that Henry is on a square somewhere on the board, we don't yet know where. A future rule-change can then move him to a known square. By the way, I note Jon's Reyalpship expires today. Fortunately, my rule-change having passed, that won't cause anyone else to get stranded. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Tue Jan 30 23:36:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 07:36:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 44415 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 07:36:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 07:36:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 08:37:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0V8LPo15597 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:21:26 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:21:25 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jon Grimm is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Jon Grimm did not leave Reyalp status in the provided time free. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre Engels must remove yet another word from the list of valid label words. I'm going to hold off on updating the gamestate until we get an official ruling regarding Henry's position. From engels@w... Wed Jan 31 04:59:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 12:59:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 92522 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 12:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 12:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 13:59:40 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0VCwYu20230 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:58:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0VCwXO02754 for n_omic@egroups.com; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:58:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101311258.f0VCwXO02754@w...> Subject: Judgement on Henry's position To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:58:33 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Here is my Judgement regarding Henry's position: Just before the adoption of Rule 318, Henry was at position (39,20). That we know. But what about his position immediately after the proposal was accepted? There seem to be 3 possibilities: - Henry was at (39,20) - Henry was at some other point - Henry was at no point at all. The first and third are directly forbidden by Rule 318. The second is forbidden by Rule 318's (and previously Rule 313's) provision that players may only be moved from one square to another as specified in the rules. Thus, we have a conflict within the rules regarding Henry's position. The rules regarding precedence do not help us either, since everything is part of a single rule (rule 318). Thus, Henry's position cannot be known. Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. At that time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be changed. Moving Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of which cannot be determined with finality'. Thus, I judge that Rich has won the game. All players' points are reset to 0, and all Groks to 50 except for Rich, who has 70. Next time a movement of Jon is attempted which might be legal, we will have a game win again. I hope that this situation soon will be repaired. Andre Engels From engels@w... Wed Jan 31 05:00:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 13:00:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 8242 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 12:59:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 12:59:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 14:00:18 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0VCxCu20342 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:59:12 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0VCxCL02760 for n_omic@egroups.com; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:59:12 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101311259.f0VCxCL02760@w...> Subject: Label To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:59:11 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I remove the label 'Paper'. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 31 09:03:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 17:03:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 82839 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 16:24:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 16:24:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 17:25:34 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0090EC1B@m...>; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:24:30 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03035; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:24:28 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position References: <200101311258.f0VCwXO02754@w...> Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:24:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:58:33 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 40 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > Just before the adoption of Rule 318, Henry was at position > (39,20). Actually (40,20). > That we know. But what about his position immediately after the > proposal was accepted? > > There seem to be 3 possibilities: > - Henry was at (39,20) > - Henry was at some other point > - Henry was at no point at all. Actually I think there are four possibilities: - Henry remained on the square at (40,20) - Henry moved to a square at some other point - Henry moved to no point at all. - Henry remained on the same square, but the coordinates of that square changed! The fourth possibility may seem far-fetched, and it probably is. It's very much in the spirit of general relativity, for whatever that's worth -- the universe changes size and carries the galaxies along with it. I can tell you're impressed by the analogy. But there's nothing in the rules that prohibit a square's coordinates from changing, is there? And if a square's coordinates were to change, the Player(s) on that square would have to come with it. > Next time a movement of > Jon is attempted which might be legal, we will have a game win > again. You mean Henry? Jon is gone... -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 31 09:28:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 17:28:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 41946 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 16:46:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 16:46:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 16:46:54 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0090EFF9@m...>; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:45:29 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07825; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:45:28 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position References: <200101311258.f0VCwXO02754@w...> Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:45:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:58:33 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Actually I can state my latest argument a little more forcefully. It all hinges on the difference between squares and coordinates. Pay attention. (1) Is Henry on a different square? He can't be. "Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules.", and the Rules don't allow for Henry to be moved to another square in these circumstances. Therefore Henry is still on the same square. (2) The coordinates of Henry's square were (40,20). Is that still true? It can't be. "The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps" and when Joel left, n dropped to 8. Therefore either the square Henry was on became coordinateless, or it acquired new coordinates. (3) Squares can't be coordinateless. "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y)." The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players to vote on an override. If the above analysis is upheld, then two things need to happen quasi-immediately by passage of appropriate rules: (1) Henry's position needs to be set (2) Coordinates of squares need to be made fixed -- or at least, changes of a square's coordinates need to be regulated. -- Doctroid From engels@w... Wed Jan 31 10:14:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 18:14:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 78993 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 17:11:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 17:11:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 17:11:36 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0VHBYu18899 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:11:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f0VHBX901111 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:11:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101311711.f0VHBX901111@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: from "rsholmes@m..." at "Jan 31, 2001 11:24:28 am" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:11:33 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels rsholmes@m... wrote: > You mean Henry? Jon is gone... Yes, sorry. Andre Engels From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Jan 31 10:24:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 18:24:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 77029 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 17:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 17:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 18:37:23 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06685 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:36:17 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39602023@d...> Date: 31 Jan 2001 12:36:16 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Willard) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players to vote on an override. If the above analysis is upheld, then two things need to happen quasi-immediately by passage of appropriate rules: (1) Henry's position needs to be set (2) Coordinates of squares need to be made fixed -- or at least, changes of a square's coordinates need to be regulated. --- end of quote --- I agree with Doctroid's re-interpretation (partly because I don't want Rich to win and partly because I admire how Doctroid's come up with an interpretation that doesn't contradict the rules) and call for an override of Andre's judgment. From rsholmes@m... Wed Jan 31 10:57:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 31 Jan 2001 18:57:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 7881 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 18:09:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Jan 2001 18:09:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 18:09:29 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0090FBB4@m...>; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:08:44 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29312; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:08:43 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position References: <200101311258.f0VCwXO02754@w...> Date: 31 Jan 2001 13:08:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "31 Jan 2001 11:45:28 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Here's another point on which I disagree with Andre's judgement, or at least am unclear as to eir reasoning. Andre writes: > Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. At that > time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be changed. Moving > Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of which cannot be determined > with finality'. Rule 213 states: If ... the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality ... then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. But the legality of my move is not in question. What is in question is the legality of the gamestate after Joel's departure. The changes to the gamestate created by Joel's departure happened, by inference, at the moment of Joel's departure and are not part of the turn structure. Unless you take the word "move" in Rule 213 to refer not to a N_omic "turn" but to Henry's alleged change of position. My reading of the rules is that "move" here should be considered a synonym of "turn". Unfortunately the term "move" does not seem to be well defined in the rules. But even then, I was not unable to complete my turn. I did complete all four phases. It's true that (Rule 212) When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players. But that just means Ross can't complete (or start) eir turn without such consent -- and there's nothing that says such consent may not be given unless the Judge first resolves the matter under Judgement. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Wed Jan 31 17:35:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 01:35:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 57908 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 01:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 01:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 01:35:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f112KKU16097 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:20:22 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:20:20 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 31 Jan 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of > Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. > > Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the > rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. > > I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players > to vote on an override. I agree with Rich's argument and therefore vote to overrule Andre's judgement. From htowsner@s... Wed Jan 31 17:41:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 01:41:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 56233 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 01:41:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 01:41:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 01:41:44 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f111fhW19485 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:41:43 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:41:39 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of > Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. > > Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the > rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. > > I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players > to vote on an override. I don't agree entirely with Rich's argument. In particular, I think it's ambiguous whether the coordinates changed or if I was transferred to a different square (which as I noted previously, I think is possible since I was transferred from something which was not a square to a square). Regardless, there is no reason to believe that the legality is indeterminate: it's legal, we just don't know hoe. I therefore vote to override Andre's judgement. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From ross@b... Thu Feb 01 03:14:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 11:14:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 45421 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 11:14:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 11:14:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 11:14:55 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.7) with ESMTP id GAA18369 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:14:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21415 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:14:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:14:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I also vote to override the judgement, if only because I don't want Rich to win. : ) No, but seriously... I don't think anything illegal happened here. This is fixable within the rules, I believe. From engels@w... Thu Feb 01 03:53:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 11:53:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 84335 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 11:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 11:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 12:54:06 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f11Br0u21369 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:53:00 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f11Bqxv02975 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:52:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102011152.f11Bqxv02975@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: from "rsholmes@m..." at "Jan 31, 2001 1: 8:43 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:52:59 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels rsholmes@m... wrote: > Unless you take the word "move" in Rule 213 to refer not to a N_omic > "turn" but to Henry's alleged change of position. My reading of the > rules is that "move" here should be considered a synonym of "turn". > Unfortunately the term "move" does not seem to be well defined in the > rules. I disagree with this interpretation. In my opinion, a 'move' is any action that has a consequence for n_omic. A turn consists of a number a moves, by various players. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 01 07:09:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 15:09:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 19180 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 15:08:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 15:08:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 16:09:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009169DF@m...>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:05:10 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07458; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:05:09 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position References: Date: 01 Feb 2001 10:05:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Henry Towsner's message of "Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:41:39 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Henry Towsner writes: > I don't agree entirely with Rich's argument. In particular, > I think it's ambiguous whether the coordinates changed or if I was > transferred to a different square (which as I noted previously, I > think is possible since I was transferred from something which was > not a square to a square). I decided I don't buy this. If you were transferred from something which was not a square, then at some point you were not on a square. But that would have been illegal: the rules require that each player be on a square. -- Doctroid From BTGimpert@t... Thu Feb 01 07:58:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: BTGimpert@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 15:58:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 55018 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 15:53:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 15:53:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 16:54:43 -0000 Subject: Apologies To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a July 24, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:52:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/01/2001 10:00:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: BTGimpert@t... To the N_omic players, I must offer my apologies in falling off the edge of the earth regarding my involvement with N_omic. A combination of being called out of town on project and my personal Linux box crashing left my email situation wretched, at best. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion. I your game the best, and good luck to everyone! Peace, Benjamin Gimpert (bg@t...) ThoughtWorks Developer From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 01 09:54:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 17:54:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 30822 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 17:44:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 17:44:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 17:44:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.30] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Feb 2001 17:44:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:44:07 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement on Henry's position Message-ID: <95c797+mp0n@e...> In-Reply-To: <200101311258.f0VCwXO02754@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 669 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Andre Engels wrote: > Here is my Judgement regarding Henry's position: Hm, I'm the only one left. If I vote to overrule, then I become the judge and have to write a new judgement (which can the be overruled in turn I guess). I need more time to look at this and decide what to do. There seem to be two issues to decide: 1. Is Henry on an illegal square? 2. If he is, does that mean no further moves can be made? I think that if I disagree with either of these points then I need to vote to overrule. I'll take some time and re-read all discussion and rules before posting -- or if I have questions I'll post them. Feyd From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 01 12:42:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 20:42:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 89293 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 20:34:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 20:34:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 20:34:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.73] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Feb 2001 20:34:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:34:28 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. Message-ID: <95ch8k+1bgr@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2056 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Jon Grimm did not leave Reyalp status in the provided time > free. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre Engels must > remove yet another word from the list of valid label words. > I'm going to hold off on updating the gamestate until we get an > official ruling regarding Henry's position. Ok, so Jon Grimm is removed from the gamestate. Now, according to 318 (in effect when he left): "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range over all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps. " THEN "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps." Now the first paragraph takes precedence over the second. This means that as soon as Jon left, the X-coordinates were deleted. The x coordinates DO NOT EXIST when the second paragraph comes into effect. This states that players "whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp..." shall be moved down by 5. But this player doesn't have an x coordinate anymore by the first paragraph (or some have proposed that that person is on an unknown yet valid square). An (unknown quantity - 5) is still an unknown quantity. Therefore players cannot be moved, and remain on an unkown square. Thus, any time a Player or Reyalp leaves the game this situation will arise. Specifically, if Rich is the winner because of Henry's leaving, he will immediately be declared the winner AGAIN because of Jon's leaving. Any comments on this? Feyd From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 01 13:07:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 21:07:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 1149 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 20:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 20:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 21:56:24 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f11KtIW01404 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:55:18 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95ch8k+1bgr@e...> References: <95ch8k+1bgr@e...> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:55:15 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Thus, any time a Player or Reyalp leaves the game this situation will >arise. Specifically, if Rich is the winner because of Henry's >leaving, he will immediately be declared the winner AGAIN because of >Jon's leaving. I don't think there's a requirement that things happen in order; why can't the movement happen at precisely the same as the player leaves. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 01 13:36:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 21:36:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 8665 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 21:25:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 21:25:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 21:25:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00919F32@m...>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:25:18 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA02649; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:25:18 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. References: <95ch8k+1bgr@e...> Date: 01 Feb 2001 16:25:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:34:28 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 72 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > Jon Grimm did not leave Reyalp status in the provided time > > free. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre > Engels must > > remove yet another word from the list of valid label words. > > I'm going to hold off on updating the gamestate until we get an > > official ruling regarding Henry's position. > > Ok, so Jon Grimm is removed from the gamestate. Now, > according to 318 (in effect when he left): > > "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range over > all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates range > from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and > Reyalps. " > THEN > "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or > Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the > departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x > coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a > Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player > was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed > from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps." > > Now the first paragraph takes precedence over the second. This means > that as soon as Jon left, the X-coordinates were deleted. The x > coordinates DO NOT EXIST when the second paragraph comes into > effect. This states that players "whose x coordinate is equal to or > higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp..." shall be moved > down by 5. > > But this player doesn't have an x coordinate anymore by the first > paragraph (or some have proposed that that person is on an unknown > yet valid square). An (unknown quantity - 5) is still an unknown > quantity. Therefore players cannot be moved, and remain on an unkown > square. > > Thus, any time a Player or Reyalp leaves the game this situation will > arise. Specifically, if Rich is the winner because of Henry's > leaving, he will immediately be declared the winner AGAIN because of > Jon's leaving. > > Any comments on this? Yeah: Horsesh*t. Nothing in the rules say anything about precedence within a single rule. In any case, precedence doesn't refer to the order in which things happen, but to which rule applies when two conflicting rules seem to apply. In this rule, the first paragraph quoted above is stating a fact -- that there are 5n Files on the board -- and the second is stating the means by which that fact is implemented when a Player leaves -- that Players at or above the departing Player's File are shifted down 5 Files, and THEN the last 5 Files are removed. If you like, the players are shifted in the instant before a Player departs, and the Files are removed in the instant after. You may object to this on grounds of causality: that a Player's departure causes the other Players to shift just *before* the departure. But there's no Rule preventing that. Causality is an attribute of the real world, not the N_omic world. The difference in Henry's case is that Joel left BEFORE the rule was amended; so his position didn't change when Joel left, but LATER the File he was standing on disappeared (or rather, the x coordinate at which the File he was standing on was located ceased to be a valid x coordinate). -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Thu Feb 01 14:01:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 22:01:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 96595 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 21:43:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 21:43:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 22:44:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f11MRfI16794 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:28:13 -0800 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:41 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. In-Reply-To: <95ch8k+1bgr@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or > Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the > departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x > coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a > Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player > was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed > from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps." > > Now the first paragraph takes precedence over the second. This means > that as soon as Jon left, the X-coordinates were deleted. The x > coordinates DO NOT EXIST when the second paragraph comes into > effect. This states that players "whose x coordinate is equal to or > higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp..." shall be moved > down by 5. > > But this player doesn't have an x coordinate anymore by the first > paragraph (or some have proposed that that person is on an unknown > yet valid square). An (unknown quantity - 5) is still an unknown > quantity. Therefore players cannot be moved, and remain on an unkown > square. Please re-read the last paragraph of rule 318. It specifies an order to events when players leave. Sentence 1 : Players are moved up. Sentence 2 : Files are then deleted. I don't see any ambiguity there. I'm ignoring the comments when giving sentence numbers. From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 01 14:18:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 22:18:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 26874 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 22:07:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 22:07:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 22:07:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Feb 2001 22:07:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:07:09 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. Message-ID: <95cmmd+jros@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 542 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player > > Please re-read the last paragraph of rule 318. It specifies an > order to events when players leave. Sentence 1 : Players are moved > up. Sentence 2 : Files are then deleted. I don't see any ambiguity > there. I'm ignoring the comments when giving sentence numbers. Good. While Doctroid's succinct "Horsesh*t" response didn't (quite) sway me, this does. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 01 14:54:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 1 Feb 2001 22:54:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 31334 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 22:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2001 22:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 22:43:07 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0091A978@m...>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:43:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18678; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:43:06 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. References: <95cmmd+jros@e...> Date: 01 Feb 2001 17:43:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:07:09 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Good. While Doctroid's succinct "Horsesh*t" response didn't (quite) > sway me, this does. Er, but that's what I said... -- Doctroid From chris@c... Fri Feb 02 12:06:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 20:06:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 36730 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 19:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 19:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 19:51:20 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3DF401C0A1; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:49:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:49:43 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Wish to Play Message-ID: <20010202144942.C14160@c...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer I desire to become a player. Chris Moyer // chris@c... From Nomic1@a... Fri Feb 02 12:07:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 20:07:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 13736 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 19:57:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 19:57:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 19:57:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.25] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Feb 2001 19:57:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:57:02 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement on Henry's position Message-ID: <95f3ee+nagk@e...> In-Reply-To: <200102011152.f11Bqxv02975@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2321 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... I think that the upshot of this discussion is that no one really know's WHERE Henry is, or whether that is a legal square or not. Given that, and Andre's analysis of: >Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. >At that time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be >changed. Moving Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of >which cannot be determined with finality'. I think Rich has an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. But we are trying to subtract 5 from Rich's current X coordinate, and that isn't a know function. Therefore, even though it is not popular, I vote to uphold Andre's judgement. Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., Andre Engels wrote: > rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > Unless you take the word "move" in Rule 213 to refer not to a N_omic > > "turn" but to Henry's alleged change of position. My reading of the > > rules is that "move" here should be considered a synonym of "turn". > > Unfortunately the term "move" does not seem to be well defined in the > > rules. > > I disagree with this interpretation. In my opinion, a 'move' is any action > that has a consequence for n_omic. A turn consists of a number a moves, > by various players. There seem to be 3 possibilities: - Henry was at (39,20) - Henry was at some other point - Henry was at no point at all. The first and third are directly forbidden by Rule 318. The second is forbidden by Rule 318's (and previously Rule 313's) provision that players may only be moved from one square to another as specified in the rules. Thus, we have a conflict within the rules regarding Henry's position. The rules regarding precedence do not help us either, since everything is part of a single rule (rule 318). Thus, Henry's position cannot be known. Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. At that time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be changed. Moving Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of which cannot be determined with finality'. Thus, I judge that Rich has won the game. All players' points are reset to 0, and all Groks to 50 except for Rich, who has 70. Next time a movement of Jon is attempted which might be legal, we will have a game win again. I hope that this situation soon will be repaired. From chris@c... Fri Feb 02 12:20:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 20:20:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 91581 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 20:09:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 20:09:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 20:09:51 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id AAC8D1C0A6; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:03:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:03:38 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Informing you of... Message-ID: <20010202150336.B16426@c...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer I desire to become a Player. Chris Moyer // chris@c... From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 02 12:22:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 20:22:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 10402 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 20:14:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 20:14:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 20:14:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00921395@m...>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:13:38 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23959; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:13:37 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position References: <95f3ee+nagk@e...> Date: 02 Feb 2001 15:13:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:57:02 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > I think Rich has an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. I request that you justify this decision. The rules don't require you to; all you have to do is say you don't vote to overrule Andre, and that's that. But given the chaos that would ensue if Andre's decision is upheld, versus the relative sanity my interpretation makes possible, I think you owe it to us to make your reasoning a little clearer. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 02 12:38:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 20:38:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 57741 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 20:30:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 20:30:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 21:31:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f12LDZB17531 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:13:46 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:13:35 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Label In-Reply-To: <200101311259.f0VCxCL02760@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > I remove the label 'Paper'. Forgot about this with all the other activity going on... The following players have the label 'Paper' and hereby revert to unlabelled players: Andre, and Rich. Will someone let me know if my label is 'Paper' please? Row 9 reverts to an unlabelled state. From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 02 12:52:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 20:52:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 97358 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 20:43:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 20:43:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 21:44:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f12LR8g17549 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:27:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:27:08 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Wish to Play In-Reply-To: <20010202144942.C14160@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > I desire to become a player. Hello, Chris! Welcome to N_omic. We are currently in the midst of discussing the effects of a recent rule change. I will add you to the player list I maintain at: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic As the current judge, Feyd must privately email you a list of the labels of all labelled players. Feyd also must add one word to the list of valid label words and announce it to all players. Rich Holmes, the current player, must privately email you what Feyd's current label is. You receive 50 Groks for joining the game. There's also some changes to the 2-dimensional grid, but those changes will need to wait until the current discussion is concluded. Please let me know if you have any questions. From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 02 13:11:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 21:11:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 58825 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 21:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 21:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 21:05:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009218EC@m...>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:03:41 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03163; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:03:41 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Label References: Date: 02 Feb 2001 16:03:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:13:35 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Will someone let me know if my label > is 'Paper' please? It isn't. I suspect, then, you can figure out what your label is! -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 02 13:37:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 21:37:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 68492 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 21:28:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 21:28:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 21:28:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f12MCN617578 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:12:27 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:12:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Label In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 2 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > > Will someone let me know if my label > > is 'Paper' please? > > It isn't. I suspect, then, you can figure out what your label is! Hehe... Shouldn't be too hard, since of the three labels available when I was labelled, only one is still around. Too bad there aren't any scams related to knowing your own label... Sounds like I should make one. Hmm... From Nomic1@a... Fri Feb 02 13:56:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 21:56:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 65195 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 21:44:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 21:44:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 21:44:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.4] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Feb 2001 21:42:18 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:42:16 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement on Henry's position Message-ID: <95f9jo+a1qd@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2775 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nomic1@a... writes: >> I think Rich has an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. > I request that you justify this decision. The rules don't require you to; all you have to do is say you don't vote to overrule Andre, and > that's that. But given the chaos that would ensue if Andre's decision > is upheld, versus the relative sanity my interpretation makes > possible, I think you owe it to us to make your reasoning a little > clearer. I think that's a reasonable request. BTW: Will those of you who voted to overturn Andre "because [you] don't want Rich to win" please give a fuller justification of your decision to overturn a Judge. ================POINT=============================== Item 1: Rule #213 states: "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner." Item 2: Rule #218 states: "...When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate..." Counter #1: (Rich) Rich asserted that, though unlikely, Henry's square has reidentified itself from (40,20) to another, unknown but legal, cooridinate. ==============ANALYSIS=========================== Assume for sake of argument that Counter #3 is correct. According to Item 2 we must determine whether or not to subtract 5 from Henry's [unknown] position. While according to Counter #1 Henry is somewhere within the range of [0 - (#players + #reyalps)], you cannot specify that any further. Therefore you cannot determine what action to take in regards to Item #2 (i.e. subtract 5 or not). In sum, even by accepting you argument in message #390 (and a nice argument it was too), you get caught in a trap of not knowing how to process the portion of #318 mentioned in Item #2. Thus, by Item 1, a winner is declared. This happened before Rich took phase 4, so Rich is the winner of round 1. ===================NOTES============================ When I went back and reread Andre's Judgement, I discovered that I paraphrased him. I wrote the above without direct reference to his judgement however. I would much have preferred to vote to overturn. This *is* going to be more chaotic, but then this entire thing is more chaotic than pretending that Joe resigned immediately before #318 went into effect. We did not accept the "easier this way" argument then and I will not do it now. Feyd From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 02 14:14:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 22:14:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 85758 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 22:09:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 22:09:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 23:10:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f12Mq2W17598 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:53:45 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:52:02 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Analysis of the Situation Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Okay... I don't want to see Feyd reach the same conclusions as Andre, so I present my view of the situation: Before Proposal 318 passed, Henry was at (40, 20), a legal position according to rule 313, in effect at that time. Then proposal 318 passed which restricted x coordinates to 0 through 39. Henry's position no longer made sense. Did he move from the square? No. Rule 318 only allows players to move from one square to another only as specified by the rules. According to the rules, you can move only when it is your turn, or in the process of another player leaving the game. Neither of these two conditions apply, so Henry cannot move according to the rules. Has he been removed from the grid? No. Rule 318 also states that each player occupies a space on the grid. If Henry was no longer on the grid, that would violate this rule. Is he on a square with undefined coordinates? No. Rule 318 also states that squares have integer coordinates. There are no provisions for squares with undefined coordinates. So what happened to Henry? He is still on the grid somewhere. In fact, he is on the same square he has always been on. The square has defined coordinates, we just don't know what they are. Then Jon Grimm leaves the game. There are provisions for moving players around the grid at this time, but it requires knowing the positions of player in order to determine if they have to move or not. We know that Henry is on a specific portion of the grid, we just don't know where. We cannot legally determine whether he has to move at this time or not. At this point it makes sense to conclude a win by paradox, however lets take a second look. Henry is still on a square with defined coordinates. How is this possible? When proposal 318 passed, the coordinates on Henry's square became undefined. But, this is not allowed by rule 318, so the coordinates on his square must have changed to some defined value. The coordinates changed? Is that even legal? Well, nowhere in the rules does it state that squares have fixed coordinates. Also, the rules do not regulate how a square may change coordinates. Take a look at rule 116: 116 - Immutable - Initial Rule Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. Having a square change its coordinates is not prohibited, nor is it regulated by the rules. This opens a loophole that makes it leagal for Henry's square to change its coordinates. So, Henry's square has changed its coordinates to a legal value, we just don't know what that is. This problem can be easily solved by applying the same loophole again. Someone can simply proclaim that Henry's coordinates have changed to a known value. Of course, taking this approach opens a WIDE OPEN LOOPHOLE into the ruleset. But its the only alternative I can think of to alleviate the problem at hand. I would hope this situation is resolved quickly. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Fri Feb 02 14:22:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 22:22:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29850 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 22:18:31 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06741 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:18:30 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39842520@d...> Date: 02 Feb 2001 17:18:30 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Snackmaster) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: BTW: Will those of you who voted to overturn Andre "because [you] don't want Rich to win" please give a fuller justification of your decision to overturn a Judge. --- end of quote --- I felt that Andre's judgment violated some rules, and that rich's interpretation didn't... From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 02 14:43:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 22:43:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 93150 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 22:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 22:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 22:43:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009222A7@m...>; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:43:01 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20412; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:43:00 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position References: <95f9jo+a1qd@e...> Date: 02 Feb 2001 17:43:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:42:16 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 58 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: Let me see if I understand your argument. I don't believe the word 'move' in Rule 213 should be interpreted as non-synonymous with 'turn' (an interpretation I admit can be argued either way). Presumably you do, and you use this as the basis for your case. Here's the situation: 1. Henry is at (40,20). 2. Joel leaves the game. Henry is still at (40,20). 3. Prop 318 passes. Game board shrinks. 4. I take Phase 4. 5. Jon leaves the game. There are two general possibilities: 1. At step 3, Henry's coordinates did not change, or changed to something illegal. 2. At step 3, Henry's coordinates changed to something legal. We do not know Henry's coordinates. Contrary to Andre's judgement, he may have legal coordinates, if he remains on the same square but the square's coordinates change to legal ones. You seem to be arguing that since we can't determine Henry's coordinates, we can't determine whether they're legal, and so we can't determine the legality of either of Henry's "moves" -- when Joel left, and when Jon left. (I believe that these are not "moves" in the sense in which the word is meant in Rule 213.) You then say > This happened before Rich > took phase 4, so Rich is the winner of round 1. But the contraction of the game board happens outside the Turn structure. The completion of a move does not require the completion of the process of changing the game board. Nothing about the legality or illegality of either of Henry's 'moves' affected my ability to complete my Turn, and nothing prevents the next player from starting and completing eir Turn except e may not start without our unanimous consent to do so. So Rule 213 cannot create a winner until a situation arises in which the completion of someone's Turn depends on determining the legality of Henry's position. By the time that happens, Henry's may be in a known and legal position -- e.g. if the next turn results in passage of a Rule that says, among other things, "Henry is moved to the square at (25,40) [or wherever]". Then the present ambiguity will *never* result in an inability to complete a Turn, and there will be no winner. In any case, I claim I have completed my Turn and therefore cannot be the winner. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Fri Feb 02 14:54:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 22:54:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 38440 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 22:53:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 22:53:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 22:53:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.113] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Feb 2001 22:53:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:53:05 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement on Henry's position Message-ID: <95fdoh+g3l7@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 846 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nothing about the legality > or illegality of either of Henry's 'moves' affected my ability to > complete my Turn, and nothing prevents the next player from starting > and completing eir Turn except e may not start without our unanimous > consent to do so. a reyalp left between phase 3 & 4 of your turn. This caused judged to be invoked before your turn ended. >So Rule 213 cannot create a winner until a > situation arises in which the completion of someone's Turn depends on > determining the legality of Henry's position. That happened by #318 causing Henry to be moved (or not moved), and we being unable to determine whether to move him or not. > In any case, I claim I have completed my Turn and therefore cannot be the winner. Judgement was invoked before you did that. Feyd From htowsner@s... Fri Feb 02 18:08:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 02:08:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 9679 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 02:08:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 02:08:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 02:08:23 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1328MW16606 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:08:22 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95f9jo+a1qd@e...> References: <95f9jo+a1qd@e...> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:08:20 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner Here's my analysis, which is similar, but not identical to Jeff's, so I'll only focus on the differences. First, a philosophical point. I think the clause being cited ("if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality...") is one to be reserved for extreme situations. It's intended for full blown paradox, not mere indeterminacy. Just because we don't know what the game state is doesn't mean that we have yet hit a paradox, it just means that not all information about the N_omic universe can be inferred from its rules and history (I'm thinking about it like an axiomatic theory in mathematics, where there are multiple models which can satisfy the axioms of the system). The assumption should be that if we don't know what happened, something legal happened, as long as there is any possible legal event. We know that players are always on a square, that squares always have coordinates within a certain range, and that players only move as specified by the rules. From this we can conclude that, when Joel left the game, the coordinate of my square must have changed, since that is the only possible event consistent with the rules. When Jon left the game, some players squares moved. Again, there is no uncertainty about legality. To paraphrase rule 318, when a Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. Now, we don't know whether or not the clause applies to me because we don't know what the coordinate of the square I was on was. If the square I was on had a high enough coordinate then I moved, otherwise I didn't. If the rules had declared that, no matter what, I moved 5 squares then someone would win because it would be impossible to determine whether or not I could move 5 squares legally; fortunately they don't say that. Feyd wrote that "That happened by #318 causing Henry to be moved (or not moved), and we being unable to determine whether to move him or not." I want to emphasize that that is not enough to trigger a win; we are unable to determine whether or not I move, but there is no question of legality. There is no reason to believe that the game could be in an illegal state. Jeff claimed that any player could declare what coordinate I am on and that that would be the case. I don't think that is sufficient; I could declare right now what square Jeff was on and I would be right or wrong but it would not effect the gamestate. It would require a rule change or judgement (and there are no grounds for such a judgement) to determine which of the possible gamestates is the "real one." Finally, as food for thought, the rules do not prohibit the changing of a square's coordinates, do not require that there be a square associated with every coordinate, and do not require that there be only one square associated with each coordinate. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 02 22:27:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 06:27:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 12829 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 06:27:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 06:27:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 06:27:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.119] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2001 06:27:49 -0000 Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 06:27:46 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: One more point... Message-ID: <95g8d2+je7q@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 544 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.53.141.11 From: rsholmes@m... Andre's judgement is that I am the winner, because the ambiguity of Henry's position means I am unable to complete my turn. I disagree with that, but if Feyd does not support the overrule, Andre's judgement stands and I will abide by it. However: Andre and Feyd worry that I or someone else will win again, and again, until the situation is corrected. They are wrong. It's worse than that: IF IT IS TRUE I AM UNABLE TO COMPLETE MY TURN, THAT MEANS THE NEXT TURN CANNOT BEGIN. And that means this game of Nomic is over! - Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 02 23:25:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 07:25:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 96329 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 07:25:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 07:25:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 07:25:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.117] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2001 07:25:42 -0000 Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:25:39 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement on Henry's position Message-ID: <95gbpj+9dtq@e...> In-Reply-To: <95fdoh+g3l7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2910 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.53.140.180 From: rsholmes@m... --- In n_omic@y..., Nomic1@a... wrote: > >So Rule 213 cannot create a winner until a > > situation arises in which the completion of someone's Turn depends > on > > determining the legality of Henry's position. > > That happened by #318 causing Henry to be moved (or not moved), and > we being unable to determine whether to move him or not. > > > > In any case, I claim I have completed my Turn and therefore cannot > be the winner. > > Judgement was invoked before you did that. Take another look at the ruleset. "Inability to complete a turn" refers to situations in which a Player cannot complete the actions of em required during a Turn. It DOES NOT refer to situations in which the only thing preventing the next Turn from starting is the invocation of Judgment itself. That is made clear by the following part of Rule 212: "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked." The present question -- "Does Henry occupy a legal position?" -- does NOT affect the completion of my Turn. Henry's position is irrelevant to the actions required to complete my Turn. Only the Judgment that was called on this question affects completion of my turn. I not only disagree with Andre's Judgment, but I assert that there was no cause to invoke Judgment in the first place. Let me give an example. Suppose my proposed rule-change had had an additional clause stating that it was legal for any player to move (for free) to the square Henry occupies, and that the rule-change passed. Suppose in Phase 4 I then said, "I move to (3,7)". Is that legal? It is if Henry is at (3,7), it isn't if he's not. Then the question of Henry's position would affect completion of my move, because knowledge of his position would be required to evaluate the legality of my move. But my proposal had no such provision, and I made no move (or rather, I made an illegal move intended to be ignored). Henry's position had no effect on completion of my Turn. Therefore the invocation of Judgment on Henry's position was invalid. That invocation of Judgment *does* affect completion of my turn. Therefore, I INVOKE JUDGMENT on the legality of the previous invocation of Judgment. That is, I ask the Judge to decide the following question: Does the ambiguity in Henry's position (as distinguished from the invocation of Judgment on that ambiguity) affect the completion of my Turn? If not -- as I claim it does not -- then the previous Judgment was invoked illegally and should be set aside. If, on the other hand, the ambiguity in Henry's position does prevent completion of my Turn, then the Judge must either resolve that ambiguity, enabling my Turn to be completed, or not, in which case my Turn cannot be completed and the game cannot continue. - Doctroid From engels@w... Sat Feb 03 01:22:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 09:22:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 87610 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 09:22:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 09:22:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 10:23:09 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f139M3u08412 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:22:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f139M2l02427 for n_omic@egroups.com; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:22:02 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102030922.f139M2l02427@w...> Subject: Judgement change To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:22:01 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Having read the discussion regarding my judgement, I have thought about it again, and found that there is some truth in the objections. I still do not buy the argument that Henry would be still on the same square, but with different coordinates. I also do not agree that 'move' is equal to 'turn'. However, what I do agree with is: 1. Henry possibly moving is not a move or part of a move. In my opinion, a move is an action of a player that has consequences for the game. In this case, what was going on was not player-caused but rule-caused. As such, it is not a move but an event. 2. Pointing to Rich as the winner would be incorrect anyway. Rule 213 says that "the first player unable to complete a turn" would be the winner. The problems that exist do not cause Rich to be unable to complete his turn and as such, could not be reason for me to declare him to be the winner. Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be resolved soon. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 01:25:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 09:25:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 37295 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 09:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 09:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 10:26:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f13A9eD17942 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:09:42 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:09:40 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: <95gbpj+9dtq@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Take another look at the ruleset. "Inability to complete a turn" > refers to situations in which a Player cannot complete the actions of > em required during a Turn. It DOES NOT refer to situations in which > the only thing preventing the next Turn from starting is the invocation > of Judgment itself. That is made clear by the following part of Rule > 212: The thing preventing you from completing your turn is that we don't know about what exactly happened when proposal 318 passed. This would be the case whether judgement was invoked or not. > "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on > which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of > the turn in which Judgment was invoked." Be sure to note that it also applies to issues in which the players currently disagree. I would say we certainly disagree on this issue. > The present question -- "Does Henry occupy a legal position?" -- does > NOT affect the completion of my Turn. Henry's position is irrelevant > to the actions required to complete my Turn. Only the Judgment that > was called on this question affects completion of my turn. I not only > disagree with Andre's Judgment, but I assert that there was no cause to > invoke Judgment in the first place. We disagreed on the interpretation of a rule. That is a perfectly justifiable reason to invoke judgement. Also, I would argue that since the invocation is about the application of a rule as it was just passed, including events that take place as a direct result of it passing, your turn cannot be completed until we determine the exact effect of that rule. I would argue you cannot (and did not) complete phase 3 until this is resolved. > Let me give an example. Suppose my proposed rule-change had had an > additional clause stating that it was legal for any player to move (for > free) to the square Henry occupies, and that the rule-change passed. > Suppose in Phase 4 I then said, "I move to (3,7)". Is that legal? It > is if Henry is at (3,7), it isn't if he's not. Then the question of > Henry's position would affect completion of my move, because knowledge > of his position would be required to evaluate the legality of my move. > > But my proposal had no such provision, and I made no move (or rather, I > made an illegal move intended to be ignored). Henry's position had no > effect on completion of my Turn. Therefore the invocation of Judgment > on Henry's position was invalid. > > That invocation of Judgment *does* affect completion of my turn. > Therefore, I INVOKE JUDGMENT on the legality of the previous invocation > of Judgment. That is, I ask the Judge to decide the following > question: Does the ambiguity in Henry's position (as distinguished from > the invocation of Judgment on that ambiguity) affect the completion of > my Turn? If not -- as I claim it does not -- then the previous > Judgment was invoked illegally and should be set aside. If, on the > other hand, the ambiguity in Henry's position does prevent completion > of my Turn, then the Judge must either resolve that ambiguity, enabling > my Turn to be completed, or not, in which case my Turn cannot be > completed and the game cannot continue. This is an easy one to decide. Judgement can be invoked when "players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule". Straight out of rule 212. We disagree on the interpretation or application of rule 318. My invocation is perfectly legal. Additionally, I also maintain that the completion of your turn is affected by the outcome of events directly related to proposal 318 passing. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 01:30:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 09:30:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 18221 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 09:30:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 09:30:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 09:30:07 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f13AETf17952 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:14:31 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:14:29 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change In-Reply-To: <200102030922.f139M2l02427@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > resolved soon. Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. Since you are no longer the judge, I don't think you can change your judgement... I would say you're going to have to invoke judgement regarding changing your own judgement in order to pull this one off... From ross@b... Sat Feb 03 06:58:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 14:58:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 3787 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 14:58:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 14:58:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 15:59:25 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id JAA06113 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 09:58:19 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05380 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 09:58:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 09:58:19 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: <95f9jo+a1qd@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Wow... this is quite a mess, isn't it? Well, just to set out my opinion and plan: I don't believe that Rich is the winner because I don't think Henry's position is of the right contradictory sort to fall into the game ending category (others have expressed this view better than I could and so I'll just leave it at that). However, after Rich wins and play passes to me, I'll include a clause in my proposal that will restore Henry to a valid square (since that is legal within the rules). -Ross From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 12:15:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 20:15:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 67529 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 20:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 20:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 20:15:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f13KxIJ18297 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:59:20 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:59:18 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Another thought to add to the fire... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Just had another thought about the issue this morning. Take a look at this sentence from rule 212: All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. Invocation #2 is regarding what happened to Henry when proposal 318 passed. The rules are clearly silent, inconsistent, or unclear on this issue. That leaves the judge able to use game custom and spirit of the game when judging this issue. That would allow the judge some lattitude to adopt a resolution like Rich's original plan, where we acted as if Joel left the game after proposal 318 passed. While this plan doesn't have a legal backing in the rules, one could argue that it, or another plan like it, is within the spirit of the game. From pdx_nomic@y... Sat Feb 03 18:45:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 02:45:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 67680 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 02:45:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 02:45:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 02:45:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.207] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 02:45:09 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 02:45:09 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement change Message-ID: <95ifnl+438v@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1401 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > > > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > > resolved soon. > > Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were > overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. Since you are no longer the > judge, I don't think you can change your judgement... I would say you're > going to have to invoke judgement regarding changing your own judgement in > order to pull this one off... Not true. I've been reading up on the discussion here and it's quite clear that Andre is still the Judge. MSG#400 and MSG#408 make this clear. Also, not everyone has voted yet. While this discussion has taken place, a couple people have added themselves to the game. As the vote was not finalized, the judgement didn't go into effect. In that time, the Judge change his position and ruled differently. This doesn't appear to conflict with any rules. The game then continues unless someone would foolishly attempt to overrule this new judgement. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 19:29:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 03:29:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 20364 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 03:29:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 03:29:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:30:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f144DJS19310 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:13:21 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:13:19 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change In-Reply-To: <95ifnl+438v@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > Not true. I've been reading up on the discussion here and it's quite > clear that Andre is still the Judge. MSG#400 and MSG#408 make this > clear. Also, not everyone has voted yet. While this discussion has > taken place, a couple people have added themselves to the game. > > As the vote was not finalized, the judgement didn't go into effect. > In that time, the Judge change his position and ruled differently. > This doesn't appear to conflict with any rules. The game then > continues unless someone would foolishly attempt to overrule this new > judgement. *sigh* Thank you for a voice of reason. I had misread Feyd's message (#400) as though he had voted to overrule and also misread message #408 as though he was issuing a judgement to keep Andre's original decision. My apologies. Andre is still the current judge. I guess there is no reason why he can't change his judgement... From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 19:30:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 03:30:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 22353 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 03:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 03:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:31:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f144EPV19318 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:14:27 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:14:25 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Wish to Play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > As the current judge, Feyd must privately email you a list of the > labels of all labelled players. Feyd also must add one word to the list of > valid label words and announce it to all players. Rich Holmes, the current > player, must privately email you what Feyd's current label is. You receive > 50 Groks for joining the game. There's also some changes to the > 2-dimensional grid, but those changes will need to wait until the current > discussion is concluded. Sorry about the confusion... Andre is still the current judge and must do the tasks mentioned above. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 19:53:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 03:53:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 93852 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 03:53:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 03:53:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 03:53:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f144bip19330 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:37:46 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:37:44 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change In-Reply-To: <200102030922.f139M2l02427@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Having read the discussion regarding my judgement, I have thought about it > again, and found that there is some truth in the objections. > > I still do not buy the argument that Henry would be still on the same square, > but with different coordinates. Hmm... So how did he move to a different square? Rule 318 states that: "Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules." No provisions have been made in the rules for Henry to move to a different square. > However, what I do agree with is: > 1. Henry possibly moving is not a move or part of a move. In my opinion, a > move is an action of a player that has consequences for the game. In this > case, what was going on was not player-caused but rule-caused. As such, it > is not a move but an event. *Everything* in this game is rule-caused. When a player takes a turn, it is caused by a rule. When a player moves from one square to another during phase 4, it is caused by a rule. Since the rules are written by the players, I would argue that everything is also player-caused. In this particular case, the "event" was caused by the enactment of rule 318 from Rich's proposal; a player action. > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > resolved soon. I don't buy this judgement either. I feel it leaves us with the very same situation we started with. I don't feel the game can continue with Henry in an indeterminate position. I feel there are ways within the rules permitting us to determine where Henry is. I still vote to overrule this judgement. From pdx_nomic@y... Sat Feb 03 20:02:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 04:02:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 79548 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 04:02:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 04:02:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:02:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.99] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 04:02:07 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:01:59 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Another resolution to #318 Message-ID: <95ik7n+5bp0@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1182 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... It isn't a valid rule. I quote from 316 on the voting phase, "If any single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that proposal, are discarded and not enacted." You also loose 5 points. We already know that Henry is at position (40,20). When Rule 318 goes into effect, it claims that X coordinate 40 doesn't exist. This is clearly wrong unless we're willing to go along with some clever mind bending argument that the coordinate of a square is not the same as the square. We may consider 318 illegal because it contradicts the existing game state. It states that no player can be on square X > 39, and yet here is Henry at (40,20). Rule 318 is illegal and thus according to rule 316 should be discarded. This follows cleanly from the spirit of rule 316 and should be within the judges discretion. Note this skips past rule 115. Rule 318 is invalid not due to self-application, but due to contradiction with the game state. It states something about the game space that simply is not true. NOTE: This is purely accidemic at this point since Andre already changed his judgement. PDX From pdx_nomic@y... Sat Feb 03 20:18:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 04:18:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 29255 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 04:17:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 04:17:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:17:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 04:17:56 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:17:54 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement change Message-ID: <95il5i+sc3m@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1782 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... > > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > > resolved soon. > > I don't buy this judgement either. I feel it leaves us with the > very same situation we started with. I don't feel the game can continue > with Henry in an indeterminate position. I feel there are ways within the > rules permitting us to determine where Henry is. I still vote to overrule > this judgement. It seems clear to me that Andre is not a Mathematician. If we accept that rule #318 is valid, then we must accept that Henry's X coordinate is within the allowable range (0,39), call it henry_x. He location is EXACTLY (henry_x, 20), then we remove players that have left the game. This updates his position to ( if(henry_x > expired_players_x) then henry_x - 5 else henry_x, 20 ). This is a perfectly well defined location, it just makes accounting a little annoying. There is nothing in the rules stating that we must know the value of henry_x. Further calculations are not a problem. The only problem is when you must invoke a decision based on the value of henry_x. For instance, is Henry's score over 200? Did he win? >From the equation that represents his score, we can deduce that it currently is less than 200. Only at a point at which this is not known does it cause difficulty in continuing with the game. Besides, the very next rule proposed should establish where Henry is located and hopefully resolve such future problems. From pdx_nomic@y... Sat Feb 03 20:25:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 04:25:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 9505 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 04:25:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 04:25:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:25:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 04:25:13 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:25:12 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I desire to join this game of N_omic. Message-ID: <95ilj8+in55@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 308 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... And thus by rule 303, I am in the game. You may add me as "PDX Nomic". There is nothing in the rules to prevent this. ];+> It could have been worse. I could have terminated your game simply by joining it. Or at least caused a considerable amount of debate about how flexible the rules really are. PDX From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 20:33:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 04:33:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 64062 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 04:33:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 04:33:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:33:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f145Hac19362 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:17:38 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:17:36 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I desire to join this game of N_omic. In-Reply-To: <95ilj8+in55@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > And thus by rule 303, I am in the game. You may add me as "PDX > Nomic". There is nothing in the rules to prevent this. ];+> It could > have been worse. I could have terminated your game simply by joining > it. Or at least caused a considerable amount of debate about how > flexible the rules really are. Bah... We've had players with strange names before, take Feyd for example. As a point of clarification, are you stating your first name as "PDX" and your surname as "Nomic", or are you simply PDX Nomic with no last name? I will add you to the player list when you get back to me. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 20:34:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 04:34:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 58152 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 04:34:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 04:34:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 04:34:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f145Igi19370 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:18:43 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:18:42 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Another resolution to #318 In-Reply-To: <95ik7n+5bp0@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > It isn't a valid rule. I quote from 316 on the voting phase, "If any > single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that > rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that > proposal, are discarded and not enacted." You also loose 5 points. > > We already know that Henry is at position (40,20). When Rule 318 goes > into effect, it claims that X coordinate 40 doesn't exist. This is > clearly wrong unless we're willing to go along with some clever mind > bending argument that the coordinate of a square is not the same as > the square. > > We may consider 318 illegal because it contradicts the existing game > state. It states that no player can be on square X > 39, and yet here > is Henry at (40,20). Rule 318 is illegal and thus according to rule > 316 should be discarded. This follows cleanly from the spirit of rule > 316 and should be within the judges discretion. > > Note this skips past rule 115. Rule 318 is invalid not due to > self-application, but due to contradiction with the game state. It > states something about the game space that simply is not true. I would support such a judgement. > NOTE: This is purely accidemic at this point since Andre already > changed his judgement. Nothing stopping him from changing it again... From pdx_nomic@y... Sat Feb 03 21:31:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 05:31:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 52150 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 05:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 05:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 05:31:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 05:31:14 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 05:31:13 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: I desire to join this game of N_omic. Message-ID: <95ipf1+otkp@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 844 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... You are one for details. As my yahoo account notes, it is firstname: PDX, and lastname: Nomic. PDX --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > > And thus by rule 303, I am in the game. You may add me as "PDX > > Nomic". There is nothing in the rules to prevent this. ];+> It could > > have been worse. I could have terminated your game simply by joining > > it. Or at least caused a considerable amount of debate about how > > flexible the rules really are. > > Bah... We've had players with strange names before, take Feyd surname> for example. As a point of clarification, are you stating your > first name as "PDX" and your surname as "Nomic", or are you simply PDX > Nomic with no last name? > > I will add you to the player list when you get back to me. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 21:37:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 05:37:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 36941 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 05:37:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 05:37:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 05:37:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f146LAB19409 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:21:12 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:21:10 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: I desire to join this game of N_omic. In-Reply-To: <95ipf1+otkp@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > You are one for details. As my yahoo account notes, it is firstname: > PDX, and lastname: Nomic. Ya gotta pay attention to details in this game... ;-) Okay PDX, I have added you to the player list I mantain at: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/players.html As the current judge, Andre must privately email you a list of the labels of all labelled players. Andre also must add one word to the list of valid label words and announce it to all players. Rich Holmes, the current player, must privately email you what Andre's current label is. You receive 50 Groks for joining the game. There's also some changes to the 2-dimensional grid, but those changes will need to wait until the current discussion is concluded. Please let me know if you have any questions. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 22:40:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 06:40:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 13753 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 06:40:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 06:40:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 07:41:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f147OUk19435 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:24:30 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:24:30 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change In-Reply-To: <95il5i+sc3m@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > It seems clear to me that Andre is not a Mathematician. If we accept > that rule #318 is valid, then we must accept that Henry's X coordinate > is within the allowable range (0,39), call it henry_x. He location is > EXACTLY (henry_x, 20), then we remove players that have left the > game. This updates his position to ( if(henry_x > expired_players_x) > then henry_x - 5 else henry_x, 20 ). This is a perfectly well defined > location, it just makes accounting a little annoying. There is > nothing in the rules stating that we must know the value of henry_x. > Further calculations are not a problem. You assume that Henry is still in a position where the Y coordinate is 20. The current judgement puts Henry in an indeterminate location, including an unknown Y coordinate. What if Henry is at Y = 0? He's gained 100 points and everyone has moved elsewhere... Also, we've had two players join the game since Henry's position became indeterminate. Look at how we handle new players (from rule 318): When a new Player enters the game, files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are added to the board and the new Player is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j), where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the nearest integer. We need to know the mean value of the Y coordinates of all the other players to determine where the new players get placed. This situation just gets uglier and uglier... > The only problem is when you must invoke a decision based on the value > of henry_x. For instance, is Henry's score over 200? Did he win? > >From the equation that represents his score, we can deduce that it > currently is less than 200. Only at a point at which this is not > known does it cause difficulty in continuing with the game. > > Besides, the very next rule proposed should establish where Henry is > located and hopefully resolve such future problems. We need to know where he is now. I don't see any other way around it. We can probably get by for a turn or so with just his X coordinate being indeterminate, but since his entire position along both directions is indeterminate, it presents a problem that needs to be solved now. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 22:47:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 06:47:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 54715 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 06:47:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 06:47:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 06:47:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f147W0J19445 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:32:00 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:32:00 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Another resolution to #318 In-Reply-To: <95ik7n+5bp0@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > It isn't a valid rule. I quote from 316 on the voting phase, "If any > single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that > rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that > proposal, are discarded and not enacted." You also loose 5 points. > > We already know that Henry is at position (40,20). When Rule 318 goes > into effect, it claims that X coordinate 40 doesn't exist. This is > clearly wrong unless we're willing to go along with some clever mind > bending argument that the coordinate of a square is not the same as > the square. > > We may consider 318 illegal because it contradicts the existing game > state. It states that no player can be on square X > 39, and yet here > is Henry at (40,20). Rule 318 is illegal and thus according to rule > 316 should be discarded. This follows cleanly from the spirit of rule > 316 and should be within the judges discretion. > > Note this skips past rule 115. Rule 318 is invalid not due to > self-application, but due to contradiction with the game state. It > states something about the game space that simply is not true. You know what... The more I think about it, the more I like this solution. I like it so much that I Invoke Judgement using it as a basis. Invocation #4 : I argue that rule-change 318 is illegal since it contradicts the existing game state. Rule 316 allows for illegal rule-changes to be discarded and not enacted. I call for this to take place. As support for my invocation, I use PDX's original message, quoted above. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 03 23:00:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 07:00:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 79641 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 07:00:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 07:00:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 08:01:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f147img19460 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:44:49 -0800 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:44:48 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: The Proposal 318 Saga Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" I've created a new web page detailing the discussion regarding Invocations 2, 3, and 4 and their corresponding judgements. It can be found here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/judgements2-4.html From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Sat Feb 03 23:18:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 07:18:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 70802 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 07:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 07:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 07:18:17 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06183 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:18:16 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <39892389@d...> Date: 04 Feb 2001 02:18:16 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Snackmaster) Subject: Re: [n_omic] The Proposal 318 Saga To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... someone let me know when I have to vote... From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 00:24:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 08:24:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 48004 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 08:24:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 08:24:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 08:24:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 08:24:40 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 08:24:37 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement change Message-ID: <95j3k5+inls@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1554 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > You assume that Henry is still in a position where the Y > coordinate is 20. The current judgement puts Henry in an indeterminate > location, including an unknown Y coordinate. What if Henry is at Y = 0? > He's gained 100 points and everyone has moved elsewhere... Also, we've had > two players join the game since Henry's position became indeterminate. Yes, the Y coordinate needs to be known otherwise the game will fall into itself; grinding to a halt as no-one can keep up with the game state. He he... another crazy idea: consider it like quantum physics. Henry's position is "all possible positions with equal probability", until the probability field collapses into a given state with 100% probability. The position of new players would be based on this probability field, as would points, etc. Of course, we couldn't declair winners until the probability of them winning is 1. This could be a lot of fun! Finally, a use for my degree. However, I'm with you on supporting that rule 318 is illegal. My argument is on shaky ground, but rule 212 does provide that the Judge has some discretion "...when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue..." This is clearly the case here. And if Andre does accept that 318 is illegal, he will not be overruled. Andre's second judgement should be overruled if he does not decide to change it again. Andre? BTW: I just finished reading the entire N_omic archive. Very interesting! Well done! PDX From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 00:31:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 08:31:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 80475 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 08:31:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 08:31:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 08:31:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.133] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 08:31:20 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 08:31:18 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: The Proposal 318 Saga Message-ID: <95j40m+9q5h@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 745 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... ;+> That's a sure sign of an obsessive compulsive disorder. Might I make a suggestion? Add a table of contents at the start of that page which gives a brief summery of the debate, and links to the specific e-mail messages. It'd be great to have a historic archive which allowed people to go back to the rule sets and game states as they were when key judgements were made. Do you know PHP or Zope? I hear these can do a great job at constructing such web sites. PDX --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > I've created a new web page detailing the discussion regarding > Invocations 2, 3, and 4 and their corresponding judgements. It can be > found here: > > http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/judgements2-4.html From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 00:43:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 08:43:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 66535 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 08:43:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 08:43:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 09:44:28 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f149RXC19682 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 01:27:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 01:27:33 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: The Proposal 318 Saga In-Reply-To: <95j40m+9q5h@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > ;+> That's a sure sign of an obsessive compulsive disorder. Might I > make a suggestion? Add a table of contents at the start of that page > which gives a brief summery of the debate, and links to the specific > e-mail messages. Good idea. Perhaps I can do this tomorrow... I'm tired of typing HTML for today... ;-) > > It'd be great to have a historic archive which allowed people to go > back to the rule sets and game states as they were when key judgements > were made. Do you know PHP or Zope? I hear these can do a great job > at constructing such web sites. In fact, I do know PHP. I'll have to think about how PHP can be applied to N_omic. Until then, you can see some of my PHP projects in progress here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com One of the projects is a web based version of the game Dvorak. You can find the details here: http://www.uncertain.org/~kevan/dvorak/ I hope to be able to incorporate it, or at least portions of it, into N_omic if I ever get a chance to make a proposal again... From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 09:15:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 17:15:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 35428 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 17:15:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 17:15:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 17:15:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 17:15:49 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 17:15:47 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: The Proposal 318 Saga Message-ID: <95k2o3+6sl6@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2436 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > > > It'd be great to have a historic archive which allowed people to go > > back to the rule sets and game states as they were when key judgements > > were made. Do you know PHP or Zope? I hear these can do a great job > > at constructing such web sites. > > In fact, I do know PHP. I'll have to think about how PHP can be > applied to N_omic. It's not so much applying PHP to N_omic, but appyling it to the historical archive. Techincally, someone who is not a member of the game should perform the archive. That way they are not subject to the games rules. With the players we have, it should be reasonable to post a rule and make in immutable that disallows rules that hinder making a historical archive. I don't know PHP, but the jist of the idea is to create a database and have PHP draw from the database to create pages. Thus, each proposol can be added to the DB with the date proposed, authors name, etc. You can also have a DB of enacted rules. These would have an arbitrary ID, date enacted, date repealed, successor, etc. Game state can be handled similarly. Stay as far away from actual game rules as possible, and just stick to archival features. PHP just draws from the DB to create pages making it easier to maintain. For a list of proposals, it would list all proposals in cronological order. For game rules, it can query for all rules "active" at a given date, and sort those by a special "sorting index" to avoid using the rule #'s as they may change at some point. Hmmm... I think we need a way to distinguish between official N_omic communications and meta-N_omic communications. Someone should propose a rule that would make it clear when people are making moves in the game, and exactly what move they just made. Also that they can't take back their move once posted. Otherwise we'll be forever stuck in long debates. But then, that is what the game is about, no? > Until then, you can see some of my PHP projects in > progress here: > > http://kenny.sir-toby.com > > One of the projects is a web based version of the game Dvorak. You > can find the details here: > > http://www.uncertain.org/~kevan/dvorak/ > > I hope to be able to incorporate it, or at least portions of it, > into N_omic if I ever get a chance to make a proposal again... Sounds like "1000 Blank White Cards." Sharp looking page though! PDX From engels@w... Sun Feb 04 10:15:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 18:15:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 45549 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 18:15:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 18:15:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 18:15:30 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14IFRu04553 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:15:28 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f14IFRQ00526 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:15:27 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102041815.f14IFRQ00526@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change In-Reply-To: from "Jeffrey J. Weston" at "Feb 3, 2001 2:14:29 am" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:15:26 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were > overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. I was not overruled. Only an anonymous vote among the remaining players can overrule my judgement, and Feyd voted against the overruling. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From engels@w... Sun Feb 04 10:25:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 18:25:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 8286 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 18:25:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 18:25:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 19:26:22 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14IPGH16644 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:25:16 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f14IPFM00604 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:25:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102041825.f14IPFM00604@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change In-Reply-To: <95j3k5+inls@e...> from "pdx_nomic@y..." at "Feb 4, 2001 8:24:37 am" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:25:15 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > Yes, the Y coordinate needs to be known otherwise the game will fall > into itself; grinding to a halt as no-one can keep up with the game > state. He he... another crazy idea: consider it like quantum > physics. Henry's position is "all possible positions with equal > probability", until the probability field collapses into a given state > with 100% probability. That does not work - there exists no uniform probability distribution on the integers. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From engels@w... Sun Feb 04 10:31:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 18:31:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 11118 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 18:31:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 18:31:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 18:31:26 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14IVOH16798 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:31:24 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f14IVNb00627 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:31:23 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102041831.f14IVNb00627@w...> Subject: Label To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:31:23 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels With PDX Nomic entering the game, I have to choose a new label. I create the label House, and give this label to Row 6. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 10:55:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 18:55:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 36863 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 18:55:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 18:55:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 18:55:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.117] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 18:55:57 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 18:55:56 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement change Message-ID: <95k8js+djo6@e...> In-Reply-To: <200102041825.f14IPFM00604@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1795 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... Really? I can declare a probability field as long as the sum(i in I, P(i)) = 1, where I is the set of all integers and P(i) is the probability of i. Being uniform mearly means that P(i) = P(j) for all i and j in I. This is clearly reasonable when you consider that you can have a probability field over the real numbers. There are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers. In fact, a gausian distribution covers all real numbers. Just becuase P(i) is so small that no-one can tell you what it is doesn't mean that it can't exist in mathematics. It's been quite a few years since I got my degree in Pure and Applied Mathematics, but I'm sure I haven't missed on this one. Besides, I really think you should change your judement and declair #318 to be illegal. We'll have a hell of a time educating everyone about the finer points of mathematics. I remember tutoring students and teaching pre-calculus; I don't care to do it over the web. PDX --- In n_omic@y..., Andre Engels wrote: > pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > > Yes, the Y coordinate needs to be known otherwise the game will fall > > into itself; grinding to a halt as no-one can keep up with the game > > state. He he... another crazy idea: consider it like quantum > > physics. Henry's position is "all possible positions with equal > > probability", until the probability field collapses into a given state > > with 100% probability. > > That does not work - there exists no uniform probability distribution > on the integers. > > > -- > Andre Engels, engels@w... > telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) > http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html > > If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, > we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 11:19:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 19:19:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12579 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 19:19:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 19:19:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 19:19:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.117] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 19:19:23 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 19:19:21 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: n_omic_forum@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <95k9vp+fcjh@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 491 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... I've created a forum for off-line discussions about N_omic. This isn't for any sort of game play. As the rules state, game play is done in N_omic@e... This is to help reduce the flood of e-mails in N_omic not directly related to current game play. If you're interested in discussing possible direction and strategy for the game, join in. Otherwise, you can safely ignore all the extra messages I'll be generating in the Forum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic_forum/ PDX From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 11:34:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 19:34:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 10527 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 19:34:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 19:34:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 19:34:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14KIEf24007 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:18:17 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Label In-Reply-To: <200102041831.f14IVNb00627@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > With PDX Nomic entering the game, I have to choose a new label. > > I create the label House, and give this label to Row 6. Chris Moyer has also joined the game. We need a new label for him as well. From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 11:36:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 19:36:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 14640 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 19:36:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 19:36:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 19:36:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14KK3l24017 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:20:04 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:20:03 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change In-Reply-To: <200102041815.f14IFRQ00526@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > > > Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were > > overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. > > I was not overruled. Only an anonymous vote among the remaining players > can overrule my judgement, and Feyd voted against the overruling. Yeah, my bad. I didn't read Feyd's posts properly. I accept that you can change your judgement regarding invocation #2. However, we still are waiting for judgements on invocations #3 and #4... From rsholmes@m... Sun Feb 04 12:31:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 20:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 94282 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 20:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 20:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 21:32:16 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00928A0D@m...>; 4 Feb 2001 15:31:12 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19361; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:31:10 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Another resolution to #318 References: Date: 04 Feb 2001 15:31:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:32:00 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Invocation #4 : > > I argue that rule-change 318 is illegal since it contradicts the > existing game state. Rule 316 allows for illegal rule-changes to be > discarded and not enacted. I call for this to take place. As support for > my invocation, I use PDX's original message, quoted above. If the rules prohibited or regulated changing the coordinates of a square, I'd say there was a good case for Jeff's contention. As it is, Rule 318 does not contradict the gamestate; it implicitly changes it by changing Henry's square's coordinate. Nothing in the rules prohibits that, and Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules (Rule 116). -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Sun Feb 04 12:34:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 20:34:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 85210 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 20:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 20:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 20:34:26 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00928A39@m...>; 4 Feb 2001 15:34:25 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19695; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:34:25 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position References: Date: 04 Feb 2001 15:34:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:09:40 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > The thing preventing you from completing your turn is that we > don't know about what exactly happened when proposal 318 passed. This > would be the case whether judgement was invoked or not. Nothing about our lack of knowledge impedes the completion of the acts which constitute my Turn. > > "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on > > which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of > > the turn in which Judgment was invoked." > > Be sure to note that it also applies to issues in which the > players currently disagree. I would say we certainly disagree on this > issue. The word "and" in the quoted rule is crucial. We can disagree all we like, but if the disagreement doesn't affect completion of the Turn, it's not subject to Judgment. -- Doctroid From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 13:56:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 21:56:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 82349 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 21:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 21:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 21:56:29 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 21:56:29 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:56:27 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I give my consent to start the next turn Message-ID: <95kj6b+9nmb@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 647 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... Andre made a judgement that Henry's position is indeterminant. Thus all new players including myself have an indeterminant position as well. I'm willing to live with this, though the situation best be corrected very soon. As per rule 212 "When judgement has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players." It says nothing about multiple invocations of judgement, merely that we need a majority to continue the game. Do you consent to start the next turn? PDX BTW: I love the debate! It's been going very well. But lets find something new. We're beating a dead horse. From ross@b... Sun Feb 04 13:59:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 21:59:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 90298 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 21:59:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 21:59:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 23:01:01 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id QAA02120 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:59:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30247 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:59:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:59:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn In-Reply-To: <95kj6b+9nmb@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I consent to start the next turn (mine) and I'll throw something in to move Henry to somewhere legal. -Ross From htowsner@s... Sun Feb 04 14:33:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 22:33:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 66296 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 22:33:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 22:33:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 23:34:44 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f14MXcW02712 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:33:38 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:33:36 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >I consent to start the next turn (mine) and I'll throw something in to >move Henry to somewhere legal. I consent to start the next turn. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 14:46:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 22:46:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 71773 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 22:46:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 22:46:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 22:46:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14NU1924148 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:30:02 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:30:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 4 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nothing about our lack of knowledge impedes the completion of the acts > which constitute my Turn. The exact effects of rule 318, enacted during your turn are undetermined. One of the potential resolutions is that rule-change 318 is deemed illegal. Now, especially since there is an invocation claiming that rule-change 318 is illegal, you cannot complete phase 3 until that is resolved. > > > > "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on > > > which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of > > > the turn in which Judgment was invoked." > > > > Be sure to note that it also applies to issues in which the > > players currently disagree. I would say we certainly disagree on this > > issue. > > The word "and" in the quoted rule is crucial. We can disagree all we > like, but if the disagreement doesn't affect completion of the Turn, > it's not subject to Judgment. The English language is quite fickle in what the word "and" means in these situations. If this were a mathmatical statement, or computer program, then we could conclude the "and" is a logical "and", requiring that both conditions are true. But, since this is English prose, another logical conclusion for the meaning of "and", is to replace it with the phrase "in addition to", such that questions which meet either condition are subject to judgement. If you still don't believe this is the case, consider the consequences of your interpretation. We would only be able to invoke judgement on things affecting the completion of the turn in which judgement was invoked. Let's say its Feyd's turn and Henry decides that there is a loophole in the rules allowing his current square to change coordinates, and he announces his coordinates have changed to (0, 0), he gains 100 points, and everyone moves according to the rules. Most likely the players would disagree with Henry's interpretation of the rules and would invoke judgement to prevent those actions. But wait! The actions don't really affect Feyd completing his turn, so the judge is powerless to do anything about it. Sound absurd? Not really. This is Nomic. There are limitless things that the players can disagree with that may or may not affect the completion of the current turn. Whether they do or not doesn't matter. All of them are equally important. Preventing the judge from dealing with these issues would be suicide for the game. I would say the spirit of the rule allows the judge to settle questions on which the players currently disagree in addition to those questions which affect the completion of the current turn. From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 14:56:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 22:56:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 82743 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 22:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 22:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 22:56:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.112] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 22:56:45 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:56:44 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Chris Moyer will be next. Message-ID: <95kmnc+jh2k@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 685 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... New players joined the game while still in Rich Holmes turn. The ones before your turn are Chris Moyer and PDX Nomic in that order. We both have indeterminant positions until Henry's position is established. I don't see that we have too much of a problem with this as yet. Something simple like "All players shall take on known positions on the board in accordance to rule 318 as though they were added to the game in the order in which they appear on the roster at the moment this rule is enacted." PDX --- In n_omic@y..., "Ross B. Schulman" wrote: > I consent to start the next turn (mine) and I'll throw something in to > move Henry to somewhere legal. > > -Ross From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 15:09:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 23:09:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 48179 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 23:09:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 23:09:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 23:09:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14NrRW24164 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:53:27 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:53:27 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn In-Reply-To: <95kj6b+9nmb@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > Andre made a judgement that Henry's position is indeterminant. Thus > all new players including myself have an indeterminant position as > well. I'm willing to live with this, though the situation best be > corrected very soon. > > As per rule 212 "When judgement has been invoked, the next player may > not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the > other players." It says nothing about multiple invocations of > judgement, merely that we need a majority to continue the game. > > Do you consent to start the next turn? No, I do not give my consent to start the next turn. We have two invocations that have not been judged yet, one determining the legality of rule-change 318 and whether is was even enacted in the first place. If Andre judges that rule-change 318 was never enacted in the first place, it would certainly affect upcoming turns. From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 15:17:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 23:17:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 83031 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 23:17:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 23:17:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 23:17:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.94] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2001 23:17:50 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:17:48 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement on Henry's position Message-ID: <95knus+2v94@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2539 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On 4 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > Nothing about our lack of knowledge impedes the completion of the acts > > which constitute my Turn. > > The exact effects of rule 318, enacted during your turn are > undetermined. One of the potential resolutions is that rule-change 318 is > deemed illegal. Now, especially since there is an invocation claiming that > rule-change 318 is illegal, you cannot complete phase 3 until that is > resolved. You're being redundant. The invocation of judgement has already been invoked for rule #318 and a judgement has been given. It now only requires a majority of consent to continue to the next turn. We have consent from 3 of the required 5. Two more people must give consent, and we move on to the next turn. If Andre agrees with this, then you have no grounds to persist with this debate. He is the Judge. I, however, do admire your persistance. If you dissagree with this assesment, then consider the consequences. A "bad apple" could halt the game simply by continually "invoking judgement" on one nonsensicle issue after another. This is why it requires only the consent of the majority of players to continue to the next turn. > The English language is quite fickle in what the word "and" means > in these situations. If this were a mathmatical statement, or computer > program, then we could conclude the "and" is a logical "and", requiring > that both conditions are true. But, since this is English prose, another > logical conclusion for the meaning of "and", is to replace it with the > phrase "in addition to", such that questions which meet either condition > are subject to judgement. Absolutely correct! Well done. > If you still don't believe this is the case, consider the > consequences of your interpretation. We would only be able to invoke > judgement on things affecting the completion of the turn in which > judgement was invoked. Let's say its Feyd's turn and Henry decides that > there is a loophole in the rules allowing his current square to change > coordinates, and he announces his coordinates have changed to (0, 0), he > gains 100 points, and everyone moves according to the rules. Most likely > the players would disagree with Henry's interpretation of the rules and > would invoke judgement to prevent those actions. But wait! The actions > don't really affect Feyd completing his turn, so the judge is powerless to > do anything about it. Bah! That's what I was going to do... From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 15:23:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 23:23:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 58766 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 23:23:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 23:23:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2001 23:23:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1507rp24181 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:07:54 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:07:53 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Chris Moyer will be next. In-Reply-To: <95kmnc+jh2k@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > New players joined the game while still in Rich Holmes turn. The ones > before your turn are Chris Moyer and PDX Nomic in that order. We both > have indeterminant positions until Henry's position is established. I > don't see that we have too much of a problem with this as yet. There are still more consequences to this approach. If Henry's position is undetermined, his location may be where Y = 0, and he has gained 100 points. If that is so, all players have moved as a result. Also, Chris's and PDX's positions are undetermined, so they may or may not have gained 100 points along the same method as well. So ALL players have undetermined positions, as they may or may not of moved as a result of Henry, Chris, and PDX possibly being in a position where Y = 0. Also, Henry, Chris and PDP have undetermined point scores, since they may or may not have gained the 100 points. Now fortunately none of those players have the possibility of winning the game yet, so we don't have to deal with an undetermined winner... Does this situation make anyone else cringe? > Something simple like "All players shall take on known positions on > the board in accordance to rule 318 as though they were added to the > game in the order in which they appear on the roster at the moment > this rule is enacted." I suppose something like this will work... It does take care of the undetermined positions of every player. You should also throw in definite values for Henry's, Chris's, and PDX's scores just to settle the undetermined nature of their scores. I just hope the next player doesn't rake us over a barrel by throwing in a rule change no one would vote for, except that we have to vote for it to resolve the issues at hand... What happens if the proposal solving this dilemma is voted down? From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 15:44:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 4 Feb 2001 23:44:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 48601 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2001 23:44:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2001 23:44:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 00:45:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f150SJj24193 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:28:19 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:28:19 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position In-Reply-To: <95knus+2v94@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > You're being redundant. The invocation of judgement has already been > invoked for rule #318 and a judgement has been given. It now only > requires a majority of consent to continue to the next turn. We have > consent from 3 of the required 5. Two more people must give consent, > and we move on to the next turn. If Andre agrees with this, then you > have no grounds to persist with this debate. He is the Judge. I, > however, do admire your persistance. *sigh* Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse here... But seeing as I have nothing better to do on a lovely Sunday afternoon... The original invocation (#2) was regarding the effects of proposal 318 passing. My second invocation (#4) is regarding the legality of enacting rule-change 318 in the first place. They seem like two seperate issues to me. If the judge rules that #4 is superfluous, then so be it. However, until any judgement of any sort is made on #4, there is the potential to affect future game play. That is why I refuse to consent, and advise others to do the same. If the players do consent to move on with the next turn anyways, I will abide by that and cease further discussion on the issue. However, I will be tracking the undetermined nature of the gamestate, and will be quick to point out additional problems as they arise. > If you dissagree with this assesment, then consider the consequences. > A "bad apple" could halt the game simply by continually "invoking > judgement" on one nonsensicle issue after another. This is why it > requires only the consent of the majority of players to continue to > the next turn. Quite correct, and I wholly agree. I am not trying to be a "bad apple" with my second invocation. I was trying to force consideration of an alternate solution that would be much simpler. I wonder... If game play contiues before the remaining invocations have been judged, what happens to them? From pdx_nomic@y... Sun Feb 04 16:29:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 00:29:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 39001 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 00:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 00:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 00:29:53 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.99] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 00:29:52 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:29:48 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Chris Moyer will be next. Message-ID: <95ks5s+um0p@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2908 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > There are still more consequences to this approach. If Henry's > position is undetermined, his location may be where Y = 0, and he has > gained 100 points. If that is so, all players have moved as a result. > Also, Chris's and PDX's positions are undetermined, so they may or may not > have gained 100 points along the same method as well. So ALL players have > undetermined positions, as they may or may not of moved as a result of > Henry, Chris, and PDX possibly being in a position where Y = 0. Also, > Henry, Chris and PDP have undetermined point scores, since they may or may > not have gained the 100 points. Now fortunately none of those players have > the possibility of winning the game yet, so we don't have to deal with an > undetermined winner... Does this situation make anyone else cringe? Not too bad of a situation really. Simply recal that we have no idea where he is on the y-axis, thus he has an equal chance of being anywhere on the y-axis. P(Y = 0) is negligable as it is infinitely small. BTW, no insults please. :+> PDP indeed. > > Something simple like "All players shall take on known positions on > > the board in accordance to rule 318 as though they were added to the > > game in the order in which they appear on the roster at the moment > > this rule is enacted." > > I suppose something like this will work... It does take care of > the undetermined positions of every player. You should also throw in > definite values for Henry's, Chris's, and PDX's scores just to settle the > undetermined nature of their scores. No need based on my above analysis. Though it wouldn't hurt. > I just hope the next player doesn't rake us over a barrel by > throwing in a rule change no one would vote for, except that we have to > vote for it to resolve the issues at hand... What happens if the proposal > solving this dilemma is voted down? We'll deal with it when we get there. However, by looking at this with statistics, we shouldn't have too much trouble muddling through it. I'm a little suprised that you haven't pointed out the problem with Labels. "pistol" is no longer a valid label, yet 318 requires its use as a Label. Again, it's inconsistant with the game state. However, a judgement ruling to disregard that part of the rule would be consistant with the spirit of the rule. Of course, the players would prefer to follow the "letter" of the rule instead of the "spirit" of the rule. Otherwise, we would simply have moved Henry's position in accordance to the spirit of rule 318 as was originally recommended. I do prefer the idea that 318 is illegal and should be discarded. I've had my fun debating this issue and feel that I and the majority of other players would simply like to continue with the game. The game has to be fun for everyone, otherwise they won't want to play. PDX From jjweston@k... Sun Feb 04 16:44:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 00:44:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 42176 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 00:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 00:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 00:44:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f151S1V24229 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0800 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Chris Moyer will be next. In-Reply-To: <95ks5s+um0p@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > Not too bad of a situation really. Simply recal that we have no idea > where he is on the y-axis, thus he has an equal chance of being > anywhere on the y-axis. P(Y = 0) is negligable as it is infinitely > small. > > BTW, no insults please. :+> PDP indeed. Whoops! Sorry... I knew I would do that eventually. PDP is a common abbreviations we are using in DocNomic. My hands are just so used to typing it I guess. > I'm a little suprised that you haven't pointed out the problem with > Labels. "pistol" is no longer a valid label, yet 318 requires its use > as a Label. Again, it's inconsistant with the game state. However, a > judgement ruling to disregard that part of the rule would be > consistant with the spirit of the rule. Of course, the players would > prefer to follow the "letter" of the rule instead of the "spirit" of > the rule. Otherwise, we would simply have moved Henry's position in > accordance to the spirit of rule 318 as was originally recommended. Yeah, I did notice it. I just thought it would be easier to just ignore it though. Now that you have brought it up however... ;-> Nah... I don't want a mob coming after me trying to forcibly remove me from the game with a nasty proposal of some sort... > I do prefer the idea that 318 is illegal and should be discarded. I've > had my fun debating this issue and feel that I and the majority of > other players would simply like to continue with the game. The game > has to be fun for everyone, otherwise they won't want to play. I prefer that idea as well. Now if only we can convince Andre to issue a judgement along those lines... :) Preferably before we consent to start the next turn... Ah well. I think I'll stop beating this dead horse and go start finding some horses to beat in the N_omic Forum. From htowsner@s... Sun Feb 04 21:03:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 05:03:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 94971 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 05:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 05:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 05:03:32 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1553VW24320 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:03:31 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:58:20 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Current situation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner There are three disputes currently on the table, and having finally looked over them, I'm going to offer my opinions on them. Judgement 2: To briefly reiterate my position, I think that the gamestate is currently ambiguous, since while we know that the coordintes of the square I am on were changed to something which complies with the rules, we do not, at this time, have enough information to determine where that is. As a consequence, certain other players also have ambiguous positions. I do not believe there is anything in this ambiguity preventing the game from proceeding. Judgement 3: I see no problem with invocation 2. The initial clause describing invocation of judgement says judgement may be invoked "If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule". The later clause specifically refers to "new" judges, and is a limitation on reopening previously decided issues. As such I don't think it applies to an issue on which a judge has not already ruled. Judgement 4: Rule 316 states that "If any...rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that rule change [is] discarded and not enacted." Proposal 318 states that "The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps." There are two possible resolutions to this: 1) Proposal 318 failed because it did not accord with the gamestate 2) Proposal 318 succeeded and altered the gamestate (with subsequent confusing effects) After some thought, I think the second version is the correct one. This seems like a somewhat philosophical point about the relationship between the rules and the rest of the gamestate. In my opinion, the rules shape the "world" and as such it exists only as defined by the rules. The rules used to say the grid was infinite, now they say it is finite. If the old clause had been left in the rules than the rule change would have failed, however since it removed the old clause, the gamestate was changed to accord with the new rules, resulting in judgement 2. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From htowsner@s... Sun Feb 04 21:03:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 05:03:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 51910 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 05:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 05:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 05:03:34 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1553XW24336 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:03:33 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:03:29 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: State collapse Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner In an attempt to figure out what the current gamestate is (and perhaps take a small profit in the possible), I note that "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated" and that while movement of players is prohibited, alteration of coordinates is not. Therefore, I change the coordinates of the square I am on to (1,0). Empowered by rule 318, I move the other players as follows: Henry: (0,20) Feyd: (5,20) Andre: (10,20) Rich: (15,20) Chris: (20,20) PDX: (25,20) Ross: (30,20) Eric: (35,20) Jeff: (40,20) I believe this resolves all current ambiguities in the gamestate, although it will take the return of a few judgements to verify that. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From engels@w... Mon Feb 05 04:41:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 12:41:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 93250 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 12:41:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 12:41:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 12:41:48 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15CfjH22750 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:41:45 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f15CfiO02995 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:41:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102051241.f15CfiO02995@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Label In-Reply-To: from "Jeffrey J. Weston" at "Feb 4, 2001 12:18:14 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:41:44 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > > > With PDX Nomic entering the game, I have to choose a new label. > > > > I create the label House, and give this label to Row 6. > > Chris Moyer has also joined the game. We need a new label for him > as well. I create the label Bug, and give this label to Row 2. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From engels@w... Mon Feb 05 04:52:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 12:52:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 32361 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 12:52:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 12:52:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 12:52:07 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15Cq5H24978 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:52:05 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f15Cq5p03058 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:52:05 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102051252.f15Cq5p03058@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] State collapse In-Reply-To: from Henry Towsner at "Feb 4, 2001 9: 3:29 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:52:04 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Henry Towsner wrote: > In an attempt to figure out what the current gamestate is > (and perhaps take a small profit in the possible), I note that > "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and > unregulated" and that while movement of players is prohibited, > alteration of coordinates is not. > > Therefore, I change the coordinates of the square I am on to > (1,0). Being as I am from Agora, my immediate reaction is: You are _allowed_ to change the coordinates of your square, but that does not mean that you are _able_ to do so, and it certainly does not mean that you can do so simply by saying that you do it. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From engels@w... Mon Feb 05 04:59:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 12:59:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 75097 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 12:59:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 12:59:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 12:59:48 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15CxkH26509 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:59:46 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f15Cxkr03066 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:59:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102051259.f15Cxkr03066@w...> Subject: Judgement on #3 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:59:46 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I have been asked for Judgement by Richard Holmes on whether the matter in my first Judgement does affect the completion of his turn. My Judgement here is that it does affect the completion of the turn. I would like to use a broader interpretation of 'affect the completion of the turn' than Richard seems to accept. In particular, in my opinion, a matter 'affects the completion of the turn' whenever it affects the _way_ in which the turn ends, that is, the game state at the end of the turn. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From engels@w... Mon Feb 05 05:06:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 13:06:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 64476 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 13:06:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 13:06:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 13:06:40 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15D6cu06276 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:06:38 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f15D6b003092 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:06:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102051306.f15D6b003092@w...> Subject: Judgement on #4 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:06:37 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels The matter regarding Invocation #4 is, whether Rule Change 318 is illegal, because it contradicts the current gamestate. My judgement is that it is not illegal. Nowhere is it stated that it is illegal for the Rules to contradict each other, or the game state. Far from it, there even exist Rules (110, 211) to deal with such a situation. Because, in my opinion, it is not illegal for a Rule to state a falsity, it is also not illegal for a Rule Change to create such a rule. Thus, there is no reason to assume that Rule Change 318 was illegal. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 07:19:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 15:19:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 12119 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 15:19:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 15:19:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 15:19:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.225] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 15:19:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:19:27 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgement change Message-ID: <95mg9v+ij92@e...> In-Reply-To: <95k8js+djo6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 586 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > Besides, I really think you should change your judement and declair > #318 to be illegal. We'll have a hell of a time educating everyone > about the finer points of mathematics. I remember tutoring students > and teaching pre-calculus; I don't care to do it over the web. > True confession time -- I gotta math minor and some grad work in math, I can keep up with the discussion. I think you would be suprised as to the amount of mathematics this group can take. But I would rather deal with "rock", "paper", "house" . Feyd From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 08:02:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 15738 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 16:02:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.67] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 16:02:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 16:01:59 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Invoke Judgement Re: State collapse Message-ID: <95mipn+n2mj@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1753 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... Cool. I get to be a bad apple too! [[Note: I go away for a weekend and see what happens! No wonder nothing is going on in DocNomic, all the action is going on over here! .]] I invoke judgement on the following grounds: a. *IF* Henry is at an indeterminate position, there in no indication in the rules that Henry can set his own co-ordinate plane. b. The "spirit of the rules & game", as well as consensus discussion during the Great 318 Debate [[please notice the pleasing alliterative flow]] tends to indicate that coordinates do NOT just change themselves with no reason, nor by player fiat. c. Given a & b, Henry cannot define indeterminate to be (1,0). As an aside, several of us have seen a scam in here in redefining our coordinate position, rather than moving. I would strongly encourage a conservative interpretation of B. Feyd Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > In an attempt to figure out what the current gamestate is > (and perhaps take a small profit in the possible), I note that > "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and > unregulated" and that while movement of players is prohibited, > alteration of coordinates is not. > Therefore, I change the coordinates of the square I am on to > (1,0). Empowered by rule 318, I move the other players as follows: > Henry: (0,20) > Feyd: (5,20) > Andre: (10,20) > Rich: (15,20) > Chris: (20,20) > PDX: (25,20) > Ross: (30,20) > Eric: (35,20) > Jeff: (40,20) > > I believe this resolves all current ambiguities in the > gamestate, although it will take the return of a few judgements to > verify that. > -- > Henry Towsner > > The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 08:14:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 16:14:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 93640 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 16:14:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 16:14:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 17:15:22 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0092ECC1@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:14:18 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14247; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:14:17 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change References: <200102030922.f139M2l02427@w...> Date: 05 Feb 2001 11:14:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:22:01 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > Having read the discussion regarding my judgement, I have thought about it > again, and found that there is some truth in the objections. > > I still do not buy the argument that Henry would be still on the same square, > but with different coordinates. I also do not agree that 'move' is equal to > 'turn'. > > However, what I do agree with is: > 1. Henry possibly moving is not a move or part of a move. In my opinion, a > move is an action of a player that has consequences for the game. In this > case, what was going on was not player-caused but rule-caused. As such, it > is not a move but an event. > 2. Pointing to Rich as the winner would be incorrect anyway. Rule 213 says > that "the first player unable to complete a turn" would be the winner. > The problems that exist do not cause Rich to be unable to complete his > turn and as such, could not be reason for me to declare him to be the > winner. > > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > resolved soon. Hmm, I'm not sure how Andre reconciles his two points above with his Judgment #3. Nevertheless, given this change, I hereby withdraw (if that's possible and if it's not moot, given Feyd's vote) my vote to overrule Judgment #2. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 08:17:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 16:17:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 60763 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 16:17:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 16:17:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 16:17:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0092ECF0@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:17:17 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14679; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:17:15 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on #3 References: <200102051259.f15Cxkr03066@w...> Date: 05 Feb 2001 11:17:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:59:46 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > I have been asked for Judgement by Richard Holmes on whether the matter in my > first Judgement does affect the completion of his turn. > > My Judgement here is that it does affect the completion of the turn. I would > like to use a broader interpretation of 'affect the completion of the turn' > than Richard seems to accept. In particular, in my opinion, a matter 'affects > the completion of the turn' whenever it affects the _way_ in which the > turn ends, that is, the game state at the end of the turn. While this is not the interpretation I would have chosen, I think it's an eminently reasonable and defensible one. Perhaps, now that the precedent's been set, it should be explicitly codified -- something about the last act of a turn being the updating of the gamestate. Again, this Judgment does seem to contradict the reasoning behind the revised Judgment #2. Nevertheless, I have no objections to either. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 08:25:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 16:25:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 27515 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 16:25:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 16:25:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 17:26:54 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0092EE60@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:24:15 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA15959; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:24:13 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on #4 References: <200102051306.f15D6b003092@w...> Date: 05 Feb 2001 11:24:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:06:37 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > The matter regarding Invocation #4 is, whether Rule Change 318 is illegal, > because it contradicts the current gamestate. > > My judgement is that it is not illegal. Nowhere is it stated that it is > illegal for the Rules to contradict each other, or the game state. Far > from it, there even exist Rules (110, 211) to deal with such a situation. > Because, in my opinion, it is not illegal for a Rule to state a falsity, it > is also not illegal for a Rule Change to create such a rule. Thus, there is > no reason to assume that Rule Change 318 was illegal. I accept this Judgment, and if Henry is willing to withdraw his "state collapse", give my consent to start the next Turn. If Henry is not willing to withdraw his "state collapse", then I think one more Judgment will be needed... -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 08:25:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 16:25:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 87240 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 16:25:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 16:25:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 17:26:58 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0092EE91@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:25:05 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16101; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:25:03 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] State collapse References: <200102051252.f15Cq5p03058@w...> Date: 05 Feb 2001 11:25:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: Andre Engels's message of "Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:52:04 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Andre Engels writes: > Being as I am from Agora, my immediate reaction is: > > You are _allowed_ to change the coordinates of your square, but that does > not mean that you are _able_ to do so, and it certainly does not mean that > you can do so simply by saying that you do it. Eminently reasonable. It's the difference between "can" and "may". -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Mon Feb 05 08:55:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 16:55:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 44452 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 16:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 16:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 16:55:37 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f15GtaW11264 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:55:37 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200102051252.f15Cq5p03058@w...> References: <200102051252.f15Cq5p03058@w...> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:55:31 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] State collapse Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Being as I am from Agora, my immediate reaction is: > >You are _allowed_ to change the coordinates of your square, but that does >not mean that you are _able_ to do so, and it certainly does not mean that >you can do so simply by saying that you do it. That is probably a better interpretation, so I concede the issue. Just to clarify Feyd's objection, I wasn't trying to just claim which "possible universe" we were in, I was trying to claim that since there was no rule prohibiting the changing of coordinates, I could therefore do it on a whim. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 09:00:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 17:00:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 60004 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 17:00:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 17:00:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 17:00:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15HiCA24985 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:44:24 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:44:12 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I consent to starting the next turn. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Just let me know when we know who's turn it is... From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 09:11:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 17:11:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 91841 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 17:11:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 17:11:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (64.211.240.229) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 17:11:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.118] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 17:11:19 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 17:11:14 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: where are we? Re: State collapse Message-ID: <95mmri+ijge@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 960 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > >Being as I am from Agora, my immediate reaction is: > Just to clarify Feyd's objection, I wasn't trying to just > claim which "possible universe" we were in, I was trying to claim > that since there was no rule prohibiting the changing of coordinates, > I could therefore do it on a whim. > Henry Towsner Hey, I was just ticked that you scammed where I showed restraint ;). Feyd I am kinda confused now. What judgements are pending? Is Andre still de Judge? Was Andre allowed to reverse his ruling? 72 hours had not elapsed since he was challenged. Do we know where ANYONE is? As has been pointed out, if we don't know where Henry is, and his position could cause instant movement, then the most you can say about my position is that: Feyd's Position = IF(henry <> (x,0) THEN (5,20) ELSE (?, ?). I vote NO to continue play until current judgement(s) are resolved. From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 09:41:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 17:41:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 71301 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 17:41:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 17:41:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 17:41:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0092FAF8@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:41:19 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA04325; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:41:18 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] where are we? Re: State collapse References: <95mmri+ijge@e...> Date: 05 Feb 2001 12:41:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Mon, 05 Feb 2001 17:11:14 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > I vote NO to continue play until current judgement(s) are resolved. Judgments #2 (revised), #3, and #4 have been issued. Judgment on the "state collapse" seems to be moot, since Henry's withdrawn it. I saw no official challenge to Andre's change of Judgment #2. Seems to me all current Judgments HAVE been resolved, unless you insist on a Judgment on "state collapse". Any override votes will fail on my vote against... -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 10:48:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 18:48:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 21088 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 18:48:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 18:48:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 19:49:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15JVpN25161 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:32:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:31:51 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: One more consent needed to start the next turn. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" I just tabulated up the votes to consent moving on with the next turn. Feyd - no Andre - can't vote Chris - no Rich - no PDX - yes Ross - yes Eric - no Henry - yes Jeff - yes 4 players consent to starting the next turn, while 4 do not. If any of those "no's" turn into a "yes", play will continue with Chris Moyer. Why Chris? Andre's Judgement to Invocation #3 makes it clear: > I have been asked for Judgement by Richard Holmes on whether the matter > in my first Judgement does affect the completion of his turn. > > My Judgement here is that it does affect the completion of the turn. I > would like to use a broader interpretation of 'affect the completion of > the turn' than Richard seems to accept. In particular, in my opinion, a > matter 'affects the completion of the turn' whenever it affects the > _way_ in which the turn ends, that is, the game state at the end of the > turn. In this case, the problems with the gamestate were not resolved until Andre's revised Judgement to Invocation #2. This Judgement was received after Chris joined the game. From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 10:54:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 18:54:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 94356 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 18:54:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 18:54:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 18:54:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.59] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 18:54:10 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:54:09 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: where are we? Re: State collapse Message-ID: <95mssh+nu4o@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 205 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nomic1@a... writes: > Any override votes will fail on my vote against... I could still tie things up for another 72 hours on a call for override though... Feyd From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 10:56:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 18:56:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 674 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 18:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 18:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 18:56:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.59] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 18:56:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:56:16 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: where are we? Re: State collapse Message-ID: <95mt0g+8nas@e...> In-Reply-To: <95mssh+nu4o@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 369 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > Nomic1@a... writes: > > Any override votes will fail on my vote against... > I could still tie things up for another 72 hours on a call for > override though... > Doctroid, my apoligies, I forgot to say: I do not issue any such challenge, and I withdraw call for judgement. Feyd From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 10:58:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 18:58:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 14748 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 18:58:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 18:58:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 18:58:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15Jfwa25192 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:41:59 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:41:58 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] where are we? Re: State collapse In-Reply-To: <95mssh+nu4o@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > Nomic1@a... writes: > > Any override votes will fail on my vote against... > I could still tie things up for another 72 hours on a call for > override though... Rich removed his vote for an overrule. I now remove my vote for an overrule as well. From chris@c... Mon Feb 05 11:31:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 19:31:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 17739 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 19:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 19:31:45 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3C38F1B834; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:28:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:28:24 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] One more consent needed to start the next turn. Message-ID: <20010205142823.B22147@c...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from jjweston@k... on Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:31:51AM -0800 Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer I consent to move on to the next turn... -Chris Moyer chris@c... -> I just tabulated up the votes to consent moving on with the next ->turn. -> ->Feyd - no ->Andre - can't vote ->Chris - no ->Rich - no ->PDX - yes ->Ross - yes ->Eric - no ->Henry - yes ->Jeff - yes From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 11:36:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 19:36:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 6761 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 19:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 19:36:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15KJVe25222 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:19:58 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:19:31 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Chris Moyer will be next. In-Reply-To: <95ks5s+um0p@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > I'm a little suprised that you haven't pointed out the problem with > Labels. "pistol" is no longer a valid label, yet 318 requires its use > as a Label. Again, it's inconsistant with the game state. However, a > judgement ruling to disregard that part of the rule would be > consistant with the spirit of the rule. Of course, the players would > prefer to follow the "letter" of the rule instead of the "spirit" of > the rule. Otherwise, we would simply have moved Henry's position in > accordance to the spirit of rule 318 as was originally recommended. I just reviewed proposal 318. This isn't as big a deal as you might think. Nothing in rule 318 states that a row label *must* also be listed in the list of valid labels. Row 11 contains the label "Pistol", even though it isn't in this list of valid labels. This doesn't pose a conflict with any rule. In other news, I have updated the player list and the gamestate pages to reflect everything we know (or don't know) about the gamestate. Please review them and let me know if I missed anything. From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 11:38:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 19:38:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 31064 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 19:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:39:07 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f15KKc225232 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:21:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:20:37 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] One more consent needed to start the next turn. In-Reply-To: <20010205142823.B22147@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > I consent to move on to the next turn... A majority of the players have consented to start the next turn. Play now continues with Chris Moyer. From ross@b... Mon Feb 05 11:40:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 19:40:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 4602 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:40:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 19:40:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:41:33 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id OAA06748 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20591 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] One more consent needed to start the next turn. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > > > I consent to move on to the next turn... > > A majority of the players have consented to start the next > turn. Play now continues with Chris Moyer. > And a collective sigh of relief is given as n_omic survives its first crisis... mostly. From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 12:11:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 20:11:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 32308 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 20:11:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 20:11:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 21:12:20 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00930F7D@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:11:15 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA14610; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:11:14 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] One more consent needed to start the next turn. References: Date: 05 Feb 2001 15:11:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > And a collective sigh of relief is given as n_omic survives its first > crisis... mostly. Hmm, crisis is not quite over. We still don't know where anyone is. I've learned one thing: Check all future proposals for contingencies to handle gamestate changes between time of proposal and time of enactment... -- Doctroid From chris@c... Mon Feb 05 12:28:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 20:28:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 83145 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 20:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 20:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:28:43 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 252781B82B; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:20:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:20:18 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: My Turn, Phase 1 and 2 Message-ID: <20010205152017.C22147@c...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer Phase 1: I wish to purchase 0 additional rule change proposals. Phase 2: Proposal 319: I propose that a new mutable rule be put in place, text as follows (from <---BEGIN---> to <---END--->: <---BEGIN---> Anytime a player, or reyalp, is located on a square of unknown, or indeterminate, coordinates the current player is required to specify the coordinates of these unknown players, or reyalps. This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates are brought to the attention of the current player. This requirement must be satisfied before the current player continues to the next phase of their turn, or the next player's turn begins. Furthermore, the current player is required to specify coordinates which are legal and knowable. The y coordinate of these coordinates must also be less than or equal to the highest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp, and greater than or equal to the lowest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp and must fall within the range of legal coordinates, as specified by the Rules. The x coordinate which is specified must fall in the range of legal x values as specified by the Rules. A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement. <---END---> -Chris Moyer From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 12:38:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 20:38:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 7404 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 20:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 20:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:38:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.106] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 20:38:45 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:38:43 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. Message-ID: <95n30j+8i9e@e...> In-Reply-To: <20010205152017.C22147@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1518 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... Currently eveyone is unknown. That means the current player, YOU, gets to set everyone's coordinates. Including your own. So you can set everyone on (Y, 100), effectively trapping all players (who can move from there based on current rules?) and set yourself on (Y, 0) for a quick 100 points. VOTE NO. Feyd > Anytime a player, or reyalp, is located on a square of unknown, > or indeterminate, coordinates the current player is required > to specify the coordinates of these unknown players, or reyalps. > > This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates > are brought to the attention of the current player. This > requirement must be satisfied before the current player > continues to the next phase of their turn, or the next player's > turn begins. > > Furthermore, the current player is required to specify > coordinates which are legal and knowable. The y coordinate of > these coordinates must also be less than or equal to the highest > y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp, and greater than or equal > to the lowest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp and must > fall within the range of legal coordinates, as specified by the > Rules. The x coordinate which is specified must fall in the range > of legal x values as specified by the Rules. > > A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this > manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by > any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement. From htowsner@s... Mon Feb 05 12:55:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 20:55:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 36449 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 20:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 20:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:55:27 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f15KtQW13704 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:55:26 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95n30j+8i9e@e...> References: <95n30j+8i9e@e...> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:55:24 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Currently eveyone is unknown. That means the current player, YOU, >gets to set everyone's coordinates. Including your own. So you can >set everyone on (Y, 100), effectively trapping all players (who can >move from there based on current rules?) and set yourself on (Y, 0) >for a quick 100 points. I think the section at the end ("a player...whose coordinates are affected in this manner is not considered to have moved") is intended to prevent such a reward, and I'm inclined to think it would work. My problem with this proposal is that I don't especially like it as a solution, and I don't think it addresses the broader problem of what happens when the gamestate is unknown. It doesn't seem especially likely that coordinates in particular will become unknown again, but something else probably will at some point. So a rule specific to fixing unknown coordinates seems unhelpful. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From chris@c... Mon Feb 05 12:57:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 20:57:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 66450 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 20:57:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 20:57:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:57:37 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2AE301B82B; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:52:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:52:35 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. Message-ID: <20010205155234.D22147@c...> References: <20010205152017.C22147@c...> <95n30j+8i9e@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <95n30j+8i9e@e...>; from Nomic1@a... on Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 08:38:43PM -0000 Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer ->Currently eveyone is unknown. That means the current player, YOU, Hmm, I am sorely confused. I was following the train of thought that the majority of the gamestate was known... Yowsers. Could someone who thinks they have a firm grasp, please outline what the current game state possibilites are, and what they depend on? ->gets to set everyone's coordinates. Including your own. So you can ->set everyone on (Y, 100), effectively trapping all players (who can ->move from there based on current rules?) and set yourself on (Y, 0) ->for a quick 100 points. -> ->VOTE NO. -> ->Feyd Except: ->> A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this ->> manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by ->> any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement. I intended to prevent that possibility. Perhaps it should have read, "to have moved |or reached| and is not..." -Chris M From chris@c... Mon Feb 05 13:00:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 21:00:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 51176 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 21:00:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 21:00:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 21:00:27 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 894511B82B; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:04:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:04:43 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. Message-ID: <20010205160443.E22147@c...> References: <95n30j+8i9e@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from htowsner@s... on Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:55:24PM -0800 Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer -> My problem with this proposal is that I don't especially like ->it as a solution, and I don't think it addresses the broader problem ->of what happens when the gamestate is unknown. It doesn't seem ->especially likely that coordinates in particular will become unknown ->again, but something else probably will at some point. So a rule ->specific to fixing unknown coordinates seems unhelpful. I agree to some, extent, but I can't think of a rule change that would allow for easy rectification of any unknown state that would not also be highly-abusable. -Chris M From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 05 13:20:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 21:20:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 7765 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 21:20:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 21:20:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 21:20:13 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.68] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2001 21:20:13 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:20:12 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. Message-ID: <95n5ec+pdqf@e...> In-Reply-To: <20010205160443.E22147@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 364 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Chris Moyer wrote: > I agree to some, extent, but I can't think of a rule change that > would allow for easy rectification of any unknown state that would > not also be highly-abusable. > > -Chris M Free the Y axis for setting by the current player, but lock the X axis to the most recent known value, whatever that was. Feyd From htowsner@s... Mon Feb 05 13:23:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 21:23:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 29393 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 21:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 21:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 21:22:20 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f15LMKW25344 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:22:20 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010205160443.E22147@c...> References: <95n30j+8i9e@e...> <20010205160443.E22147@c...> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:22:17 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >I agree to some, extent, but I can't think of a rule change that >would allow for easy rectification of any unknown state that would >not also be highly-abusable. One requirement I'd like to see is that under circumstances like the current one, the resolution should be the one that would have happened if 318's provisions had been in place at the time. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 05 14:02:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 22:02:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 38643 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 22:02:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 22:02:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 22:02:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00931DA1@m...>; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:01:23 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA10323; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:01:21 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. References: <20010205152017.C22147@c...> <95n30j+8i9e@e...> <20010205155234.D22147@c...> Date: 05 Feb 2001 17:01:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: Chris Moyer's message of "Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:52:35 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 36 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Chris Moyer writes: > ->Currently eveyone is unknown. That means the current player, YOU, > > Hmm, I am sorely confused. I was following the train of thought that > the majority of the gamestate was known... Yowsers. Could someone who > thinks they have a firm grasp, please outline what the current game > state possibilites are, and what they depend on? Check Jeff's web site... > ->gets to set everyone's coordinates. Including your own. So you can > ->set everyone on (Y, 100), effectively trapping all players (who can > ->move from there based on current rules?) and set yourself on (Y, 0) > ->for a quick 100 points. > -> > ->VOTE NO. > -> > ->Feyd > > Except: > > ->> A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this > ->> manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by > ->> any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement. > > I intended to prevent that possibility. Perhaps it should have read, > "to have moved |or reached| and is not..." OK, but that still doesn't preclude you moving everyone else to Row 100 and yourself to Row 1... Not an instant 100 point scam, but near as dammit. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 18:07:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 02:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 66019 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 02:07:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 02:07:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 03:08:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f162pLf25447 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:51:23 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:51:21 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote NO on 319..ixnay on the amscay. In-Reply-To: <20010205155234.D22147@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > ->Currently eveyone is unknown. That means the current player, YOU, > > Hmm, I am sorely confused. I was following the train of thought that > the majority of the gamestate was known... Yowsers. Could someone who > thinks they have a firm grasp, please outline what the current game > state possibilites are, and what they depend on? I maintain what I believe the current gamestate is at with these two pages: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/players.html http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/gamestate.html The root problem extends from the fect that Henry is in a legal, but unknown position. His X and Y coordinates are unknown. Chris and PDX joined after this happened. Both of them have well defined X coordinates, as defined by rule 318, but we don't know their Y coordinates, because they depend on knowing Henry's Y coordinate. Hence: Henry uknown Y -> Chris and PDX unknown Y Also, since Henry, Chris, and PDX have a legal, but unknown Y coordinate, there is the distinct possibility that any of them are now in a position where Y = 0. If any one of them are, they win 100 points and move everyone else to (x, 20) where x is a number of that player's choosing, within the constraints of rule 318. Hence: Henry unknown Y -> may have Y = 0 -> may have +100 points or Chris unknown Y -> may have Y = 0 -> may have +100 points or PDX unknown Y -> may have Y = 0 -> may have +100 points and Henry, Chris, or PDX may have Y = 0 -> all players may have moved As you can see, just by having Henry in an undetermined position, we now have *all* players in an undetermined position, as well as three players scores are also undetermined. Quite a mess really. Any solution should explicitly define where *every* player is, as well as what the scores are of Henry, Chris, and PDX. From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 19:18:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 03:18:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 92301 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 03:18:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 03:18:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 04:19:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1641jp25511 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:01:47 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:01:45 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My Turn, Phase 1 and 2 In-Reply-To: <20010205152017.C22147@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > Furthermore, the current player is required to specify coordinates > which are legal and knowable. The y coordinate of these coordinates > must also be less than or equal to the highest y coordinate of any > other player, or reyalp, and greater than or equal to the lowest y > coordinate of any other player, or reyalp and must fall within the > range of legal coordinates, as specified by the Rules. The x > coordinate which is specified must fall in the range of legal x values > as specified by the Rules. The problem I see with this is that more than one player has undetermined coordinates currently. You specify a range for Y coordinates where min( other player Ys ) < Y < max( other player Ys ). The problem here is that the Y coordinates of multiple players are undetermined, thus making your restrictions also undetermined. Also, there is the problem of three players having undetermined point values. Also, Row 11 has a label that is not listed on the list of valid labels. In truth, I think everyone was expecting a solution more along these lines: - - - - - Proposal 319 Make a new rule or amend an existing rule with the following text: blah, blah, blah Normal rule text goes here.... blah, blah, blah When this rule is enacted, Feyd is moved to square (0, 20), Andre is moved to square (5, 20), Rich is moved to square (10, 20), Chris is moved to square (15, 20), PDX is moved to square (20, 20), Ross is moved to square (25, 20), Eric is moved to square (30, 20), Henry is moved to square (35, 20), Jeff is moved to square (40, 20), Chris's points are set to 0, PDX's points are set to 0, Henry's points are set to 0, and Row 11 becomes unlabelled. This paragraph then repeals itself from the ruleset. - - - - - That way you still get to make a standard proposal and our current problems are solved. If you really want to put into place a rule to take care of undetermined gamestate problems for all time, I would recomend something along these lines: If by the completion of a player's turn, there are elements in the gamestate that are undetermined or unknown, before the current turn can be completed, the judge must resolve the problem by determining a definite value for all undetermined or unknown gamestate elements. If the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear regarding what the exact value for a particular element should be, then the judge shall consider game-custom and spirit of the game before applying other standard. In order to successfully determine an exact value, the judge has the authority to make a decision that may not neccesarily be provided for in the rules. Such decisions should be treated as judgements, and can be overruled as provided for in the rules. Of course such a rule change would be somewhat redundant. Judges already are given leeway to use game-custom and spirit of the game to make decisions. The only difference is that this rule would force judges to reach a definite value for any unknowns. Since some may argue your proposed rule-change could be destructive of play, under rule 111, I suggest you amend your proposal to take into account the problems people have discovered. One of the two forms I listed above would work well, in my humble opinion. :-) From pdx_nomic@y... Mon Feb 05 20:38:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 04:38:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 88948 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 04:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 04:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 04:38:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.96] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2001 04:38:35 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 04:37:40 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: My Turn, Phase 1 and 2 Message-ID: <95nv2k+qsed@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1711 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > - - - - - > > Proposal 319 > Make a new rule or amend an existing rule with the following text: > > blah, blah, blah > > Normal rule text goes here.... > > blah, blah, blah > > When this rule is enacted, Feyd is moved to square (0, 20), Andre is moved > to square (5, 20), Rich is moved to square (10, 20), Chris is moved to > square (15, 20), PDX is moved to square (20, 20), Ross is moved to square > (25, 20), Eric is moved to square (30, 20), Henry is moved to square (35, > 20), Jeff is moved to square (40, 20), Chris's points are set to 0, PDX's > points are set to 0, Henry's points are set to 0, and Row 11 becomes > unlabelled. This paragraph then repeals itself from the ruleset. > > - - - - - I feel compeled to remind you that the above wording is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place! If any player leaves the game after the voting has started, but before it is finished, then we'll again have a player in an undefined location. You may want to consider wording that suggests that all players are removed from the game, and then entered back into the game in the order they appeared in the roster at the moment the rule was envoked. As for current scores, you may want to take into account that the scores for Chris, PDX, and Henry were otherwise all zero. The rules were hardly fair in setting our scores to 0 when everyone else has moved well ahead. Did you notice that Rich already has 90 points? Jeff is at 71, and Feyd has 55. It may not be unreasonable to set everyones score to 0 to even the playing field. These three have a considerable advantage over everyone else playing the game. PDX From chris@c... Mon Feb 05 21:56:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@c... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 05:56:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 52178 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 05:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 05:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO raistlin.cdmoyer.dom) (24.49.90.252) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 05:56:08 -0000 Received: by raistlin.cdmoyer.dom (Postfix, from userid 500) id EC51A172F6; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:58:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:58:38 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Message-ID: <20010205235838.A9340@c...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Sender: cmoyer@c... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer Ammended proposal, as per Rule 111, based on the possibility that the original proposal may be destructive to game play. Proposal 319: I propose that a new mutable rule be put in place, text as follows (from <---BEGIN---> to <---END--->: <---BEGIN---> Anytime a player, or reyalp, is located on a square of unknown, or indeterminate, coordinates the current player is required to specify the coordinates of these unknown players, or reyalps. This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates are brought to the attention of the current player. This requirement must be satisfied before the current player continues to the next phase of their turn, or the next player's turn begins. Furthermore, the current player is required to specify coordinates which are legal and knowable. If either coordinate(x,y) can be determined based on the current rules and gamestate, that coordinate must be maintained. The following paragraph applies whena player is specifying an unknown coordinate: The y coordinate of these coordinates must also be less than or equal to the highest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp, and greater than or equal to both 1 and the lowest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp. It must fall within the range of legal coordinates, as specified by the Rules. The x coordinate which is specified must fall in the range of legal x values as specified by the Rules. In a case, where multiple players are at indeterminate coordinates, their coordinates must be specified in the order of gameplay, starting with the current player. A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement (This includes the "reaching row 0" portion of rule 318). <---END---> So... If I were to place myself at (3,1), I would then have to place all other players at (x,1), giving the next player an easy 100 points. -Chris Moyer From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 22:30:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 06:30:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 31720 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 06:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 06:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 06:30:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f167E1325603 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:14:02 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:14:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 In-Reply-To: <20010205235838.A9340@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > So... If I were to place myself at (3,1), I would then have to place > all other players at (x,1), giving the next player an easy 100 points. Um, no. It would give YOU an easy hundred points. Per your rule, "This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates are brought to the attention of the current player. This requirement must be satisfied before the current player continues to the next phase of their turn, or the next player's turn begins." The unknown coordinates have already been brought to your attention. Therefore, you must specify player locations before your 4th phase begins. Since you would get the first chance to move, you get an easy 100 points. In any case, the player locations must be solved before your 4th phase begins. Currently there is no way to determine the legality of a move you make in your 4th phase... Does anyone else feel a little nervous at this point? You still have a problem from the older version: > The y coordinate of these coordinates must also be less than or equal > to the highest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp, and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > greater than or equal to both 1 and the lowest y coordinate of any > other player, or reyalp. It must fall within the range of legal > coordinates, as specified by the Rules. The x coordinate which is > specified must fall in the range of legal x values as specified by the > Rules. We still don't know the Y coordinates of three players. They could be 100, 124243, 217895432798, whatever... We cannot determine the value of the highlighted phrase above. Perhaps if it was replaced with: "the highest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp with a known y coordinate". The same problem goes for determining the lowest Y coordinate. And there is still the issue of the undetermined player scores... From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 05 22:31:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 06:31:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 81847 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 06:31:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 06:31:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 06:31:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f167FCq25611 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:15:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:15:12 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Did I mention that Chris is unlabelled? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" I don't think I did... Hey Rich, can you slap a label on his forehead and let everyone else know what it is? Thanks... From pdx_nomic@y... Mon Feb 05 23:07:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 07:07:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 47574 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 07:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 07:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 07:07:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.48] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2001 07:07:46 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:07:44 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Message-ID: <95o7s0+vmce@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 784 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > > > So... If I were to place myself at (3,1), I would then have to place > > all other players at (x,1), giving the next player an easy 100 points. > > Um, no. It would give YOU an easy hundred points. Per your rule, > "This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates are > brought to the attention of the current player. This requirement must be > satisfied before the current player continues to the next phase of their > turn, or the next player's turn begins." Chris, I doubt that you'll be able to satisfy everyone. Trying to make a more and more complex proposal will only bring on more compaints. Propose something simple as I've suggested. PDX From Nomic1@a... Tue Feb 06 06:04:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 14:04:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 49085 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 14:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 14:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 14:04:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.117] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2001 14:04:36 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 14:04:35 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PDX whines about score ;) Message-ID: <95p09j+8qet@e...> In-Reply-To: <95nv2k+qsed@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 975 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > As for current scores, you may want to take into account that the > scores for Chris, PDX, and Henry were otherwise all zero. The rules > were hardly fair in setting our scores to 0 when everyone else has > moved well ahead. Did you notice that Rich already has 90 points? > Jeff is at 71, and Feyd has 55. It may not be unreasonable to set > everyones score to 0 to even the playing field. These three have a > considerable advantage over everyone else playing the game. > > PDX You may certainly attempt to remove our hard-won points through a rule change. Please note that odds are I will vote against it. There was nothing keeping you from joining the game at an earlier point in time if you had so wished ;). (ok ok, it was catty, what can I say. j/k!) Feyd BTW: The "Great 318 Debate" was a lot of fun. And I really really hope it is finished. Jeffrey, you did a perfect job writing up the happenings! From pdx_nomic@y... Tue Feb 06 08:03:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 16:03:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 70295 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 16:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 16:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 16:03:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.74] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2001 16:03:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:03:51 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PDX whines about score ;) Message-ID: <95p797+sres@e...> In-Reply-To: <95p09j+8qet@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1812 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... The idea is to please the majority of players. Of course, with such a lead, I doubt this pleases you, Fyed. Suggested proposal: At the moment this rule is enacted, the current roster of players listed in order of play starting with the current player is to be noted. It is now established that no-one has reached y-coordinate zero. Each player is then removed from the game starting from the last player until the first. Then each player is returned to the game from first player on noted roster until the last. Once all players are back in the game, each player that voted in favor of this rule is then granted +50 points. Finally, the full text of this rule shall be erased, and replaced with "All hail the great debate of rule 318!" PDX --- In n_omic@y..., Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@y..., pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > > As for current scores, you may want to take into account that the > > scores for Chris, PDX, and Henry were otherwise all zero. The rules > > were hardly fair in setting our scores to 0 when everyone else has > > moved well ahead. Did you notice that Rich already has 90 points? > > Jeff is at 71, and Feyd has 55. It may not be unreasonable to set > > everyones score to 0 to even the playing field. These three have a > > considerable advantage over everyone else playing the game. > > > > PDX > > You may certainly attempt to remove our hard-won points through a > rule change. Please note that odds are I will vote against it. > There was nothing keeping you from joining the game at an earlier > point in time if you had so wished ;). (ok ok, it was catty, what > can I say. j/k!) > > Feyd > > BTW: The "Great 318 Debate" was a lot of fun. And I really really > hope it is finished. Jeffrey, you did a perfect job writing up the > happenings! From rsholmes@m... Tue Feb 06 08:28:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 16:28:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 65298 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 16:28:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 16:28:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 17:29:41 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00936E02@m...>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:28:36 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29849; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:28:34 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: PDX whines about score ;) References: <95p797+sres@e...> Date: 06 Feb 2001 11:28:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: pdx_nomic@y...'s message of "Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:03:51 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... pdx_nomic@y... writes: > Suggested proposal: > > At the moment this rule is enacted, the current roster of players > listed in order of play starting with the current player is to be > noted. It is now established that no-one has reached y-coordinate > zero. Each player is then removed from the game starting from the > last player until the first. Then each player is returned to the game > from first player on noted roster until the last. Once all players > are back in the game, each player that voted in favor of this rule is > then granted +50 points. You can't be serious. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Tue Feb 06 08:43:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 16:43:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 91512 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 16:43:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 16:43:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 17:44:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f16HPxq26044 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:26:20 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:25:59 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: PDX whines about score ;) In-Reply-To: <95p797+sres@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > The idea is to please the majority of players. Of course, with such a > lead, I doubt this pleases you, Fyed. > > Suggested proposal: > > At the moment this rule is enacted, the current roster of players > listed in order of play starting with the current player is to be > noted. It is now established that no-one has reached y-coordinate > zero. Each player is then removed from the game starting from the > last player until the first. Then each player is returned to the game > from first player on noted roster until the last. Once all players > are back in the game, each player that voted in favor of this rule is > then granted +50 points. > > Finally, the full text of this rule shall be erased, and replaced with > "All hail the great debate of rule 318!" Hmm... "It is now established that no-one has reached y-coordinate zero." Sounds like a little retroactive rule application to me... ;-) Removing every player from the game presents its own problems. For every player that is removed, one label needs to be removed. There are less labels than players. Also, who is the judge to remove/add labels when only one player is in the game? And finally, rule 318 has a divide by zero error when a player is added and no players currently are playing. Perhaps something like: When this proposal passes, every player has their Y coordinate set to 20. Every player must select their own X coordinate, and it must be a legal selection according to the rules. Why do you want to remove our hard earned points in the first place? We've worked long and hard to gain these points! Go get your own points! :) Seriously though... When a winner is determined, everyone's points are reset anyways, and the game goes on. On another note: Rule 310 is mutable. Just repeal it and set the winning conditions to something more interesting... ;-) From htowsner@s... Tue Feb 06 10:48:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 18:48:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 40504 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 18:48:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 18:48:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 18:48:54 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f16ImsW26188 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:48:54 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95p797+sres@e...> References: <95p797+sres@e...> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:48:51 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: PDX whines about score ;) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >At the moment this rule is enacted, the current roster of players >listed in order of play starting with the current player is to be >noted. It is now established that no-one has reached y-coordinate >zero. Each player is then removed from the game starting from the >last player until the first. Then each player is returned to the game >from first player on noted roster until the last. Once all players >are back in the game, each player that voted in favor of this rule is >then granted +50 points. Actually, I wouldn't vote to reset all scores either (because I think those scores were fairly earned and I don't want them artificially removed just to "level the playing field.") Also, I frown on blatant bribery. If people are going to start with this, we may want to make it illegal for proposals (and rules created by proposals) to distinguish between players based on how they voted for that proposal. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From chris@c... Tue Feb 06 11:27:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 19:27:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 87415 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 19:27:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 19:27:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 19:27:55 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 355101B82B; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:18:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:18:04 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: PDX whines about score ;) Message-ID: <20010206141803.A4483@c...> References: <95p797+sres@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from htowsner@s... on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:48:51AM -0800 Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer -> Also, I frown on blatant bribery. If people are going to ->start with this, we may want to make it illegal for proposals (and ->rules created by proposals) to distinguish between players based on ->how they voted for that proposal. Sounds like a good rule. I'll vote for it for 50 groks... :) -Chris M From Nomic1@a... Tue Feb 06 12:28:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 20:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 29582 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 20:28:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 20:28:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 20:28:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.163] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2001 20:28:56 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:28:54 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PDX whines about score ;) Message-ID: <95pmq6+r4se@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 834 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > > Actually, I wouldn't vote to reset all scores either (because > I think those scores were fairly earned and I don't want them > artificially removed just to "level the playing field.") > Also, I frown on blatant bribery. If people are going to > start with this, we may want to make it illegal for proposals (and > rules created by proposals) to distinguish between players based on > how they voted for that proposal. Rule 311 allows vote buying, not sure this is any different . Of course, that is not to say that I vote for it. I always live in fear of rules like, "Feyd's points are set to -100 and all of his groks are removed. All players except Feyd receive 200 points." Of course, Change "Feyd" to "Henry" and you may have something . Feyd From htowsner@s... Tue Feb 06 13:22:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 21:22:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 99265 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 21:22:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 21:22:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 21:22:25 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f16LMOW02897 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:22:24 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95pmq6+r4se@e...> References: <95pmq6+r4se@e...> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:22:21 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: PDX whines about score ;) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Rule 311 allows vote buying, not sure this is any different . >Of course, that is not to say that I vote for it. I always live in >fear of rules like, > >"Feyd's points are set to -100 and all of his groks are removed. All >players except Feyd receive 200 points." I don't object to vote buying like in rule 311, nor even to one player paying another to vote for a proposal. What worries me is a rule like that, where the proposer doesn't really lose anything, but just mints more currency to reward voters. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From pdx_nomic@y... Tue Feb 06 17:36:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 01:36:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 82935 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 01:36:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 01:36:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 01:36:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.2.41] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2001 01:36:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:36:25 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PDX whines about score ;) Message-ID: <95q8qp+8lri@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1324 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 4.18.247.238 From: pdx_nomic@y... Interesting. In general, the problem is with rules that change the game state directly. Instead, they should govern how the game state can be changed, or how it changes in responce to events. Thus, you can't have a rule that says "move Fyed to Y=0." but instead could say "If a player say xzzy, then Fyed's Y position becomes 0." Of course, we could limit it to not specifically calling out players by name (to avoid what happend with #318), and the rule becomes "If a player says xzzy, then the player without a sirname moves to position Y=0." Does requiring that bribes be done indirectly make you feel happier? PDX --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > >Rule 311 allows vote buying, not sure this is any different . > >Of course, that is not to say that I vote for it. I always live in > >fear of rules like, > > > >"Feyd's points are set to -100 and all of his groks are removed. All > >players except Feyd receive 200 points." > > I don't object to vote buying like in rule 311, nor even to > one player paying another to vote for a proposal. What worries me is > a rule like that, where the proposer doesn't really lose anything, > but just mints more currency to reward voters. > > -- > Henry Towsner > > The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From htowsner@s... Tue Feb 06 17:55:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 01:55:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 11395 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 01:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 01:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 02:56:08 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f171t2W27666 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:55:02 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95q8qp+8lri@e...> References: <95q8qp+8lri@e...> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:55:00 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: PDX whines about score ;) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Interesting. In general, the problem is with rules that change the >game state directly. Instead, they should govern how the game state >can be changed, or how it changes in responce to events. Thus, you >can't have a rule that says "move Fyed to Y=0." but instead could say >"If a player say xzzy, then Fyed's Y position becomes 0." Of course, >we could limit it to not specifically calling out players by name (to >avoid what happend with #318), and the rule becomes "If a player says >xzzy, then the player without a sirname moves to position Y=0." > >Does requiring that bribes be done indirectly make you feel happier? No, it doesn't change a thing. I have no object to players making deals amongst themselves to support or oppose rules. If player A doesn't care about a rule, there's nothing inherently wrong with player B bribing A. The problem is bribes which are ad hoc, that is, which are used to manipulate the results of one particular proposal. If there's a general method to exchange votes or something, that's fair; it's part of the game. If a proposal tacks on at the end "players are rewarded for voting FOR this proposal," that's not (even if it became standard, I think that would be bad for the game). The central issue is that I think arbitrary, ad hoc manipulations of currency are bad for the game. I think making points and/or groks meaningful, valuable currencies will contribute to the game, and that if we create them at random that will not be possible. Just about any systematic rule is fine, it's extra clauses which only apply to one (or only a few) proposals which disrupt the game. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From pdx_nomic@y... Tue Feb 06 20:10:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 04:10:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 2490 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 04:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 04:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 04:10:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.1.35] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2001 04:10:24 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 04:10:20 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PDX whines about score ;) Message-ID: <95qhrc+aeab@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1371 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > I have no object to players making deals amongst themselves > to support or oppose rules. If player A doesn't care about a rule, > there's nothing inherently wrong with player B bribing A. The > problem is bribes which are ad hoc, that is, which are used to > manipulate the results of one particular proposal. If there's a > general method to exchange votes or something, that's fair; it's part > of the game. If a proposal tacks on at the end "players are rewarded > for voting FOR this proposal," that's not (even if it became > standard, I think that would be bad for the game). > The central issue is that I think arbitrary, ad hoc > manipulations of currency are bad for the game. I think making > points and/or groks meaningful, valuable currencies will contribute > to the game, and that if we create them at random that will not be > possible. Just about any systematic rule is fine, it's extra clauses > which only apply to one (or only a few) proposals which disrupt the > game. > This makes good sence. The easiest way to enforce this is for players to avoid voting for such proposals. Though it'd be interesting to see if there is a way to make such proposals illegal. This might be better to take off-line into the N_omic forum to discuss methods of doing this... PDX From Nomic1@a... Wed Feb 07 06:17:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 14:17:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 38514 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 14:17:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 14:17:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 14:17:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.68] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2001 14:17:10 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:17:07 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Message-ID: <95rld3+inj7@e...> In-Reply-To: <20010205235838.A9340@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2419 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... I don't like this rule any better, and am voting against it. I think all votes made previously are now invalid because of this amendment, so everyone needs to revote within 72 hours of the amended proposal or become a reyalp. Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., Chris Moyer wrote: > > Ammended proposal, as per Rule 111, based on the possibility that the > original proposal may be destructive to game play. > > Proposal 319: > > I propose that a new mutable rule be put in place, text as follows > (from <---BEGIN---> to <---END--->: > > <---BEGIN---> > > Anytime a player, or reyalp, is located on a square of unknown, > or indeterminate, coordinates the current player is required > to specify the coordinates of these unknown players, or reyalps. > > This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates > are brought to the attention of the current player. This > requirement must be satisfied before the current player > continues to the next phase of their turn, or the next player's > turn begins. > > Furthermore, the current player is required to specify > coordinates which are legal and knowable. If either coordinate (x,y) can > be determined based on the current rules and gamestate, that > coordinate must be maintained. > > The following paragraph applies whena player is specifying an > unknown coordinate: > The y coordinate of these coordinates must also be less than or > equal to the highest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp, > and greater than or equal to both 1 and the lowest y coordinate of any other > player, or reyalp. It must fall within the range of legal coordinates, > as specified by the Rules. The x coordinate which is specified > must fall in the range of legal x values as specified by the Rules. > > In a case, where multiple players are at indeterminate coordinates, > their coordinates must be specified in the order of gameplay, starting > with the current player. > > A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this > manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by > any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement (This > includes the "reaching row 0" portion of rule 318). > > > <---END---> > > > So... If I were to place myself at (3,1), I would then have to place > all other players at (x,1), giving the next player an easy 100 points. > > > -Chris Moyer From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Feb 07 06:23:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 14:23:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 61186 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 14:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 14:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 14:23:06 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02161 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:23:05 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <40065933@d...> Date: 07 Feb 2001 09:23:05 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Snackmaster) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I vote FOR. From pdx_nomic@y... Wed Feb 07 06:32:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 14:32:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 10454 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 14:32:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 14:32:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 14:32:12 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2001 14:32:05 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:32:04 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Message-ID: <95rm94+u5cj@e...> In-Reply-To: <95rld3+inj7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2911 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... Now hold on a sec. How do we know this is Chris's final proposal and that he wasn't thinking up another change in responce to issues that were being brought up against his proposal? This arbitrary, "Oh, lets start voting on the last thing mentioned" business isn't good. Anyhow, I vote against. 319.a. PDX --- In n_omic@y..., Nomic1@a... wrote: > I don't like this rule any better, and am voting against it. I think > all votes made previously are now invalid because of this amendment, > so everyone needs to revote within 72 hours of the amended proposal > or become a reyalp. > > Feyd > > --- In n_omic@y..., Chris Moyer wrote: > > > > Ammended proposal, as per Rule 111, based on the possibility that > the > > original proposal may be destructive to game play. > > > > Proposal 319: > > > > I propose that a new mutable rule be put in place, text as > follows > > (from <---BEGIN---> to <---END--->: > > > > <---BEGIN---> > > > > Anytime a player, or reyalp, is located on a square of unknown, > > or indeterminate, coordinates the current player is required > > to specify the coordinates of these unknown players, or reyalps. > > > > This requirement must be met as soon as the unknown coordinates > > are brought to the attention of the current player. This > > requirement must be satisfied before the current player > > continues to the next phase of their turn, or the next player's > > turn begins. > > > > Furthermore, the current player is required to specify > > coordinates which are legal and knowable. If either coordinate > (x,y) can > > be determined based on the current rules and gamestate, that > > coordinate must be maintained. > > > > The following paragraph applies whena player is specifying an > > unknown coordinate: > > The y coordinate of these coordinates must also be less than or > > equal to the highest y coordinate of any other player, or reyalp, > > and greater than or equal to both 1 and the lowest y coordinate of > any other > > player, or reyalp. It must fall within the range of legal > coordinates, > > as specified by the Rules. The x coordinate which is specified > > must fall in the range of legal x values as specified by the > Rules. > > > > In a case, where multiple players are at indeterminate coordinates, > > their coordinates must be specified in the order of gameplay, > starting > > with the current player. > > > > A player, or reyalp, whose coordinates are affected in this > > manner is not considered to have moved and is not affected by > > any of the costs, benefits, or rules affecting movement (This > > includes the "reaching row 0" portion of rule 318). > > > > > > <---END---> > > > > > > So... If I were to place myself at (3,1), I would then have to > place > > all other players at (x,1), giving the next player an easy 100 > points. > > > > > > -Chris Moyer From Nomic1@a... Wed Feb 07 07:27:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 15:27:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 77014 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 15:27:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 15:27:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 15:27:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.36] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2001 15:27:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:27:58 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Message-ID: <95rphu+gr1l@e...> In-Reply-To: <95rm94+u5cj@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 965 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > Now hold on a sec. How do we know this is Chris's final proposal and > that he wasn't thinking up another change in responce to issues that > were being brought up against his proposal? This arbitrary, "Oh, lets > start voting on the last thing mentioned" business isn't good. > > Anyhow, I vote against. 319.a. > > PDX That's a really good point. On the other hand, he made an amended proposal to the group, and we have 72 hours to vote on it or become reyalps. And we don't know if he's going to offer Yet Another Amendment before time runs out. There's a bigger problem. What if I see a proposal of mine is going to fail, and I just keep amending and amending it until I get a majority vote (and thus points). I omit discussion of obvious scams based on this theme. And if Chris wanted to just lock the game up, e could issue a new proposal every 71 hours ad infinium until the game died. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 07 08:38:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 16:38:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 85398 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 16:38:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 16:38:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 16:38:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0093EEA1@m...>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:36:34 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24004; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:36:33 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 References: <95rld3+inj7@e...> Date: 07 Feb 2001 11:36:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:17:07 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 5 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... I vote AGAINST this proposal as (first) amended. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Wed Feb 07 08:50:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 16:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 21943 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 16:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 16:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 16:50:08 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f17Go7W26165 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:50:07 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:46:22 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST 319 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From htowsner@s... Wed Feb 07 08:50:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 16:50:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 20555 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 16:50:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 16:50:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 16:50:09 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f17Go8W26175 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:50:08 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <95rphu+gr1l@e...> References: <95rphu+gr1l@e...> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:50:05 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >There's a bigger problem. What if I see a proposal of mine is going >to fail, and I just keep amending and amending it until I get a >majority vote (and thus points). I omit discussion of obvious scams >based on this theme. And if Chris wanted to just lock the game up, e >could issue a new proposal every 71 hours ad infinium until the game >died. Combining a few other ideas, how about this: Each player has one active "suggestion" at all times. These are discussed and may be amended at will, and thrown out and replaced with new ones at any time. Of course, a player may only manipulate their own suggestion. By some method (I like the idea that each player during their turn picks someone else's suggestion to be the proposal) one of these is made a proposal and voted on, and then the next. Another method I kind of like would be having an elected office and that player picks suggestions to be proposals one after another, but of course has a strong incentive to try to please at least a majority of the players...that could lead to interesting dynamics with two parties fighting for the office, and therefore control over what proposals get made. While we're at it, perhaps the rules should be changed to allow multiple amendments in a single proposal (but not an amendment and a transmutation in the same proposal), since it will become more and more necessary as the rules get more complicated. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@k... Wed Feb 07 09:08:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 17:08:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 43483 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 17:08:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 17:08:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 18:09:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f17Hoon26825 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:51:21 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:50:50 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > While we're at it, perhaps the rules should be changed to > allow multiple amendments in a single proposal (but not an amendment > and a transmutation in the same proposal), since it will become more > and more necessary as the rules get more complicated. This is already allowed. Take a look at rule 316 phases 1 and 2. Although it does currently allow a transmutation and an amendment to occur in the same proposal, I don't see a problem with it. You still need a unanimous vote to transmute an immutable rule into a mutable one. From jjweston@k... Wed Feb 07 09:20:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 17:20:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 3419 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 17:19:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 17:19:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 18:20:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f17I2CA26837 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:02:19 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:02:12 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 In-Reply-To: <95rphu+gr1l@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > That's a really good point. > On the other hand, he made an amended proposal to the group, and we > have 72 hours to vote on it or become reyalps. And we don't know if > he's going to offer Yet Another Amendment before time runs out. > > There's a bigger problem. What if I see a proposal of mine is going > to fail, and I just keep amending and amending it until I get a > majority vote (and thus points). I omit discussion of obvious scams > based on this theme. And if Chris wanted to just lock the game up, e > could issue a new proposal every 71 hours ad infinium until the game > died. Doesn't quite work that way... Take a close look at rule 111: The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote. The proponent decides what the final form of the proposal is, and also decides when to end debate and start voting. If the players vote before the proponent says the debate has ended, the players are jumping the gun and they're votes don't matter. If you don't want the proponent to know you are against they're proposal and give them a chance to amend the proposal to gain your vote, don't vote before the final form of the proposal has been decided. Also, the proponent cannot tie up the game forever by continuously amending the proposal. The quoted bit from rule 111 says that the judge can be asked to decide the time to end debate and vote. This is a very delicate situation and I support Chris if he wants to go through several rounds of amendment before he settles on a final proposal. All of the votes that have cast so far do not count, since voting has not started. The 72 hour rule does not apply to all players right now, since we are not required to vote. The 72 hour rule applies instead to Chris who either must make a new amended proposal, or decide that the current version is the final form and end debate and vote before the 72 hours is up. From jjweston@k... Wed Feb 07 09:28:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 17:28:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 3323 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 17:27:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 17:27:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 18:28:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f17I9rN26856 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:11:02 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:09:53 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Chris - 36 for you to decide... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Chris, The latest version of your proposal was made around 9 PM Pacific time, according to Yahoo! Groups. That leaves you about 36 hours to make a new amended version, or decide that the current version is the final form and end debate and vote. This is all from rule 111, with some help from rule 303 providing the time limits. Voting has not started yet. All of the votes you have seen so far do not count because only you can decide when debate ends and voting starts. (The judge can also do so, if e is asked to.) I invite you to take your time and take into account some of the issues that were brought up with your latest amended proposal. From pdx_nomic@y... Wed Feb 07 16:33:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 00:33:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 85679 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 00:33:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 00:33:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 00:33:29 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2001 00:33:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:33:00 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Chris - 36 for you to decide... Message-ID: <95spfs+tdje@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 887 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 4.18.247.238 From: pdx_nomic@y... Jeff.. Is the "required communication" here the final proposal that is to be voted on? In which case, he has less time than you suggest. PDX --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Chris, > > The latest version of your proposal was made around 9 PM Pacific > time, according to Yahoo! Groups. That leaves you about 36 hours to make a > new amended version, or decide that the current version is the final form > and end debate and vote. This is all from rule 111, with some help from > rule 303 providing the time limits. > > Voting has not started yet. All of the votes you have seen so far > do not count because only you can decide when debate ends and voting > starts. (The judge can also do so, if e is asked to.) > > I invite you to take your time and take into account some of the > issues that were brought up with your latest amended proposal. From jjweston@k... Wed Feb 07 23:29:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 07:29:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 72686 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 07:29:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 07:29:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 07:29:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f188D0h27227 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:13:01 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:13:00 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Chris - 36 for you to decide... In-Reply-To: <95spfs+tdje@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > Jeff.. Is the "required communication" here the final proposal that is > to be voted on? In which case, he has less time than you suggest. "Required communication" leaves some room for definition. I would say that when Chris sends out an amended proposal, that counts as the next step in the proposal process and he was 72 hours from that point to say that it is the final form, or send out a new revision. There is lots of room for interpretation. Perhaps we can get a judgement on what exactly it means... It would be something else to discuss. ;-) From ross@b... Thu Feb 08 03:30:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 11:30:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 36905 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 11:30:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 11:30:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 11:30:09 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id GAA02023 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 06:30:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25558 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 06:30:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 06:30:07 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" > Doesn't quite work that way... Take a close look at rule 111: > I've decided I really don't like this rule... its one thing to discuss the details of a proposal before proposing it, in order to make sure that it makes sense, but I feel like once a proposal has been put forth, it shouldn't be allowed to be changed. I think this process of revision then voting does two things: 1. Makes things much proposals lots less controversial and therefore the game less interesting. If we debate about ever proposal put up there until the revision makes everyone happy (because the proponant wants to get the most points possible) then everyone will agree with every rule in the book and the game would (in my opinion) become that much less interesting. 2. Makes the game MUCH slower. Debating every point of every proposal (along with the requisite 72 hours for voting, then revising, then voting, etc.) is making this game much slower than it has to be. Changing this rule somewhat might help along the pace of the game. I think if you don't like what a proposal says, vote against it and say why you're doing so (to point out flaws to other players) and the proponent loses points (they way e's supposed to) and we move on. Am I the only one that feels this way? -Ross From chris@c... Thu Feb 08 06:27:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@c... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 14:27:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 14302 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 14:27:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 14:27:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO raistlin.cdmoyer.dom) (24.49.90.252) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 14:27:42 -0000 Received: by raistlin.cdmoyer.dom (Postfix, from userid 500) id BB435172F6; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:30:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:30:13 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Chris - 36 for you to decide... Message-ID: <20010208083013.A18327@c...> References: <95spfs+tdje@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <95spfs+tdje@e...>; from pdx_nomic@y... on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:33:00AM -0000 Sender: cmoyer@c... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer ->> ->> The latest version of your proposal was made around 9 PM Pacific ->> time, according to Yahoo! Groups. That leaves you about 36 hours to ->make a ->> new amended version, or decide that the current version is the final ->form ->> and end debate and vote. This is all from rule 111, with some help from ->> rule 303 providing the time limits. ->> ->> Voting has not started yet. All of the votes you have seen so far ->> do not count because only you can decide when debate ends and voting ->> starts. (The judge can also do so, if e is asked to.) ->> ->> I invite you to take your time and take into account some of the ->> issues that were brought up with your latest amended proposal. Hmmm... I think I will leave my proposal as is and allow voting to begin. I don't like solutions with erasable clauses, or ones that solve only this specific case. -Chris M From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 08 07:02:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 15:02:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 18696 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 15:01:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 15:01:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 15:01:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.30] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2001 15:01:12 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:01:10 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Erasable clauses...was Re: Chris - 36 for you to decide... Message-ID: <95ucbm+nq55@e...> In-Reply-To: <20010208083013.A18327@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1592 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... I'm don't think that erasable clauses are that bad a thing. Anytime you want a one-time action to occur via rule it needs to be in an erasable clause, or my preference: "When this rule goes into effect, all players are placed at (X,Y), where X is their current X coordinate and Y is their player order (as shown on Mr. Weston's homepage). This paragagraph is then surrounded by the comment symbols and becomes a comment." Self erasing rules aren't the problem, it's trying to fix things on a one-time basis rather than coming up with a general rule to address the problem that should be avoided. Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., Chris Moyer wrote: > ->> > ->> The latest version of your proposal was made around 9 PM Pacific > ->> time, according to Yahoo! Groups. That leaves you about 36 hours to > ->make a > ->> new amended version, or decide that the current version is the final > ->form > ->> and end debate and vote. This is all from rule 111, with some help from > ->> rule 303 providing the time limits. > ->> > ->> Voting has not started yet. All of the votes you have seen so far > ->> do not count because only you can decide when debate ends and voting > ->> starts. (The judge can also do so, if e is asked to.) > ->> > ->> I invite you to take your time and take into account some of the > ->> issues that were brought up with your latest amended proposal. > > Hmmm... I think I will leave my proposal as is and allow voting to > begin. I don't like solutions with erasable clauses, or ones that solve > only this specific case. > > -Chris M From jjweston@k... Thu Feb 08 09:15:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 17:15:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 97052 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 17:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 17:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 17:15:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f18Hvej27679 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:58:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:57:40 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 319 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" I've voiced my concerns over this proposal at least twice. Those concerns were not addressed. From engels@w... Thu Feb 08 09:16:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 17:16:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 14839 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 17:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 17:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 18:17:40 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f18HGYH27971 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:16:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f18HGWf12032 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:16:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102081716.f18HGWf12032@w...> Subject: Vote To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:16:32 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels I vote AGAINST Proposal 319. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html PGP Public key: see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/pgp.asc If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 08 09:40:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 17:40:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 57357 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 17:40:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 17:40:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 18:41:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00948366@m...>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:40:01 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17161; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:40:00 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 References: Date: 08 Feb 2001 12:40:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Thu, 8 Feb 2001 06:30:07 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 37 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > Am I the only one that feels this way? No, not really. I think I was the one who sent us down this path, and I somewhat regret it. Rule 111 says If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. The trouble is, "otherwise of questionable value" is quite vague, and game custom has evolved to the point where "otherwise of questionable value" means "someone thinks it could be improved". I used that loophole to fix a small problem with an early proposal of mine; now it's being used to justify suggestions to withdraw a proposal in favor of a completely different one. And as Ross says, that seems somehow contrary to the idea that you make a proposal and if enough others like it, you benefit; if not, you take the hit. I would also point out that Jeff's interpretation is not how N-omic has been played up to this point, at least not consistently. As I see it, thus far we've always assumed that when a proposal is made, voting is open, and those votes count unless the proposal is amended and resubmitted, when all votes are reset; the current player decides when to terminate the process by the simple means of not submitting any more amended proposals. All this could stand to be clarified in the rules. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 08 09:42:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 17:42:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 95882 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 17:42:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 17:42:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 17:42:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009483AC@m...>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:42:11 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17762; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:42:10 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST Prop 319 References: <95spfs+tdje@e...> <20010208083013.A18327@c...> Date: 08 Feb 2001 12:42:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: Chris Moyer's message of "Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:30:13 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 3 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... -- Doctroid From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Thu Feb 08 09:57:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 17:57:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 31932 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 17:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 17:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 17:57:56 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02167 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:57:55 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <40139791@d...> Date: 08 Feb 2001 12:57:54 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Snackmaster) Subject: vote FOR 319 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... again, I vote FOR. From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 08 10:49:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 18:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 68763 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 18:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 18:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 18:49:47 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f18InkW06398 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:49:46 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:44:52 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote AGAINST Proposal 319 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner As I've said, I think this is a one time solution made permanant. I vote AGAIST -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 08 10:49:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 18:49:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 84572 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 18:49:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 18:49:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 18:49:52 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f18InmW06424 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:49:50 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:49:35 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >I've decided I really don't like this rule... its one thing to discuss the >details of a proposal before proposing it, in order to make sure that it >makes sense, but I feel like once a proposal has been put forth, it >shouldn't be allowed to be changed. I think this process of revision then >voting does two things: I disagree, to some extend. The speed problem is serious, and needs to be addressed, but I like seeing proposals adjusted. It's always bothered me in other games that people will often make good proposals only to see them fail over some minor mistake, and that this can often go on two or three times before it passes. I like that collaboratively commenting on a proposals has become part of the game. On the other hand withdrawing a proposal and replacing it with a substantially different is a bad idea... There have been a couple suggestions on the discussion list about systems which would fix some of the flaws; maybe one of those will be ready for a vote soon. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 08 11:07:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 19:07:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 44057 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 19:07:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 19:07:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 19:07:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.36] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2001 19:07:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:07:02 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Message-ID: <95uqom+qgb0@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1020 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > I disagree, to some extend. The speed problem is serious, > and needs to be addressed, but I like seeing proposals adjusted. > It's always bothered me in other games that people will often make > good proposals only to see them fail over some minor mistake, and > that this can often go on two or three times before it passes. I > like that collaboratively commenting on a proposals has become part > of the game. > On the other hand withdrawing a proposal and replacing it > with a substantially different is a bad idea... > There have been a couple suggestions on the discussion list > about systems which would fix some of the flaws; maybe one of those > will be ready for a vote soon. ME TOO. Maybe the nomic_forum could be used to prepare proposals w/comments, and then sumbitted to the "actual" forum for vote? Feyd. That wouldn't every require much in the way of rule changes, nor would it force members to join the 2nd forum. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 08 11:12:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 19:12:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 72044 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 19:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 19:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 20:13:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00948D30@m...>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:12:20 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08926; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:12:19 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 References: <95uqom+qgb0@e...> Date: 08 Feb 2001 14:12:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:07:02 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Feyd. That wouldn't every require much in the way of rule changes, > nor would it force members to join the 2nd forum. It would create strong pressure to do so, though. And I don't like "forums". I'd rather do things by email. For one thing, I spend a lot less time waiting for Netscrape to do stuff that way. One advantage of egr^H^H^HYahoo groups is that they can be used either way. If you insist on setting up separate entities to handle discussions and official actions -- though I see no compelling reason not to do both through this Yahoo group -- I'd favor making the second entity a second Yahoo group, "n_omic-d@yahoogroups.com" or something like that. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 08 12:13:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 20:13:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 44206 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 20:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 20:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 20:13:00 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f18KD0W13878 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:13:00 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <95uqom+qgb0@e...> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:12:57 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote on 319.a was Re: Edited proposal, as per Rule 111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >If you insist on setting up separate entities to handle discussions >and official actions -- though I see no compelling reason not to do >both through this Yahoo group -- I'd favor making the second entity a >second Yahoo group, "n_omic-d@yahoogroups.com" or something like that. It is a second Yahoo group, n_omic_forum@y... -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From ross@b... Thu Feb 08 12:16:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 20:16:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 606 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 20:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 20:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 21:17:57 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.6) with ESMTP id PAA02946 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:16:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22745 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:16:50 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:16:50 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: NO on 319.a Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Thu Feb 08 15:10:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 23:10:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 37759 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 23:10:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 23:10:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 00:11:27 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14515 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:10:22 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <40161307@d...> Date: 08 Feb 2001 18:10:22 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Snackmaster) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: Amend rule 32, paragraph LAB ("it's a pill, not an operating table!") To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... --- You wrote: Amend rule 32, paragraph LAB: ---currently--- Lab - connects to Hospital Entrance and the Pharmacy A player must be in the lab to receive a cure from the Epidemiologist. The Epidemiologist does not have to be in the room at the same time. ---- change to ---- Lab - connects to Hospital Entrance and the Pharmacy A player must be in the lab to receive a cure from the Epidemiologist. The Epidemiologist does not have to be in the lab at the same time. The player may receive a cure from the Epidemiologist if they are in the same room as e is. --- end of quote --- uhhh... wrong nomic. From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 08 18:35:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 02:35:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 30206 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 02:35:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 02:35:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 02:35:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.155] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2001 02:35:14 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:35:11 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: yeah yeah... Message-ID: <95vl0v+ntd5@e...> In-Reply-To: <40161307@d...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 850 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.224 From: Nomic1@a... I deleted it from the newsgroup in less than a minute, forgot most of y'all receive everything as email rather than read the group. sorry, Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... wrote: > --- You wrote: > Amend rule 32, paragraph LAB: > > ---currently--- > Lab - connects to Hospital Entrance and the Pharmacy > A player must be in the lab to receive a cure from the > Epidemiologist. The Epidemiologist does not have to be in the room at > the same time. > ---- change to ---- > Lab - connects to Hospital Entrance and the Pharmacy > A player must be in the lab to receive a cure from the > Epidemiologist. The Epidemiologist does not have to be in the lab at > the same time. The player may receive a cure from the Epidemiologist > if they are in the same room as e is. > --- end of quote --- > > uhhh... wrong nomic. From jjweston@k... Thu Feb 08 22:50:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 06:50:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 77482 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 06:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 06:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 07:51:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f197XFq28192 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:33:15 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:33:15 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] yeah yeah... In-Reply-To: <95vl0v+ntd5@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > I deleted it from the newsgroup in less than a minute, forgot most of > y'all receive everything as email rather than read the group. You can delete things from the archive? I wasn't aware of that. That has serious implications for how I play some Nomic games... From Nomic1@a... Fri Feb 09 06:40:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 14:40:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 24567 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.69] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2001 14:40:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:40:26 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: yeah yeah... Message-ID: <960vgq+7sjk@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 573 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > I deleted it from the newsgroup in less than a minute, forgot most of > > y'all receive everything as email rather than read the group. > > You can delete things from the archive? I wasn't aware of > that. That has serious implications for how I play some Nomic games... you can delete your own messages from appearing on the "messages" list. Obviously if they go out as email they go out as email. I dunno if they are actually archived though. Feyd From pdx_nomic@y... Fri Feb 09 07:35:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 15:35:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 96923 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 15:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 15:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 15:35:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2001 15:35:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:35:18 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Noting no on 319 again. Message-ID: <9612nm+hd91@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 09 09:15:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 17:15:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 81772 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 17:15:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 17:15:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 17:15:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f19HvlS28670 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:58:22 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:57:47 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Chris and Feyd - Waiting for your votes... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Just send them on in and we can move on. From chris@c... Fri Feb 09 10:23:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@d... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 18:23:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 41621 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 18:23:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 18:23:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO denethor.chek.com) (208.210.51.227) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 19:24:47 -0000 Received: by denethor.chek.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id 853461B82B; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:26:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:26:59 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Chris and Feyd - Waiting for your votes... Message-ID: <20010209132658.E17781@c...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from jjweston@k... on Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 09:57:47AM -0800 Sender: cmoyer@d... X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer I vote YES on 319 On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 09:57:47AM -0800, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: -> Just send them on in and we can move on. -> -> -> ->To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ->n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com -> -> -> -> From Nomic1@a... Fri Feb 09 11:06:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 19:06:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 28890 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 19:06:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 19:06:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 19:06:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.116] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2001 19:06:32 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 19:06:28 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Chris and Feyd - Waiting for your votes... Message-ID: <961f3k+2bi9@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 150 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > Just send them on in and we can move on. I voted in message 521. Vote is NO. Feyd From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 09 17:47:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 01:46:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 15537 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 01:46:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 01:46:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 01:46:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1A2Td028901 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:29:40 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:29:39 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Chris and Feyd - Waiting for your votes... In-Reply-To: <961f3k+2bi9@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > Just send them on in and we can move on. > I voted in message 521. Vote is NO. Message 521 was sent before voting had started. Your NO vote has been recorded. From jjweston@k... Fri Feb 09 18:03:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 02:03:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 50763 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 02:03:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 02:03:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 02:03:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1A2k0H28917 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:46:04 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:46:00 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 319 is Defeated Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" With 2 votes for and 7 votes against, proposal 319 fails. Chris loses 10 points for it failing. Chris gains 6 points for receiving 2/9 favorable votes. His current score is -4 or 96. Play now continues with Chris's fourth phase. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 10 11:00:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 19:00:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 67400 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 19:00:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 19:00:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 19:00:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1AJgt229482 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:42:55 -0800 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:42:54 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Uh Chris... Phase 4? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" This email intentionally left blank. From chris@c... Sat Feb 10 14:12:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 10 Feb 2001 22:12:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 8261 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 22:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2001 22:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tasslehoff.cdmoyer.dom) (24.49.90.252) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 22:12:05 -0000 Received: (from cmoyer@l...) by tasslehoff.cdmoyer.dom (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04003 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:16:59 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:16:59 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Uh Chris... Phase 4? Message-ID: <20010210131659.A4000@c...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from jjweston@k... on Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 11:42:54AM -0800 X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer Phase 4, do nothing. -Chris M From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 10 18:44:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 02:44:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 26969 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 02:44:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 02:44:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 02:44:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1B3QiX29655 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:26:44 -0800 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:26:44 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Uh Chris... Phase 4? In-Reply-To: <20010210131659.A4000@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Chris Moyer wrote: > Phase 4, do nothing. Okay... Play now continues with PDX Nomic. From Nomic1@a... Sat Feb 10 19:27:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 03:27:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 27388 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 03:27:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 03:27:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 03:27:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2001 03:27:37 -0000 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 03:27:34 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Call for Judgement Message-ID: <9650r6+ktdn@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 699 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.252.225 From: Nomic1@a... Why was my vote in Message 521 ignored? Chris made an amended rule in msg 503, and I voted on that amended rule. Voting starts when a proposal (or an amended proposal) is made. I call for judgement validating my vote in mssage 521 (actually the vote itself was cast in 519, vote cast against the amended proposal Chris made in 503). Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > > > Just send them on in and we can move on. > > I voted in message 521. Vote is NO. > > Message 521 was sent before voting had started. Your NO vote has > been recorded. From jjweston@k... Sat Feb 10 19:51:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 03:51:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 70071 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 03:51:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 03:51:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 04:52:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1B4XbS29705 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:33:38 -0800 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:33:37 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Call for Judgement In-Reply-To: <9650r6+ktdn@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Why was my vote in Message 521 ignored? Chris made an amended rule > in msg 503, and I voted on that amended rule. Voting starts when a > proposal (or an amended proposal) is made. > > I call for judgement validating my vote in mssage 521 (actually the > vote itself was cast in 519, vote cast against the amended proposal > Chris made in 503). *sigh* Lets take it one step at a time. Read rule 111. Note that debate ended and voting began with Chris's message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/531 Note that debate ended and voting began AFTER the message you indicate. If it still isn't clear, read rule 111 again. While tradationally we have not followed this form, this is the first time that players had expressed that additional changes should be made to an already amended proposal. I feel that this form is more in line with the rules, and also helps reduce confusion when several rounds of amendments may be made to a proposal. From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 12 06:38:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 14:38:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 71695 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 14:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 14:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 14:38:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2001 14:38:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:37:59 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Judgement Message-ID: <968sg7+ti3k@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1198 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Ok. never mind. (I don't like it, but you are correct) Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > Why was my vote in Message 521 ignored? Chris made an amended rule > > in msg 503, and I voted on that amended rule. Voting starts when a > > proposal (or an amended proposal) is made. > > > > I call for judgement validating my vote in mssage 521 (actually the > > vote itself was cast in 519, vote cast against the amended proposal > > Chris made in 503). > > *sigh* Lets take it one step at a time. > > Read rule 111. > > Note that debate ended and voting began with Chris's message: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/531 > > Note that debate ended and voting began AFTER the message you > indicate. > > If it still isn't clear, read rule 111 again. > > While tradationally we have not followed this form, this is the > first time that players had expressed that additional changes should be > made to an already amended proposal. I feel that this form is more in line > with the rules, and also helps reduce confusion when several rounds of > amendments may be made to a proposal. From jjweston@k... Mon Feb 12 08:02:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 98219 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 16:02:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1CGgjb02201 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:43:27 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:42:45 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Judgement In-Reply-To: <968sg7+ti3k@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Ok. never mind. > (I don't like it, but you are correct) I consent to starting the next turn. Don't know if this is required, since you are withdrawing your invocation. The rules don't say anything about withdrawing invocations... From Nomic1@a... Mon Feb 12 09:25:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 17:25:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 36272 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 17:25:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 17:25:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 17:25:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.211] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2001 17:25:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:24:58 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Judgement Message-ID: <96969a+gt0a@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 791 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... > I consent to starting the next turn. Don't know if this is > required, since you are withdrawing your invocation. The rules don't say > anything about withdrawing invocations... I consent as well (if necessary). I should have just put in a RFI rather can a call for judgement. My apology for slowing the game with an unnecessary call. I think we have precedent of calls for judgement being withdrawn. I guess the current judge (would that be Chris or Rich?) could rule that the request was withdrawn so no judgement need be made, setting a worthwhile precedent for the future. To bring up a question on a tangent to this, the current rules are pretty loose concerning the power of judges. Anyone feel like hammering out a strong rule with me in the discussion forum? Feyd From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 12 12:15:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 20:15:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 37517 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 20:15:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 20:15:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 21:16:56 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0095E7C6@m...>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:15:51 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07878; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:15:50 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Judgement References: <96969a+gt0a@e...> Date: 12 Feb 2001 15:15:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:24:58 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > > I consent to starting the next turn. Don't know if this is > > required, since you are withdrawing your invocation. The rules > don't say > > anything about withdrawing invocations... > > I consent as well (if necessary). So do I, but I hope PDX will jump in with his Phase 1 rather than waiting for everyone to give consent, on the assumption that we're all reasonable people and that even if (IF) the rules technically require explicit consent from all players, we're all willing to take that as read and get on with it. Apologies for the run-on sentence, but fortunately there seem to be no penalties as yet in the ruleset for run-on sentences, which is good, because if there were, I'd be right up the creek, and I'd hate that, but that's beside the point, isn't it? -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Mon Feb 12 14:10:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 22:10:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 91945 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 22:10:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 22:10:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 23:11:07 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1CMA1W14003 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:10:01 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:09:58 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Judgement Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > I consent to starting the next turn. Don't know if this is >required, since you are withdrawing your invocation. The rules don't say >anything about withdrawing invocations... Just in case, I give consent as well. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From chris@c... Mon Feb 12 18:38:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 13 Feb 2001 02:38:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 39801 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2001 02:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2001 02:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tasslehoff.cdmoyer.dom) (24.49.90.252) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Feb 2001 03:39:45 -0000 Received: (from cmoyer@l...) by tasslehoff.cdmoyer.dom (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05085 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:43:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:43:40 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Call for Judgement Message-ID: <20010212174340.B5073@c...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from htowsner@s... on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:09:58PM -0800 X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer -> Just in case, I give consent as well. As do I. From pdx_nomic@y... Tue Feb 13 06:55:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 13 Feb 2001 14:55:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 54769 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2001 14:55:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2001 14:55:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Feb 2001 14:55:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.4.67] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Feb 2001 14:55:42 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:55:37 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: PDX's turn! Message-ID: <96bht9+8p04@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 169 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... I'll have to draft this more carefully tonight. So, I'll start with Phase I: Purchase Phase. I choose not to purchases more than one proposal than I'm allotted. PDX From pdx_nomic@y... Wed Feb 14 07:36:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: pdx_nomic@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 15:36:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 18198 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 15:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 15:36:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 15:36:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pdx_nomic@y... Received: from [10.1.10.33] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Feb 2001 15:36:36 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:36:35 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Draft proposal Message-ID: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1471 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.26.46.236 From: pdx_nomic@y... This is a draft my proposal. I'd love to hear your suggestions before I decliar the final form of the proposal. ---------------- This rule takes precedence over rule 316 wherever the two may conflict. [[See rule 211 where this is specifically allowed]] In the "Proposal" phase, each eligible voter may present at most one draft proposal. At the request of each author, draft proposals may be collected at any time in the game and presented on behalf of the authors. The player (the one who's current turn it is) must then nominate one of the draft proposals not of es own hand to be voted upon. Once a draft is nominated the player may not then change es choice. The draft becomes the player's proposal. The author of the draft proposal shall be known as the author of the proposal. [[ We'll need other rule changes to update scoring based on "player's proposal" and "author's proposal". Also, I have no love for attempting to vote on multiple proposals at the same time; it's hectic enough doing this for one proposal. ]] If required by other rules, players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal at this time before the vote. However, no change can be made to the proposal and must be voted on as nominated. The debate may not last longer than 48 hours, at which time the next phase starts. [[ This should help promote better proposals and expedite voting. Players may discuss draft proposals to their hearts content in a separate forum. ]] From Nomic1@a... Wed Feb 14 09:21:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 17:21:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 20827 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 17:20:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 17:20:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 17:20:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Feb 2001 17:20:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:20:35 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Comments Re: Draft proposal Message-ID: <96eep3+asj9@e...> In-Reply-To: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3144 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... comments embedded. --- In n_omic@y..., pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > This is a draft my proposal. I'd love to hear your suggestions before > I decliar the final form of the proposal. > --------------- > This rule takes precedence over rule 316 wherever the two may > conflict. [[See rule 211 where this is specifically allowed]] > > In the "Proposal" phase, each eligible voter may present at most one > draft proposal. At the request of each author, draft proposals may be > collected at any time in the game and presented on behalf of the > authors. Does then effectively annul #316 as written? Is there a more elegant way to make this rule without revoking #316? Could you suggest a mechanism for collecting drafts for "presentation on behalf". A statment saying, "proposal sent to the list with a notation ", or "submitted proposals are assumed to remain active until specifically removed by the author" would meet these concerns (I don't way another player stating, "Feyd wanted to remove his proposal and put this in it's place" without some kind of active verification on my part). > The player (the one who's current turn it is) must then nominate one 1) Define the player as the "Active Player". This will make it easier to differentiate between the player whose turn it is and the author, and other players in general. 2) Spell "whose" correctly (Doc_Nomers, don't even start on the gall of me correcting anyone's spelling. Accept it as a universal irony and move on!:). > of the draft proposals not of es own hand to be voted upon. Once a > draft is nominated the player may not then change es choice. The > draft becomes the player's proposal. The author of the draft proposal > shall be known as the author of the proposal. > > If required by other rules, players may suggest amendments or argue > against the proposal at this time before the vote. However, no change > can be made to the proposal and must be voted on as nominated. The > debate may not last longer than 48 hours, at which time the next phase > starts. You cannot do this. This conflicts with immutable rule #111, and #111 always wins by #110. You conflict with #111 by: 1) Giving an arbitrary definition of "reasonable time". 2) I think you redefine the spirit of the game by saying a "suggested ammendment" cannot be used actually to amend a proposal (I am very receptive to arguments to the contrary). I understand you are trying to dance around #111, I am not convinced you succeeded. 3) The proponent is NOT allowed to decide the final form of the proposal as REQUIRED by #111. Can't get around this one. The above two points I make perhaps can be igonored, and then pushed to immediate judgement to determine if #111 is actually violated. I would rather us determine the validity now during discussion instead of creating a potential conflict (a la 318). I do not see how you can wiggle around point 3 however. Change "next phase" to "voting phase". PDX: I like this proposal, and will support whatever version of this you submit for voting. Please not my concerns with conflict with 111. Feyd From htowsner@s... Wed Feb 14 13:24:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 21:24:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 13182 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 21:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 21:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 22:25:38 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1ELOXW20467 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:24:33 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> References: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:24:02 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner I really like this idea, and I'll also support regardless of the details. Nontheless, I've embedded some comments. >In the "Proposal" phase, each eligible voter may present at most one >draft proposal. At the request of each author, draft proposals may be >collected at any time in the game and presented on behalf of the >authors. I think it would be easier if each player had a standing draft proposal at all times so we don't have to wait for everyone to submit one every proposal phase. At a minimum, allow players to submit draft proposals at any time and have the most recent one submitted by each player *prior* to the Proposal phase be the ones the active player picks from. >If required by other rules, players may suggest amendments or argue >against the proposal at this time before the vote. However, no change >can be made to the proposal and must be voted on as nominated. The >debate may not last longer than 48 hours, at which time the next phase >starts. I think Feyd's right about this. We can take out amendments next, since they won't be relevant if this passes. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 14 13:40:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 21:40:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 55013 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 21:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 21:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 21:40:44 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0096F1B9@m...>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:40:36 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03184; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:40:35 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal References: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> Date: 14 Feb 2001 16:40:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: pdx_nomic@y...'s message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:36:35 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 114 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... pdx_nomic@y... writes: > This rule takes precedence over rule 316 wherever the two may > conflict. [[See rule 211 where this is specifically allowed]] > > In the "Proposal" phase, each eligible voter may present at most one > draft proposal. At the request of each author, draft proposals may be > collected at any time in the game and presented on behalf of the > authors. I find the last statement very murky. Are you trying to say, normally draft proposals are presented during the Proposal phase but someone who expects not to be online during the next Proposal phase can have someone else present eir draft for em? That would seem to invite abuse, if so. (If not, I clearly don't understand what you're getting at.) I think it'd be easier to simply have a pool of draft proposals, maximum of one by each player, with each player allowed to make a proposal (if e doesn't have one already), amend one (if e does), withdraw one (ditto), or replace one (ditto) at any time up to the moment eir proposal is nominated for voting. The current pool could be maintained on a web site for reference. Or many web sites -- Jeff's site could have a page with a link for each Player, to a web page where said Player can put up eir latest draft proposal. Or something like that. And that way you wouldn't have Players swamping the mailing list with the same damn proposal over and over and over again until it gets nominated (as I infer, though you don't state it explicitly, that draft proposals expire at the moment one is nominated.) > The player (the one who's current turn it is) We've been using "current player" informally, though that's not defined in the ruleset and in fact the phrase "current player" *is* used (in rules 303 and 316) to refer to "people who currently are on the roster as players". I like Feyd's "Active Player" better and would be pleased to see that term defined in the ruleset. > must then nominate one > of the draft proposals not of es Hmm, interesting pronoun. > own hand to be voted upon. Once a > draft is nominated the player may not then change es choice. The > draft becomes the player's proposal. The author of the draft proposal > shall be known as the author of the proposal. > > [[ We'll need other rule changes to update scoring based on "player's > proposal" and "author's proposal". Also, I have no love for > attempting to vote on multiple proposals at the same time; it's hectic > enough doing this for one proposal. ]] > > If required by other rules, players may suggest amendments or argue > against the proposal at this time before the vote. However, no change > can be made to the proposal and must be voted on as nominated. Huh? You can suggest amendments but you can't adopt them? That's DUMB. I'd favor keeping the current provisions allowing a proposal to be amended or replaced, but with tightened requirements on when such actions may occur: i.e. allow them for fixing inconsistencies or aspects truly destructive of play, not for tweaking non-destructive faults. > The > debate may not last longer than 48 hours, at which time the next phase > starts. At present there is a time limit of sorts: within 72 hours after the Active Player nominates a proposal, e must either issue an amended proposal or call the question, otherwise e becomes a Reyalp (and presumably the proposal dies and we move on to the next Player, though that hasn't come up yet). The amendment thing can be used to extend the Proposal phase again, I guess, but at some point the Judge can step in and declare the Voting phase open. If you forbid, or greatly restrict, amendments then the Reyalp rule essentially limits the Proposal phase to 72 hours. I think 48 hours is too short. It's shorter than a weekend, and I think no time limits should be shorter than a weekend. 72 hours is, I think, a fair minimum for time limits. But... if we modify your proposal as mentioned above, with an always-active draft proposal pool, then proposals can be debated before they're even nominated. Throw in a requirement that a proposal can't be nominated until 72 hours after it's made -- waiveable if, say, 2/3 of Players give consent, to expedite obviously good proposals -- and you don't need a time limit at all; you can go straight to Voting as soon as the draft is nominated. All of which is somewhat moot. As Feyd points out, your Proposal appears to try to do an end run around Rule 111, but fails to completely do so; in particular the last sentence there appears to be overruled by Rule 111. My suggested modification also would be mooted by Rule 111. Either version could be enacted, but neither could take full effect unless Rule 111 were subsequently transmuted -- at which point your version or mine would have precedence. Hmm, looking again at Rule 111 I notice it says The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote. Under your proposal, would "the proponent" be the Active Player or the Author? I think on etymological grounds it would have to be the Author. -- Doctroid From ross@b... Wed Feb 14 13:51:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 21:51:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 89330 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 21:51:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 21:51:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 22:52:21 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.9) with ESMTP id QAA13411 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:51:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15335 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:51:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:51:14 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" In terms of trying an end run around Rule 111, I plan to make my next proposal the transmutation of 111 since its pissing me off anyhow. Other than that fact, I like this approach to rule making MUCH more than the current situation although I do agree that 72 hours is more lenient than 48 and I like it that way. -Ross From jjweston@k... Wed Feb 14 15:53:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 23:53:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 5684 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 23:53:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 23:53:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 00:54:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1F0YNP03923 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:34:25 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:34:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 14 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > All of which is somewhat moot. As Feyd points out, your Proposal > appears to try to do an end run around Rule 111, but fails to > completely do so; in particular the last sentence there appears to be > overruled by Rule 111. My suggested modification also would be mooted > by Rule 111. Either version could be enacted, but neither could take > full effect unless Rule 111 were subsequently transmuted -- at which > point your version or mine would have precedence. Gotta be careful about conflicting with those immutable rules. Look at rule 110. It looks like the entire rule would be null and void if any part of it conflicts with an immutable rule. From frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... Wed Feb 14 17:32:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 15 Feb 2001 01:32:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 36819 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 01:32:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2001 01:32:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU) (129.170.16.6) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 02:33:32 -0000 Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15884 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:32:25 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <40516256@d...> Date: 14 Feb 2001 20:32:25 EST Reply-To: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Snackmaster) Subject: ciao To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-From: Frederick.C.Strathmeyer@D... (Frederick C. Strathmeyer) From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@d... I wish to become a Reyalp. I won't be back. From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 15 07:36:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 15 Feb 2001 15:36:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 41691 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 15:36:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Feb 2001 15:36:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 16:37:28 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009739EE@m...>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:36:23 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA28766; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:36:22 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal References: Date: 15 Feb 2001 10:36:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:34:23 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Gotta be careful about conflicting with those immutable rules. > Look at rule 110. It looks like the entire rule would be null and void if > any part of it conflicts with an immutable rule. Bleccch. I hadn't spotted that one word, "entirely". What a pain in the butt. Anyway, one could still enact a new rule that conflicts with an immutable rule, then transmute (and amend or repeal if necessary) the immutable rule to put the new rule into effect. That's preferable to trasmuting the immutable rule, then amending or repealing it, since you know what you're getting into at the moment you transmute the immutable rule -- the other way, you might think you know the intent of the transmutation, only to find the plan getting sidetracked... -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Thu Feb 15 08:12:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 15 Feb 2001 16:12:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 46883 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 16:12:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Feb 2001 16:12:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (63.84.211.242) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 16:12:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1FGq0V04467 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:52:36 -0800 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:52:00 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal In-Reply-To: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Just noticed that the draft proposal doesn't really handle proposals with multiple rule changes in them. Does the player have to pick a proposal with the same number of rule changes they arranged for in phase one? What you are trying to accomplish may be made easier by directly amending rule 316. I realize that you want to break 316 into multiple rules, but trying to do this idea and break it up at the same time seems to make a mess of things... From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 15 08:13:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 15 Feb 2001 16:13:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 49921 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 16:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Feb 2001 16:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 16:13:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.109] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Feb 2001 16:13:05 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:13:03 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Draft proposal Message-ID: <96gv6f+ctvc@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1149 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > > > Gotta be careful about conflicting with those immutable rules. > Bleccch. > I hadn't spotted that one word, "entirely". What a pain in the butt. It's a GOOD THING!! Immutability is to be taken seriously ! > Anyway, one could still enact a new rule that conflicts with an > immutable rule, then transmute (and amend or repeal if necessary) the > immutable rule to put the new rule into effect. Remember it only takes ONE player to keep that rule from ever coming into effect. That's preferable to > trasmuting the immutable rule, then amending or repealing it, since > you know what you're getting into at the moment you transmute the > immutable rule -- the other way, you might think you know the intent > of the transmutation, only to find the plan getting sidetracked... At this point I think a better solution would be to extend the proposal to include the ability to amend proposals after they have been brought to the floor in some way. #111 is kinda important, I would hate to see it made mutable and get trashed... Feyd From JJWeston@T... Thu Feb 15 13:56:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 15 Feb 2001 21:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 32769 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 21:56:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Feb 2001 21:56:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 22:57:30 -0000 Subject: kenny.sir-toby.com is down To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:56:21 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/15/2001 04:03:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... My ISP has screwed up the DSL at my apartment. I will look into an alternate place for hosting the N_omic website when I get back into town tomorrow. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From JJWeston@T... Fri Feb 16 07:53:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 16 Feb 2001 15:53:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 76516 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2001 15:53:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Feb 2001 15:53:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2001 15:53:31 -0000 Subject: PDX: Your Proposal? To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:53:28 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/16/2001 10:00:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... It's been more than 72 hours since you did phase 1 of your turn. I don't know if the draft proposal you sent out prevents you from becoming a Reyalp. I'm certain others will want to discuss it. Regardless, are we going to see a proposal any time soon? - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 16 08:17:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 16 Feb 2001 16:17:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 2227 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2001 16:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2001 16:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2001 16:17:42 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00980BF9@m...>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:17:43 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA14870; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:17:41 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal References: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> Date: 16 Feb 2001 11:17:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: pdx_nomic@y...'s message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:36:35 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 70 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... I've been thinking further, and I'm coming to some new conclusions: pdx_nomic@y... writes: > In the "Proposal" phase, each eligible voter may present at most one > draft proposal. At the request of each author, draft proposals may be > collected at any time in the game and presented on behalf of the > authors. First of all, I note that nothing in the current ruleset prohibits any Player from presenting "draft proposals" at any time. Such drafts have no official standing, of course, but that doesn't matter. So, essentially, all this paragraph does is to impose a *restriction* -- you can't post more than one draft proposal. And I don't see that as a particularly useful restriction. As long as only one proposal at a time is actually being considered for adoption, I have no problems with there being a "pool" of a zillion draft proposals. > The player (the one who's current turn it is) must then nominate one > of the draft proposals not of es own hand to be voted upon. Once a > draft is nominated the player may not then change es choice. The > draft becomes the player's proposal. The author of the draft proposal > shall be known as the author of the proposal. Again, this does nothing but restrict current practice, by forcing a Player to submit someone else's proposal. This might have some benefit, in the sense that it prevents us wasting time over a proposal no one but its author likes. But there's no benefit to the Active Player in submitting such a proposal -- and if there's a pool of draft proposals around, e can see if a proposal will fly before e submits it. So, again, all this does is impose a restriction of dubious value. > If required by other rules, players may suggest amendments or argue > against the proposal at this time before the vote. However, no change > can be made to the proposal and must be voted on as nominated. The > debate may not last longer than 48 hours, at which time the next phase > starts. The problems with this paragraph have been stated already. So, basically, what this proposal tries to set up is a system that could and probably should be put in place, in a nicer form, *without* this rule change. Why hasn't it been done already? Because the incentives aren't there: > [[ We'll need other rule changes to update scoring based on "player's > proposal" and "author's proposal". ...]] Exactly. That's the heart of it. Except when (as at the start of last turn) people feel the game urgently needs a particular sort of proposal, there's nothing in it for an inactive Player to serve up an idea the Active Player can use and claim the points for. In short, you've got the cart before the horse. I don't think it's useful to *mandate* (and thereby overly restrict) this system while creating no incentives; I think it's better to provide the incentives and let the system arise in an unregulated form. If restrictions need to be imposed, let's do it when it's clear they're needed. I don't have a draft proposal to throw out, but I suggest you start thinking about a way to fairly divide benefits for a good proposal between its author(s -- why not, if a draft proposal is based on two or more previous drafts?) and its nominee. I expect such a rule change, if done right, would engender the same benefits you're trying to get with your proposal, with fewer drawbacks. -- Doctroid From engels@w... Fri Feb 16 12:07:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 16 Feb 2001 20:07:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 63043 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2001 20:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2001 20:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2001 20:07:48 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1GK7lZ09011 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:07:47 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f1GK7ku15848 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:07:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102162007.f1GK7ku15848@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Draft proposal In-Reply-To: <96e8m3+tts8@e...> from "pdx_nomic@y..." at "Feb 14, 2001 3:36:35 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:07:46 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > This rule takes precedence over rule 316 wherever the two may > conflict. [[See rule 211 where this is specifically allowed]] > > In the "Proposal" phase, each eligible voter may present at most one > draft proposal. At the request of each author, draft proposals may be > collected at any time in the game and presented on behalf of the > authors. I do not get this second line. What does it mean, and what is its function? > The player (the one who's current turn it is) must then nominate one > of the draft proposals not of es own hand to be voted upon. Once a ^^ Either do not use Spivak, or do it correctly. This should be 'eir', IMO. > draft is nominated the player may not then change es choice. The > draft becomes the player's proposal. The author of the draft proposal > shall be known as the author of the proposal. > > [[ We'll need other rule changes to update scoring based on "player's > proposal" and "author's proposal". Also, I have no love for > attempting to vote on multiple proposals at the same time; it's hectic > enough doing this for one proposal. ]] Well, I do not agree with your latter remark, but each to his own. > If required by other rules, players may suggest amendments or argue > against the proposal at this time before the vote. However, no change > can be made to the proposal and must be voted on as nominated. This sentence doesn't run right - as it is written now, the subject of 'must be voted on as nominated' is 'no change'. Also I doubt about the legality of this. Finally, I think it is not only ugly to keep things in the rules when they are not effective any more, it also looks like a recipe for loopholes and other errors - it might well be that less is made ineffective of rule 316 by this rule than would be wanted. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html PGP Public key: see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/pgp.asc If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 19 09:14:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 19 Feb 2001 17:14:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 83117 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 17:13:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2001 17:13:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 17:13:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009912E0@m...>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:13:03 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02325; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:13:02 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] PDX: Your Proposal? References: Date: 19 Feb 2001 12:13:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:53:28 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... JJWeston@T... writes: > It's been more than 72 hours since you did phase 1 of your turn. I > don't know if the draft proposal you sent out prevents you from becoming a > Reyalp. I'm certain others will want to discuss it. Regardless, are we > going to see a proposal any time soon? First, I think it's clear the "draft proposal" was not intended as a Phase 2 Proposal. So I think the Phase 2 Proposal is long overdue. Even if it were to be considered a Phase 2 Proposal, PDX is supposed to announce within 72 hours that voting is open. That also is overdue. Either way, I claim PDX must now be considered a Reyalp. And although the Reyalp rule doesn't make this clear, I think the procedure must be to move on to the next player and consider PDX's proposal (if it was, in fact, a Phase 2 Proposal) dead. Jeff, any progress on getting your web site relocated? -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Tue Feb 20 09:56:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 20 Feb 2001 17:56:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 34258 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2001 17:56:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2001 17:56:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2001 17:56:17 -0000 Subject: Re: [n_omic] PDX: Your Proposal? To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:56:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/20/2001 12:03:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Sorry for being absent for a while here... Hard to stay glued to the mailing list with no internet access at home... Ahem, PDX is a Reyalp. His phase 2 is *long* overdue. Play now continues with Ross Schulman. I'm working on an alternate web site location at work. Hopefully I can have something up today. I'll email a link out when I get it set up. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - rsholmes@m... ox.syr.edu To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com cc: 02/19/2001 Subject: Re: [n_omic] PDX: Your Proposal? 09:13 AM Please respond to n_omic JJWeston@T... writes: > It's been more than 72 hours since you did phase 1 of your turn. I > don't know if the draft proposal you sent out prevents you from becoming a > Reyalp. I'm certain others will want to discuss it. Regardless, are we > going to see a proposal any time soon? First, I think it's clear the "draft proposal" was not intended as a Phase 2 Proposal. So I think the Phase 2 Proposal is long overdue. Even if it were to be considered a Phase 2 Proposal, PDX is supposed to announce within 72 hours that voting is open. That also is overdue. Either way, I claim PDX must now be considered a Reyalp. And although the Reyalp rule doesn't make this clear, I think the procedure must be to move on to the next player and consider PDX's proposal (if it was, in fact, a Phase 2 Proposal) dead. Jeff, any progress on getting your web site relocated? -- Doctroid To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com From ross@b... Tue Feb 20 11:02:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 20 Feb 2001 19:02:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 79641 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2001 19:02:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Feb 2001 19:02:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2001 19:02:41 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.9) with ESMTP id OAA22825 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25321 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:40 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:39 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 320 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Alrighty, short and sweet: Phase 1: I buy no extra proposals. Phase 2: Like I said, we're trying to work around it and its pissing me off so: Going on the thought that PDX never actually submitted a proposal and this is therefore proposal 320... Proposal #320 (between the ---BEGIN--- and ---END--- tags): ---BEGIN--- Rule 111 is hereby transmuted into a mutable rule. ---END--- Phase 3: I vote FOR this proposal. Phase 4: I choose not to move. -Ross Schulman On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 JJWeston@T... wrote: > > Sorry for being absent for a while here... Hard to stay glued to the > mailing list with no internet access at home... > > Ahem, PDX is a Reyalp. His phase 2 is *long* overdue. Play now > continues with Ross Schulman. > > I'm working on an alternate web site location at work. Hopefully I can > have something up today. I'll email a link out when I get it set up. > > - - - > Jeffrey J. Weston > jjweston@t... > PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc > - - - > > > > rsholmes@m... > ox.syr.edu To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com > cc: > 02/19/2001 Subject: Re: [n_omic] PDX: Your Proposal? > 09:13 AM > Please respond > to n_omic > > > > > > > JJWeston@T... writes: > > > It's been more than 72 hours since you did phase 1 of your turn. I > > don't know if the draft proposal you sent out prevents you from becoming > a > > Reyalp. I'm certain others will want to discuss it. Regardless, are we > > going to see a proposal any time soon? > > First, I think it's clear the "draft proposal" was not intended as a > Phase 2 Proposal. So I think the Phase 2 Proposal is long overdue. > > Even if it were to be considered a Phase 2 Proposal, PDX is supposed > to announce within 72 hours that voting is open. That also is > overdue. > > Either way, I claim PDX must now be considered a Reyalp. And although > the Reyalp rule doesn't make this clear, I think the procedure must be > to move on to the next player and consider PDX's proposal (if it was, > in fact, a Phase 2 Proposal) dead. > > Jeff, any progress on getting your web site relocated? > > -- > Doctroid > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > From htowsner@s... Tue Feb 20 13:32:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 20 Feb 2001 21:32:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 53333 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2001 21:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2001 21:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2001 21:32:47 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1KLWlp00136 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:32:47 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:32:44 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Proposal #320 (between the ---BEGIN--- and ---END--- tags): >---BEGIN--- >Rule 111 is hereby transmuted into a mutable rule. >---END--- I vote FOR this proposal. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 21 07:56:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 15:56:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 39693 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 15:56:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 15:56:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 16:57:56 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0099FC8F@m...>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:52 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09420; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:56:50 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Proposal 320 References: Date: 21 Feb 2001 10:56:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:39 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 5 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... I prefer to have at least some idea of what changes are in mind before I support transmutation of an immutable rule. -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Wed Feb 21 09:25:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 17:25:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 96395 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 17:24:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 17:24:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 17:24:50 -0000 Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 320 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:24:48 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 11:32:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... I agree with Doc. I want to know what we plan to have happen to the rule. Sorry about the continuing problems with the web site... I am still working on getting an alternate solution. In the meantime, if anyone wants a tar or zip of the n_omic web files, I'd be happy to mail those off to anyone who asks. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 21 09:55:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 17:55:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 31833 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 17:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 17:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 17:54:44 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009A0A93@m...>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:54:44 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09765; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:54:43 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote AGAINST Proposal 320 References: Date: 21 Feb 2001 12:54:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: JJWeston@T...'s message of "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:24:48 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... JJWeston@T... writes: > Sorry about the continuing problems with the web site... I am still > working on getting an alternate solution. In the meantime, if anyone wants > a tar or zip of the n_omic web files, I'd be happy to mail those off to > anyone who asks. Send 'em to me -- tar is fine. -- Doctroid From JJWeston@T... Wed Feb 21 11:22:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 19:22:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 50558 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 19:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 19:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 20:23:12 -0000 Subject: N_omic Web Site is Back To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:22:05 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 02/21/2001 01:29:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Hey guys, I've got the web site back online. Same URL, different host. Let me know if you have any problems. I have not updated it to account for the activities of the last several days. I will update it later today. http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/ - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - From jjweston@g... Wed Feb 21 11:50:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 19:50:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 64603 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12768 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Ross is unlabelled... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Now that the site is back, I see that Ross is unlabelled. The current judge, Chris, must slap a label on his forehead and inform everyone else via private email what the label is. From jjweston@g... Wed Feb 21 11:50:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 19:50:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 66783 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 19:50:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 19:50:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 19:50:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12776 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:57 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:56 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reaching me via private email... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Please use the following address to reach me: jjweston@g... My other personal email addresses no longer work... From Nomic1@a... Wed Feb 21 14:30:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 22:30:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 55470 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 22:23:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 22:23:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 22:23:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Feb 2001 22:23:17 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:23:12 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE FOR Proposal 320 Message-ID: <971f4g+ij7f@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 465 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > >Proposal #320 (between the ---BEGIN--- and ---END--- tags): > >---BEGIN--- > >Rule 111 is hereby transmuted into a mutable rule. > >---END--- > > I vote FOR this proposal. > > -- > Henry Towsner > > The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. Note that someone is going to have to step up for day to day operations...Jeff was the one who kept people in line... Feyd From htowsner@s... Wed Feb 21 14:55:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 22:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 71927 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 22:43:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 22:43:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 22:43:37 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1LMhap20637 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:43:36 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:43:34 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Proposal 320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >I prefer to have at least some idea of what changes are in mind before >I support transmutation of an immutable rule. I think it's clear that this would likely lead to something along the lines of what PDX was proposing. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From ross@b... Wed Feb 21 15:33:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 23:33:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 98052 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 23:22:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 23:22:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 23:22:10 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.9) with ESMTP id SAA12388 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:22:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09907 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:22:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:22:08 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE AGAINST [n_omic] Proposal 320 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > >I prefer to have at least some idea of what changes are in mind before > >I support transmutation of an immutable rule. > > I think it's clear that this would likely lead to something > along the lines of what PDX was proposing. > Yes, I'm sorry, I thought the discussion about the previous proposal gave some reason behind the proposal. I believe that 111 is slowing down play at the least and should be amended to include a time limit on the amendment period. Not that it matters any more since its been defeated now anyhow. -Ross From jjweston@g... Wed Feb 21 17:27:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 01:27:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 88817 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 01:27:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 01:27:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 01:27:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13237 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:27:14 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:27:14 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] VOTE FOR Proposal 320 In-Reply-To: <971f4g+ij7f@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Note that someone is going to have to step up for day to day > operations...Jeff was the one who kept people in line... I'm gonna try to keep up with N_omic. Now that work has provided me with a new hosting location, I should be able to keep up. It's moving slow enough that I can take some time out of my workday to deal with it without feeling too bad. DocNomic now, that's another story. It takes a lot of time and energy to dump a ton of green pills... ;-) From jjweston@g... Wed Feb 21 17:31:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 01:31:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 8709 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 01:31:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 01:31:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 01:31:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13263 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:31:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:31:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Should PDX be laballed? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston PDX was unlaballed when he was taking his turn. Even though he is a Reyalp now, he probably should have been labelled during his turn. That job would also go to Chris Moyer... Anyone see a problem with this? From engels@w... Thu Feb 22 05:15:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 13:15:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 64948 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 13:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 13:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 13:15:12 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1MDFAB17450 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:15:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f1MDFA726867 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:15:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102221315.f1MDFA726867@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 320 In-Reply-To: from "Ross B. Schulman" at "Feb 20, 2001 2: 2:39 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:15:10 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Phase 2: > Like I said, we're trying to work around it and its pissing me off so: > Going on the thought that PDX never actually submitted a proposal and this > is therefore proposal 320... > Proposal #320 (between the ---BEGIN--- and ---END--- tags): > ---BEGIN--- > Rule 111 is hereby transmuted into a mutable rule. > ---END--- I vote FOR this Proposal. I think Rule 111 does more harm than good, and even if it is useful, there is nothing in it that is important enough to have it guarded by an Immutable Rule. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html PGP Public key: see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/pgp.asc If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From Nomic1@a... Thu Feb 22 07:14:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 15:14:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 19178 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.163] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2001 15:13:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:13:06 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: VOTE FOR Proposal 320 Message-ID: <973aa2+q9pg@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 337 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > without feeling too bad. DocNomic now, that's another story. It takes a > lot of time and energy to dump a ton of green pills... ;-) Now now. If that's all that hurting you in DocNomic, maybe you could just give the pills to me? ;-). Feyd From jjweston@g... Thu Feb 22 09:45:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 17:45:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 57157 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 17:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 17:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 17:45:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14128 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:45:33 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:45:33 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Chris... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Looks like Chris is the only one who hasn't voted. We're also waiting for him to label two players... From chris@c... Thu Feb 22 13:01:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cmoyer@c... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 21:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 54639 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 21:01:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 21:01:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chris-mac.dev) (208.210.51.227) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 22:02:38 -0000 Received: (from cmoyer@l...) by chris-mac.dev (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ML2Ua20925 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:02:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:02:30 -0500 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for Chris... Message-ID: <20010222160228.B20813@c...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jjweston@g... on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:45:33AM -0800 X-eGroups-From: Chris Moyer From: Chris Moyer On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:45:33AM -0800, Weston wrote: -> Looks like Chris is the only one who hasn't voted. We're also ->waiting for him to label two players... I VOTE FOR... I'll send the labels out in a bit, I've got to go look up all the private emails. -Cmoyer -> -> -> ->To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ->n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com -> -> -> ->Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -> -> -> From jjweston@g... Thu Feb 22 13:42:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 21:42:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 81967 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 21:41:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 21:41:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 21:41:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14384 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:41:20 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:41:20 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Results for Proposal 320 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston We have 5 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST proposal 320. According to rule 203, Proposal 320 passes. Ross receives 21 points for receiving 71% favorable votes. However, rule-change 320 is illegal according to rule 109, since it did not receive a unanimous vote. Rule-change 320 is discarded and Ross loses 5 points, according to rule 316. I think the above paragraph may be open to interpretation of the effects of some of the rules involved. Let me know if you have any objections to my analysis. Ross has already indicated he does nothing for phase 4. Play now continues with Henry Towsner. Henry is unlabelled. As the current judge, Ross must slap a label on Henry's forehead and inform everyone else what it is via private email. From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 22 14:02:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 22:02:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 33053 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 22:01:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 22:01:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 22:01:17 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1MM1Hp11009 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:01:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:01:11 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner Phase 1: I do not buy an extra proposal. I'm considering making this my proposal, but I'm sure the first draft won't be perfect. Let me emphasize that, if adopted, other rule changes would be necessary to "complete" the change. In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous phase. Each proposed rule change is a separate entity, each with their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the label of the proposal is "Propsal x" where x is the number of the proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is the highest number. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 22 14:21:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 22:21:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 82473 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 22:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 22:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 23:21:44 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009AA436@m...>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:19:34 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA22809; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:19:28 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Call for Judgement (was Re: [n_omic] Results for Proposal 320) References: Date: 22 Feb 2001 17:19:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:41:20 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 40 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > We have 5 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST proposal 320. According to > rule 203, Proposal 320 passes. Ross receives 21 points for receiving 71% > favorable votes. However, rule-change 320 is illegal according to rule > 109, since it did not receive a unanimous vote. Rule-change 320 is > discarded and Ross loses 5 points, according to rule 316. > > I think the above paragraph may be open to interpretation of the > effects of some of the rules involved. Let me know if you have any > objections to my analysis. I do. You seem to imply Rule 203 says the *proposal* passes, while by Rule 109 the *rule-change* is illegal. But the rules in question are: 109 - Immutable - Initial Rule Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. 203 - Mutable - Automatically amended by rule 203 December 27th, 2000 A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority. Both rules address whether a rule-change is adopted. Rule 203 says a simple majority is necessary and sufficient; Rule 109 says that for transmutation of an immutable rule, unanimity is necessary and sufficient. These two rules conflict, so the immutable one (Rule 109) takes precedence and Rule 203 does not apply. Proposal simply fails due to lack of unanimity. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 22 14:25:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 22:25:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 47262 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 22:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 22:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 22:25:48 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009AA4E1@m...>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:25:49 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23689; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:25:47 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions References: Date: 22 Feb 2001 17:25:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: Henry Towsner's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:01:11 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 26 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Henry Towsner writes: > I'm considering making this my proposal, but I'm sure the first draft > won't be perfect. Let me emphasize that, if adopted, other rule > changes would be necessary to "complete" the change. > > In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: > > At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A > Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, > amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a > Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. > The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal > phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions > belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous > phase. Again, as with PDH's proposal, I don't see that this alters anything about the present system other than *restricting* "suggestions" to one per player and *restricting* the Active Player to proposing someone else's suggestion(s). It's not obvious to me that either restriction has merit. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 22 14:38:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 22:38:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 66304 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 22:38:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 22:38:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 23:39:51 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1MMckp27334 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:38:46 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:38:43 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >Again, as with PDH's proposal, I don't see that this alters anything >about the present system other than *restricting* "suggestions" to one >per player and *restricting* the Active Player to proposing someone >else's suggestion(s). > >It's not obvious to me that either restriction has merit. As I said, it's a first step. Yes, we could be making suggestions all the time, but we aren't. The idea is to have a limited number of ideas on the table so that they can be discussed, examined, and improved, and then when one is ready to be proposed, a player can do that. The next step would be to change the scoring system to reward players appropriately. In other words, the purpose behind restricting players to one suggestion is to limit the number of ideas being actively considered to something feasible. Players can mention other ideas, but each player has one idea which is seriously being considered, and that gives other players a reasonable list of concepts to focus on improving. The purpose behind restricting the active player to proposing someone else's suggestion is that, first, it serves like a second to a motion in parliamentary procedure to make sure that there are at least two supporters, second, it will provide a significant incentive to make Suggestions because that is the only way to get a proposal passed, serving to jump start the new system, and finally it encourages inter-player dynamics which, in my opinion, have the potential to be quite interesting if we develop them (bribes, cross-proposing bargains; I can imagine interesting interactions where a player modifies a proposal to appeal to the currently active player in a different way than if another player had been active) -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@g... Thu Feb 22 14:50:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 22:50:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 6799 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 22:50:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 22:50:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 22:50:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14520 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:50:37 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:50:37 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Judgement (was Re: [n_omic] Results for Proposal 320) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 22 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > You seem to imply Rule 203 says the *proposal* passes, while by Rule > 109 the *rule-change* is illegal. But the rules in question are: > > > 109 - Immutable - Initial Rule > Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may > be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible > voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated > explicitly in a proposal to take effect. > > 203 - Mutable - Automatically amended by rule 203 December 27th, > 2000 > A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple > majority among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by > the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically > changes to require only a simple majority. > > Both rules address whether a rule-change is adopted. Rule 203 says a > simple majority is necessary and sufficient; Rule 109 says that for > transmutation of an immutable rule, unanimity is necessary and > sufficient. These two rules conflict, so the immutable one (Rule 109) > takes precedence and Rule 203 does not apply. Proposal simply fails > due to lack of unanimity. Let me clarify my position a little. Rule 316 distinguishes between rule-changes and proposals. That is, one proposal is composed of one or more rule-changes. My position is that proposal 320 was adopted, but that rule-change 320 could not be enacted because it did not receive a unanimous vote. Why did I do this? I'm anticipating the possibility of a proposal containing a rule-change amending a mutable rule along with a rule-changing transmuting an immutable one, that has a majority of votes, but not an unanimous vote. I feel that under that situation, the proposal would pass, thus allowing the amendment to take place, but the transmutation would be discarded. Finally, I'll address your final paragraph... Saying 109 and 203 conflict is a dangerous assertion. If found to be true, rule 203 will be entirely void, per rule 110. I sincerely doubt that this is in the spirit of the game, since both rules are initial rules and would make it particularly tricky to decide how proposals are adopted... From htowsner@s... Thu Feb 22 15:01:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 23:01:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 47956 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 23:01:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 23:01:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 23:01:10 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1MN18p07173 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:01:08 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:00:56 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Judgement (was Re: [n_omic] Results for Proposal 320) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > > 203 - Mutable - Automatically amended by rule 203 December 27th, > > 2000 > > A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple > > majority among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by > > the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically > > changes to require only a simple majority. > Let me clarify my position a little. Rule 316 distinguishes >between rule-changes and proposals. That is, one proposal is composed of >one or more rule-changes. My position is that proposal 320 was adopted, >but that rule-change 320 could not be enacted because it did not receive a >unanimous vote. I like your interpretation, but I have a problem with rule 203, which says a "rule-change is adopted...", *not* a "proposal is adopted," which seems to be what it "should" say. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From ross@b... Fri Feb 23 08:22:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 16:22:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 12449 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 16:16:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 16:16:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 16:16:42 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.9) with ESMTP id LAA15904 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10775 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:39 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On 22 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Henry Towsner writes: > > > I'm considering making this my proposal, but I'm sure the first draft > > won't be perfect. Let me emphasize that, if adopted, other rule > > changes would be necessary to "complete" the change. > > > > In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: > > > > At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A > > Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, > > amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a > > Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. > > The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal > > phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions > > belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous > > phase. > > Again, as with PDH's proposal, I don't see that this alters anything > about the present system other than *restricting* "suggestions" to one > per player and *restricting* the Active Player to proposing someone > else's suggestion(s). > > It's not obvious to me that either restriction has merit. > > Rich, the merit of this proposal is the ability for ANYONE to have the chance to have a proposal voted upon in a given turn, and the choice is based upon the merit of the proposal they make. I've been a member of this nomic for just over a month and I've had fairly little interaction because I've only been able to put forth one proposal. Since there's no income in groks yet, we can't propose more than one proposal at once, so any complex change to the game (like PDX and Henry are working on) could conceivably take a few months to get done... that's just no way to keep people interested in a game. THAT'S why I think these are worthy proposals. -Ross From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 23 09:31:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 17:31:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 67603 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 17:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 17:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 17:22:07 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009AF25C@m...>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:22:07 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA20398; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:22:06 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Call for Judgement (was Re: [n_omic] Results for Proposal 320) References: Date: 23 Feb 2001 12:22:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:50:37 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 86 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Let me clarify my position a little. Rule 316 distinguishes > between rule-changes and proposals. That is, one proposal is composed of > one or more rule-changes. My position is that proposal 320 was adopted, > but that rule-change 320 could not be enacted because it did not receive a > unanimous vote. Well, there are some structural problems now in the ruleset, since the initial rules assume a proposal is a rule-change and use the two words semi-interchangeably; with the passage of 316 some of these rules become a bit ambiguous. But there is nothing, ambiguous or otherwise, about how to "adopt a proposal" in the ruleset -- the only relevant rules describe how to "adopt a rule-change". It seems to me the choices are: - "Rule-changes" can be adopted, but "proposals" cannot be adopted -- but Rule 108 contains the phrase "whether or not the proposal is adopted", which suggests they can be. OR - "Adopting a proposal" initially was synonymous with "adopting the rule-change in a proposal" and should now be regarded as an undefined concept. Judgment is therefore required to decide what "adopting a proposal" means, in order to complete the turn as required by Rule 316, since that rule makes reference to "adopting a proposal". I believe the best judgment would be to rule that "Adopting a proposal" means "adopting one or more of the rule-changes in a proposal". This seems to be consistent with the ruleset and harmonious with the original intent. What I do *not* see as a reasonable judgment is to decree that "adopting a proposal" requires only that it gets a majority vote, regardless of what number of votes is required for its rule-change(s). That would create a two-tier voting structure not specified in the ruleset; and *it would be inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the original ruleset*. That is, before the passage of 316, no reasonable interpretation of the ruleset would have led to a proposal's being adopted while its rule-change was not. So this two-tier system would have to be based on some indication that such a thing was required by Rule 316. I see nothing to support such an idea. > Why did I do this? I'm anticipating the possibility of a proposal > containing a rule-change amending a mutable rule along with a > rule-changing transmuting an immutable one, that has a majority of votes, > but not an unanimous vote. I feel that under that situation, the proposal > would pass, thus allowing the amendment to take place, but the > transmutation would be discarded. I think it's much more reasonable to define a proposal as being adopted if and only if one or more of its rule-changes is adopted. That would give the same result in your hypothetical situation, without leading to the present (IMHO absurd) situation in which a proposal is adopted and a rule-change is not, even though the proposal is the rule-change. > Finally, I'll address your final paragraph... Saying 109 and 203 > conflict is a dangerous assertion. If found to be true, rule 203 will be > entirely void, per rule 110. I sincerely doubt that this is in the spirit > of the game, since both rules are initial rules and would make it > particularly tricky to decide how proposals are adopted... It may be a dangerous assertion, but I'd rather assert a dangerous truth than a comfortable falsehood! And I see these two rules as being entirely contradictory in the case of a rule-change that transmutes an immutable rule. Such a rule-change, according to 109, "may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous", and according to 203, "is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority". Note that this is a distinct issue from the question of what "adopting a proposal" means -- both rules specifically address "adopting a rule-change". So there are two questions for the Judge to decide: - What does it mean to "adopt a proposal"? (In particular, can a proposal be adopted on a majority vote if it consists only of a rule-change that requires a unanimous vote for adoption?) - Do rules 109 and 203 conflict in the present case? -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 23 12:06:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 20:06:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 93234 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 19:59:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 19:59:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 19:59:23 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009B0213@m...>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:59:23 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24479; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:59:22 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions References: Date: 23 Feb 2001 14:59:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:39 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > Rich, the merit of this proposal is the ability for ANYONE to have the > chance to have a proposal voted upon in a given turn, and the choice is > based upon the merit of the proposal they make. But you can do that already! If you've got a hot idea for a proposal, there's nothing preventing you from posting it here, and nothing preventing the Active Player from using it. But there's no *incentive* for you to do so -- and to me, making it illegal for the Active Player to post eir own proposal doesn't strike me as much of an incentive either. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Fri Feb 23 12:52:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 20:51:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 16649 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 20:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 20:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 20:47:35 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1NKlZh18146 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:47:35 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:47:32 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner >But there's no *incentive* for you to do so -- and to me, making it >illegal for the Active Player to post eir own proposal doesn't strike >me as much of an incentive either. Like I said, this is only the first step. The incentive system should be changed to reward both the proposer and the suggester, but that's the next step. We can't do everything at once. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@g... Fri Feb 23 14:44:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 22:44:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 86021 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 22:44:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 22:44:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 22:44:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16024 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:44:48 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:44:48 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Still waiting for Chris... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Let's see... Since Rich's invocation affects the completion of Ross's turn, I guess Chris is the judge for that invocation. We're also still waiting for Chris to send out the labels of PDX and Ross. From htowsner@s... Sat Feb 24 17:25:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 25 Feb 2001 01:25:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 8343 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2001 01:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2001 01:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Feb 2001 02:26:33 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1P1PSf17421 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:25:28 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:25:25 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner Since I haven't seen any suggestions to change the proposal, I propose the following rule change: In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous phase. Each proposed rule change is a separate entity, each with their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the label of the proposal is "Propsal x" where x is the number of the proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is the highest number. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@g... Tue Feb 27 09:43:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 27 Feb 2001 17:43:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 86639 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2001 17:42:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2001 17:42:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2001 18:43:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08981 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:53 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > Since I haven't seen any suggestions to change the proposal, I > propose the following rule change: > > In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: [snip] Hmm... Since no one has consented to starting the next turn, I don't think we can look at your proposal just yet... Where is Chris's judgement? Does anyone think a judgement is a required communication and therefore Chris is now a Reyalp by rule 303? From Nomic1@a... Tue Feb 27 12:49:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 27 Feb 2001 20:49:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 52466 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2001 20:48:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Feb 2001 20:48:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2001 20:48:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.133] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Feb 2001 20:48:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:48:39 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Actions Message-ID: <97h3r7+2c9n@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 490 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > > > Since I haven't seen any suggestions to change the proposal, I > Hmm... Since no one has consented to starting the next turn, I > don't think we can look at your proposal just yet... > > Where is Chris's judgement? Does anyone think a judgement is a > required communication and therefore Chris is now a Reyalp by rule 303? I would think so...back up 1 more for the new judge. Feyd From jjweston@g... Wed Feb 28 10:02:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 18:02:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 79148 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 18:02:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 18:02:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 19:03:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10416 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:43 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Chris becomes a Reyalp Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Chris hasn't issued a judgement, or any sort of communication for over 72 hours. He loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. Rich Holmes becomes the current judge. We have one outstanding invocation for him to judge, and two players for him to label: Ross and PDX. From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 28 11:09:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 19:09:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 61192 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 19:09:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 19:09:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 19:09:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009CD1D6@m...>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:08:07 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA25845; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:08:06 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Judgment 6 References: Date: 28 Feb 2001 14:08:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:43 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 67 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... The main question is: Was Proposal 320 adopted? Clearly Rule-Change 320 was not adopted. It called for the transmutation of an immutable rule, and by Rule 109 that requires unanimity. (By Rule 203 only a simple majority is required to adopt a Rule-Change. This is a clear conflict between an immutable rule and a mutable one. By Rule 110, the immutable rule -- 109 -- takes precedence and Rule 203 is "entirely void" -- but, more fully In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule... the mutable rule shall be entirely void. Rule 203 is void *in the event of a conflict with an immutable rule*. For purposes of adopting Rule-Changes that do not transmute an immutable rule, there is no conflict with Rule 110, and Rule 203 still applies.) But what about Proposal 320? The rules make reference to adoption of Proposals, so the concept must be a valid one. But the rules do not specify how Proposals are adopted. It does specify how Rule-Changes are adopted, and in the initial ruleset a Proposal must consist of a single Rule-Change. So clearly the original intent was that "adoption of a Rule-Change" and "adoption of a Proposal" were to be considered synonymous. With the passage of Rule 315, later amended to Rule 316, a Proposal may consist of one or more Rule-Changes. Some of these Rule-Changes might have different requirements for adoption than others, e.g., unanimity versus majority. However, Rule 316 fails to update the concept of "adoption of a Proposal". All I see in the rules on the subject of how to deal with a situation where the Rules do not adequately specify a concept are (Rule 116) Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. (I'm not sure that one's relevant to the present issue) and (Rule 212) All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. I see no relevant guidance here in game-custom or "spirit of the game". But I do observe that Jeff's proposed interpretation, that a Proposal always is adopted if it receives a majority (after the first round) regardless of what vote its constituent Rule-Change(s) require, would not have made sense without the passage of Rule 315. At that time, failure to adopt a Rule-Change that required unanimity would have meant failure of that Proposal -- I don't think anyone would have seriously suggested otherwise. And I see nothing in Rule 315(316) to suggest one ought to change this policy in the case of a one-Rule-Change Proposal. I would suggest that a Proposal ought to be adopted if and only if one or more of its Rule-Changes is adopted; but perhaps that's not best -- perhaps one ought to require *all* the Rule-Changes to be adopted. But I don't see it as my job to specify a broad precedent. I think it's sufficient to say, in this case, I believe the sensible interpretation is that, since Rule-Change 320 was not adopted, neither was Proposal 320. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Feb 28 11:16:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 19:16:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 71359 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 19:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 19:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 19:16:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10524 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:16:23 -0800 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:16:23 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgment 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With Rich's Judgement, I'm revisiting the results of proposal 320. In fact, I never updated the site in the first place... :) We have 5 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST proposal 320. According to Rich's Judgement, Proposal 320 fails. Ross loses 10 points for it failing. Ross receives 21 points for receiving 71% favorable votes. So, Ross has a net gain of 11 points. I consent to starting the next turn. From ross@b... Wed Feb 28 11:29:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 19:29:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 12607 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 19:29:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 19:29:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 20:30:11 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.9) with ESMTP id OAA00931 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:29:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11236 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:29:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:29:03 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgment 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I agree Jeff, I honestly didn't expect the Proposal to pass if the rule-change didn't, it hadn't even occured to me. : ) Anyhow, I give my consent to continue as well. -Ross From Nomic1@a... Wed Feb 28 13:28:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 21:28:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 43521 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 21:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 21:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 21:27:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2001 21:27:14 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:27:10 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Judgment 6 Message-ID: <97jqfe+corr@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 149 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... I consent.. but why do we need consent? A judge has ruled, off we go eh? NOTE: This is NOT NOT NOT a request for judgement. I'm just curious. Feyd From htowsner@s... Wed Feb 28 13:39:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 21:39:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 57904 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 21:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 21:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 21:36:38 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1SLabf08819 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:36:37 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:36:34 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner Okay, here I go again. Phase 1, I don't buy any more rule-changes. Are they any suggestions before I make the following proposal? In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous phase. Each proposed rule change is a separate entity, each with their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the label of the proposal is "Propsal x" where x is the number of the proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is the highest number. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 28 14:08:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 22:08:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 41469 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 22:07:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 22:07:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 22:07:34 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009CF124@m...>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:07:27 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA09200; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:07:26 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestions References: Date: 28 Feb 2001 17:07:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: Henry Towsner's message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:36:34 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 33 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Henry Towsner writes: > Are they any suggestions before I make the following proposal? 1. As stated before, I think Suggestions ought to have real incentives implemented for them before having limits imposed on them. I think limiting Players to one Suggestion each, and limiting the Active Player to using only other Players' Suggestions, is likely to just slow the game down. And what happens if it's a Player's turn and *no other Player* has a Suggestion? (Possible, and probably game-ending under your Proposal.) 2. With your proposal, I think Rule 111's use of the term "proponent" ("The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.") needs to be examined. That seems to suggest the Active Player can under some circumstances reword a proposed Rule-Change, and I'm not sure that's what you intended. > label of the proposal is "Propsal x" where x is the number of the ^ | --------------------------------+ 3. Missing an "o". 4. I'd like to see some attempt to fix up the gamestate ambiguity. That can be done with a self-repealing paragraph added to any other new rule or amendment you might propose. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Wed Feb 28 14:25:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 22:25:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 5191 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 22:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 22:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 22:24:37 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1SMOaf29641 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:24:36 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:24:34 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > > Are they any suggestions before I make the following proposal? > >1. As stated before, I think Suggestions ought to have real incentives > implemented for them before having limits imposed on them. I think > limiting Players to one Suggestion each, and limiting the Active > Player to using only other Players' Suggestions, is likely to just > slow the game down. And what happens if it's a Player's turn and > *no other Player* has a Suggestion? (Possible, and probably > game-ending under your Proposal.) While I agree that incentives are important, I think it is easier to formalize the process of suggestions first and then add incentives than the other way around. >2. With your proposal, I think Rule 111's use of the term "proponent" > ("The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to > be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also > decides the time to end debate and vote.") needs to be examined. > That seems to suggest the Active Player can under some > circumstances reword a proposed Rule-Change, and I'm not sure > that's what you intended. Hmm. I'm not sure I can do anything about that. I'm inclined to leave editing authority in the Active Player's hands, so maybe this is okay anyway. >4. I'd like to see some attempt to fix up the gamestate ambiguity. > That can be done with a self-repealing paragraph added to any other > new rule or amendment you might propose. How about this: All players are moved to (5(n-1),20) where n is the player's location in an alphabetical ordering (i.e. for the player first in alphabetical order, n=1). This paragraph is then repealed. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From rsholmes@m... Wed Feb 28 14:59:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Feb 2001 22:59:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 97816 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 22:59:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2001 22:59:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2001 00:00:51 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009CF5D9@m...>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:59:46 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20277; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:59:45 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestions References: Date: 28 Feb 2001 17:59:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: Henry Towsner's message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:24:34 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Henry Towsner writes: > How about this: > All players are moved to (5(n-1),20) where n is the player's > location in an alphabetical ordering (i.e. for the player first in > alphabetical order, n=1). This paragraph is then repealed. Looks good to me -- except that there's also ambiguity in the point totals... -- Doctroid From engels@w... Thu Mar 01 03:50:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 1 Mar 2001 11:50:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 55395 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2001 11:50:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2001 11:50:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2001 11:50:40 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f21BocB22475 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:50:38 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f21Bocn11690 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:50:38 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200103011150.f21Bocn11690@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: from Henry Towsner at "Feb 28, 2001 1:36:34 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:50:37 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Henry Towsner wrote: > Okay, here I go again. Phase 1, I don't buy any more rule-changes. > > Are they any suggestions before I make the following proposal? This would make multi-rule change proposals even more difficult than they already are, since now it has to be combined from the suggestions of various players. I would prefer that players could have suggestions with multiple rule changes, and then one suggestion is chosen, which may have at most as many rule changes as is allowed by phase one. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html PGP Public key: see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/pgp.asc If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From Nomic1@a... Thu Mar 01 06:15:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 1 Mar 2001 14:15:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 57340 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2001 14:15:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2001 14:15:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2001 14:15:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.125] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Mar 2001 14:15:09 -0000 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:15:04 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Rebuttal, and discussion on multi-rule changesRe: Actions Message-ID: <97llh8+aug4@e...> In-Reply-To: <200103011150.f21Bocn11690@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1073 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.137 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Andre Engels wrote: > Henry Towsner wrote: > This would make multi-rule change proposals even more difficult than they > already are, since now it has to be combined from the suggestions of > various players. I would prefer that players could have suggestions with > multiple rule changes, and then one suggestion is chosen, which may have > at most as many rule changes as is allowed by phase one. In general, I don't like the idea of making multi-rule changes (that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a structure to do it, just a general principle). I think a better resolution is to have more complex rules. For example, 316 is a complex rule. It deals with everthing having to do with a "turn". A single proposal to modify 316 can change a lot about the turn structure. If we assume that the basic rules (i.e. 1-299) are rarely changing, then we need only make sure that our rule structure remains more expanded (fewer, larger rules). I am sure there are very good counter-arguments to this. Let's hear 'em. Feyd From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 01 11:42:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 1 Mar 2001 19:42:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 18971 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2001 19:41:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2001 19:41:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2001 19:41:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA00926 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:44:01 -0800 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:44:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgment 6 In-Reply-To: <97jqfe+corr@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > I consent.. > but why do we need consent? A judge has ruled, off we go eh? Paragraph 2 from rule 212: When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 01 11:44:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 1 Mar 2001 19:44:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 66976 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2001 19:44:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2001 19:44:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2001 20:45:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA00944 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:46:08 -0800 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:46:08 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > Okay, here I go again. Phase 1, I don't buy any more rule-changes. > > Are they any suggestions before I make the following proposal? Why not just make the proposal? If players have suggestions for it, the rules allow for suggestions to be made. You will of course have final say about what the final form the proposal will take. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 01 11:49:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 1 Mar 2001 19:49:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 37041 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2001 19:49:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2001 19:49:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2001 19:49:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA00966 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:51:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:51:06 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Henry is Unlabelled... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston We got the required consent from a majority of players. Henry has started his turn. Henry is Unlabelled. The current judge, Ross, must slap a label on Henry's forehead and let everyone else know what it is via private email. From htowsner@s... Sat Mar 03 17:39:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 4 Mar 2001 01:39:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 23951 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 01:39:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2001 01:39:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 01:39:13 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f241dDf19721 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:39:13 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:39:09 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner I make the following proposal: In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous phase. Each proposed rule change is a separate entity, each with their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the label of the proposal is "Proposal x" where x is the number of the proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is the highest number. All players are moved to (5(n-1),20) where n is the player's location in an alphabetical ordering (i.e. for the player first in alphabetical order, n=1). For all players whose score is ambiguous, their score is set to the lowest possible score it could be. This paragraph is then repealed. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From engels@w... Sun Mar 04 03:25:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 4 Mar 2001 11:25:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 98193 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 11:25:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2001 11:25:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.tue.nl) (131.155.2.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 11:25:42 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by mailhost.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f24BPeB23571 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:25:40 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f24BPel17860 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:25:40 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200103041125.f24BPel17860@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] Rebuttal, and discussion on multi-rule changesRe: Actions In-Reply-To: <97llh8+aug4@e...> from "Nomic1@a..." at "Mar 1, 2001 2:15: 4 pm" To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:25:40 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Feyd wrote: > In general, I don't like the idea of making multi-rule changes (that > doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a structure to do it, just a general > principle). I think a better resolution is to have more complex > rules. > > For example, 316 is a complex rule. It deals with everthing having > to do with a "turn". A single proposal to modify 316 can change a > lot about the turn structure. If we assume that the basic rules > (i.e. 1-299) are rarely changing, then we need only make sure that > our rule structure remains more expanded (fewer, larger rules). > > I am sure there are very good counter-arguments to this. Let's > hear 'em. In the first place, I dislike such very complex rules. I prefer to have several rules deal with various sub-subjects. In the second place, some changes simply have to change various existing rules. For example, if we would want to change the name of our currency, we would have to change Rules 309, 311, 312 and 316. Such cases will undoubtedly become more common through time. Finally, if we have multiple rule changes, we can with unanimity change an Immutable Rule by the multiple rule change of * Transmutate the Immutable Rule * Amend the resulting Rule * Transmutate the resulting Rule As things are now, to change an Immutable Rule, we would have to have it mutable for quite some time, with the risk that some arbitrary majority of players could change it in a different way if they so wanted. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html PGP Public key: see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/pgp.asc If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 05 08:33:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 16:33:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 97453 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 16:33:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 16:33:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 17:34:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009E9329@m...>; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:32:43 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25933; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:32:42 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Henry's proposal References: Date: 05 Mar 2001 11:32:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: Henry Towsner's message of "Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:39:09 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 45 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Henry Towsner writes: > I make the following proposal: > > In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: > > At all times each player may have a single Suggestion. A > Suggestion shall consist of a rule change. A player may withdraw, > amend, or create a Suggestion at any time; when a player creates a > Suggestion it replaces any other Suggestion that player may have had. > The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. During the Proposal > phase, the player whose turn it is must nominate as many Suggestions > belonging to other players as e arranged to propose in the previous > phase. > Each proposed rule change is a separate entity, each with > their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one > proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate > to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the > label of the proposal is "Proposal x" where x is the number of the > proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the > lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is > the highest number. > All players are moved to (5(n-1),20) where n is the player's > location in an alphabetical ordering (i.e. for the player first in > alphabetical order, n=1). For all players whose score is ambiguous, > their score is set to the lowest possible score it could be. This > paragraph is then repealed. > > -- > Henry Towsner > > The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > -- Doctroid From ross@b... Mon Mar 05 08:51:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 16:51:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 2803 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 16:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 16:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 16:50:33 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet1.9) with ESMTP id LAA24311 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:50:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22326 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:50:25 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:50:25 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Henry's proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 05 10:38:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 18:38:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 95300 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 18:38:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 18:38:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 18:38:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10522 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:40:02 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:40:02 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > I make the following proposal: > > In rule 316, replace the third paragraph with the following: [snip] > All players are moved to (5(n-1),20) where n is the player's > location in an alphabetical ordering (i.e. for the player first in > alphabetical order, n=1). For all players whose score is ambiguous, > their score is set to the lowest possible score it could be. This > paragraph is then repealed. When do the actions in the above paragraph take effect? Since you are replacing the paragraph having to do with the proposal phase, I guess those actions might occur during the next player's proposal phase. It is still relatively ambiguous. I would rather see something like, "When this rule is amended with these changes, the following actions occur: ... ..." It may just be me though. Others may not see the ambiguity. And there is still the issue of Row 11 having a label that is not in the list of valid labels. From Nomic1@a... Mon Mar 05 12:08:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 20:08:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 68791 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 20:08:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 20:08:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 20:08:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Mar 2001 20:08:21 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:08:18 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Vote AGAINST Henry's proposal Message-ID: <980rni+nk63@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 252 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Henry Towsner writes: > > > I make the following proposal: > Doctroid hey doc, Do you care to give you reasons as to why you voted against this proposal (you don't have to, of course)? Feyd From htowsner@s... Mon Mar 05 12:33:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 20:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 36703 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 20:33:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 20:33:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 20:33:07 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f25KX6f28138 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:33:06 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:33:03 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Henry's proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner Almost forgot. I vote FOR too. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 05 13:46:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 21:46:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 59975 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 21:46:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 21:46:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 21:46:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11216 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:48:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:48:25 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 321 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston There is at least one ambiguity that I feel needs to be resolved. I brought it up in a prior message. I don't like the restrictions it places on proposals. From htowsner@s... Mon Mar 05 14:03:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 5 Mar 2001 22:03:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 94188 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2001 22:02:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2001 22:02:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2001 22:02:20 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f25M2If12072 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:02:19 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:02:15 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > When do the actions in the above paragraph take effect? Since you >are replacing the paragraph having to do with the proposal phase, I guess >those actions might occur during the next player's proposal phase. It is >still relatively ambiguous. I would rather see something like, "When this >rule is amended with these changes, the following actions occur: ... ..." >It may just be me though. Others may not see the ambiguity. And there is >still the issue of Row 11 having a label that is not in the list of valid >labels. I think it's fairly clear that it occurs as soon as the proposal passes, since at the point the rule is amended and the relevant text takes effect. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From Nomic1@a... Tue Mar 06 09:24:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 6 Mar 2001 17:24:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 28081 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2001 17:24:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2001 17:24:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 17:24:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.68] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2001 17:24:45 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 17:24:41 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Henry's proposal Message-ID: <9836gp+3d2b@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 113 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... regretfully. I think it ignores scoring, which will cause a huge firestorm. I don't wanna deal with it. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 06 09:46:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 6 Mar 2001 17:46:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 70767 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2001 17:46:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2001 17:46:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 17:46:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009F2076@m...>; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:46:24 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07165; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:46:24 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Vote AGAINST Henry's proposal References: <980rni+nk63@e...> Date: 06 Mar 2001 12:46:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:08:18 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Do you care to give you reasons as to why you voted against this > proposal (you don't have to, of course)? For reasons stated previously. I believe the only effect of the main part of the proposal will be to restrict and slow down the proposal process. It also is flawed in that it provides no incentives for "suggestions", nor a way to finish a turn if no "suggestions" are available. Pity this means I have to vote against the gameset disambiguation part, too. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 06 10:54:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 6 Mar 2001 18:54:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 83490 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2001 18:54:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2001 18:54:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 18:54:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12654 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:56:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:56:29 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Andre's vote... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Andre, according to my records, you have about 7 hours left to vote on proposal 321. From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 07 17:26:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 01:26:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 61751 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 01:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 01:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 01:26:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14760 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:28:56 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:28:56 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 321 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Andre failed to vote on Proposal 321 within the required time frame. Andre loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. With 2 votes for and 3 votes against, Proposal 321 fails. Henry receives 12 points for receiving 40% favorable votes. Henry loses 10 points for having proposed rule change 321 defeated. Play now continues with Jeff Weston. I will begin my turn shortly. From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 07 18:39:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 02:39:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 29886 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 02:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 02:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 03:40:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14822 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:41:06 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:41:06 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Phase 1 I purchase one additional rule change proposal for 50 Groks. My Grok balance is now 0. Phase 2 - I make the following proposal: Proposal 322 - 323 Rule Change Proposal 322: Create a new rule with the following text: There shall be part of the gamestate a list of suggestions. A suggestion is one proposed rule change. At all times each Player may have at most one suggestion present in the list of suggestions. At any time, any player may add a suggestion to the list by announcing their suggestion to all other players. If that player already has one suggestion on the list when they add a new suggestion, their original suggestion is replaced with the new one. At any time, any player may remove their suggestion from the list by announcing their intent to all other players, provided that player has a suggestion on the list in the first place. If and when a player ceases to be a player, if they have a suggestion on the list, it is removed at that time. When this rule is enacted, the following actions shall occur: All Players and Reyalps are moved to (5*(n-1), 20) where n is the Player's or Reyalp's alphabetical position by surname amongst the other Players and Reyalps. For all Players and Reyalps whose score is ambiguous, their score is set to the lowest possible score it could be. Row 11 becomes unlabelled. This paragraph is then surrounded with comment characters. Rule Change Proposal 323: Amend rule 316 by striking the third paragraph and replacing it with the following text: The second phase is the "Proposal" phase. Players propose as many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. Players may choose to create a proposal of their own, or compose a proposal using one or more of the suggestions currently present in the suggestions list. If the player chooses to use the suggestions list they may not use their own suggestion. In order to use the suggestions list, there must be present enough suggestions, excluding the player's own, in order to fulfill the number of rule change proposals the player arranged for in phase one. If the player is using the suggestions list, they must use the same number of suggestions as the number of rule change proposals they arranged for in phase one, and the suggestions must be used exactly word for word what they are currently in the gamestate. Once the proposal has been proposed, all of the suggestions that were used are removed from the suggestions list, the player gains 100 Groks plus an additional 25 Groks for each proposed rule change beyond the first, and the player becomes the proponent of the entire proposal. For every suggestion used in this manner, the player who originally made the suggestion gains 25 Groks. If the player is not using the suggestions list, they must create as many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. The player cannot use suggestions to come up with rule change proposals. Each proposed rule change is a separate entity, each with their own number. The combined proposed rule changes form one proposal. The individual proposed rule changes do not have to relate to each other in any way. If only one rule change is proposed the label of the proposal is "Proposal x" where x is the number of the proposed rule change, otherwise it is "Proposal x - y" where x is the lowest number assigned in the set of proposed rule changes, and y is the highest number. From Nomic1@a... Thu Mar 08 07:47:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 15:47:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 9713 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 15:47:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 15:47:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 15:47:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2001 15:47:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:46:57 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Couple questions Re: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 Message-ID: <9889hh+qova@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 806 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Jeff, I like. Questions below. --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: >For every suggestion used in this >manner, the player who originally made the suggestion gains 25 Groks. And you can pick your own suggestion? Easy way to scam an extra 25, yes? >If the player is not using the suggestions list, they must create as >many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. The player >cannot use suggestions to come up with rule change proposals. Can you combine suggestions and your own rule changes? I read it as an either/or proposition. Is this true? >...and the suggestions must be used exactly word for word what >they are currently in the gamestate... But then as the proponent the current they can amend the proposal once made(i.e. #110)? Is this the intent? Feyd From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 08 08:16:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 16:16:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 753 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 16:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 16:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 16:16:36 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009FF73E@m...>; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:16:35 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04257; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:16:34 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 References: Date: 08 Mar 2001 11:16:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:41:06 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... It's better, in some respects, than the previous proposal. Nevertheless, I still fear the increasing complexity of the proposal process combined with the less-than-obviously-desireable restrictions (1 suggestion per player, active player may not use eir own suggestion) will result only in slowing down the creation and implementation of good ideas. Three months into N_omic we still have no theme and no viable subgames, and nearly half the present participants have gone Reyalp (not to mention the ones who've already dropped off the roster entirely). That's not good. It's bad enough, in fact, that I've considered dropping out myself. Not yet, though. I expect I will vote for this proposal. It may do more good than harm, I don't know. At least it provides for earning Groks, which will help. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 08 09:19:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 17:19:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 70039 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 17:19:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 17:19:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 18:20:09 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009FFFD9@m...>; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:19:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18325; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:19:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Couple questions Re: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 References: <9889hh+qova@e...> Date: 08 Mar 2001 12:19:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:46:57 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 63 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Jeff, > I like. Questions below. > > --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > >For every suggestion used in this > >manner, the player who originally made the suggestion gains 25 Groks. > And you can pick your own suggestion? Easy way to scam an extra 25, > yes? Elsewhere in the proposal it says: > If the player > chooses to use the suggestions list they may not use their own suggestion. So no. > >If the player is not using the suggestions list, they must create as > >many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. The player > >cannot use suggestions to come up with rule change proposals. > > Can you combine suggestions and your own rule changes? I read it as > an either/or proposition. Is this true? Looks that way to me. However, the second sentence you quote above is pretty vague. To what degree must a proposal differ from a suggestion in order not to be considered use of that suggestion? > >...and the suggestions must be used exactly word for word what > >they are currently in the gamestate... > But then as the proponent the current they can amend the proposal > once made(i.e. #110)? Is this the intent? I think you mean #111. I would guess that's not the intent, but I think 111 takes precedence and does allow it. Or perhaps the interpretation should be that if the active player doesn't use the suggestions word for word, then e isn't creating eir proposal by the suggestion list method and should not get the bonus for doing so; it would be considered the player's own proposal. But then e runs afoul of the preceding prohibition on using the suggestions to create a proposal. So perhaps there's no conflict with 111 in disallowing changes to suggestion list proposals, but there *is* a conflict with 111 in disallowing non-suggestion list proposals that "use" suggestions. At least, I can imagine a Judge so ruling -- though whether I would if I were the Judge, I don't know. But I guess some vagueness of this sort is inevitable with any "suggestions" based proposal construction -- you inevitably start down the slippery slope of deciding whether and to what degree a proposal is derived from a given suggestion -- either to prohibit such usage or to give compensation to the maker of the suggestion for its usage. Can you say "messy CfJ"? All of which is part of my dissatisfaction with this whole line of attempts to "reform" the proposal process -- it just keeps getting more and more unwieldy, with regulations and procedures that create more and more loopholes and inconsistencies. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 08 10:06:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 18:06:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 94021 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 18:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 18:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 18:04:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15745 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:06:54 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:06:54 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Couple questions Re: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 In-Reply-To: <9889hh+qova@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Jeff, > I like. Questions below. > > --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > >For every suggestion used in this > >manner, the player who originally made the suggestion gains 25 Groks. > > And you can pick your own suggestion? Easy way to scam an extra 25, > yes? Um, no. Elsewhere in the rule you are prohibited from selecting your own suggestion. > >If the player is not using the suggestions list, they must create as > >many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. The player > >cannot use suggestions to come up with rule change proposals. > > Can you combine suggestions and your own rule changes? I read it as > an either/or proposition. Is this true? Perhaps my wording was not clear enough... If you decide to use the suggestions list, you cannot create any of your own rule changes. If you decide to not use the suggestions list, you must create all of the rule changes yourself. You cannot mix and match, using suggestions for some rule changes, and coming up with some rule changes of your own. If you have an idea to better word the proposal, I will make the appropriate amendment. > >...and the suggestions must be used exactly word for word what > >they are currently in the gamestate... > > But then as the proponent the current they can amend the proposal > once made(i.e. #110)? Is this the intent? That is allowed by an immutable rule. Regardless, yes, that was my intent. Rule 111 allows amendments to a proposal, but it doesn't look like it allows a complete rewrite of the proposal. So the final form should still reflect the suggestions it was originally based off of. In any case, this amendment process needs to be started by a player other than the proponent. If no one has any suggested amendments to the proposal, the proponent cannot amend it. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 08 10:16:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 18:16:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 20911 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 18:16:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 18:16:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 19:17:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15798 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:18:02 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:18:02 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 8 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > It's better, in some respects, than the previous proposal. > Nevertheless, I still fear the increasing complexity of the proposal > process combined with the less-than-obviously-desireable restrictions > (1 suggestion per player, active player may not use eir own > suggestion) will result only in slowing down the creation and > implementation of good ideas. You are not required to use suggestions. It is an option that earns you 100 Groks for choosing it. If you think players should be allowed more than one suggestion, I would be happy to amend the proposal. > Three months into N_omic we still have > no theme and no viable subgames, and nearly half the present > participants have gone Reyalp (not to mention the ones who've already > dropped off the roster entirely). That's not good. It's bad enough, > in fact, that I've considered dropping out myself. Not yet, though. We still have 5 players. We started with 5 players. Of the current set of Reyalps, two have been around for less than three proposals. I'm not too worried about the number of players at this time. > I expect I will vote for this proposal. It may do more good than > harm, I don't know. At least it provides for earning Groks, which > will help. If you have suggestions for making it do more good and less harm, I am open to suggested amendments. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 08 10:22:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 18:22:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 35584 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 18:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 18:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 18:22:07 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A005EB@m...>; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:22:07 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01311; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:22:06 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Couple questions Re: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 References: Date: 08 Mar 2001 13:22:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:06:54 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > That is allowed by an immutable rule. Regardless, yes, that was > my intent. Rule 111 allows amendments to a proposal, but it doesn't look > like it allows a complete rewrite of the proposal. So the final form > should still reflect the suggestions it was originally based off of. In > any case, this amendment process needs to be started by a player other > than the proponent. If no one has any suggested amendments to the > proposal, the proponent cannot amend it. I suppose that's one possible reading of 111. Another would be to observe that the statement "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on..." is not explicitly modified by any requirement that other players first suggest amendments. A Judge might infer such a requirement from the position of that sentence in Rule 111, but another Judge might not. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 08 10:30:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 18:30:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 71753 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 18:30:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 18:30:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 18:30:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15826 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:32:03 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:32:03 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Couple questions Re: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 8 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nomic1@a... writes: > > > --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > > > > >If the player is not using the suggestions list, they must create as > > >many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. The player > > >cannot use suggestions to come up with rule change proposals. > > > > Can you combine suggestions and your own rule changes? I read it as > > an either/or proposition. Is this true? > > Looks that way to me. > > However, the second sentence you quote above is pretty vague. To what > degree must a proposal differ from a suggestion in order not to be > considered use of that suggestion? My only goal with that second sentence was to make it clear that if you are not using the suggestions list, you cannot combine rule changes of your own along with suggestions to form a proposal. To what degree do your own rule change proposals have to differ from suggestions in order to not be counted as using a suggestion? Well, elsewhere in the rule, it is required that suggestions must be used word for word in order to be used at all. I would say this implies that any rule change proposal that doesn't match a suggestion word for word is not using a suggestion. But then you might say that someone could steal a suggestion by changing just one word! That is correct. But why would you do that anyways? You earn 100 Groks if you properly use the suggestion. You earn nothing if you just steal it. I felt that the cash incentive would be enough to prevent stealing suggestions in this case. If you want some complicated verbiage to define exactly how different a rule change proposal must be from a suggestion in order to be different, I would be happy to oblige. I just think that its more complicated than we really need. > > >...and the suggestions must be used exactly word for word what > > >they are currently in the gamestate... > > > > But then as the proponent the current they can amend the proposal > > once made(i.e. #110)? Is this the intent? > > I think you mean #111. I would guess that's not the intent, but I > think 111 takes precedence and does allow it. Or perhaps the > interpretation should be that if the active player doesn't use the > suggestions word for word, then e isn't creating eir proposal by the > suggestion list method and should not get the bonus for doing so; it > would be considered the player's own proposal. But then e runs afoul > of the preceding prohibition on using the suggestions to create a > proposal. So perhaps there's no conflict with 111 in disallowing > changes to suggestion list proposals, but there *is* a conflict with > 111 in disallowing non-suggestion list proposals that "use" > suggestions. At least, I can imagine a Judge so ruling -- though > whether I would if I were the Judge, I don't know. Hmm... Perhaps another area where my wording was not clear. It was my intent that once the proposal has been proposed, if it properly used the suggestions list (word for word, etc...) then at that point the set of suggestions used becomes a proposal and are no longer limited to the restrictions of using suggestions. That way the proposal could be amended per rule 111, but not conflicting with this rule. If you have a suggested amendment to make this more clear, I would be happy to amend the proposal. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 08 11:23:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 19:23:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 97802 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 19:23:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 19:23:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 19:23:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15889 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:25:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:25:06 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Eric is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Eric Strathmeyer has not left Reyalp status within the required time frame. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Henry must remove one label from the list of valid labels and announce it to everyone. Now things get tricky... Processing the actions from rule 318: Eric's X coordinate is 25 or ??. Jeff's X coordinate is 30 or ??. Ross's X coordinate is 35 or ??. Chris's X coordinate is 35 or ??. PDX's X coordinate is 40 or ??. Henry's X coordinate is ??. Let's see... Perhaps Jeff's X coordinate becomes 25 or ??. Ross's X coordinate becomes 30 or ??. Chris'x X coordinate becomes 30 or ??. PDX's X coordinate becomes 35 or ??. Henry's X coordinate remains ??. Files 40 to 44 are then removed from the board. I think that covers everything... There will probably be some debate about what exactly happens as a result of Eric leaving the game. I will refrain from updating the web site until a consensus is reached. From Nomic1@a... Thu Mar 08 11:52:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 19:52:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 83254 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 19:52:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 19:52:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 19:52:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.66] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Mar 2001 19:52:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:52:09 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Couple questions Re: Jeff's Turn: Proposal 322 - 323 Message-ID: <988nt9+pb8q@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1762 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.139 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > I like. Questions below. > > --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > > >If the player is not using the suggestions list, they must create as > > >many rule changes as they have arranged for in phase one. The player > > >cannot use suggestions to come up with rule change proposals. > > > > Can you combine suggestions and your own rule changes? I read it as > > an either/or proposition. Is this true? > Perhaps my wording was not clear enough... If you decide to use > the suggestions list, you cannot create any of your own rule Wording is fine. I wanted to verify your intent. > > >...and the suggestions must be used exactly word for word what > > >they are currently in the gamestate... > > > > But then as the proponent the current they can amend the proposal > > once made(i.e. #111)? Is this the intent? > > That is allowed by an immutable rule. Regardless, yes, that was > my intent. Rule 111 allows amendments to a proposal, but it doesn't look > like it allows a complete rewrite of the proposal. So the final form > should still reflect the suggestions it was originally based off of. In > any case, this amendment process needs to be started by a player other > than the proponent. If no one has any suggested amendments to the > proposal, the proponent cannot amend it. Hm. In the past we have not really paid attention to #111 with the force that we should have, perhaps. Especially the line reading: "...then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote." Should we infer that the proponent may NOT suggest ammendendments once an item is brought to the floor? Feyd From htowsner@s... Thu Mar 08 13:24:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 8 Mar 2001 21:24:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 85030 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2001 21:24:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Mar 2001 21:24:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2001 21:24:33 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f28LOWY28922 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:24:32 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:24:30 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Eric is dropped from the game. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner I remove the label "House" -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 09 13:45:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 9 Mar 2001 21:45:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 75899 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2001 21:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Mar 2001 21:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2001 21:45:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18001 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:47:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:47:43 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Eric is dropped from the game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > I remove the label "House" House has been removed from the list of valid labels. Row 6 becomes unlabelled. Hearing no comments regarding my interpretation of rule 318, I have updated the web site in accordance with my email from yesterday. From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 09 13:48:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 9 Mar 2001 21:48:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 92011 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2001 21:48:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Mar 2001 21:48:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2001 21:48:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18016 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:50:38 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:50:38 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 322 - 323 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Seeing no suggested amendments from other players, I declare the originally posted version of my proposal to be its final form and end discussion. I vote FOR proposal 322 - 323. From htowsner@s... Fri Mar 09 14:04:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 9 Mar 2001 22:04:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 29564 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2001 22:04:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Mar 2001 22:04:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2001 22:04:18 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29M4GY04959 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:04:17 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:04:14 -0800 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 322 - 323 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner > I vote FOR proposal 322 - 323. As do I. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From ross@b... Sat Mar 10 03:46:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 10 Mar 2001 11:46:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 66801 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2001 11:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Mar 2001 11:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Mar 2001 11:46:26 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id GAA02033 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:46:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA11874 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:46:25 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:46:25 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 322 - 323 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > > I vote FOR proposal 322 - 323. > > As do I. > So do I. -Ross From rsholmes@m... Sat Mar 10 06:36:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 10 Mar 2001 14:36:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 46375 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2001 14:36:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Mar 2001 14:36:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Mar 2001 14:36:51 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A0B60E@m...>; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 9:36:51 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA15703; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:36:50 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 322 - 323 References: Date: 10 Mar 2001 09:36:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:46:25 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Henry Towsner wrote: > > > > I vote FOR proposal 322 - 323. > > > > As do I. > > > > So do I. I have reservations, but I vote FOR. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 12 10:33:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 12 Mar 2001 18:33:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 91537 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2001 18:33:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2001 18:33:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2001 18:33:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26269 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:35:49 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:35:49 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Feyd's Vote Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Feyd, By my calculations, you have about 3 hours left to vote on Proposal 322 - 323. From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 12 17:58:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 01:58:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 45655 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 01:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 01:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 01:58:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26849 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:00:19 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:00:19 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 322 - 323 Passes Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Feyd did not vote within the required time frame. He loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. With 4 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 322 - 323 passes. Jeff receives 32 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Rule change proposal 322 is enacted. Feyd is moved to (0, 20). Andre is moved to (5, 20). Rich is moved to (10, 20). Chris is moved to (15, 20). PDX is moved to (20, 20). Ross is moved to (25, 20). Henry is moved to (30, 20). Jeff is moved to (35, 20). Chris's score is set to -14. PDX's score is set to -10. Henry's score is set to 2. Row 11 becomes unlabelled. The last paragraph of rule 322 is surrounded with comment characters. Rule change proposal 323 is enacted. I proceed with phase 4... I do nothing. Play now continues with Rich Holmes. Rich is an unlabelled player. As the current judge, I must slap a label on his forehead and inform everyone else what it is via private email. I will do this shortly. The web site has been updated with these changes. Let me know if I missed anything. From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 12 18:00:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 02:00:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 35110 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 02:00:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 02:00:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 03:01:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26863 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:02:20 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:02:19 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I make the following suggestion: Amend rule 203 to read in full: A proposal passes if and only if the vote is a simple majority among the eligible voters. From engels@w... Tue Mar 13 07:31:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: engels@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 15:31:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 61520 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 15:31:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 15:31:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kweetal.tue.nl) (131.155.2.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 15:31:43 -0000 Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168]) by kweetal.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f2DFVfF12816 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:31:41 +0100 (MET) Received: (from engels@l...) by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.11.0/8.11.1) id f2DFVem07866 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:31:40 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200103131531.f2DFVem07866@w...> Subject: Leaving To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:31:39 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andre Engels Although it was fun while it lasted, I think I should not be continuing this game. I hereby cease to be a Player or Reyalp. -- Andre Engels, engels@w... telephone: +31-40-2474628 (work) +31-6-17774490 (mobile) http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/index_en.html PGP Public key: see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/pgp.asc If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all -- Noam Chomsky From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 13 07:35:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 15:35:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 5434 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 15:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 15:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 15:35:52 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A189A0@m...>; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:35:52 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20194; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:35:51 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions Date: 13 Mar 2001 10:35:51 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 99 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Phase 1: I buy no additional rule-changes. Phase 2: Rather than wait for Suggestions to trickle in I'll roll my own proposal. Proposal 324: Amend Rule 316 as follows: (1) Replace the sentence "A player's turn consists of four phases" with "A player's turn consists of five phases." (2) Replace the paragraph beginning "The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase" with the following "=====" delimited text: ===== The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may choose to move from eir current square at (x1,y1) to a destination square at (x2,y2) for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2)| + 10 groks if all the following restrictions are obeyed: [[Feyd's condition i. is really just a definition of y1 and y2, which I have incorporated in the paragraph above.]] [[Note the price of moving has been reduced.]] i. |y1 - y2| < max (2, n) where n is the total number of Players [[This is a clearer restatement of Feyd's conditions ii. and iii.]] ii. |x1 - x2| mod m < 2 where m is the total number of Files [[So for example, if there are 20 Files and if I am at x1 = 2, I can move to x2 = 1, 2, or 3; if I am at x1 = 0 I can move to x2 = 19, 0, or 1. Effectively this makes the game board cylindrical, with File m-1 adjacent to File 1.]] iii. y1 <> 10 iv. y2 <> 10 [[This is a clearer restatement of Feyd's conditions iv. and v.] v. The player has the Groks in eir possession to pay for the move. ===== (3) Replace the last paragraph with the following "=====" delimited text: ===== The player announces the move by stating the move from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2), and the total grok cost. If any of the above conditions are false then the player does not move and loses no groks. If all conditions hold then the groks are subtracted from the player's total and distributed. [[Same as the old paragraph except updating of gamestate is moved to fifth phase.]] The fifth phase is the "Consequences" phase. Some moves have consequences. In the Consequences phase, the Judge announces the consequences of the move. In the following, to be "Thrown Back" means to be relocated from square (x,y) to square (x,y+10). Throwing Back is a consequence of a move, and does not count as a move in and of itself. In the following, "Participants" means Players or Reyalps. Consequences are as follows: o If, when a Player moves, eir destination square is already occupied by one or more other Participants, those other Participants are Thrown Back. Each of those other Participants gains 10 Groks. o If a Player lands on a Labelled Row whose Label matches that Player's Label, e is Thrown Back, becomes Unlabelled, and gains 10 Groks. o If a Player lands on a Labelled Row whose Label does not match that Player's Label, e gains 10 Groks. (The Judge should announce that the Label does not match, without disclosing the Player's Label.) At the end of the turn, the gamestate is updated to reflect the move (if any), its consequences (if any), and the new Grok total for each Participant. ===== -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 13 08:57:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 16:57:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 43282 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 16:57:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 16:57:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 16:57:44 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A18EE1@m...>; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:57:44 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29470; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:57:43 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Clarification of Proposal 324 References: Date: 13 Mar 2001 11:57:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "13 Mar 2001 10:35:51 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Slight clarification: In the paragraph of Proposal 324 that reads: The player announces the move by stating the move from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2), and the total grok cost. If any of the above conditions are false then the player does not move and loses no groks. If all conditions hold then the groks are subtracted from the player's total and distributed. Replace that last sentence with: If all conditions hold then the groks are subtracted from the player's total and distributed, and the move takes place. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 13 10:08:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 18:08:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 4169 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 18:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 18:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 19:09:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28248 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:10:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:10:03 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Leaving In-Reply-To: <200103131531.f2DFVem07866@w...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Although it was fun while it lasted, I think I should not be continuing this > game. > > I hereby cease to be a Player or Reyalp. Hmm... I don't see any way to cease being a Reyalp except to wait for the time limit for being a Reyalp to expire. Anyone else see any other way to cease being a Reyalp? Perhaps a rule change may be in order... From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 13 10:10:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 18:10:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 89082 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 18:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 18:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 18:09:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28257 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:11:59 -0800 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:11:59 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 13 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Phase 1: I buy no additional rule-changes. > > Phase 2: Rather than wait for Suggestions to trickle in I'll roll my > own proposal. > > Proposal 324: > > Amend Rule 316 as follows: [snip] As of the passage of proposal 322 - 323, rule 316 is now rule 323. I suggest amending your proposal to take that into account. From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 13 10:52:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 18:52:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 96573 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 18:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 18:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 19:51:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A19716@m...>; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:17:37 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA08402; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:17:36 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions References: Date: 13 Mar 2001 13:17:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:11:59 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > As of the passage of proposal 322 - 323, rule 316 is now rule > 323. I suggest amending your proposal to take that into account. OK, thanks. Consider it done. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 13 10:53:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 18:53:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 3313 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 18:53:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 18:53:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 19:54:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28332 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:55:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:55:49 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 13 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Weston writes: > > > As of the passage of proposal 322 - 323, rule 316 is now rule > > 323. I suggest amending your proposal to take that into account. > > OK, thanks. Consider it done. Okay. The web site has been updated with your proposal and the two amendments you have made to it. From Nomic1@a... Tue Mar 13 12:28:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 20:28:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 52460 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 20:28:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 20:28:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 20:28:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Mar 2001 20:27:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:27:28 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Feyd becomes player again Message-ID: <98lvrg+9j3u@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 293 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... Feyd petitions to become a player and makes the following Suggestion: Create a new rule: At the end of the active player's turn, any player who had a suggestion selected to become part of a proposal receives 25 grocks. All other players with a pending suggestion receive 10 grocks. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 13 13:39:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 13 Mar 2001 21:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 53925 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2001 21:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2001 21:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Mar 2001 21:38:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A1A7C9@m...>; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:35:16 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA02423; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:35:14 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestion Date: 13 Mar 2001 16:35:14 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 93 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Prelude: This is to address the fact that, as it stands, it is cheaper to add large amounts of text to a single rule than to make small modifications to that rule plus create one or more new rules. The result is to encourage huge, ungainly rules that really should be multiple rules. Correcting such monstrosities also is expensive since it requires an amendment plus one or more new rules. How to fix? Several ways: o Allow multiple rule-changes to be made in a proposal for free. I'm not in favor of that. o Same, but if and only if there are two rule-changes, where one is a new rule and the other is a "trivial" amendment to an old rule to take account of the new rule. That gets ugly. Who decides what's "trivial"? o Let the monstrosities be made, but make them fixable by allowing a rule-change to split a rule so long as the split rules have the same effect as the original monstrosity. That's the intent of this Suggestion. For the sake of symmetry, I also put in language allowing two rules to be merged. In addition I noticed the following text in Rule 103: (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; What the heck does that mean? An amendment of a mutable rule is a rule-change, and no one can propose a new rule-change until that rule-change is either adopted or defeated, at which point it ceases to exist. Is this supposed to mean you can repeal or amend a rule that resulted from the amendment of a mutable rule? But that's trivially true, unless such a rule was later made immutable, in which case it's false. And even in that interpretation, what does "the enactment of an amendment of a mutable rule" mean, and how does it differ from "the amendment of a mutable rule"? I'm totally mystified by this phrase. I propose getting rid of it. So here is my Suggestion: ===== Transmute Rule 103. ===== Postlude: Of course we'd want to have some idea what will happen to Rule 103 once it's transmuted. I would at that point post the following Suggestion (with "103" replaced by its new rule number): ===== Amend Rule 103 to read as follows: ..... A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa; (3) the splitting of one mutable rule into two or more mutable rules with identical effect; or (4) the merging of two or more mutable rules into one mutable rule with identical effect. [[This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended, split, merged, or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.]] ..... ===== -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DocNomic-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 13 16:00:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 00:00:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 5887 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 00:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 00:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 00:00:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28772 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:01:51 -0800 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:01:51 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 13 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > So here is my Suggestion: > > ===== > > Transmute Rule 103. > > ===== Suggestion recorded. > Postlude: Of course we'd want to have some idea what will happen to > Rule 103 once it's transmuted. I would at that point post the > following Suggestion (with "103" replaced by its new rule number): > > ===== > > Amend Rule 103 to read as follows: > > ..... > > A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or > amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the transmutation of an immutable > rule into a mutable rule or vice versa; (3) the splitting of one > mutable rule into two or more mutable rules with identical effect; > or (4) the merging of two or more mutable rules into one mutable > rule with identical effect. > > [[This definition implies that, at least initially, all new > rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, > may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are > mutable, may be amended, split, merged, or repealed; any rule of any > status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.]] > > ..... > > ===== Part of the problem that I ran into when trying to get multiple rule changes into one proposal is that a single rule change can't be allowed to create or amend multiple rules. This is why I took the approach that I did. The reason is that the rules affected by a rule change are given the number of that rule change -- rule 108. Thus if one rule change can create or amend multiple rule, as is the case with (3) splitting one rule into many rules, multiple rules would be assigned the same number. This presents a further problem because we would have problems uniquely identifying a specific rule out of a group of rules with the same number. Rule precedence also becomes a problem, since you wouldn't be able to determine rule precedence with a group of rules with the same number. We probably should look at rule 108 before we start working on rule 103. From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 14 11:10:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 19:10:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 74118 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 19:10:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 19:10:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 19:10:21 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A1F3D8@m...>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:10:21 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09351; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:10:20 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Actions Date: 14 Mar 2001 14:10:19 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 100 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Phase 3: Voting is now open on the following Proposal. (I've removed most of the comments.) Proposal 324: Amend Rule 323 as follows: (1) Replace the sentence "A player's turn consists of four phases" with "A player's turn consists of five phases." (2) Replace the paragraph beginning "The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase" with the following "=====" delimited text: ===== The fourth phase is the "Movement" phase. A player may choose to move from eir current square at (x1,y1) to a destination square at (x2,y2) for a cost of |(10 - y1) * (10 - y2)| + 10 groks if all the following restrictions are obeyed: i. |y1 - y2| < max (2, n) where n is the total number of Players ii. |x1 - x2| mod m < 2 where m is the total number of Files [[So for example, if there are 20 Files and if I am at x1 = 2, I can move to x2 = 1, 2, or 3; if I am at x1 = 0 I can move to x2 = 19, 0, or 1. Effectively this makes the game board cylindrical, with File m-1 adjacent to File 1.]] iii. y1 <> 10 iv. y2 <> 10 v. The player has the Groks in eir possession to pay for the move. ===== (3) Replace the last paragraph with the following "=====" delimited text: ===== The player announces the move by stating the move from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2), and the total grok cost. If any of the above conditions are false then the player does not move and loses no groks. If all conditions hold then the groks are subtracted from the player's total and distributed, and the move takes place. The fifth phase is the "Consequences" phase. Some moves have consequences. In the Consequences phase, the Judge announces the consequences of the move. In the following, to be "Thrown Back" means to be relocated from square (x,y) to square (x,y+10). Throwing Back is a consequence of a move, and does not count as a move in and of itself. In the following, "Participants" means Players or Reyalps. Consequences are as follows: o If, when a Player moves, eir destination square is already occupied by one or more other Participants, those other Participants are Thrown Back. Each of those other Participants gains 10 Groks. o If a Player lands on a Labelled Row whose Label matches that Player's Label, e is Thrown Back, becomes Unlabelled, and gains 10 Groks. o If a Player lands on a Labelled Row whose Label does not match that Player's Label, e gains 10 Groks. (The Judge should announce that the Label does not match, without disclosing the Player's Label.) At the end of the turn, the gamestate is updated to reflect the move (if any), its consequences (if any), and the new Grok total for each Participant. ===== -- Doctroid To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 14 12:21:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 20:21:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 45762 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 20:18:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 20:18:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 21:19:38 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A1F93F@m...>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:18:33 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA16288; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:18:32 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions References: Date: 14 Mar 2001 15:18:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "14 Mar 2001 14:10:19 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... rsholmes@m... writes: > [[So for example, if there are 20 Files and if I am at > x1 = 2, I can move to x2 = 1, 2, or 3; if I am at x1 = 0 I can > move to x2 = 19, 0, or 1. Effectively this makes the game > board cylindrical, with File m-1 adjacent to File 1.]] Oops, that should of course be "adjacent to File 0". -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 14 16:09:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 15 Mar 2001 00:09:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 35769 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2001 00:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Mar 2001 00:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2001 00:09:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30210 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:11:49 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:11:49 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Feyd becomes player again In-Reply-To: <98lvrg+9j3u@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Just realized I hadn't sent this message. Don't know why I didn't send it when I wrote it... On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Feyd petitions to become a player and makes the following Suggestion: Feyd is now a player. > Create a new rule: > > At the end of the active player's turn, any player who had a > suggestion selected to become part of a proposal receives 25 grocks. > All other players with a pending suggestion receive 10 grocks. Suggestion recorded. However, I note that any player who has a suggestion selected to become part of a proposal receives 25 Groks already. Is it your intent to double this award? Also, Groks was spelled wrong twice. From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 14 16:10:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 15 Mar 2001 00:10:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 21910 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2001 00:10:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2001 00:10:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2001 01:11:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30218 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:12:51 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:12:51 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 324 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From ross@b... Thu Mar 15 04:06:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 15 Mar 2001 12:05:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 43400 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2001 12:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2001 12:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2001 12:05:58 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id HAA07158 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:05:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10198 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:05:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:05:57 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR Proposal 324 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I vote FOR as well. From Nomic1@a... Thu Mar 15 12:22:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 15 Mar 2001 20:22:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 99039 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2001 20:22:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2001 20:22:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2001 20:22:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.126] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2001 20:22:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:22:27 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 324 Message-ID: <98r8a3+lo10@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 91 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., "Ross B. Schulman" wrote: > I vote FOR as well. I vote FOR From Nomic1@a... Thu Mar 15 12:28:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 15 Mar 2001 20:28:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 16510 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2001 20:28:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2001 20:28:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2001 20:28:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2001 20:28:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:28:17 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Feyd becomes player again Message-ID: <98r8l1+7rfo@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1216 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > > Create a new rule: > > > > At the end of the active player's turn, any player who had a > > suggestion selected to become part of a proposal receives 25 grocks. > > All other players with a pending suggestion receive 10 grocks. > > Suggestion recorded. However, I note that any player who has a > suggestion selected to become part of a proposal receives 25 Groks > already. Is it your intent to double this award? Also, Groks was spelled > wrong twice. I remove my previous suggest and instead submit the following: Amend rule 323 paragraph 4 by adding the following sentence. "All other players with a pending suggestion [[not selected by the current player]] receive 10 groks." =========================================================== hm, What happens if another suggestion is accepted first which changes 323 (giving it another rule number). So much for thrownig a suggestout out there and leaving it. If 323 were amended I would have to recraft my suggestion to fit new rule #, paragraph #. Furthermore, I may not have time to do that between when one vote ends and when another player starts eir turn by nominating proposals. Feyd From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 15 13:15:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 15 Mar 2001 21:15:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 38262 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2001 21:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2001 21:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2001 22:16:50 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00A2778C@m...>; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:15:46 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA02550; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:15:45 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: SUGGESTION (was Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd becomes player again) References: <98r8l1+7rfo@e...> Date: 15 Mar 2001 16:15:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:28:17 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 66 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > hm, What happens if another suggestion is accepted first which > changes 323 (giving it another rule number). So much for thrownig a > suggestout out there and leaving it. If 323 were amended I would > have to recraft my suggestion to fit new rule #, paragraph #. > Furthermore, I may not have time to do that between when one vote > ends and when another player starts eir turn by nominating proposals. Yet another reason to abolish the insane renumbering of a Rule when it gets amended. Here's another: The precedence of a Rule is implicitly changed (i.e. made lower in precedence than all other Rules) every time it's amended. Perhaps that was really intended -- the idea being that if there's some subtle conflict between the rule as amended and some other rule, then under the assumption that the amendment is less well thought out than the established rule with which it conflicts, it's automatically given lower precedence. Problem with that is, it lowers the precedence of the entire rule, not just the newly amended portion. Anyway, it doesn't strike me as adequate reason to keep the renumbering requirement. Withdraw my last Suggestion in favor of ===== Transmute Rule 108 ===== with the intention that the transmuted Rule, which now reads ===== Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment. ===== [Hmm, there's another reference to amending an amendment. I still don't geddit. And, hmm, there seems to be nothing there telling how to number *new* rules.], would be replaced with ===== Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is added to the ruleset, it receives a number equal to that of the highest numbered rule in the ruleset plus one. If a rule is amended, its rule number is not changed. ===== -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Sat Mar 17 10:58:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 17 Mar 2001 18:58:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 81023 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2001 18:58:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2001 18:58:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2001 18:58:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02008 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:58:17 -0800 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:58:17 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston We're still waiting for Henry and Rich to vote on Proposal 324. Looks like about 15 minutes remain to cast your vote. I think I will begin assuming (again) that the proponent of a proposal votes FOR unless they specify otherwise. That should help things along. So I guess we're just waiting for Henry's vote. From jjweston@g... Sat Mar 17 11:02:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 17 Mar 2001 19:02:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 64770 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2001 19:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Mar 2001 19:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2001 20:03:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02024 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:02:44 -0800 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:02:44 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd becomes player again In-Reply-To: <98r8l1+7rfo@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > I remove my previous suggest and instead submit the following: > > Amend rule 323 paragraph 4 by adding the following sentence. "All > other players with a pending suggestion [[not selected by the current > player]] receive 10 groks." Suggestion recorded. > hm, What happens if another suggestion is accepted first which > changes 323 (giving it another rule number). So much for thrownig a > suggestout out there and leaving it. If 323 were amended I would > have to recraft my suggestion to fit new rule #, paragraph #. > Furthermore, I may not have time to do that between when one vote > ends and when another player starts eir turn by nominating proposals. Yeah, you have to keep maintaining your suggestions if you are trying to amend a particularly volatile portion of the ruleset. I don't see too much of a workaround for this. Even if we prevent the rule numbers from changing, you still have to worry about new paragraphs or new rule content, etc... From jjweston@g... Sat Mar 17 11:09:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 17 Mar 2001 19:09:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 67279 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2001 19:09:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2001 19:09:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2001 19:09:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02049 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:09:02 -0800 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:09:02 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: SUGGESTION (was Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd becomes player again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 15 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Yet another reason to abolish the insane renumbering of a Rule when it > gets amended. Here's another: The precedence of a Rule is implicitly > changed (i.e. made lower in precedence than all other Rules) every > time it's amended. Perhaps that was really intended -- the idea being > that if there's some subtle conflict between the rule as amended and > some other rule, then under the assumption that the amendment is less > well thought out than the established rule with which it conflicts, > it's automatically given lower precedence. Problem with that is, it > lowers the precedence of the entire rule, not just the newly amended > portion. I personally don't feel that renumbering the rules is that insane. It seems to solve the precedence problem very simply. I don't think that lowering the precedence of the whole rule, instead of just the amended portion, is a big problem. I can't think of a way to lower the precedence of just one portion anyways... > Anyway, it doesn't strike me as adequate reason to keep the > renumbering requirement. Withdraw my last Suggestion in favor of > > ===== > > Transmute Rule 108 > > ===== Suggestion recorded. > with the intention that the transmuted Rule, which now reads > > ===== > > Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The > numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the > proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not > the proposal is adopted. > > If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the > proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it > receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an > amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a > part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the > amendment. > > ===== > > [Hmm, there's another reference to amending an amendment. I still > don't geddit. And, hmm, there seems to be nothing there telling how > to number *new* rules.], would be replaced with > > ===== > > Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The > numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the > proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not > the proposal is adopted. > > If a rule is added to the ruleset, it receives a number equal to that > of the highest numbered rule in the ruleset plus one. If a rule is > amended, its rule number is not changed. > > ===== Now you have two numbering schemes. One for proposals and one for rules. Could get confusing... You also get rid of a feature that I like, the fact that newly amended rules have lower precedence than everything else. From jjweston@g... Sat Mar 17 11:20:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 17 Mar 2001 19:20:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 96522 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2001 19:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Mar 2001 19:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2001 19:20:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02076 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:20:49 -0800 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:20:49 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: PDX Nomic is dropped from the game... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston PDX Nomic has not left Reyalp status in the required time frame. He is dropped from the game. I am the current judge. I remove "Bug" from the list of valid label words. Row 2 becomes unlabelled. No players have this label. Ross, Henry, and Jeff all have an X coordinate that is equal to or higher than PDX's X coordinate. We all have our X coordinate reduced by 5. Files 35 to 39 are removed from the grid. I think that's everything... Let me know if I've missed something. From jjweston@g... Sat Mar 17 11:28:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 17 Mar 2001 19:28:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 94012 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2001 19:28:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2001 19:28:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2001 20:29:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02099 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:28:39 -0800 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:28:39 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 14 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Phase 3: Voting is now open on the following Proposal. (I've removed > most of the comments.) > > Proposal 324: [snip] I've updated the proposals page. Since I only updated what it looks like you've changed, I may have missed something. Could you look it over and see if I missed anything? From rsholmes@m... Sat Mar 17 17:42:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 18 Mar 2001 01:42:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 70344 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2001 01:42:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2001 01:42:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2001 01:42:01 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0000129B@m...>; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:42:00 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA16180; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:42:00 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! References: Date: 17 Mar 2001 20:41:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:58:17 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > I think I will begin assuming (again) that the proponent of a > proposal votes FOR unless they specify otherwise. That should help things > along. So I guess we're just waiting for Henry's vote. Oh. OK. Yes, indeed, the fact that I need to cast a vote for my own proposal slipped my mind. Sorry. -- Doctroid From Nomic1@a... Mon Mar 19 08:58:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 16:58:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 70944 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 16:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 16:58:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 16:58:53 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Mar 2001 16:58:53 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:50 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! Message-ID: <995dsa+64qu@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 901 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Weston writes: > > > I think I will begin assuming (again) that the proponent of a > > proposal votes FOR unless they specify otherwise. That should help things > > along. So I guess we're just waiting for Henry's vote. Actually, what is the call here? Do players have to vote for their own proposal? Can they vote against it? I don't like just making an assumption that they do vote "Yeah". Assuming that they vote could also have unitended side effects. For example, if Henry wants to buy a vote, the cost would vary depending on whether or not Doc has indeed voted. And of course, it could affect whether or not Doc accidently becomes a Reyalp. > Oh. OK. Yes, indeed, the fact that I need to cast a vote for my own > proposal slipped my mind. Sorry. > Doctroid Can this be assumed to be a "YEAH" on the proposal? Feyd From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 19 09:24:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 17:24:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 31891 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 17:24:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 17:24:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 17:24:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0000790C@m...>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:24:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08585; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:24:56 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! References: <995dsa+64qu@e...> Date: 19 Mar 2001 12:24:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Nomic1@a...'s message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:50 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 8 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Nomic1@a... writes: > Can this be assumed to be a "YEAH" on the proposal? In case I need to say so explicitly, I vote FOR my own proposal. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 19 10:14:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 18:14:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 66165 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 18:14:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 18:14:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 18:14:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09589 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:14:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:14:04 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! In-Reply-To: <995dsa+64qu@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Actually, what is the call here? Do players have to vote for their > own proposal? Can they vote against it? I don't like just making an > assumption that they do vote "Yeah". Assuming that they vote could > also have unitended side effects. For example, if Henry wants to buy > a vote, the cost would vary depending on whether or not Doc has > indeed voted. And of course, it could affect whether or not Doc > accidently becomes a Reyalp. Excellent points. I hadn't considered those side effects. Nothing in the rules states that a player must vote FOR their own proposals. I don't think we can assume that either, given your argument above. Given the above, is Rich a Reyalp? I think his vote arrived over 72 hours after voting started. From Nomic1@a... Tue Mar 20 08:29:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 16:29:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 22444 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 16:29:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 16:29:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 16:29:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.4.67] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Mar 2001 16:29:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:29:26 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! Message-ID: <9980h6+2dvl@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 385 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > Given the above, is Rich a Reyalp? I think his vote arrived over > 72 hours after voting started. I would think you must. Rule 303 is rather explicit (if it makes you feel better, 303 is Rich's rule ;-). I haven't checked to see if he actually missed the 72 hour mark though... Feyd From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 20 09:58:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 17:58:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 61826 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 17:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 17:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 17:58:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11492 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:58:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:58:11 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! In-Reply-To: <9980h6+2dvl@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > I would think you must. Rule 303 is rather explicit (if it makes you > feel better, 303 is Rich's rule ;-). I haven't checked to see if he > actually missed the 72 hour mark though... This is the timeline I see from eGroups. Rich opened voting on Wednesday March 14 at 11:10 AM, PST: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/671 I posted my message asking for votes on Saturday March 17th at 10:58 AM, PST. This is just under the 72 hours limit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/679 Rich posted his vote on Saturday March 17th at 5:41 PM, PST. This is 6 and a half hours after the 72 hour limit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/684 It looks like Rich and Henry lose 10 points and become Reyalps. The web site has been updated. From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 20 10:15:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 18:15:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 43455 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 18:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 18:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 18:15:03 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0000EBF4@m...>; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:15:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA01802; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:15:02 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! References: Date: 20 Mar 2001 13:15:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:58:11 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > It looks like Rich and Henry lose 10 points and become > Reyalps. The web site has been updated. There's no clearly defined procedure for what to do when the Active Player becomes a Reyalp. In the case of PDH or whatever his name was we scrubbed the rest of eir move and went on to the next player, but in that case it seemed likely e wasn't coming back anytime soon. Here we have a different situation, in which I simply forgot the need to cast a vote until I was reminded too late. I hereby inform you of my desire to return to Player status, and suggest we continue with my turn. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 20 10:27:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 18:27:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 46691 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 18:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 18:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 18:27:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11544 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:27:13 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:27:13 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 20 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > There's no clearly defined procedure for what to do when the Active > Player becomes a Reyalp. In the case of PDH or whatever his name was > we scrubbed the rest of eir move and went on to the next player, but > in that case it seemed likely e wasn't coming back anytime soon. Here > we have a different situation, in which I simply forgot the need to > cast a vote until I was reminded too late. Good points. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I will point out that I don't think it matters either way though. The cheapest move you can make in phase 4 will cost 70 Groks. Last I checked, you had 50 Groks. > I hereby inform you of my desire to return to Player status, and > suggest we continue with my turn. Rich is a Player again. I'm curious as to how others think about Rich continuing his turn. From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 20 10:30:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 18:30:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 44733 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 18:30:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 18:30:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 18:30:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11554 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:30:01 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:30:01 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 324 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Rich and Henry did not vote within the 72 hour time limit. They becomes Reyalps. With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 324 passes. Rich gains 33 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. There's a question about exactly where play continues, so I can't announce it at this time. From ross@b... Tue Mar 20 10:30:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 18:30:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 46193 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 19:31:38 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id NAA06788 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:30:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19059 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:30:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:30:31 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Weston wrote: > Rich is a Player again. I'm curious as to how others think about > Rich continuing his turn. > Hmm, no I think we moved on to the next turn before he declared his intent to rejoin the game. Its now the next player's turn, if you ask me. But then, like you said Jeff, it doesn't really matter. -Ross From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 20 10:50:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 18:50:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 10158 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 18:50:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 18:50:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 18:50:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11590 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:50:31 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:50:31 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's New Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With the passage of Proposal 324, I note a problem with rule 318 with regards to Players and Reyalps leaving the game. That is, the last paragraph of rule 318. The paragraph in question worked fine when players were unable to change their X coordinate. However, rule 324 allows moves where the X coordinate is involved. This leads us to the following potential situation: Let's say that X coordinates range from 0 to 34. Player A has X = 32. Player B has X = 33. Then, if Player B leaves, any players with an X coordinate equal to or higher than Player B have their X coordinate reduced by five. Then files 30 - 34 are removed. The problem is that Player A's X coordinate is NOT equal to or higher than Player B's and yet is on a file that will be removed. This leads us to our classic dilemma... I propose the following suggestion to solve the problem: Amend rule 318 by striking the last paragraph and replacing it with the following text: For the following, n is defined as the total number of Players and Reyalps immediately before a Player or Reyalp leaves a game. When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whoose X coordinate is equal to or higher than (n-1)*5, have their X coordinate reduced by 5, but they still remain on the same Y coordinate. Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed from the board. From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 20 11:22:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 19:22:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 26678 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 19:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 19:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 20:23:40 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0000F305@m...>; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:22:36 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18735; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:22:34 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! References: Date: 20 Mar 2001 14:22:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:27:13 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Good points. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I will point out > that I don't think it matters either way though. The cheapest move you can > make in phase 4 will cost 70 Groks. Last I checked, you had 50 Groks. Actually I was thinking in terms of finishing up the voting and enacting the proposal, not in terms of moving which, as you note, I can't do. As you have gone ahead and enacted the proposal, I take it you're in agreement on that. I consent (if consent is required) to moving on to the next Turn. Clarification of this point by amendment to Rule 303 would be a good thing, I guess. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Tue Mar 20 11:27:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 19:27:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 98589 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 19:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 19:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 20:28:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11681 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:27:08 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:27:08 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Need Votes on Proposal 324 !!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 20 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Actually I was thinking in terms of finishing up the voting and > enacting the proposal, not in terms of moving which, as you note, I > can't do. Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that the consequences of the vote should take place regardless of whether you were a Player at the time or not. If anyone disagrees with this, now is a good time to invoke judgement... Unless someone invokes judgement, play continues with Ross's turn. > Clarification of this point by amendment to Rule 303 would be a good > thing, I guess. Couldn't hurt... ;-) From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 21 09:58:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 17:58:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 70545 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 17:58:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 17:58:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 17:58:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13378 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:58:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:58:08 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Ross, its your turn... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Looks like no one has any more discussion regarding Rich's turn, so I guess we can safely continue with your turn now. From ross@b... Wed Mar 21 10:09:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 18:09:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 64712 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 18:08:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 18:08:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 18:08:44 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id NAA05416 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:08:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25901 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:08:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:08:42 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Ross, its your turn... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Okay, I buy no further proposals (phase 1), because I think its something that needs to be fixed, I'll adopt Jeff's suggestion as my proposal, (phase 2) therefore: Proposal 324: --------------------------------------- Amend rule 318 by striking the last paragraph and replacing it with the following text: For the following, n is defined as the total number of Players and Reyalps immediately before a Player or Reyalp leaves a game. When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whoose X coordinate is equal to or higher than (n-1)*5, have their X coordinate reduced by 5, but they still remain on the same Y coordinate. Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed from the board. --------------------------- I do vote FOR this proposal (phase 3) and make no move (phase 4). That should do it, right? -Ross From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 21 10:22:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 18:22:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 8009 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 18:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 18:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 18:21:03 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000157DE@m...>; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:21:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18638; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:21:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: SUGGESTION (was Re: [n_omic] Re: Feyd becomes player again) References: Date: 21 Mar 2001 13:21:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:09:02 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 35 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > I personally don't feel that renumbering the rules is that > insane. It seems to solve the precedence problem very simply. I don't > think that lowering the precedence of the whole rule, instead of just the > amended portion, is a big problem. I can't think of a way to lower the > precedence of just one portion anyways... It's not obvious to me that there's a precedence problem to solve. That is, it's good to have a rule defining which rule takes precedence in a conflict, but I do not see it as very strongly desireable to put an entire rule at the bottom of the precedence stack every time it's amended. Still, if one really wants, the same can be accomplished without rule renumbering. Just tag each rule with its most recent modification date and time, and go by that. For initial rules, tag them with the date and time of the start of the game. If two conflicting rules have the same modification date, *then* use the (fixed) rule number to determine precedence. > Now you have two numbering schemes. One for proposals and one for > rules. Could get confusing... It would hardly tax the intellect of most Nomic players. Many Nomics in fact do have separate numbering schemes. On the other hand, for this particular Nomic, if rule renumbering is abolished then there's not much reason to continue numbering rule-changes. We rarely deal with more than one at a time, anyway. How often does the occasion arise to refer to a rule-change from several turns ago? Just number the rules, and for rule-changes and proposals something like "Jeff's most recent proposal" will serve adequately. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 21 11:07:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 19:07:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 60735 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 19:06:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 19:06:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 20:07:27 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00015CC6@m...>; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:06:23 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28643; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:06:22 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Ross's Proposal References: Date: 21 Mar 2001 14:06:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:08:42 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 7 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Since Ross has voted for eir own Proposal, I guess that means discussion is closed and voting is open. I vote FOR this Proposal. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 21 13:23:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 21:23:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 55342 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 21:22:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 21:22:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 21:22:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13656 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:22:42 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:22:42 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Ross, its your turn... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Okay, I buy no further proposals (phase 1), because I think its something > that needs to be fixed, I'll adopt Jeff's suggestion as my proposal, > (phase 2) therefore: > Proposal 324: [snip] We're at proposal 325. Jeff's suggestion is removed from the suggestions list. Ross gains 100 Groks. Jeff gains 25 Groks. From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 21 13:23:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Mar 2001 21:23:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 56104 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2001 21:23:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2001 21:23:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Mar 2001 22:24:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13662 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:23:00 -0800 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:23:00 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 325 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From Nomic1@a... Thu Mar 22 08:00:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nomic1@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Mar 2001 16:00:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13343 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2001 15:59:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2001 15:59:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2001 15:59:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Nomic1@a... Received: from [10.1.2.74] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Mar 2001 15:59:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:59:18 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Vote AGAINST Proposal 325 Message-ID: <99d7gm+prtj@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 144 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 208.249.92.138 From: Nomic1@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > I'm tired of this grid stuff. I would prefer to delete the entire thing and start over. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 22 10:08:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Mar 2001 18:07:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 65887 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2001 18:07:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2001 18:07:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2001 18:07:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15061 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:07:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:07:46 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Chris Moyer is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Chris did not leave Reyalp status within the specified time period. He is dropped from the game. This occured before voting was completed on Proposal 325. Ross, Henry, and Jeff have their X coordinate equal to or higher than Chris's. They all have their X coordinate reduced by 5. Files 30 to 34 are removed from the board. Rich is the current judge. He must remove a label from the list of valid labels and announce it to everyone. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 22 10:12:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Mar 2001 18:12:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 74724 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2001 18:11:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2001 18:11:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2001 18:11:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15076 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:11:16 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:11:16 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Results of Proposal 325 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 3 votes for and 1 vote against, Proposal 325 passes. Ross gains 26 points for receiving 75% favorable votes. Feyd gains 10 points for voting against a winning proposal. Ross has already indicated he makes no move for Phase 4. Play now continues with Jeff Weston. I will make my proposal later today. I may want to use a suggestion... Make or update your suggestion if you want me to consider it... From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 22 10:41:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Mar 2001 18:41:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 58868 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2001 18:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2001 18:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2001 18:41:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0001CC2F@m...>; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:41:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA04457; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:41:05 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Chris Moyer is dropped from the game. References: Date: 22 Mar 2001 13:41:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:07:46 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Rich is the current judge. He must remove a > label from the list of valid labels and announce it to everyone. I remove "Rag". -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 23 09:43:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Mar 2001 17:43:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 34322 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2001 17:39:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Mar 2001 17:39:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2001 17:39:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16750 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:39:41 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:39:41 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Chris Moyer is dropped from the game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 22 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > I remove "Rag". Rich was labelled with "Rag". He becomes unlabelled. Row 13 becomes unlabelled. From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 23 10:00:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Mar 2001 18:00:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 10634 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2001 18:00:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Mar 2001 18:00:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2001 19:01:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16806 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:00:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:00:53 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Turn - Proposal 326 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I note a couple problems with rule 308. We have the same number of available labels as we do Reyalps. If both Reyalps fail to return to Player status, we will have no available labels. Also, rule 308 does not provide a mechanism for Reyalps to hold labels. I am amending rule 308 so that both Players and Reyalps can be labelled. Also, I am changing the number of available labels such that the number of available labels is one third of the number of Players and Reyalps in the game. Fractions are rounded up so that there will always be at least one label, as long as there is at least one Player or Reyalp. Phase 1 - I buy no extra rule change proposals. Phase 2 - Proposal 326 Amend rule 308 to read in full: For the purposes of this rule, Participants are defined as Players or Reyalps. There are two types of Participants, Labelled and Unlabelled. When it is an Unlabelled Participant's turn, it is the job of the Judge to select one label and stick it to the Unlabelled Participant's forehead, making em a Labelled Participant. Each label has a single word on it, chosen from a list of valid words. The Judge then must inform the other Participants, except the one whose turn it is, what the word is, using a private channel such as direct email. A Participant of course cannot see eir own label, and can determine its word only indirectly, e.g. by logical deduction or by getting another Participant to tell em. When a new Player joins the game, the Judge must inform the new Player of the labels of all the Labelled Participants except the Judge emself, using a private channel such as direct email. The Participant whose turn it is must inform the new Player of the Judge's label, if e has one, using a private channel such as direct email. Labels may not be removed or altered except as specifically provided by the rules. The list of valid label words may not be modified except as specifically provided by the rules. The number of labels in the list of valid label words must be equal to n/3, where n is equal to the total number of Participants. All fractions are to be rounded up. If the number of Participants changes such that labels must be added or removed to meet this requirement, the Judge must add or remove labels as appropriate and announce such actions to all Participants. From ross@b... Sat Mar 24 06:37:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 24 Mar 2001 14:37:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 68902 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2001 14:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Mar 2001 14:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2001 14:37:20 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id JAA21189 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:37:19 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05409 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:37:18 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:37:18 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Turn - Proposal 326 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Weston wrote: > Amend rule 308 to read in full: Looks good to me Jeff, I vote FOR. -Ross From jjweston@g... Sun Mar 25 13:01:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 25 Mar 2001 21:01:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 37115 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2001 21:01:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2001 21:01:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Mar 2001 21:01:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24317 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:01:57 -0800 Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:01:57 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 326 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From jjweston@g... Sun Mar 25 13:02:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 25 Mar 2001 21:02:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 18497 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2001 21:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2001 21:02:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Mar 2001 21:02:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24325 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:02:32 -0800 Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:02:32 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: 21 hours left to vote on proposal 326... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Feyd and Rich, get those votes in... From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 26 07:09:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Mar 2001 15:09:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 39851 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 15:09:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Mar 2001 15:09:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 15:09:49 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0002D885@m...>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:09:49 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27762; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:09:48 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR proposal 326... References: Date: 26 Mar 2001 10:09:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:02:32 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Feyd and Rich, get those votes in... Hmm, it'd be nice if we got an explicit "Voting is now open" announcement. Anyway, I vote FOR -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 26 10:54:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Mar 2001 18:54:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 65727 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 18:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Mar 2001 18:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 18:54:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25487 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:54:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:54:43 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR proposal 326... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 26 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Hmm, it'd be nice if we got an explicit "Voting is now open" > announcement. No one invoked rule 111, so there was no real discussion period. If no one suggests any amendments, I don't think I can change the proposal, so there is no reason for an official announcement. From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 26 11:22:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Mar 2001 19:22:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 41078 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 19:22:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Mar 2001 19:22:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 20:23:40 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0002FB03@m...>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:22:36 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01568; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:22:34 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR proposal 326... References: Date: 26 Mar 2001 14:22:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:54:43 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > No one invoked rule 111, so there was no real discussion > period. If no one suggests any amendments, I don't think I can change the > proposal, so there is no reason for an official announcement. What's changed? We used to allow proposals to be discussed and amended before calling for a vote. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Mar 26 11:48:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Mar 2001 19:48:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 10329 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 19:48:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Mar 2001 19:48:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 19:48:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25589 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:48:55 -0800 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:48:55 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR proposal 326... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 26 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > What's changed? We used to allow proposals to be discussed and > amended before calling for a vote. Nothing has changed. We allow discussion, but in this case there was no discussion. Voting starts when the final form of the proposal has been released. In this case, no one made any suggested amendments to my proposal. Unless someone uses rule 111 to make suggested amendments to the proposal, the original version of the proposal must be the final form. From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 26 14:36:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Mar 2001 22:36:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 57426 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 22:36:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Mar 2001 22:36:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 22:36:51 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00031282@m...>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:36:50 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12683; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:36:49 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote FOR proposal 326... References: Date: 26 Mar 2001 17:36:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:48:55 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Nothing has changed. We allow discussion, but in this case there > was no discussion. Voting starts when the final form of the proposal has > been released. In this case, no one made any suggested amendments to my > proposal. Unless someone uses rule 111 to make suggested amendments to the > proposal, the original version of the proposal must be the final form. Hmm, okay. But I seem to recall times in the past where people cast votes and were told "your vote doesn't count because it was cast before the final version of the proposal was posted" -- and of course you can't know whether the final version of the proposal has been posted unless the active player explictly says it has. The rules say the active player decides when discussion is closed and voting is open. Perhaps an amendment to say the active player must *announce* that decision would be useful. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 28 10:03:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Mar 2001 18:03:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 55659 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 18:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2001 18:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 19:03:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28814 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:02:45 -0800 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:02:45 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 326 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Feyd did not vote within the required time frame. He loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. Feyd's suggestion is removed from the suggestions list. With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 326 passes. Jeff gains 35 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now proceeds with Rich Holmes. Rich is an unlabelled participant. Jeff is the current judge and must place a label on Rich's forehead and announce it to all other participants. From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 28 10:13:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Mar 2001 18:13:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 81387 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 18:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2001 18:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 19:13:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28855 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:12:18 -0800 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:12:18 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Andre is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Andre has not left Reyalp status within the required time frame. He is dropped from the game. No labels need to be removed as a result of this. Jeff Weston's X coordinate is greater than or equal to 25. Jeff's X coordinate is reduced by 5 from 25 to 20. Files 25 to 29 are then removed from the board. From jjweston@g... Wed Mar 28 10:23:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Mar 2001 18:23:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 36728 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 18:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Mar 2001 18:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 18:22:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28879 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:22:19 -0800 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:22:19 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I make the following suggestion: Enact a new rule with the following text: When a proposal is announced, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins, as defined by the rules. During the discussion the proponent must either continue to refine the proposal by announcing new revisions to it, or announce the final form of the proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. Any votes received before the final form of the proposal has been announced do not count unless the player who made the vote specifically states otherwise. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 29 08:21:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 29 Mar 2001 16:21:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 69474 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2001 16:20:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Mar 2001 16:20:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2001 16:20:46 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000434D4@m...>; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:19:30 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA12729; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:19:29 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions References: Date: 29 Mar 2001 11:19:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:02:45 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 6 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Phase 1: No extra rule-changes bought. Phase 2: I propose Jeff's suggestion, as Proposal 327. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 29 09:29:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 29 Mar 2001 17:29:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 88793 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2001 17:29:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2001 17:29:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2001 18:30:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30254 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:29:33 -0800 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:29:33 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Retro-Actions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Just realized I forgot to mention I do nothing for phase 4... Looks like this is what people assumed anyway. From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 29 09:34:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 29 Mar 2001 17:34:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 48542 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2001 17:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2001 17:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2001 17:34:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30274 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:53 -0800 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:53 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 29 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Phase 1: No extra rule-changes bought. > Phase 2: I propose Jeff's suggestion, as Proposal 327. Rich gains 100 Groks. Jeff gains 25 Groks. Jeff's suggestion is removed from the suggestion list. From ross@b... Thu Mar 29 09:47:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 29 Mar 2001 17:47:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 3004 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2001 17:47:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2001 17:47:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2001 18:49:00 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id MAA08906 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:47:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27349 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:47:55 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:47:55 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Yup, its cool, I vote for. On 29 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Phase 1: No extra rule-changes bought. > Phase 2: I propose Jeff's suggestion, as Proposal 327. > > From jjweston@g... Thu Mar 29 09:48:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 29 Mar 2001 17:48:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 85229 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2001 17:48:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2001 17:48:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2001 17:48:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30294 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:48:48 -0800 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:48:48 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 327 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 29 11:57:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 29 Mar 2001 19:57:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 50868 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2001 19:57:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2001 19:57:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2001 19:57:14 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00044F9C@m...>; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:13 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29898; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:13 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 327 References: Date: 29 Mar 2001 14:57:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:48:48 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 3 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 30 09:59:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 17:59:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 54479 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 17:59:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 17:59:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 19:00:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA31929 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:59:55 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:59:55 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 327 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 327 passes. Rich gains 36 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now continues with Rich's 4th Phase. The web site has been updated with these changes. From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 30 10:00:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 18:00:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 95137 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 18:00:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 18:00:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 18:00:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31939 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:00:34 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:00:34 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I make the following suggestion: Repeal rule 310. From rsholmes@m... Fri Mar 30 11:08:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 19:08:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 31972 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 19:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 19:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0004B192@m...>; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:08:28 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA12471; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:08:27 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 327 Results References: Date: 30 Mar 2001 14:08:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:59:55 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 327 passes. Rich > gains 36 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now continues > with Rich's 4th Phase. I move from (10,20) to (11,18) at a cost of |(10-20)*(10-18)|+10 = 90 groks. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 30 11:18:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 19:18:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 70186 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 19:18:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 19:18:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 19:18:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA32021 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:18:19 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:18:19 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 327 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 30 Mar 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > I move from (10,20) to (11,18) at a cost of |(10-20)*(10-18)|+10 = 90 > groks. Rich loses 90 Groks. Ross gains 45 Groks. Jeff gains 45 Groks. There are no consequences to the move. Rich has 60 Groks. Ross has 195 Groks. Jeff has 95 Groks. The web site has been updated. Play now contiues with Ross Schulman. From jjweston@g... Fri Mar 30 13:31:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 21:31:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 26479 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 21:31:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 21:31:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 21:31:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA32171 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:31:01 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:31:00 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Rule 324 Question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I just noticed that they may be a couple of ways to interpret a portion of rule 324. The last paragraph of phase 4 from rule 324 reads: The player announces the move by stating the move from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2), and the total grok cost. If any of the above conditions are false then the player does not move and loses no groks. If all conditions hold then the groks are subtracted from the player's total and distributed, and the move takes place. I had first assumed that the Groks were distributed after the move had taken place. However, after reading the rule again, it appears that the Groks may be distributed before the move takes place. In our current situation, it means the difference between Rich sharing in the Grok distribution, or not sharing in the Grok distribution. Anyone have any thoughts on this? From ross@b... Sat Mar 31 03:44:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 31 Mar 2001 11:44:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 28668 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2001 11:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Mar 2001 11:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Mar 2001 11:44:16 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id GAA05282 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:44:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13614 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:44:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:44:14 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Jeff, any particular reason you want to repeal rule 310? Are we going to replace it with something or just never have a winner? On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Weston wrote: > I make the following suggestion: > > Repeal rule 310. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From jjweston@g... Sat Mar 31 14:36:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 31 Mar 2001 22:36:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 83374 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2001 22:36:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Mar 2001 22:36:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Mar 2001 23:37:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00819 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:36:07 -0800 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:36:07 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Jeff, any particular reason you want to repeal rule 310? Are we going to > replace it with something or just never have a winner? Rule 310 does nothing more than restrict us to a point based winning system. Personally I think the point based system is kind of boring. As a side note, we'd actually have to change additional rules to remove/replace the point based system. Repealing rule 310 gives us that flexibility. From ross@b... Sun Apr 01 05:13:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 1 Apr 2001 12:13:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 33465 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2001 12:13:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Apr 2001 12:13:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2001 12:13:37 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id IAA29497 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 08:13:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06163 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 08:13:36 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 08:13:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Hmmm... okay, I can see that, I was just curious. Okay... my turn: I buy no extra proposals. My proposal: Proposal 328 [[Time to have a little fun.]] There exists, as part of the gamestate, the official N_omic Epic Poem (abbreviated as NEP). At some point before the end of each active Player's turn, they must add at least one line and up to five lines to the NEP by announcing the new lines to the official mailing list. A Player's turn cannot be completed until the lines have been added, although this rule does not dictate when in a players turn this must take place. Upon the passage of this rule, the NEP will be set to the string "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...", without the surrounding quotation markes, and then this paragraph will place itself in commentation marks. ------------------ Okay, I vote for this proposal. I move from my current location at (15, 20) to (15, 18), paying |(10-20)*(10-18)| + 10 = 90 groks, which should be paid to Jeff, if I'm not mistaken. (now, do I have to add a line to the NEP if this proposal passes or is my turn over now? Interesting...) -Ross On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Weston wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > > > Jeff, any particular reason you want to repeal rule 310? Are we going to > > replace it with something or just never have a winner? > > Rule 310 does nothing more than restrict us to a point based > winning system. Personally I think the point based system is kind of > boring. As a side note, we'd actually have to change additional rules to > remove/replace the point based system. Repealing rule 310 gives us that > flexibility. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 02 09:54:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 16:54:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 49635 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 16:54:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 16:54:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 16:54:26 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00056836@m...>; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:54:10 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13522; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:54:09 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion References: Date: 02 Apr 2001 12:54:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Sun, 1 Apr 2001 08:13:36 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 37 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > Hmmm... okay, I can see that, I was just curious. > Okay... my turn: > I buy no extra proposals. > My proposal: Proposal 328 > [[Time to have a little fun.]] > There exists, as part of the gamestate, the official N_omic Epic Poem > (abbreviated as NEP). > At some point before the end of each active Player's turn, they must add > at least one line and up to five lines to the NEP by announcing the > new lines to the official mailing list. A Player's turn cannot be > completed until the lines have been added, although this rule does not > dictate when in a players turn this must take place. > Upon the passage of this rule, the NEP will be set to the string "A long > time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...", without the surrounding quotation > markes, and then this paragraph will place itself in commentation marks. > ------------------ > > Okay, I vote for this proposal. > I move from my current location at (15, 20) to (15, 18), paying > |(10-20)*(10-18)| + 10 = 90 groks, which should be paid to Jeff, if I'm > not mistaken. > > (now, do I have to add a line to the NEP if this proposal passes or is my > turn over now? Interesting...) Hold on, hold on. Even before the last turn, you couldn't begin your Movement phase until the Voting phase was complete. And as of the most recent rule-change, you can't even vote yet. First you have to announce the start of the voting period, and you have to tell us what the final form of your proposal is -- even if it's the same as the initial form. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 10:22:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 17:22:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 74005 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 17:22:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 17:22:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 17:22:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02842 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:22:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 2 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > > (now, do I have to add a line to the NEP if this proposal passes or is my > > turn over now? Interesting...) > > Hold on, hold on. Even before the last turn, you couldn't begin your > Movement phase until the Voting phase was complete. > > And as of the most recent rule-change, you can't even vote yet. First > you have to announce the start of the voting period, and you have to > tell us what the final form of your proposal is -- even if it's the > same as the initial form. Rich is quite correct... Voting does not begin until you say it does, Ross. And I don't beleive you can begin Phase 4 (Movement) until Phase 3 (Voting) is complete. Even after Phase 4, you still need to wait for the judge to complete Phase 5 (Consequences). If Proposal 328 passes, you will have to add a line to the NEP I'm pretty sure... You can't get out of it that easily... :-) From ross@b... Mon Apr 02 10:38:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 17:38:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 84588 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 17:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 17:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 18:39:06 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id NAA23928 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:38:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19318 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:38:00 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:38:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Of course, sorry about that guys... I officially open up voting on my proposal and would like to register my vote FOR the proposal. I'll resend info about the movement after voting ends. -Ross From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 10:41:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 17:41:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 86723 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 17:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 17:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 18:42:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02872 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:41:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 328. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 10:44:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 17:44:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 95774 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 17:44:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 17:44:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 18:45:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02907 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:44:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:44:46 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Suggestion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Hmmm... okay, I can see that, I was just curious. > Okay... my turn: > I buy no extra proposals. > My proposal: Proposal 328 > [[Time to have a little fun.]] > There exists, as part of the gamestate, the official N_omic Epic Poem > (abbreviated as NEP). > At some point before the end of each active Player's turn, they must add > at least one line and up to five lines to the NEP by announcing the > new lines to the official mailing list. A Player's turn cannot be > completed until the lines have been added, although this rule does not > dictate when in a players turn this must take place. > Upon the passage of this rule, the NEP will be set to the string "A long > time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...", without the surrounding quotation > markes, and then this paragraph will place itself in commentation marks. > ------------------ Hmm... I assume you meant to create a new rule with this text? You never actually specified... From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 02 10:47:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 17:47:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 95057 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 17:47:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 17:47:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 17:47:23 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00056D7F@m...>; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:47:22 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26541; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:47:22 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 328. References: Date: 02 Apr 2001 13:47:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 3 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 11:16:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 18:16:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 78875 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 18:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 18:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 18:16:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02963 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:16:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 328 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 328 passes. Ross gains 37 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. The N_omic Epic Poem is set to this string: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." The N_omic Epic Poem is available here: http://kenny.sir-toby.com/n_omic/poem.html The last paragraph of rule 328 is surrounded with comment characters. Play now continues with Ross's fourth phase. From ross@b... Mon Apr 02 11:52:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 18:52:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 15026 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 18:51:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 18:51:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 18:51:55 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id OAA09576 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:51:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25716 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:51:53 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:51:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 328 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" (Jeff, yes you were correct in assuming I was creating a new rule... I think that can be assumed unless otherwise stated, right?) I move from my current location at (15, 20) to (15, 18), paying |(10-20)*(10-18)| + 10 = 90 groks, which should be paid to Jeff, if I'm not mistaken. I also add the following lines to the NEP, thus completing my turn: There lived a small furry creature of a species never known to mankind. Its name was Oorkado. From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 13:26:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 20:26:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 18033 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 20:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 20:24:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 20:24:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03174 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:24:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:24:25 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 328 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > (Jeff, yes you were correct in assuming I was creating a new rule... I > think that can be assumed unless otherwise stated, right?) > I move from my current location at (15, 20) to (15, 18), paying > |(10-20)*(10-18)| + 10 = 90 groks, which should be paid to Jeff, if I'm > not mistaken. > > I also add the following lines to the NEP, thus completing my turn: > There lived a small furry creature of a species never known to mankind. > Its name was Oorkado. Okay. Just need the judge to announce the consequences... From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 02 14:10:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 21:10:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 41928 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 21:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 21:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 21:10:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0005844E@m...>; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:09:12 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA15930; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:09:11 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 328 Results References: Date: 02 Apr 2001 17:09:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:24:25 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 8 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Okay. Just need the judge to announce the consequences... No consequences. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 14:19:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 21:19:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 63786 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 21:19:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 21:19:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 22:20:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03333 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:19:12 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:19:12 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 328 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 2 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Weston writes: > > > Okay. Just need the judge to announce the consequences... > > No consequences. Okay. The web site has been updated to reflect the move. Ross loses 90 Groks. Jeff gains 90 Groks. Play proceeds with Jeff Weston. From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 14:31:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 21:31:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 15418 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 21:30:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 21:30:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 21:30:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03386 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:30:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:30:34 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Turn - Proposal 329 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I purchase no additional rule change proposals. For my proposal, I use Rich's suggestion. ------------ Proposal 329 Transmute Rule 108. ------------ Rich gains 25 Groks. Jeff gains 100 Groks. Rich's suggestion is removed from the suggestions list. I declare the proposal I posted above to be the final form of the proposal. I vote FOR Proposal 329. I add the following line to the NEP: Oorkado lived in a beautiful land filled with flowers of all kinds. From ross@b... Mon Apr 02 15:06:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 22:06:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 59330 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 22:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 22:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 23:07:25 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id SAA29182 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:06:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07898 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:06:19 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:06:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Turn - Proposal 329 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I vote for this proposal. (Should we try to recruit some more people? This nomic just isn't the same with just the three of us, although it is moving a hell of a lot faster!) -Ross On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Weston wrote: > I purchase no additional rule change proposals. > > For my proposal, I use Rich's suggestion. > > ------------ > Proposal 329 > > Transmute Rule 108. > ------------ > > Rich gains 25 Groks. Jeff gains 100 Groks. Rich's suggestion is > removed from the suggestions list. > > I declare the proposal I posted above to be the final form of the > proposal. > > I vote FOR Proposal 329. > > I add the following line to the NEP: > > Oorkado lived in a beautiful land filled with flowers of all kinds. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 02 16:13:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 23:13:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 26810 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 23:13:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 23:13:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 23:13:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03648 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:13:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:13:29 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Jeff's Turn - Proposal 329 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > (Should we try to recruit some more people? This nomic just isn't the > same with just the three of us, although it is moving a hell of a lot > faster!) More people would be more fun. I've tried to recruit more people, in a few places, but no one joined. I haven't tried Nomic.Net recently though... From rsholmes@m... Tue Apr 03 08:48:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 3 Apr 2001 15:48:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 67207 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2001 15:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2001 15:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 16:48:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0005CC7E@m...>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:47:49 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20549; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:47:49 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 329 References: Date: 03 Apr 2001 11:47:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:30:34 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > I purchase no additional rule change proposals. > > For my proposal, I use Rich's suggestion. > > ------------ > Proposal 329 > > Transmute Rule 108. > ------------ -- Doctroid From ross@b... Tue Apr 03 09:04:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 3 Apr 2001 16:04:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 83429 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2001 16:02:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Apr 2001 16:02:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 16:02:01 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id MAA13341 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:02:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23097 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:01:59 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:01:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Nomic World 2: The Ruleset Strikes Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Hey guys, I just wanted to tip you off to the opening of Nomic World 2. Like the original NW, this is an online community dedicated to playing one big game of Nomic. Its running on a MOO system and can be reached by telnetting to nomic.net port 7777. Log in as a guest to check it out and you can use the @request command to get a character (check out help @request for more info). Hope to see you all there, Ross/Inkoate From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 03 09:39:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 3 Apr 2001 16:39:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 94765 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2001 16:39:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2001 16:39:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 16:39:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05160 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:39:23 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:39:23 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 329 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 329 passes. Jeff gains 38 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now contiues with my fourth phase. I move from (20, 20) to (19, 18) for a cost of 90 Groks. From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 10:09:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 17:09:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 45831 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 17:08:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 17:08:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 18:09:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07449 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:08:38 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Announcing consequences of moves... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston According to rule 324, the judge announces the consequences of a move. No specific provision is made for when there are no consequences of a move. I interpret rule 324 to mean that consequences must be announced, even if there are none. Am I alone in this interpretation? From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 04 10:32:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 17:32:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 12491 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 17:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 17:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 17:32:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0006483F@m...>; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:32:04 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29748; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:32:03 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Announcing consequences of moves... References: Date: 04 Apr 2001 13:32:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > According to rule 324, the judge announces the consequences of a > move. No specific provision is made for when there are no consequences of > a move. I interpret rule 324 to mean that consequences must be announced, > even if there are none. Am I alone in this interpretation? No. Granted, as things stand, the next player ought to be able to determine whether or not there are consequences, and proceed with eir move or not antirespectively, but I think it's best and will best avoid confusion if consequences, even if null, are always announced. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 12:09:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 19:09:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 54592 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 19:07:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 19:07:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 20:08:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08381 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:07:36 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Ross to announce consequences... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Ross, waiting for you to announce the consequences of my move. Even though there are clearly no consequences, I believe you stilll have to announce it. From ross@b... Wed Apr 04 12:19:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 19:19:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 9952 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 19:18:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 19:18:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 20:19:11 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id PAA25718 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:18:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13139 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:18:05 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for Ross to announce consequences... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Alrighty, there are no consequences to Jeff's turn, play continues with the next player. -Ross On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Weston wrote: > Ross, waiting for you to announce the consequences of my > move. Even though there are clearly no consequences, I believe you stilll > have to announce it. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 04 13:16:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 20:16:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14090 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 20:15:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 20:15:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 20:15:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00065A7B@m...>; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:13:58 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07876; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:13:57 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions References: Date: 04 Apr 2001 16:13:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:18:05 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Phase 1: I buy no extra rule-changes Phase 2: I propose Jeff's Suggestion: Repeal Rule 310. Discussion: Rule 310, I remind you, is: 310 - Mutable - Transmuted from rule 112 December 27th, 2000 The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed. Phase 3: I close discussion and call for voting. The final form of my proposal is: Repeal Rule 310. I vote FOR. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 13:23:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 20:23:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 14995 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 20:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 20:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 20:22:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08593 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:22:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:22:35 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for Ross to announce consequences... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Alrighty, there are no consequences to Jeff's turn, play continues with > the next player. Jeff loses 90 Groks. Rich gains 30 Groks. Ross gains 30 Groks. Jeff gains 30 Groks. Rich has 115 Groks. Ross has 130 Groks. Jeff has 225 Groks. From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 13:25:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 20:25:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 93377 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 20:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 20:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 21:26:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08605 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:25:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:25:22 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 4 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Phase 1: I buy no extra rule-changes > > Phase 2: I propose Jeff's Suggestion: > > Repeal Rule 310. Rich gains 100 Groks. Jeff gains 25 Groks. From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 13:29:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 20:29:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 88060 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 20:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 20:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 21:29:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08620 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:28:44 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 330 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 13:30:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 20:30:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 3846 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 20:29:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 20:29:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 20:29:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08632 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:29:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:29:43 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Weston wrote: > On 4 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > Phase 1: I buy no extra rule-changes > > > > Phase 2: I propose Jeff's Suggestion: > > > > Repeal Rule 310. > > Rich gains 100 Groks. Jeff gains 25 Groks. Jeff's suggestion is also removed from the suggestions list. Leaving us with an empty suggestions list... :( From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 04 14:19:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 21:19:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 90872 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 21:19:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 21:19:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 21:19:01 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000662D0@m...>; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:19:01 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20120; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:19:00 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestion Date: 04 Apr 2001 17:18:59 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Amend Rule 211 to read as follows: The Amendment Time of a rule is the date and time at which it was most recently amended or transmuted, or, if the rule has never been amended or transmuted, the date and time at which it was enacted. An initial rule that has never been amended or transmuted is considered to have an Amendment Time of Mon Nov 27, 2000 2:08am GMT. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the earliest Amendment Time takes precedence. If in such a case two or more of the conflicting rules have identical Amendment Times, then the rule with the lowest number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the chronological method again governs. -- Doctroid From ross@b... Wed Apr 04 15:42:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 22:42:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 42574 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 22:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 22:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 22:40:45 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id SAA07343 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:40:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27396 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:40:43 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:40:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 330 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 04 16:13:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 4 Apr 2001 23:13:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 91760 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 23:13:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2001 23:13:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 00:14:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09266 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:13:17 -0700 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:13:17 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 330 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 330 passes. Rich gains 39 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now proceeds with Rich's fourth phase. From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 05 07:20:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 5 Apr 2001 14:19:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 68381 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2001 14:19:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2001 14:19:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 15:21:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0006A013@m...>; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:58 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01709; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:57 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestion References: Date: 05 Apr 2001 10:19:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "04 Apr 2001 17:18:59 -0400" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Let me reword the suggestion slightly. (Added the word "earliest" to second sentence of second paragraph.) Amend Rule 211 to read as follows: The Amendment Time of a rule is the date and time at which it was most recently amended or transmuted, or, if the rule has never been amended or transmuted, the date and time at which it was enacted. An initial rule that has never been amended or transmuted is considered to have an Amendment Time of Mon Nov 27, 2000 2:08am GMT. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the earliest Amendment Time takes precedence. If in such a case two or more of the earliest conflicting rules have identical Amendment Times, then the rule with the lowest number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the chronological method again governs. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 05 07:23:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 5 Apr 2001 14:23:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 13298 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2001 14:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2001 14:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 14:23:51 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0006A05E@m...>; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:23:50 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02472; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:23:50 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 330 Results References: Date: 05 Apr 2001 10:23:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:13:17 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > With 3 votes for and 0 votes against, Proposal 330 passes. Rich > gains 39 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Play now proceeds with > Rich's fourth phase. I move from (11,18) to (12,16) at a cost of |(10-18)*(10-16)|+10 = 58 Groks. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 05 16:45:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 5 Apr 2001 23:45:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 66820 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2001 23:45:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Apr 2001 23:45:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Apr 2001 00:46:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11225 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:45:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:45:34 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 330 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 5 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > I move from (11,18) to (12,16) at a cost of |(10-18)*(10-16)|+10 = 58 > Groks. No consequences. Rich loses 58 Groks. Ross gains 29 Groks. Jeff gains 29 Groks. Rich has 157 Groks. Ross has 164 Groks. Jeff has 279 Groks. From jjweston@g... Fri Apr 06 10:52:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 6 Apr 2001 17:52:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13621 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2001 17:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Apr 2001 17:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Apr 2001 18:53:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12686 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:52:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:52:45 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Rich's Poetry... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Can't finish Rich's turn until he gives us some poetry... From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 06 12:40:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 6 Apr 2001 19:40:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 79456 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2001 19:40:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Apr 2001 19:40:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Apr 2001 19:40:31 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00072909@m...>; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:40:30 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11094; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:40:30 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for Rich's Poetry... References: Date: 06 Apr 2001 15:40:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:52:45 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Can't finish Rich's turn until he gives us some poetry... Is that poetry? Looks like prose so far. Harrumph. OK, here's the next line: (Is that poetry? Looks like prose so far. Harrumph.) -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Fri Apr 06 14:41:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 6 Apr 2001 21:41:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 68428 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2001 21:41:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Apr 2001 21:41:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Apr 2001 21:41:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13145 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:41:58 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:41:58 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for Rich's Poetry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 6 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Weston writes: > > > Can't finish Rich's turn until he gives us some poetry... > > Is that poetry? Looks like prose so far. Harrumph. > > OK, here's the next line: > > (Is that poetry? Looks like prose so far. Harrumph.) Line added. Play now contiunues with Ross's turn. From ross@b... Sat Apr 07 04:48:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 7 Apr 2001 11:48:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 12976 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2001 11:48:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2001 11:48:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Apr 2001 12:49:58 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id HAA04605 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:48:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20560 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:48:53 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:48:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Waiting for Rich's Poetry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I've noted that its my turn. I don't have time today to send out my turn as its the first night of Passover tonight and I have to get stuff ready. I'll send it out tomorrow, promise. Sorry for the delay. -Ross From ross@b... Sun Apr 08 06:19:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 8 Apr 2001 13:19:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 6051 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2001 13:19:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2001 13:19:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Apr 2001 13:19:02 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id JAA15783 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:19:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28891 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:19:01 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:19:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" I buy no additional proposals. I make the following proposal #331: --------------------------- Amend rule #328. Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second paragraph of rule #328: The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to make Rich happier that is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] -------------------------- I'm starting voting on the proposal and I vote for. I also make no move on the grid. -Ross From ross@b... Sun Apr 08 06:27:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 8 Apr 2001 13:27:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 19800 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2001 13:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2001 13:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Apr 2001 13:25:59 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id JAA15983 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:25:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28959 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:25:57 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:25:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Okay, there was a small type in the proposal I made, I'm going to fix it rather than letting it ride. To that end, I'm invoking rule 111 to stop voting and make the fix: ------------------------ Amend rule #328. Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second paragraph of rule #328: The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] ------------------------ I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, registering my own vote as for again. -Ross From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 09 07:26:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 9 Apr 2001 14:26:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 96776 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 14:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Apr 2001 14:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 14:26:36 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0007E014@m...>; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:25:53 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01008; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:25:52 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My turn References: Date: 09 Apr 2001 10:25:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Ross B. Schulman"'s message of "Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:25:57 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > ------------------------ > Amend rule #328. > Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second > paragraph of rule #328: > The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the ^ Another small typo. > line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to > make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] > ------------------------ > > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > registering my own vote as for again. -- Doctroid From ross@b... Mon Apr 09 07:53:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 9 Apr 2001 14:53:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 63664 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 14:53:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2001 14:53:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 15:54:11 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id KAA04767 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:53:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08150 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:53:05 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:53:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Hm, thanks Rich... Okay, I'm actually not satisfied with this proposal anyhow, its a bit simplistic. I'm going to introduce the idea of stanzas in the NEP and force rhyme scheme within the individual stanza. I'm also thinking about having the NEP control player actions somewhat, but I'm not sure how that would work so I'm going to leave that out for now. Okay, so I'm envoking rule 111 again, but I'm not starting voting just yet, as I want your comments (and proofreading, since I apparently can't type). --------------------------- Amend rule #328 as follows: Add the following text as the third paragraph to rule #328: The active player may state between any two lines (including, but not limited to the beginning and end of the active player's added lines) that a new stanza is beginning. This statement does not count as one of the five allocated lines. When the NEP is printed in full, stanzas are marked by a single empty line (just a carriage return). Within single stanzas, the final word of each line must rhyme with that of the line two preceeding it, unless, of course, the line in question is the first or second of a new stanza. [[That is, every other line must rhyme.]] --------------------------- On 9 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > "Ross B. Schulman" writes: > > > ------------------------ > > Amend rule #328. > > Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second > > paragraph of rule #328: > > The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the > ^ > Another small typo. > > > line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to > > make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] > > ------------------------ > > > > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > > registering my own vote as for again. > > From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 09 10:14:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 9 Apr 2001 17:14:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 65027 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 17:14:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Apr 2001 17:14:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 17:14:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22163 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:14:50 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:14:50 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Okay, there was a small type in the proposal I made, I'm going to fix it > rather than letting it ride. To that end, I'm invoking rule 111 to stop > voting and make the fix: Okay... This is the type of confusion that rule 327 was enacted to prevent. You already started the voting process. This implies via rules 111 and 327 that you had already had selected the final form of the proposal. I don't see provisions for stopping the voting process. Seriously folks... Announcing the final form of your proposal at the same time as you propose the proposal initially leaves no room for further amendment or discussion, as far as I can see. Unless you're certain that your proposal is perfect (transmutation and repealation perhaps), you should allow some time for discussion and amendment. [snip] > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > registering my own vote as for again. Now you actually state that this is the final form... And yet later on, you try to change it again... From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 09 10:20:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 9 Apr 2001 17:20:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 80391 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 17:20:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2001 17:20:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 18:21:29 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22185 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:20:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:20:24 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Hm, thanks Rich... Okay, I'm actually not satisfied with this proposal > anyhow, its a bit simplistic. I'm going to introduce the idea of stanzas > in the NEP and force rhyme scheme within the individual stanza. I'm also > thinking about having the NEP control player actions somewhat, but I'm not > sure how that would work so I'm going to leave that out for now. > Okay, so I'm envoking rule 111 again, but I'm not starting voting just > yet, as I want your comments (and proofreading, since I apparently can't > type). Once again... You have already declared the final form of your proposal. If the last amendment to your proposal was questionable, this one is clearly against the rules. I could be persauded that your first amendment is permissable since your actions only implied you had selected the final form of your proposal. But for the second amendment, we already have a very clear final form of your proposal. Am I making sense here, or am I taking a radically wild interpretation of the rules? From ross@b... Tue Apr 10 04:16:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 10 Apr 2001 11:16:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 14865 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2001 11:16:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2001 11:16:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Apr 2001 11:16:21 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id HAA11597 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:16:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA30532 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:16:20 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:16:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] My turn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" > Once again... You have already declared the final form of your > proposal. If the last amendment to your proposal was questionable, this > one is clearly against the rules. I could be persauded that your first > amendment is permissable since your actions only implied you had selected > the final form of your proposal. But for the second amendment, we already > have a very clear final form of your proposal. > > Am I making sense here, or am I taking a radically wild > interpretation of the rules? Okay, basically I'm thinking that 111 allows for an amendment of the current proposal. But I might be convinced that it only allows for one and I shouldn't have revised that first time. However, since the first amendment only fixed a single typo, while the second was a complete rewrite of the proposal, I think there might be some room for maneuvering here. Should we call for judgement? (I think that rule 111 does allow for voting to stop for amendments to proposal, even if the proponent has declared voting to have been started, but only once. I did use it twice, so I'm in the wrong here, I'll concede that). -Ross From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 10 09:56:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 10 Apr 2001 16:56:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 94012 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2001 16:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2001 16:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Apr 2001 16:55:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25146 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:55:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Invoking Judgement (Was: My Turn) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Okay, basically I'm thinking that 111 allows for an amendment of the > current proposal. But I might be convinced that it only allows for one > and I shouldn't have revised that first time. However, since the first > amendment only fixed a single typo, while the second was a complete > rewrite of the proposal, I think there might be some room for maneuvering > here. Should we call for judgement? (I think that rule 111 does allow > for voting to stop for amendments to proposal, even if the proponent has > declared voting to have been started, but only once. I did use it twice, > so I'm in the wrong here, I'll concede that). My understanding of rule 111 is that you can make as many changes to your proposal as you want. However, rule 111 specifies that the proposal must take a "final form" before voting can begin. In your initial message, you declared voting open. This implies, according to my interpretation of the rules, that the initially posted version of your proposal is the final form. I also feel that once a proposal is in its final form, it can no longer be changed. Now there seems to be some disagreement regarding my interpretation of the rules. Namely, does opening voting imply that the proponent has selected the final form of their proposal? And, can a proposal be further amended once the final form has been announced? I invoke judgement to settle the disputes : ------------- Invocation #1 Is having the final form of a proposal a prerequisite for opening voting? If so, if voting is opened before the final form of a proposal has been announced, is the final form implied to be the last announced version of the proposal? Invocation #2 Once a final form of a proposal has been announced can the proposal be further amended? If so, what is the criteria for determining the TRULY final form of a proposal? ------------- Please note... I am not trying to be rude with this process here. I am simply trying to clear away the confusion that seems to surround the proposal amendment process. From rsholmes@m... Tue Apr 10 20:46:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 03:46:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26294 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 03:46:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 03:46:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 03:46:47 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0008A649@m...>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:46:46 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA05647; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:46:45 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement (Was: My Turn) References: Date: 10 Apr 2001 23:46:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 113 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Invocation #1 > > Is having the final form of a proposal a prerequisite for opening > voting? If so, if voting is opened before the final form of a proposal has > been announced, is the final form implied to be the last announced version > of the proposal? Rule 111 reads If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote. Note that while this rule gives the proponent the power to decide the final form and to decide when voting is open, it does not specify a mechanism by which such decisions are to be implemented. Rule 327 reads When a proposal is announced, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins, as defined by the rules. During the discussion the proponent must either continue to refine the proposal by announcing new revisions to it, or announce the final form of the proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. Any votes received before the final form of the proposal has been announced do not count unless the player who made the vote specifically states otherwise. There appears to be a slight inconsistency between these two rules. Rule 111 implies that discussion of the proposal, and possible amendments to it, must take place before voting. Rule 327 allows for the possibility of counting votes that arrive before the final form of the proposal is announced. I think the inconsistency can be resolved as follows: The final form of the proposal MUST BE ANNOUNCED DURING THE DISCUSSION PERIOD (Rule 327), which takes place BEFORE THE VOTING PERIOD IS ANNOUNCED TO BEGIN (Rule 111); however, any vote cast (improperly) before the voting period is announced to begin will count if the person who cast that vote requests it. Rule 327 specifically says an announcement must be made even if there are no changes from the originally announced version. I conclude that, yes, the final form must be announced before the voting period can be announced to begin. And, no, I do not see that Rule 327 is consistent with an implicit specification of a final form. The word "announce" is, I think, inconsistent with any "implied" action. So I conclude that a voting period may not properly be opened without first explicitly announcing a final form. > Invocation #2 > > Once a final form of a proposal has been announced can the > proposal be further amended? If so, what is the criteria for determining > the TRULY final form of a proposal? It seems to me that the proponent's power to decide the final form of the proposal and to decide when voting is open are treated in more or less parallel fashion; the only significant differences are that, as far as I can see, there's no specific statment that the decision to open voting must be explicitly announced, and the Judge may overrule to start the voting period but not to decide the final form. Therefore, if the proponent can change eir mind about the one, e can change eir mind about the other. And if e can change eir mind about both, that means e can make a proposal, see if the votes are going eir way, and if not, change eir proposal and change the voting period, ad infinitum (at least until the Judge steps in and declares voting open, implying discussion is closed, implying no "final form" may be announced). That would be so destructive of play that it must, I believe, be regarded as the incorrect interpretation of the rules. I conclude the only reasonable interpretation is that the proponent, once e announces a "final form", cannot change eir mind and announce a new "final form"; nor can e, once e announces voting is open, change eir mind and open voting again later. This is not inconsistent with Rule 111. The player decides both, per Rule 111, but that Rule does not give the player license to *change* eir decision afterward. In the present case, Ross's first message specified a proposal and announced voting was open, but did not announce explicitly a final form for the proposal. Thus the opening of voting was improper, hence void. Since no final form had been announced, and voting was not properly opened, he was allowed to change his proposal. He did so in his second message, announced it as the final form, and opened voting. Therefore his third message, in which he amended the proposal again, and reopened voting, was improper, hence void. The second version is his final form, and voting on that version is open. One more note, on a related matter but not within the scope of this Judgment and hence unofficial: Rule 111 says "... A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. ..." I would interpret that to mean the final form cannot be announced before players have had time to read and comment on the initial form. That is, I believe an action of the form, "I propose blah blah blah; this is the final form" (where blah blah blah is a new proposal, not someone else's Suggestion) is not only unwisely precipitous (as Jeff has noted) but contrary to Rule 111. (But if one proposes someone else's Suggestion, there presumably has been time to debate that Suggestion already, and declaring it the final form immediately would not, I think, necessarily violate Rule 111.) -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 11 10:09:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 17:09:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 97159 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 17:09:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 17:09:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 18:10:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26828 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:09:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:09:23 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement (Was: My Turn) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Sounds like a reasonable judgement to me. I consent to starting the next turn, when the current turn is over. From jjweston@g... Wed Apr 11 10:11:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 17:11:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 97445 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 17:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 17:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 17:11:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26838 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:11:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:11:54 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 331 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Just to clarify things, I've included what I understand to be the final form of the proposal below. I will be updating the web site with this proposal. On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > Okay, there was a small type in the proposal I made, I'm going to fix it > rather than letting it ride. To that end, I'm invoking rule 111 to stop > voting and make the fix: > ------------------------ > Amend rule #328. > Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second > paragraph of rule #328: > The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the > line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to > make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] > ------------------------ > > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > registering my own vote as for again. From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 11 11:49:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 18:49:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 84222 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 18:49:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 18:49:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 18:49:54 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0008E5D4@m...>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:49:41 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA24376; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:49:40 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote AGAINST Proposal 331 References: Date: 11 Apr 2001 14:49:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:11:54 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > > > Okay, there was a small type in the proposal I made, I'm going to fix it > > rather than letting it ride. To that end, I'm invoking rule 111 to stop > > voting and make the fix: > > ------------------------ > > Amend rule #328. > > Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second > > paragraph of rule #328: > > The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the > > line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to > > make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] > > ------------------------ > > > > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > > registering my own vote as for again. Voting AGAINST because I'm not happy about such constraints on the rhyme scheme -- especially since I'd hate to saddle poor Jeff with finding a rhyme for "harrumph". -- Doctroid From ross@b... Wed Apr 11 11:51:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 18:51:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 52380 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 18:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 18:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 18:51:21 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id OAA09663 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:51:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29014 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:51:19 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:51:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote AGAINST Proposal 331 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Looks good to me, Jeff. Just to clarify, though I think it still stands, I'm voting for the proposal. -Ross On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Weston wrote: > Just to clarify things, I've included what I understand to be the > final form of the proposal below. I will be updating the web site with > this proposal. > > On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > > > Okay, there was a small type in the proposal I made, I'm going to fix it > > rather than letting it ride. To that end, I'm invoking rule 111 to stop > > voting and make the fix: > > ------------------------ > > Amend rule #328. > > Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second > > paragraph of rule #328: > > The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the > > line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to > > make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] > > ------------------------ > > > > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > > registering my own vote as for again. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From ross@b... Wed Apr 11 11:57:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 18:57:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 3311 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 18:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 18:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cliff.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 19:58:35 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by cliff.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id OAA10945 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:57:30 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29604 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:57:30 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:57:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Vote AGAINST Proposal 331 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Fair enough... you're the one that complained about the prose style epic poem. : ) Anyway, I make no moves on the grid and I add the following two lines to the poem: Unfortunately, Oorkado was allergic to pollen. He spent most of his days sneezing uncontrollably. Thus completing my turn, Ross On 11 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Weston writes: > > > On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > > > > > Okay, there was a small type in the proposal I made, I'm going to fix it > > > rather than letting it ride. To that end, I'm invoking rule 111 to stop > > > voting and make the fix: > > > ------------------------ > > > Amend rule #328. > > > Add the following sentences after the first sentence in the second > > > paragraph of rule #328: > > > The final word of each line added must rhyme with the final world of the > > > line two before it. (That is, every other line must rhyme). [[Just to > > > make Rich happier that this is indeed a poem, as the title implies.]] > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > I make this the final form of my proposal and I restart voting, > > > registering my own vote as for again. > > Voting AGAINST because I'm not happy about such constraints on the > rhyme scheme -- especially since I'd hate to saddle poor Jeff with > finding a rhyme for "harrumph". > > From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 12 10:06:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 12 Apr 2001 17:06:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 18838 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 17:06:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Apr 2001 17:06:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Apr 2001 18:07:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28675 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:06:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:06:07 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Henry is dropped from the game. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Henry Towsner did not leave Reyalp status within the specified time period. He is dropped from the game. No players are affected on the grid by Henry leaving. Files 20 to 24 are removed from the board. From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 12 10:20:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 12 Apr 2001 17:20:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 53015 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 17:20:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Apr 2001 17:20:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Apr 2001 17:20:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28691 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:20:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 331 Results Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 1 vote for and 2 votes against, Proposal 331 fails. Ross loses 10 points for it failing. Ross gains 13 points for receiving 1/3 favorable votes. Ross makes no move for his fourth phase. The poerty has been added. This completes Ross's turn. However, consent has not been received from a majority of players (other than the judge, Rich) to start the next turn. Consent has not been received from Ross. From ross@b... Thu Apr 12 13:21:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 12 Apr 2001 20:21:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 43244 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 20:21:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Apr 2001 20:21:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Apr 2001 20:21:14 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id QAA31632 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:21:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07598 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:21:13 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:21:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 331 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Weston wrote: > Consent has not been received from Ross. Yep yep, go ahead, I give consent. From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 12 17:56:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 00:56:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 36875 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 00:56:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 00:56:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 01:57:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29189 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:56:46 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:56:46 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 331 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ross B. Schulman wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Weston wrote: > > > Consent has not been received from Ross. > Yep yep, go ahead, I give consent. Cool. Play now proceeds with me. I'll send out a proposal some time tomorrow. From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 13 07:51:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 14:51:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 97533 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 14:51:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 14:51:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 15:52:38 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000994B0@m...>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:51:34 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21257; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:51:33 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 331 Results References: Date: 13 Apr 2001 10:51:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:56:46 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 4 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Just to remind you two -- neither of you have Suggestions in at this time. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Fri Apr 13 11:17:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 18:17:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 54388 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 18:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 18:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 18:17:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA30987 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:17:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:17:54 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: My turn - Phase One Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I purchase five additional rule changes at a cost of 250 Groks. This leaves me with 29 Groks. From jjweston@g... Fri Apr 13 11:20:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 18:20:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 43490 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 18:20:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 18:20:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 18:20:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA31001 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:20:38 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:20:38 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 332 - 337 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Here is my proposal. Discussion follows. ---------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 337 --- Rule Change Proposal 332 Amend Rule 203 to read as follows: A proposal is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among the eligible voters. --- Rule Change Proposal 333 Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. --- Rule Change Proposal 334 Transmute Rule 111. --- Rule Change Proposal 335 Amend Rule 334 to read as follows: When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend their proposal by announcing new versions of it. After the required 24 hour period is up, the proponent of the proposal may end the discussion at any time by announcing the final form of their proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. At that time, and no earlier, voting begins. Any votes received before this time do not count unless the voter specifically stated otherwise. Once voting has started, it cannot be interrupted. When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, it cannot be interrupted. --- Rule Change Proposal 336 Repeal Rule 327. --- Rule Change Proposal 337 Repeal Rule 205. ---------------------------------------- #332 - Rule 203 talks about adopting rule-changes. However, we have this idea of proposals containing multiple rule-changes. This amednment makes this distinction more clear. #333 - Rule 206 also refers to rule-changes. In this instance, if a proposal with multiple rule-changes is defeated, one could read this to mean that the proponent loses 10 points for every rule-change in that proposal. #334 - I know transmuting rule 111 has been attempted before and failed. I hope the fact that I amend it immediately afterwords pushes aside the fears of transmuting this rule. #335 - Seems we keep dancing around this rule. I'm addressing some of the questions from the recent invocations of judgement. I'm also merging the effects of rule 327 into this one. #336 - The effects of rule 327 have been incorporated into the previous amendment. #337 - A glaring oversight on my part. Rule 205 specifies when rule-changes get enacted. Rule 324 also specifies when rule-changes get enancted. It has provisions for proposals with multiple rule-changes, while rule 205 does not. The fact that rule 205 is in place may hinder the adoption of these rule-changes. Specically #335. If the rule-changes are all adopted simultaneously, then how can I both transmute and amend a rule at the same time? If the consensus is that this would not be allowed, I will amend my proposal by removing the amending rule 111 portion. From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 13 12:23:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 19:23:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 85559 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 19:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 19:23:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 19:23:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0009A9B1@m...>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:23:06 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01036; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:23:05 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 332 - 337 References: Date: 13 Apr 2001 15:23:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:20:38 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 87 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Rule Change Proposal 332 > > Amend Rule 203 to read as follows: > > A proposal is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among > the eligible voters. I'm opposed to this. I find it irrational and unappealing to allow a proposal to be "adopted" even if all its rule-changes are not, as in the case where a proposal consisting of nothing but transmutations of immutable rules gets a less than unanimous vote. Enough so that I'd vote against any proposal containing this provision. > Rule Change Proposal 333 > > Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: > > When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. This is good. > Rule Change Proposal 335 > > Amend Rule 334 to read as follows: > > When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion > list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This > discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion > period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to > the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend > their proposal by announcing new versions of it. > > After the required 24 hour period is up, the proponent of the proposal may > end the discussion at any time by announcing the final form of their > proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still > announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as > the originally announced version. At that time, and no earlier, voting > begins. Any votes received before this time do not count unless the voter > specifically stated otherwise. Once voting has started, it cannot be > interrupted. > > When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, > there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and > voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, it cannot be > interrupted. This is pretty good, but I think the phrase "cannot be interrupted" needs clarification. Hmm, just thought of something. Under the original rules, if an irregularity is uncovered during the voting process, Judgment can be invoked and players can wait until the Judgment is completed before going ahead and voting... which is good, in a situation where one's decision on how to vote will hinge on an interpretation to be resolved by the Judgment. Under our present rules, though, and under the rules as you propose, the 72 hour limit is in force regardless. That might be a bad thing. > > --- > > Rule Change Proposal 336 > > Repeal Rule 327. > #337 - A glaring oversight on my part. Rule 205 specifies when > rule-changes get enacted. Rule 324 also specifies when rule-changes get > enancted. It has provisions for proposals with multiple rule-changes, > while rule 205 does not. The fact that rule 205 is in place may hinder the > adoption of these rule-changes. Specically #335. If the rule-changes are > all adopted simultaneously, then how can I both transmute and amend a rule > at the same time? If the consensus is that this would not be allowed, I > will amend my proposal by removing the amending rule 111 portion. Hmm, I guess I would argue you can't. Rule 205 takes precedence: "An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it." I think that states very clearly that your amendment rule-change would take effect simultaneously with your transmutation rule-change, and it would be void because the rule it refers to doesn't exist. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Sat Apr 14 11:01:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 14 Apr 2001 18:01:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 54077 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2001 18:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Apr 2001 18:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2001 18:01:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA32568 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:01:40 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:01:39 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 332 - 337 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 13 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Weston writes: > > > Rule Change Proposal 332 > > > > Amend Rule 203 to read as follows: > > > > A proposal is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among > > the eligible voters. > > I'm opposed to this. I find it irrational and unappealing to allow a > proposal to be "adopted" even if all its rule-changes are not, as in > the case where a proposal consisting of nothing but transmutations of > immutable rules gets a less than unanimous vote. Enough so that I'd > vote against any proposal containing this provision. I understand what your concerns are with the one rule change transmuting an immutable rule example. However, what is your interpretation for the current ruleset regarding a proposal such as mine where there are several rule changes and only one of the rule changes requires a unanimous vote to be adopted? Do you think the whole proposal needs a unanimous vote, or can it be "adopted" with a simple majority while the individual rule changes are evaluated for the proper votes? And, is that interpretation the way you like it right now, or do you think there can be some improvement? > > Rule Change Proposal 335 > > > > [SNIP] > > > > Once voting has started, it cannot be interrupted. > > This is pretty good, but I think the phrase "cannot be interrupted" > needs clarification. > > Hmm, just thought of something. Under the original rules, if an > irregularity is uncovered during the voting process, Judgment can be > invoked and players can wait until the Judgment is completed before > going ahead and voting... which is good, in a situation where one's > decision on how to vote will hinge on an interpretation to be resolved > by the Judgment. Under our present rules, though, and under the rules > as you propose, the 72 hour limit is in force regardless. That might > be a bad thing. Hmm... Hadn't thought of this. I intended "cannot be interrupted" to mean that a player couldn't stop voting once it had started, change their proposal, and then start voting again. Perhaps I can put a clause in rule 212 that suspends required communication until consent has been received from a majority of players. That way Invoking Judgement would not suspend voting, but the 72 hour time limit would not come into effect until after consent has been received. Should solve the problem you brought up. > > #337 - A glaring oversight on my part. Rule 205 specifies when > > rule-changes get enacted. Rule 324 also specifies when rule-changes get > > enancted. It has provisions for proposals with multiple rule-changes, > > while rule 205 does not. The fact that rule 205 is in place may hinder the > > adoption of these rule-changes. Specically #335. If the rule-changes are > > all adopted simultaneously, then how can I both transmute and amend a rule > > at the same time? If the consensus is that this would not be allowed, I > > will amend my proposal by removing the amending rule 111 portion. > > Hmm, I guess I would argue you can't. Rule 205 takes precedence: "An > adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion > of the vote that adopted it." I think that states very clearly that > your amendment rule-change would take effect simultaneously with your > transmutation rule-change, and it would be void because the rule it > refers to doesn't exist. Darn. I had come to the same conclusion, but was hoping that someone could convince me otherwise. :) However, I came up with a workaround: First I amend rule 327 so that it containins the text of rule 111 that I want to be in effect. Then I transmute rule 111. The amended rule 327 has a lower number, and so takes precedence over the transmuted rule 111. Someone will have to repeal the transmuted rule 111 at a later date. I'd probably make that a suggestion if the proposal passed. I'll post an updated version of my proposal. I'm sure there will be additional refinements. From jjweston@g... Sat Apr 14 11:28:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 14 Apr 2001 18:28:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 25678 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2001 18:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Apr 2001 18:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2001 18:28:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA32587 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:28:27 -0700 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:28:27 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 332 - 337 : First Amendment Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Here is my updated proposal. I no longer attempt to amend the transmuted rule 111. Instead I amend rule 327 to how I want rule 111 to behave, and then I transmute rule 111. The amended rule 327 will have a lower number than the transmuted rule 111, and thus will take precedence. Since this saves me a rule change, I now include an amendment to rule 212 that suspends required messages while waiting for consent to continue the game. ---------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 337 --- Rule Change Proposal 332 Amend Rule 203 to read as follows: A proposal is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among the eligible voters. --- Rule Change Proposal 333 Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. --- Rule Change Proposal 334 Amend rule 212 by striking the second paragraph and replacing it with the following text: When Judgment has been invoked, all required communication from all players is suspended, except for judgement from the judge, and consent to continue the game. The game may not continue without the consent of a majority of the other players. Once consent has been received, all required communication from all players is no longer suspended, and it is treated as if this is moment such communication can initially occur. --- Rule Change Proposal 335 Amend Rule 327 to read as follows: When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend their proposal by announcing new versions of it. After the required 24 hour period is up, the proponent of the proposal may end the discussion at any time by announcing the final form of their proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. At that time, and no earlier, voting begins. Any votes received before this time do not count unless the voter specifically stated otherwise. Once voting has started, it cannot be interrupted. When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, it cannot be interrupted. --- Rule Change Proposal 336 Repeal Rule 205. --- Rule Change Proposal 337 Transmute Rule 111. From rsholmes@m... Sat Apr 14 19:35:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 15 Apr 2001 02:35:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 28865 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2001 02:35:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Apr 2001 02:35:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Apr 2001 02:35:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0009E93A@m...>; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:35:19 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05700; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:35:18 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 332 - 337 References: Date: 14 Apr 2001 22:35:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:01:39 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 43 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > I understand what your concerns are with the one rule change > transmuting an immutable rule example. However, what is your > interpretation for the current ruleset regarding a proposal such as mine > where there are several rule changes and only one of the rule changes > requires a unanimous vote to be adopted? Do you think the whole proposal > needs a unanimous vote, or can it be "adopted" with a simple majority > while the individual rule changes are evaluated for the proper votes? And, > is that interpretation the way you like it right now, or do you think > there can be some improvement? I addressed this partially in a Judgment a while ago. Basically, I think sloppiness in our changes to the rules has resulted in a situation where the concept of "adopting a proposal" is ill-defined. My ruling in the case of a proposal consisting of a single rule-change whose effect is to transmute an immutable rule was that such a proposal needs the same unanimity its rule-change needs to be adopted. But the generalization to a proposal like yours, with both rule-changes that require unanimity and rule-changes that require simple majority, is, I think, very much unspecified. Personally I think a better system would be to make (as it was initially) Proposals and Rule-changes be essentially synonymous, so that "adopting a Proposal" and "adopting a Rule-change" would mean the same thing (and the latter is unambiguous); the multi-rule-change thing that a player may in general submit for voting on eir turn might be called, I don't know, a "Proposal Package" or something, and "adoption of a Proposal Package" would be a term that has no meaning nor needs one. Each individual Proposal (Rule-change) in the Package would be adopted or not, depending on whether the Package received the number of votes required for adoption of that Proposal (Rule-change). However, that's not the system we have now and it might be too difficult to get from here to there. In that case, I would argue the three most sensible choices are that a Proposal is adopted if and only if (all | a majority | at least one) of its Rule-Changes is/are adopted. The second of these strikes me as best, but more careful thought might turn up flaws in one or more of these choices that would alter my preference. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Sun Apr 15 13:41:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 15 Apr 2001 20:41:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 17595 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2001 20:41:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Apr 2001 20:41:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Apr 2001 20:41:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06432 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:41:49 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 332 - 337 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 14 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Personally I think a better system would be to make (as it was > initially) Proposals and Rule-changes be essentially synonymous, so > that "adopting a Proposal" and "adopting a Rule-change" would mean the > same thing (and the latter is unambiguous); the multi-rule-change > thing that a player may in general submit for voting on eir turn might > be called, I don't know, a "Proposal Package" or something, and > "adoption of a Proposal Package" would be a term that has no > meaning nor needs one. Each individual Proposal (Rule-change) in the > Package would be adopted or not, depending on whether the Package > received the number of votes required for adoption of that Proposal > (Rule-change). However, that's not the system we have now and it > might be too difficult to get from here to there. Perhaps I've completely misunderstood your preferences, but this is very close to what I'm trying to accomplish, although my terms are different. What you refer to as a "Proposal" and/or "Rule-Change" I simply want to reduce that to a "Rule-Change", or "Proposed Rule-Change". What you refer to as "Proposal Package" I want to refer to as a "Proposal". IMHO, we are closer to your proposed ideal situation than you may think. Personally, I don't see much ambiguity between "Rule-Change" and Proposal" the following rules all discuss "Rule-Changes", not "Proposals": 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 205, 206, 322, 329. Only the following mention proposals: 110, 111, 204, 311, 324. 110 is a problem because it speaks of "Proposal" in the same light as a "Rule-Change". 111 speaks both of "Rule-Changes" and "Proposals" in a ambiguous way, but the problem is solved by my current proposal. 204 isn't a problem because it fits in nicely with considering "Proposals" encompassing several "Rule-Changes". 311 talks about "Proposals" again, but it works with what I'm trying to accomplish. And 324 is the rule that makes multiple "Rule-Changes" per "Proposal" possible. 205 and 206 are a problem because they talk about "Rule-Changes" when I wish to refer to "Proposals", however, they are taken care of with my proposal. This leaves 110 as the only ambiguity. I don't see it as a huge problem, but regardless, it will be easy to correct. If you see it as a problem that needs to be corrected before voting FOR my proposal, I can probably fit it in to my proposal. During my reflection on this issue, I do see the problem with my proposal. Rule 104 specifies that rule changes are adopted only if they receive the required number of votes. Together, rules 109 and 203 specify the number of votes required. If I amend rule 203 as intended, we then lose what the required votes to adopt a rule-change are. Instead it would be better to create a new rule specifying how "Proposals" are adopted. Quoting from you again, that would give us this situation: > Each individual Proposal (Rule-change) in the Package would be adopted > or not, depending on whether the Package received the number of votes > required for adoption of that Proposal (Rule-change). Since the terms are different, I'll paraphrase as such: Each individual Rule-Change in the Proposal would be adopted or not, depending on whether or not the Proposal received the number of votes required for adoption of that Rule-Change. However, this brings us back to the original issue we had to begin with: It becomes possible to "adopt" a proposal (Proposal Package) and not have its rule change(s) (Proposals) be adopted. I imagine this can be solved by adding a clause to the adoption of proposals. Something like, if the proposal contains only one rule-change, the number of votes to adopt the proposal is the same as the individual rule-change. Am I making sense here, or have I missed something? I truly feel we are try to accomplish the same thing but are getting hung up on technicalities. I will submit another amended version of my proposal for review. From jjweston@g... Sun Apr 15 13:58:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 15 Apr 2001 20:58:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 42593 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2001 20:58:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Apr 2001 20:58:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Apr 2001 20:58:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06472 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:58:38 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 332 - 337 : Second Amendment Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Here is the second update to my proposal. Instead of amending rule 203, I now create a new rule detailing how proposals are adopted. Rule-changes are still adopted in the same way. I have added a clause to rule change 335 allowing the judge to be asked to halt discussion. Also, again in rule change 335, instead of saying "voting cannot be interrupted", I now say that the proposal cannot be altered once voting has started. ---------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 337 --- Rule Change 332 Create a new rule with the following text: A proposal is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among the eligible voters. If a proposal contains only one rule change, the vote required for adopting the proposal is the same as that required for adopting the rule change. --- Rule Change 333 Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. --- Rule Change 334 Amend rule 212 by striking the second paragraph and replacing it with the following text: When Judgment has been invoked, all required communication from all players is suspended, except for judgement from the judge, and consent to continue the game. The game may not continue without the consent of a majority of the other players. Once consent has been received, all required communication from all players is no longer suspended, and it is treated as if this is moment such communication can initially occur. --- Rule Change 335 Amend Rule 327 to read as follows: When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend their proposal by announcing new versions of it. After the required 24 hour period is up, unless the judge has been asked to do so, the proponent of the proposal may end the discussion at any time by announcing the final form of their proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. At that time, and no earlier, voting begins. Any votes received before this time do not count unless the voter specifically stated otherwise. Once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. --- Rule Change 336 Repeal Rule 205. --- Rule Change 337 Transmute Rule 111. From rsholmes@m... Sun Apr 15 19:24:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 16 Apr 2001 02:24:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 47100 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 02:24:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Apr 2001 02:24:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 02:24:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000A0E04@m...>; 15 Apr 2001 22:24:57 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04385; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:24:56 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 332 - 337 References: Date: 15 Apr 2001 22:24:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 28 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > However, this brings us back to the original issue we had to begin > with: It becomes possible to "adopt" a proposal (Proposal Package) and > not have its rule change(s) (Proposals) be adopted. I imagine this can be > solved by adding a clause to the adoption of proposals. Something like, if > the proposal contains only one rule-change, the number of votes to adopt > the proposal is the same as the individual rule-change. But this still leads to the same silliness if a Proposal contains (only) multiple transmutations of immutable rules. Admittedly, this is hardly likely to crop up -- but it could. More generally, I don't like the separate concepts of "adopting rule-changes" and "adopting proposals", with the latter defined more or less independently of the former. Using your terminology, my preference would be to speak only of adopting rule-changes and not of adopting proposals. But if we are to keep both rule-changes and proposals as adoptable things, I think the rule for adopting the latter should hinge on the rule for adopting the former, and in such a way that it avoids the possibility of adopting a proposal none of whose rule-changes is adopted. Hence my tryptich of plausible solutions, which if restated in your terms would be "a Proposal is adopted if and only if (all of | a majority of | at least one of) its rule-changes is/are adopted." -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Sun Apr 15 19:35:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 16 Apr 2001 02:35:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 42894 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 02:35:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Apr 2001 02:35:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 02:35:23 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000A0E4E@m...>; 15 Apr 2001 22:35:23 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05500; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:35:22 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal 332 - 337 : Second Amendment References: Date: 15 Apr 2001 22:35:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 45 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Rule Change 332 > > Create a new rule with the following text: > > A proposal is adopted if and only if the vote is a simple majority among > the eligible voters. If a proposal contains only one rule change, the vote > required for adopting the proposal is the same as that required for > adopting the rule change. As stated elsewhere, I still do not like this. > When Judgment has been invoked, all required communication from all > players is suspended, except for judgement from the judge, and consent to > continue the game. The game may not continue without the consent of a > majority of the other players. Once consent has been received, all > required communication from all players is no longer suspended, and it is > treated as if this is moment such communication can initially occur. Missing a "the" in the last sentence, and I think this could be stated more clearly; see my questions: > When Judgment has been invoked, all required communication from all > players is suspended, Does this mean "required communications" are no longer REQUIRED or no longer PERMITTED? E.g. if Judgment is invoked during the voting period, are we not REQUIRED to cast votes from that time on or not PERMITTED to? > except for judgement from the judge, and consent to > continue the game. The game may not continue without the consent of a > majority of the other players. Once consent has been received, all > required communication from all players is no longer suspended, and it is > treated as if this is moment such communication can initially occur. Does this mean "required communications" that were submitted before Judgment was invoked are disregarded (since they are now regarded as having been submitted before the initial moment they could occur)? E.g. in the above situation, after Judgment is completed, would votes cast before Judgment was invoked be counted or not? -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 16 11:19:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 16 Apr 2001 18:19:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 46572 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 18:19:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Apr 2001 18:19:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 18:19:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07688 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:19:38 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:19:38 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 332 - 337 : Third Amendment Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Yet another update. Cleaned up how proposals are adopted as Rich suggested. Cleaned up the suspension of required communication when judgement is invoked. You know, this whole time we haven't heard anything from Ross. Ross, do you have any thoughts regarding these changes? ---------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 337 --- Rule Change 332 Create a new rule with the following text: A proposal is adopted if and only if at least one of its rule-changes is adopted. --- Rule Change 333 Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. --- Rule Change 334 Amend rule 212 by striking the second paragraph and replacing it with the following text: When judgement has been invoked, all required communication from all players is no longer required, except for judgement from the judge, and consent to continue the game. For purposes of this rule, such communication is considered "previously required communication". Previously required communication is communication that would normally be required to be sent within a specific time frame, but currently has no time restrictions. Such communication can still be sent, it is just not currently required to be sent. The game may not continue without the consent of a majority all the players, excluding the judge. Once consent has been received, all previously required communication now becomes required communication and it is trated as if this is the moment such communication can initially occur. Note that this does not nullify any required communication that has already been set, but simply extends the time frame in which the remaining required communication must take place. This takes precedence over rule 303. --- Rule Change 335 Amend Rule 327 to read as follows: When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend their proposal by announcing new versions of it. After the required 24 hour period is up, unless the judge has been asked to do so, the proponent of the proposal may end the discussion at any time by announcing the final form of their proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. At that time, and no earlier, voting begins. Any votes received before this time do not count unless the voter specifically stated otherwise. Once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. --- Rule Change 336 Repeal Rule 205. --- Rule Change 337 Transmute Rule 111. From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Apr 16 17:52:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 00:52:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 92593 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 00:52:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 00:52:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 00:52:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.101] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Apr 2001 00:52:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:52:17 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Am I still welcome round here? Message-ID: <9bg441+g775@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 57 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.167.135.117 From: Sxejmaso@a... I might have the time to play once again... Jon A Grimm From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 16 18:03:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 01:03:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 29191 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 01:03:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 01:03:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 01:03:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08291 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:03:53 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:03:53 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Am I still welcome round here? In-Reply-To: <9bg441+g775@e...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 Sxejmaso@a... wrote: > I might have the time to play once again... > > Jon A Grimm Of course you are welcome around here! You only started the game and all... Hardly a capital offense. :-) From Sxejmaso@a... Mon Apr 16 18:26:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 01:26:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 43616 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 01:26:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 01:26:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 01:26:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.104] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Apr 2001 01:26:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:25:59 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Am I still welcome round here? Message-ID: <9bg637+38k7@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 483 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.167.135.117 From: Sxejmaso@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 Sxejmaso@a... wrote: > > > I might have the time to play once again... > > > > Jon A Grimm > > Of course you are welcome around here! You only started the game > and all... Hardly a capital offense. :-) Well that may not be but leaving for so long should be:) Gimme a couple of days to get up to speed and I will be ready to stage a come from behind victory... if we still have a victory in N_omic JAG From sxejmaso@n... Mon Apr 16 20:17:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: sxejmaso@n... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 03:17:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 99727 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 03:17:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 03:17:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shorts.nts-online.net) (216.167.161.36) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 03:17:27 -0000 Received: from computer (dialup-lbb-1138.nts-online.net [216.167.136.247]) by shorts.nts-online.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f3H37vc08083 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:07:57 -0500 Message-ID: <001501c0c6ed$51e3b440$f788a7d8@c...> To: Subject: Close to a Rule violation--- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:19:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0C6C3.59917080" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "Jim Morgan" ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0C6C3.59917080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If I counted correctly we have 23 mutable rules now... we have a 25 limit. JAG ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0C6C3.59917080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If I counted correctly we have 23 mutable = rules=20 now... we have a 25 limit.
 
JAG
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0C6C3.59917080-- From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 17 09:30:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 16:30:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 99436 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 16:29:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 16:29:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 16:29:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09362 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:29:36 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:29:36 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Close to a Rule violation--- In-Reply-To: <001501c0c6ed$51e3b440$f788a7d8@c...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Jim Morgan wrote: > If I counted correctly we have 23 mutable rules now... we have a 25 > limit. Ah... Just spoil the fun... ;-) You did count correctly. If my proposal passes, we will have 24 mutable rules. From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 17 09:32:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 16:32:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 23776 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 16:32:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 16:32:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 16:32:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09375 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:32:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: N_omic Website Downtime Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston The server that is hosting the N_omic website will be going down this Friday at 3 PM Pacific Daylight Time. It will be back up approximately 6 PM Pacific Daylight Time on Saturday. Be sure to save a copy of any documents you may want to use during that time. From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 17 09:34:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 16:34:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 22492 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 16:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 16:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 16:34:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09383 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:34:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:34:09 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Any further discussion on my proposal? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Haven't heard anything from anyone regarding the latest version of my proposal. If you have nothing further to discuss, I'll announce the final version and start voting here soon. From ross@b... Tue Apr 17 10:13:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ross@b... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 17 Apr 2001 17:13:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18395 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 17:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2001 17:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu) (129.64.99.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 17:12:11 -0000 Received: from sam.unet.brandeis.edu (IDENT:0@s... [129.64.99.130]) by clavin2.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/UNet2.0) with ESMTP id NAA25716 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:12:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (ross@l...) by sam.unet.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01412 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:12:09 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: sam.unet.brandeis.edu: ross owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:12:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ross@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Realping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Ross B. Schulman" Hey guys, I apologize for my absentia during this past weekend, but a combination of the easter holiday closing all of the computer labs on campus and entertaining my family while they visited has made it impossible for me to participate in n_omic. In addition, as of saturday I'm leaving to go backpacking around spain and I imagine that my email access will be sporadic at best. Consequently, I'd like to turn myself into a realp until further notice. I'm sorry to leave you two with only 2 players left in the game, but I do feel better at our creator's return, as the game won't be left as a conversation between two players. See you all soon, and have a good couple weeks, Ross From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Apr 17 18:22:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 01:22:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 17031 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 01:22:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 01:22:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 01:22:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.109] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2001 01:22:05 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:22:01 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I have returned... Message-ID: <9biq7p+3fa7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 118 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.167.135.114 From: Sxejmaso@a... I am still a little bit confused by the grid-movement thingy and I need labels, Groks etc but I have returned. JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Apr 17 18:23:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 01:23:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 80788 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 01:23:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 01:23:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 01:23:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.109] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2001 01:23:25 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:23:22 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Any further discussion on my proposal? Message-ID: <9biqaa+j2op@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 338 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.167.135.114 From: Sxejmaso@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > Haven't heard anything from anyone regarding the latest version of > my proposal. If you have nothing further to discuss, I'll announce the > final version and start voting here soon. The only thing I am not sure of is the Repeal of 205 but I might be behind on some things;) JAG From Sxejmaso@a... Tue Apr 17 18:25:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 01:25:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 93786 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 01:25:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 01:25:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 01:25:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.10.109] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2001 01:25:31 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:25:28 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Any further discussion on my proposal? Message-ID: <9biqe8+3fab@e...> In-Reply-To: <9biqaa+j2op@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 431 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.167.135.114 From: Sxejmaso@a... --- In n_omic@y..., Sxejmaso@a... wrote: > --- In n_omic@y..., Weston wrote: > > Haven't heard anything from anyone regarding the latest > version of > > my proposal. If you have nothing further to discuss, I'll announce > the > > final version and start voting here soon. > > The only thing I am not sure of is the Repeal of 205 but I might be > behind on some things;) > > JAG DUH never mind I see now... From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 10:15:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 17:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 1141 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 17:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 17:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 17:15:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13000 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:15:57 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Players Exiting/Entering Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Feyd is dropped as of the end of the day Monday. He did not exit Reyalp status within the specified time frame. Ross is a Reyalp as of Tuesday, per his request. He will be a Reyalp until May 8th 2001 since no date was specified. Jon has rejoined the game as of Wednesday. When Feyd left, we were brought down to 3 participants. Per the final paragraph of rule 326, the current judge needs to remove one label from the list of valid labels. This would normally be Ross, but Ross has become a Reyalp. This task now falls to Rich, who must remove one label from the list of labels. When Jon rejoined, we were brought up to 4 participants. Rule 326 has us add a label to the list of valid labels. This task goes again to Rich. When Feyd left, the grid shrunk. Ross and Jeff have their X coordinate greater than or equal to 15. Ross moves to (10, 18). Jeff moves to (14, 18). Files 15 to 19 are then removed from the grid. When Jon rejoined, he received 50 Groks. Files 15 to 19 were added to the grid. Jon starts on the grid at (15, 17). Jon must be notified of the labels of all the participants by the judge, Rich. I will inform Jon of Rich's label. The web site has been updated. That should cover things. Let me know if I've missed something... From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 10:25:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 17:25:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 63929 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 17:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 17:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 17:25:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13022 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:25:54 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:25:54 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal 332 - 337 : Final Form Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Seeing no further discussion on my proposal, I declare the following to be the final form of my proposal. This is the same as my third amendment. No changes have been made. Voting is now open. ---------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 337 --- Rule Change 332 Create a new rule with the following text: A proposal is adopted if and only if at least one of its rule-changes is adopted. --- Rule Change 333 Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. --- Rule Change 334 Amend rule 212 by striking the second paragraph and replacing it with the following text: When judgement has been invoked, all required communication from all players is no longer required, except for judgement from the judge, and consent to continue the game. For purposes of this rule, such communication is considered "previously required communication". Previously required communication is communication that would normally be required to be sent within a specific time frame, but currently has no time restrictions. Such communication can still be sent, it is just not currently required to be sent. The game may not continue without the consent of a majority all the players, excluding the judge. Once consent has been received, all previously required communication now becomes required communication and it is trated as if this is the moment such communication can initially occur. Note that this does not nullify any required communication that has already been set, but simply extends the time frame in which the remaining required communication must take place. This takes precedence over rule 303. --- Rule Change 335 Amend Rule 327 to read as follows: When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend their proposal by announcing new versions of it. After the required 24 hour period is up, unless the judge has been asked to do so, the proponent of the proposal may end the discussion at any time by announcing the final form of their proposal. Even if no discussion takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. At that time, and no earlier, voting begins. Any votes received before this time do not count unless the voter specifically stated otherwise. Once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. --- Rule Change 336 Repeal Rule 205. --- Rule Change 337 Transmute Rule 111. From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 10:26:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 17:26:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 66158 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 17:26:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 17:26:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 17:26:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13030 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:26:37 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 332 - 337 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 10:34:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 17:34:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 65047 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 17:34:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 17:34:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 17:34:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13048 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:34:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:34:03 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Poerty Lines Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I add the following to the NEP: Oorkado then got together with all of his buddies. They formed a secret club dedicated to burning down the fields of flowers. From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 19 11:02:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 18:02:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 59419 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 18:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 18:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 18:02:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000B9272@m...>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:02:03 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA21846; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:02:03 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Players Exiting/Entering References: Date: 19 Apr 2001 14:02:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > When Feyd left, we were brought down to 3 participants. Per the > final paragraph of rule 326, the current judge needs to remove one label > from the list of valid labels. This would normally be Ross, but Ross has > become a Reyalp. This task now falls to Rich, who must remove one label > from the list of labels. I remove 'Rock'. According to my records, Jeff was labelled 'Rock' and is now unlabelled. > When Jon rejoined, we were brought up to 4 > participants. Rule 326 has us add a label to the list of valid labels. > This task goes again to Rich. I add 'Rock', and attach that label to Row 8. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 19 11:06:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 18:06:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 71004 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 18:06:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 18:06:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 18:06:31 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000B92F7@m...>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:06:01 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA22676; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:05:58 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 332 - 337 : Final Form References: Date: 19 Apr 2001 14:05:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:25:54 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 104 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > Seeing no further discussion on my proposal, I declare the > following to be the final form of my proposal. This is the same as my > third amendment. No changes have been made. Voting is now open. > > ---------------------------------------- > > Proposal 332 - 337 > > --- > > Rule Change 332 > > Create a new rule with the following text: > > A proposal is adopted if and only if at least one of its rule-changes is > adopted. > > --- > > Rule Change 333 > > Amend Rule 206 to read as follows: > > When a proposal is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. > > --- > > Rule Change 334 > > Amend rule 212 by striking the second paragraph and replacing it > with the following text: > > When judgement has been invoked, all required communication from all > players is no longer required, except for judgement from the judge, and > consent to continue the game. For purposes of this rule, such > communication is considered "previously required communication". > Previously required communication is communication that would normally be > required to be sent within a specific time frame, but currently has no > time restrictions. Such communication can still be sent, it is just not > currently required to be sent. > > The game may not continue without the consent of a majority all the > players, excluding the judge. Once consent has been received, all > previously required communication now becomes required communication and > it is trated as if this is the moment such communication can initially > occur. Note that this does not nullify any required communication that has > already been set, but simply extends the time frame in which the remaining > required communication must take place. This takes precedence over rule > 303. > > --- > > Rule Change 335 > > Amend Rule 327 to read as follows: > > When a proposal is announced that was not created using the suggestion > list, a period of discussion regarding that proposal begins. This > discussion period must last a minimum of 24 hours. During the discussion > period players may argue against the proposal and/or suggest amendments to > the proposal. Also, the proponent of the proposal is allowed to amend > their proposal by announcing new versions of it. > > After the required 24 hour period is up, unless the judge has been asked > to do so, the proponent of the proposal may end the discussion at any time > by announcing the final form of their proposal. Even if no discussion > takes place, the proponent must still announce what the final form of the > proposal is, even if it is the same as the originally announced version. > At that time, and no earlier, voting begins. Any votes received before > this time do not count unless the voter specifically stated otherwise. > Once voting has started, the proposal cannot be altered. > > When a proposal is announced that was created using the suggestions list, > there is no discussion. The announced version is the final version and > voting begins immediately. As above, once voting has started, the proposal > cannot be altered. > > --- > > Rule Change 336 > > Repeal Rule 205. > > --- > > Rule Change 337 > > Transmute Rule 111. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 11:07:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 18:07:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 38330 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 18:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 18:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 18:07:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13141 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:07:59 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:07:59 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Players Exiting/Entering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 19 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > I remove 'Rock'. According to my records, Jeff was labelled > 'Rock' and is now unlabelled. Rich also had the label "Rock" and is now unlabelled. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Apr 19 11:19:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67135 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 18:19:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 18:19:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 18:19:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [10.1.2.43] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2001 18:19:18 -0000 Date: 19 Apr 2001 18:19:16 -0000 Message-ID: <987704356.4346.84970.a3@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Notify: From: To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /n_omic.tar Uploaded by : JJWeston@T... Description : Archive of N_omic Website 4/19/2001 You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/n_omic.tar To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, JJWeston@T... From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 11:21:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 18:21:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 75230 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 18:21:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 18:21:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 18:21:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13178 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:10 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Hmm... Unlabelled during my turn... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I became unlabelled during my turn. Since its still my turn, does that mean I get a new label at this time? From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 19 11:29:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 18:29:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 92993 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 18:29:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 18:29:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 18:29:29 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000B9545@m...>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:29:29 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA26985; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:29:28 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Hmm... Unlabelled during my turn... References: Date: 19 Apr 2001 14:29:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:10 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Weston writes: > I became unlabelled during my turn. Since its still my turn, does > that mean I get a new label at this time? The rule's not entirely unambiguous, but I think you do. If there are no objections, I'll do that. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 19 18:12:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 01:12:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 79331 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 01:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 01:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 01:12:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13709 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:12:22 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:12:22 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Hmm... Unlabelled during my turn... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 19 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > If there are no objections, I'll do that. No objections from me. From jjweston@g... Fri Apr 20 13:41:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 20:41:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 17515 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 20:41:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 20:41:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 20:41:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14990 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:41:44 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Waiting for Jon's Vote Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Jon, We need your vote on Proposal 332 - 337. From jjweston@g... Sat Apr 21 12:10:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 19:10:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 35828 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 19:10:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 19:10:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 19:10:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01125 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:10:42 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:10:42 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: N_omic Web Site is Back Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Turns out the down time was less than expected. Everything should be up and running again. On another note, I assume I have been labeled and have marked me as such an the players page. From jjweston@g... Mon Apr 23 17:42:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 00:42:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 31126 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 00:42:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 00:42:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 00:42:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09062 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:42:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Results of Proposal 332 - 337 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston With 2 votes for and 0 votes against, proposal 332 - 337 passes. Rule 332 is created. Rule 206 is amended to rule 333. Rule 212 is amended to rule 334. Rule 327 is amended to rule 335. Rule 205 is repealed. Rule 111 is transmuted to rule 337. Jeff gains 46 points for receiving 100% favorable votes. Jon Grimm did not vote within the required time frame. He loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. Jeff has 222 points. Being the first player to acheive 200 (positive) points, Jeff is the winner according to rule 208. All players have their points reset to 0 and their number of Groks set to 50, except for Jeff who has his number of Groks set to 70. An interesting note, rule 312 does not mention Reyalps. The points and Groks of all Reyalps are not adjusted. The game continues with Jeff's fourth phase. In case there is some disagreement on my interpretation of the rules, I will refrain from clearing the point and Grok totals at this time. I will update the ruleset with the latest changes however. From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 24 14:56:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 21:56:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 82151 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 21:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 21:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 21:56:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10431 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:56:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:56:45 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Actions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I have finished updating the ruleset with the results of my last proposal. Seeing no objection to my interpretation of the rules regarding winning, I update the gamestate as follows: Rich Holmes loses 188 points. Rich Holmes loses 157 Groks. Rich Holmes gains 50 Groks. Jeff Weston loses 222 points. Jeff Weston loses 29 Groks. Jeff Weston gains 70 Groks. No change to Jon Grimm or Ross Schulman. From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 24 14:58:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 21:58:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 8445 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 21:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 21:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 21:58:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10439 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:58:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:58:13 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: My Turn - Phase 4 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I move from (14, 18) to (15, 17) for a cost of 8*7 + 10 = 66 Groks. From jjweston@g... Tue Apr 24 14:58:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 21:58:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 27182 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 21:58:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 21:58:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 21:58:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10447 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:58:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I make the following suggestion: Repeal rule 337. From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 26 08:56:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 26 Apr 2001 15:56:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 87218 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 15:56:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2001 15:56:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 15:56:23 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000E19E3@m...>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:56:22 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20140; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:56:21 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Anyone home? Date: 26 Apr 2001 11:56:21 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 10 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Jon's reappearance seems to have been short-lived. Is there anyone out there but Jeff? Frankly, I don't think I'm interested in 2-person Nomic. Even 3 people seems too few to me. -- Doctroid From htowsner@s... Thu Apr 26 09:27:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: htowsner@s... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 26 Apr 2001 16:27:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 88571 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 16:27:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Apr 2001 16:27:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.14.23) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 16:27:47 -0000 Received: from [128.12.55.129] (toyon-00-119.Stanford.EDU [128.12.55.129]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3QGRkq10897 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: htowsner@h... Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:27:44 -0700 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Anyone home? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Henry Towsner This restarted at the worst possible time for me (I have two exams tomorrow and I'm doing work for our student government which will consume my life for most of the next month). I am interested in playing, but I have no idea what's been going on. -- Henry Towsner The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous. From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 26 09:43:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 26 Apr 2001 16:43:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 54270 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 16:43:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2001 16:43:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 16:43:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12440 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:43:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:43:53 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Anyone home? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 26 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Jon's reappearance seems to have been short-lived. > > Is there anyone out there but Jeff? > > Frankly, I don't think I'm interested in 2-person Nomic. Even 3 > people seems too few to me. I too am not interested in two person Nomic. Perhaps its time for a rule mandating a hibernating state on anything less than 3 or 4 players. Or perhaps we draft a rule to end the game. It seems like too few people are interested to keep it going. From jjweston@g... Thu Apr 26 18:00:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 27 Apr 2001 01:00:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 55846 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2001 01:00:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2001 01:00:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 01:00:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13216 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:00:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:00:44 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Need consequences for my move... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston Waiting for Rich to announce consequences. If Rich fails to announce them in time, N_omic will likely fall into a game ending paradoxical state with only one player. The judge needs to announce the consequences of my move, however, a player cannot be a judge during their own turn. Not that I'm saying this is a particularly bad thing. It looks like this Nomic may have run its course. From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 26 18:29:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 27 Apr 2001 01:29:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 91727 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2001 01:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Apr 2001 01:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 01:29:30 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.000E545E@m...>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:29:30 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA09267; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:29:29 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Need consequences for my move... References: Date: 26 Apr 2001 21:29:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: Weston's message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:00:44 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 12 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... No consequences. But I'm going to call myself a Reyalp from now until May 17. As Jeff says, it's unclear what happens to the game when I do that. Hmm, maybe the problems will go away if Jeff becomes a Reyalp too? I'll return to Player status, perhaps even before May 17, if and only if there are at least a couple other people serious about continuing the game. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Fri Apr 27 13:55:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 27 Apr 2001 20:55:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 82732 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2001 20:55:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2001 20:55:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 20:55:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA14638 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 05:55:28 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 05:55:28 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Need consequences for my move... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 26 Apr 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > No consequences. Hmm... I think Ross should be "Thrown Back" since I'm landing on the same square that he currently occupies. Would you mind reviewing the consequences? > But I'm going to call myself a Reyalp from now until May 17. As Jeff > says, it's unclear what happens to the game when I do that. Hmm, > maybe the problems will go away if Jeff becomes a Reyalp too? Hmm... There may be other problems with zero players... ;-) Since the problems I discovered regarding one-player play only affect phase 5, I can probably get away with passing a rule putting the game into a hibernation state before serious problems arise. From Sxejmaso@a... Tue May 08 17:18:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 9 May 2001 00:18:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 92328 invoked from network); 9 May 2001 00:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 May 2001 00:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 May 2001 00:18:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 May 2001 00:18:17 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 00:18:16 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I am so sorry:( Message-ID: <9da2c8+dtj1@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 111 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.167.136.241 From: Sxejmaso@a... My computer crashed the day after I announced me return. Maybe it is time for me to quit trying to play. JAG From JJWeston@T... Wed May 09 12:22:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: JJWeston@T... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 9 May 2001 19:22:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 19082 invoked from network); 9 May 2001 19:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 May 2001 19:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mother.thoughtworks.com) (204.178.39.204) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 May 2001 19:21:57 -0000 Subject: Re: [n_omic] I am so sorry:( To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:21:53 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mother/ThoughtWorks.COM/US(Release 5.0.7 |March 21, 2001) at 05/09/2001 02:31:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: JJWeston@T... Well, if you hop in now, we may be able to get Rich Holmes to hop in as well. - - - Jeffrey J. Weston jjweston@t... PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc - - - Sxejmaso@a... com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com cc: 05/08/2001 Subject: [n_omic] I am so sorry:( 05:18 PM Please respond to n_omic My computer crashed the day after I announced me return. Maybe it is time for me to quit trying to play. JAG To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From sxejmaso@n... Wed May 09 19:04:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: sxejmaso@n... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 02:04:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 92662 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 02:03:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2001 02:03:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-ip02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.160) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 02:03:45 -0000 Received: from tot-tq.proxy.aol.com (tot-tq.proxy.aol.com [152.163.201.1]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id WAA14874 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 22:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nts-online.net (AC9EC10B.ipt.aol.com [172.158.193.11]) by tot-tq.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f4A238r03186 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 22:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3AF9F7C2.4E8CFA26@n...> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:06:58 -0500 X-Sender: "Jim Morgan" (Unverified) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I am so sorry:( References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-From: Sxejmaso@a... From: Jim Morgan JJWeston@T... wrote: > > Well, if you hop in now, we may be able to get Rich Holmes to hop in > as well. > > - - - Barring any major catastrophes I am in. Rich? JAG From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 10:14:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 17:14:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 78259 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 17:14:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 May 2001 17:14:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 17:14:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08318 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:14:45 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Catching up on game events... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston As of the last website update, we were waiting for the consequences of Jeff's move. On April 26th, Rich announced that there were no consequences. There was a question regarding the corectness of the consequences, but judgement was not invoked, so the consequences stand. Jeff moves from (14, 18) to (15, 17) for a cost of 66 Groks. Jeff is the player at the highest Y coordinate, so the 66 Groks are distributed to him. Jeff had already submitted his addition to the N_omic Epic Poem, so this completes his turn. On April 26th Rich Holmes announced his desire to become a Reyalp with an announced time limit of May 17th. Rich loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. Rich's suggestion is removed from the suggestions list. At that time, it became Jeff's turn again, since he was the only player. On April 29th, the 72 hour time limit for a required communication expired for Jeff Weston. In this case, he failed to announce how many rule change proposals he was purchasing. Jeff loses 10 points and becomes a Reyalp. Jeff's suggestion is removed from the suggestions list. At that time, we have no players in the game... On May 8th, the time limit for leaving Reyalp status expired for Ross Schulman. Ross is dropped from the game. Jon Grimm has an X coordinate greater than or equal to 15. His X coordinate is reduced by five. Files 15 to 19 are then removed from the board. This brings us to a total of 3 participants. According to rule 326, one label needs to be removed from the list of valid labels. This needs to be done by the current judge. Since there are no players, and thus no judges, this action will have to be delayed until there is a judge. From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 10:17:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 17:17:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 43918 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 17:16:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2001 17:16:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 17:16:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08335 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:16:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:16:35 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I am so sorry:( In-Reply-To: <3AF9F7C2.4E8CFA26@n...> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On Wed, 9 May 2001, Jim Morgan wrote: > Barring any major catastrophes I am in. Jon Grimm has announced his desire to leave Reyalp status and become a player. Being the only player in the game, it is now Jon Grimm's turn. From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 10:19:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 17:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 48939 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 17:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2001 17:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 17:18:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08349 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:18:19 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:18:19 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Want to become a player again... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I announce my desire to leave Reyalp status and become a Player. Since it is currently Jon Grimm's turn, I become the current judge. From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 10:21:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 17:21:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 56109 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 17:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2001 17:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 17:21:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08359 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:21:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:21:04 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Removing a Label Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston As the current judge, I must remove a label from the list of valid labels. I remove the label "Stapler". Will someone please let me know if I am labeled with that label? From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 10:22:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 17:22:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 98201 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 17:22:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 May 2001 17:22:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 17:22:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08369 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:22:21 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:22:21 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jeff's Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I make the following suggestion: Repeal rule 337. From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 10:26:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 17:26:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 67492 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 17:26:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 May 2001 17:26:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 17:26:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08383 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:26:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:26:04 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Jon Grimm is now Labeled Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston I have sent out via private email the label I have placed on Jon Grimm's forehead. Please let me know if it was not received. From rsholmes@m... Thu May 10 15:31:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 22:31:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 31067 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 22:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 May 2001 22:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 22:31:08 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0012FE71@m...>; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:31:08 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA18765; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:31:07 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I am so sorry:( References: <3AF9F7C2.4E8CFA26@n...> Date: 10 May 2001 18:31:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: Jim Morgan's message of "Wed, 09 May 2001 21:06:58 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Jim Morgan writes: > JJWeston@T... wrote: > > > > Well, if you hop in now, we may be able to get Rich Holmes to hop in > > as well. > > > > - - - > > Barring any major catastrophes I am in. > > Rich? Maybe, but not before May 17. In fact, probably later. My Reyalp status expires May 17, though. So: 1. I hereby return from Reyalp status. 2. I hereby become a Reyalp, expiring 21 days from today on May 31. -- Doctroid From jjweston@g... Thu May 10 15:33:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@g... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 10 May 2001 22:33:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 14821 invoked from network); 10 May 2001 22:33:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 May 2001 22:33:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thoughtworks.net) (63.79.190.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2001 22:33:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by thoughtworks.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09062 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:33:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I am so sorry:( In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Weston On 10 May 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > Maybe, but not before May 17. In fact, probably later. > > My Reyalp status expires May 17, though. So: > > 1. I hereby return from Reyalp status. Welcome back. > 2. I hereby become a Reyalp, expiring 21 days from today on May 31. You lose another 10 points and become a Reyalp again. From Sxejmaso@a... Thu May 10 21:09:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sxejmaso@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 11 May 2001 04:09:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 63926 invoked from network); 11 May 2001 04:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 May 2001 04:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 May 2001 04:09:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Sxejmaso@a... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 May 2001 04:09:21 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 04:09:17 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: uh... OK... Message-ID: <9dfold+dk3n@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 587 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 172.186.204.218 From: Sxejmaso@a... Here is the $50 question... Do we want to just call Weston the winner and walk away or do we want to go on hiatus until 1 June or so? I have a couple of ideas for a new Nomic that might arouse more interest than this one did one involves Chess and the other involves making a nation or a city. Anyone interested? The idea for the nation can be found at (Unverified) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Turn Phase One References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Morgan I will not be purchasing additional proposals. JAG From sxejmaso@n... Sun May 13 18:31:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: sxejmaso@n... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 14 May 2001 01:31:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 17014 invoked from network); 14 May 2001 01:31:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 May 2001 01:31:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shorts.nts-online.net) (216.167.161.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 May 2001 01:31:03 -0000 Received: from nts-online.net (dialup-lbb-0811.nts-online.net [216.167.135.175]) by shorts.nts-online.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4E1K1K06129 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 20:20:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3AFF3641.837B1499@n...> Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 20:34:57 -0500 X-Sender: "Jim Morgan" (Unverified) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "n_omic@yahoogroups.com" Subject: Turn Phase Two--Proposal 338 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Morgan ---BEGIN--- Play is hereby suspended from the passage of this proposal until 4 June 2001 CE or until the game has five active players. ---END--- I am writing this off the cuff and away from my home computer so my memory of the rules may be off. JAG From dmarsh3000@h... Fri Jun 01 20:53:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: dmarsh3000@h... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 2 Jun 2001 03:53:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 15692 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2001 03:53:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2001 03:53:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jun 2001 03:53:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: dmarsh3000@h... Received: from [10.1.10.101] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Jun 2001 03:53:42 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 03:53:40 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Dead Nomic? Join mine! Message-ID: <9f9o04+jinf@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 526 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 65.7.162.112 From: "Dan Marsh" I'm casting about the mailing lists of other Nomics . . . It seems that n_omic, like others I've visited tonight, may be kaput. I'm starting a Nomic which attempts to model a real legislature. While I said I'd start the game with four players (I've now got three who aren't me), a legislature should have more members. The official unofficial Web site is at http://members.home.com/dmarsh3000/Legislative_Nomic.htm . The mailing list is here at Yahoo!, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leg- nomic . Hope to see you! DM From jjweston@k... Sat Jun 02 18:27:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 3 Jun 2001 01:27:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 17358 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2001 01:27:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2001 01:27:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (208.185.177.103) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Jun 2001 01:27:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f531OC400914 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:24:12 -0700 Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Status of the game... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Both John Grimm and myself are currently Reyalps. Jonh's status expires on June 7th, while my status expires on June 10th. Rich Holmes' Reyalp status expired on June 1st, and he was dropped from the game at that time. Does anyone still have a desire to play, or shall we call it dead and gone? From rsholmes@m... Tue Jun 05 08:25:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 15:25:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 92003 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 15:25:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 15:25:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 15:25:39 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0019B8CE@m...>; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:25:39 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04113; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:25:38 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Status of the game... References: Date: 05 Jun 2001 11:25:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Jeffrey J. Weston"'s message of "Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:24:12 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Jeffrey J. Weston" writes: > Both John Grimm and myself are currently Reyalps. Jonh's status > expires on June 7th, while my status expires on June 10th. Rich Holmes' > Reyalp status expired on June 1st, and he was dropped from the game at > that time. Does anyone still have a desire to play, or shall we call it > dead and gone? I am willing to resume if a few other people are. But I think a game like this needs at least, say, four or five committed participants. -- Doctroid From jjweston@k... Tue Jun 05 11:50:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 18:50:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 85860 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 18:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 18:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (208.185.177.103) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 18:50:29 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f55Ikce06910 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:46:38 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:46:38 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Status of the game... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" On 5 Jun 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > I am willing to resume if a few other people are. But I think a game > like this needs at least, say, four or five committed participants. I agree. Looks like we have us two who would like to resume if we had enough people. Possibly Jon as well. I don't know if we can get anyone else. It's possible that some of the complex portions of the ruleset may be turning newcomers away. I've been contemplating starting a new Nomic based upon the current state of the N_omic rules, but pruning it down to a basic ruleset and starting over. Would there be any interest in doing this? The ruleset would still reflect the basic Suber ruleset that we started with, but would include several of the clarifications and improvements we made upon the way. From rsholmes@m... Tue Jun 05 13:19:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 20:19:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 74692 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 20:18:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 20:18:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 20:18:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2001 20:18:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:18:59 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: DocNomic redux Message-ID: <9fjerj+mp9s@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 722 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: rsholmes@m... There have been some stirrings of interest in getting DocNomic going again, ending the hiatus that began in February. One possibility would be to decree an end to Round 1, pare back to a smaller and simpler ruleset, and start Round 2. One problem DocNomic had (or feature, depending on how you look at it) was a fast pace: many game events took place on some days and it was difficult to keep up. We'll be looking at ways to keep the pace under control. So, anyone else want to get in on it? For those new here, DocNomic is an Imperial Nomic variant, though with more "vox populi" than is customary for Imperial. For more information see the web site: . From jjweston@k... Fri Jun 08 11:17:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 8 Jun 2001 18:17:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 77919 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2001 18:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Jun 2001 18:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (208.185.177.103) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Jun 2001 18:17:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f58ID2111910 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:13:02 -0700 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: SPAM - Starting Blind Toby Nomic Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" Greetings, I apologize for the SPAM. I have recently started a new Nomic by the name of Blind Toby Nomic and based upon the concepts of the original Blind Nomic. The main point of the game is that most of the information regarding the ruleset and gamestate is not revealed to the players. The reason I am posting this announcement here is that many of you are familiar with my style of game administration. I felt if you appreciated how I ran N_omic, you may be interested in other games I am running. Of course, if you hated how I ran N_omic, what are you still doing here? :) From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 02 16:47:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47291 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 00:47:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2001 00:47:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.56) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2001 00:47:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [10.1.10.64] by n6.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2001 00:47:11 -0000 Date: 3 Dec 2001 00:47:08 -0000 Message-ID: <1007340428.282.57398.w9@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Notify: From: To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /Pure n_omic Uploaded by : jmorgantx@p... Description : Initial ruleset You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/Pure%20n_omic To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, jmorgantx@p... From jmorgantx@p... Sun Dec 02 16:55:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 3 Dec 2001 00:55:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 73866 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 00:55:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2001 00:55:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n2.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.52) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2001 00:55:34 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jmorgantx@p... Received: from [10.1.4.68] by n2.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2001 00:55:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:55:29 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Pure n_omic Message-ID: <9ueii1+dgru@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 639 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.143 X-eGroups-Announce: yes From: jmorgantx@p... X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Season's Greetings, I am very interested in playing a very short round (in the neighbourhood of one or two months long) of Nomic based upon the Pure Nomic ruleset. The Pure Nomic ruleset is: 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. Players take turns suggesting a new rule. I would like to play this during the holiday season when many folks are home from university and have time to play. I think play should begin when five people are interested. Please contact me at jmorgantx@p... or view the slightly cluttered n_omic site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic Thank you for your time, Jim Morgan From jmorgantx@p... Sun Dec 02 16:55:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 3 Dec 2001 00:55:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 57056 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 00:55:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2001 00:55:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n26.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.76) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2001 00:55:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jmorgantx@p... Received: from [10.1.2.207] by n26.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2001 00:51:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:55:43 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Pure n_omic Message-ID: <9ueiif+4fud@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 639 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.143 X-eGroups-Announce: yes From: jmorgantx@p... X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Season's Greetings, I am very interested in playing a very short round (in the neighbourhood of one or two months long) of Nomic based upon the Pure Nomic ruleset. The Pure Nomic ruleset is: 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. Players take turns suggesting a new rule. I would like to play this during the holiday season when many folks are home from university and have time to play. I think play should begin when five people are interested. Please contact me at jmorgantx@p... or view the slightly cluttered n_omic site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic Thank you for your time, Jim Morgan From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 03 19:30:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 4 Feb 2002 03:30:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 12180 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 03:30:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2002 03:30:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n4.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.54) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 03:30:51 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.156] by n4.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2002 03:30:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 03:30:47 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Pure n_omic Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 242 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.130 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of intent and we will begin. Sorry for the delay but I had some real life issues during the last couple of months and had to delay any play I might have been able to do. From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 03 19:31:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 4 Feb 2002 03:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 13499 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 03:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2002 03:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.56) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 03:31:05 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.133] by n6.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2002 03:31:04 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 03:31:00 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Pure n_omic Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 242 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.130 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of intent and we will begin. Sorry for the delay but I had some real life issues during the last couple of months and had to delay any play I might have been able to do. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 03 19:35:53 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22348 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 03:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2002 03:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.57) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 03:35:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.112] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2002 03:35:51 -0000 Date: 4 Feb 2002 03:35:47 -0000 Message-ID: <1012793747.280.27193.w29@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Ruleset Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : The Ruleset for Pure n_omic You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Ruleset To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From stavrogin@t... Tue Feb 05 12:00:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 5 Feb 2002 20:00:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 20855 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2002 20:00:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2002 20:00:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.153) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 20:00:00 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.0.203) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C0343CC01B544F2 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:59:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c1ae7f$2e4d9300$cb000a3e@s...> To: References: Subject: R: [n_omic] Pure n_omic Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:44:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin > Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of > intent and we will begin. Sure, let's play. I advice in advance that perhaps I won't be able to follow the game much in a fairly close future. To avoid any inconvenience. Stefano From josh@w... Wed Feb 06 06:21:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 6 Feb 2002 14:21:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 55725 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 14:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2002 14:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 14:21:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 6025 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 14:21:42 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 14:21:42 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:21:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:21:39 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Pure n_omic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I'm in. Lets start. Fenrir On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, redneck_penguin wrote: > Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of > intent and we will begin. > > Sorry for the delay but I had some real life issues during the last > couple of months and had to delay any play I might have been able to > do. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > From adistius@y... Wed Feb 06 08:34:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 6 Feb 2002 16:34:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 79235 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 16:34:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2002 16:34:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11603.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.55) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 16:34:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20020206163411.80555.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11603.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:34:11 PST Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:34:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Pure n_omic To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius I'm up for this. Let's play. David ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com From ragnarok@p... Wed Feb 06 16:39:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 7 Feb 2002 00:39:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 31399 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 00:39:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 00:39:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 00:39:32 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ACBE4D0122; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:39:26 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Pure n_omic Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:39:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of >intent and we will begin. Yes. I am interested. From jmorgantx@p... Wed Feb 06 20:32:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 04:32:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 54841 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 04:32:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 04:32:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout2-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.101) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 04:32:53 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0113.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.113]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g174Wqj125902 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:32:52 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c1af90$b9f6df80$71b0fe3f@c...> To: References: <1013016380.318.72658.m12@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:34:25 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Very good. As the rules have no rule for the number of player might I suggest we begin with who is here. **** Here is my proposal: Rule #2 is repealed. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, 06 February, 2002 11:26 Subject: [n_omic] Digest Number 143 > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There are 3 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. R: Pure n_omic > From: "Stefano Artesi" > 2. Re: Pure n_omic > From: josh@w... > 3. Re: Pure n_omic > From: David Riley > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:44:10 +0100 > From: "Stefano Artesi" > Subject: R: Pure n_omic > > > Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of > > intent and we will begin. > > Sure, let's play. I advice in advance that perhaps I won't be able to follow > the game much in a fairly close future. To avoid any inconvenience. > > Stefano > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:21:39 -0600 (CST) > From: josh@w... > Subject: Re: Pure n_omic > > I'm in. Lets start. > > Fenrir > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, redneck_penguin wrote: > > > Would all those still interested in the game please post a message of > > intent and we will begin. > > > > Sorry for the delay but I had some real life issues during the last > > couple of months and had to delay any play I might have been able to > > do. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 08:34:11 -0800 (PST) > From: David Riley > Subject: Re: Pure n_omic > > > I'm up for this. Let's play. > > David > > ===== > --- > David Riley > adistius@y... > > "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 07 03:32:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 11:32:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 12583 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 11:32:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 11:32:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 11:32:39 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A5D74B0012A; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 06:32:39 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 06:32:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <000701c1af90$b9f6df80$71b0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Very good. As the rules have no rule for the number of player might I >suggest we begin with who is here. I support it. From adistius@y... Thu Feb 07 06:46:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 14:46:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 65254 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 14:46:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 14:46:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.61) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 14:46:12 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.157] by n11.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Feb 2002 14:46:12 -0000 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:46:08 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 444 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 64.61.53.102 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius Very well. I support the repeal of rule #2. Now the tricky bit. At the moment we have no mechanism for determining when all players have agreed to the change in the rule set. Yahoo! claims we have 12 members -- two of whom seem to be Jeff Weston. Anyway, do we have to wait for 12 agreements? Or 11? Do we know if all the people on the members list are currently reading their email from here? Anyway, I'm happy to have begun play. From josh@w... Thu Feb 07 07:02:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 15:02:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 28489 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 15:02:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 15:02:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 15:02:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 28632 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 15:02:35 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 15:02:35 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:02:32 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:02:31 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt Very true. In fact, we have no definition of what a player is. Since, James' proposal is to repeal a rule and not the suggestion of a new rule, it doesn't fall under rule 2, therefore I will take my turn to suggest that rule #3 read: "A player is any person subscribed to the Offical mailing list, who has announced their intention to be a player and has posted at least one message to the list within the last two weeks." Incidently, I support the repeal of rule #2, with a caution. I have been involved with too many nomics where the number of proposals become overwhelming and took away from the game because you just couldn't keep up. If this game gets to that point we should consider re-instituting some type of limits, but until then I say bye-bye to #2. (I also, obviously, support my own proposal) Josh On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, adistius wrote: > Very well. I support the repeal of rule #2. > > Now the tricky bit. At the moment we have no mechanism for > determining when all players have agreed to the change in the rule > set. Yahoo! claims we have 12 members -- two of whom seem to be Jeff > Weston. Anyway, do we have to wait for 12 agreements? Or 11? > > Do we know if all the people on the members list are currently > reading their email from here? > > Anyway, I'm happy to have begun play. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > From adistius@y... Thu Feb 07 07:13:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 15:13:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 20655 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 15:13:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 15:13:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11603.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.55) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 15:13:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20020207151308.68795.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11603.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:13:08 PST Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:13:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius --- josh@w... wrote: > "A player is any person subscribed to the Offical > mailing list, who has > announced their intention to be a player and has > posted at least one > message to the list within the last two weeks." > Actually, it says we take turns suggesting new rules. It doesn't say that we have to wait until a suggestion passes or fails before suggesting the next change. So, even if your quite nice distinction between the repeal of a rule and the suggestion of a rule isn't persuasive, I'd say you are in the clear. Regardless, I support the addition of Rule #3 as written. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com From stavrogin@t... Thu Feb 07 12:07:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 20:07:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 90457 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 20:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 20:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.147) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 20:07:35 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.1.251) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C605473000E7A56 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:15:19 +0100 Message-ID: <005f01c1b00b$46a79080$fb010a3e@s...> To: References: <20020207151308.68795.qmail@w...> Subject: R: [n_omic] Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:11:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin I agree to the repeal of rule #2 and the addition of rule #3. Stefano From jjweston@k... Thu Feb 07 13:52:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjweston@k... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 21:52:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 68741 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 21:52:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 21:52:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kenny.sir-toby.com) (64.139.5.159) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 21:52:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (jjweston@l...) by kenny.sir-toby.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g17Lfxj03709 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:41:59 -0800 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:41:59 -0800 (PST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Sir Toby X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=54217374 X-Yahoo-Profile: westonje While I may be subscribed, it was for the purposes of playing in the original N_omic game. I am not playing in this new N_omic game and have never indicated I am doing so. I am merely watching at this point. I would suggest that only those people who have indicated they are playing, are playing. BTW - I am Jeff Weston, and yes, I am subscribed to this group with two email addresses. Its a throwback to the days when my email wasn't working so well. I may unsubscribe the other address as this account seems to be working fine. On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, adistius wrote: > Very well. I support the repeal of rule #2. > > Now the tricky bit. At the moment we have no mechanism for > determining when all players have agreed to the change in the rule > set. Yahoo! claims we have 12 members -- two of whom seem to be Jeff > Weston. Anyway, do we have to wait for 12 agreements? Or 11? > > Do we know if all the people on the members list are currently > reading their email from here? > > Anyway, I'm happy to have begun play. From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 07 13:55:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 21:55:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 66229 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 21:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 21:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 21:55:28 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A7D4CE00124; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:55:32 -0500 To: Subject: Rule 3 (was: RE: [n_omic] Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:55:33 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >"A player is any person subscribed to the Offical mailing list, who has >announced their intention to be a player and has posted at least one >message to the list within the last two weeks." I agree to this addition. From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 07 14:12:29 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 22:12:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 4758 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 22:12:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 22:12:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 22:12:28 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABD058A0110; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:12:32 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:12:33 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <000701c1af90$b9f6df80$71b0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Rule #2 is repealed. It appears to me that we have agreement from everyone who has expressed playerhood - which means that rule 2 goes bye-bye the instant rule 3 is passed. From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 07 14:18:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 7 Feb 2002 22:18:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 62943 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 22:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2002 22:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 22:18:17 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD2D2720040; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:18:21 -0500 To: Subject: Proposal: rule 4. Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:18:22 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I propose the following Rule 4: A new position will be created, that of Gazjatna. The holder of this position may, at any time, surrender eir Gazjatna-hood to any other player. The duties of the Gazjatna include maintaining a list of the current holders of all positions, as well as a list of all players and how they have voted on any currently pending proposals. The Gazjatna may also renumber the rules as ey see fit, but may not change the text of any rules. Other duties may be conferred upon the Gazjatna by other rules. Non-players are not eligible for Gazjatna-hood, nor are those not subscribed to the n_omic@yahoogroups.com mailing list. I will add the following informal clarification, not part of the rule: the term 'Gazjatna' is copied from the language Lojban, and means 'organizing leader'. Since the proposal of ammendments to currently proposed rule changes does not seem to count as a turn, anyone is welcome to come up with a better term for the Gazjatna, and if I like it it will be used and considered a replacement for all instances of the word Gazjatna in my proposal. I just couldn't think of a good English term. From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 07 18:37:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 02:37:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 905 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 02:37:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 02:37:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.78) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 02:37:25 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.124] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2002 02:37:25 -0000 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 02:37:24 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 388 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.175 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin --- In n_omic@y..., "Craig" wrote: > >Rule #2 is repealed. > > It appears to me that we have agreement from everyone who has expressed > playerhood - which means that rule 2 goes bye-bye the instant rule 3 is > passed. That is my count too. I support the repeal of Rule #2 and I support proposed Rule #3. I think that makes both proposals official now. James Morgan From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Feb 07 18:52:55 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8092 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 02:52:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 02:52:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.74) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 02:52:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.150] by n24.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2002 02:52:46 -0000 Date: 8 Feb 2002 02:52:41 -0000 Message-ID: <1013136761.545.89887.w61@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Current Ruleset for *Pure* N_omic Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Current%20Ruleset%20for%20%2APure%2A%20N_omic To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 07 18:54:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 02:54:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 53065 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 02:54:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 02:54:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 02:54:37 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ADF3C550116; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:54:43 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: PROPOSAL: Repeal rule #2 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:54:43 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >That is my count too. I support the repeal of Rule #2 and I support >proposed Rule #3. I think that makes both proposals official now. Interestingly enough, under the new Rule #3 (is it going to keep that number, btw?), you are not actually a player yet, which when this nomic is more mature and ready for such beaurocratic games I at least will interpret as doing really weird things to rule #2. You *are* going to register as a player, right? From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Feb 07 18:56:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6941 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 02:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 02:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n22.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.72) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 02:56:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.34] by n22.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2002 02:56:04 -0000 Date: 8 Feb 2002 02:56:02 -0000 Message-ID: <1013136962.254.34986.w13@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Current Players Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Current%20Players To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 07 19:04:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 03:04:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 72222 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 03:04:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 03:04:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 03:04:57 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0175.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.175]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1834t942572 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:04:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01c1b04d$9c5e9860$afb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: PROPOSAL: Rule 5 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:06:27 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1B01B.4F24C560" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1B01B.4F24C560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The official mailing list for this game is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_= omic which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com . ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1B01B.4F24C560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The official mailing list for this= game is=20 http://groups.yahoo.com/group= /n_omic=20 which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com=20 .
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1B01B.4F24C560-- From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 07 19:06:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 03:06:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 80877 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 03:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 03:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 03:06:22 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0B5C810116; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:06:29 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: Rule 5 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:06:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <000c01c1b04d$9c5e9860$afb0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >The official mailing list for this game is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com . I support it. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Feb 07 19:32:33 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96472 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 03:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 03:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n32.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.82) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 03:32:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.180] by n32.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2002 03:32:32 -0000 Date: 8 Feb 2002 03:32:28 -0000 Message-ID: <1013139148.490.52704.w89@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Players and votes.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Players%20and%20votes.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 07 19:50:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 03:50:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 72489 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 03:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 03:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 03:50:26 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0175.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.175]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g183oO992840 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:50:25 -0500 Message-ID: <001b01c1b053$f57452e0$afb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Announcing my intention to play Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 21:51:50 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C1B021.A64DA400" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C1B021.A64DA400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I posted this once from the website but yahoo has a habit of eating message= s posted from the website so if this is a duplicate for you my apologies. It is my intention to play this game. James Morgan ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C1B021.A64DA400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I posted this once from the websit= e but=20 yahoo has a habit of eating messages posted from the website so  if th= is is=20 a duplicate for you my apologies.
 
It is my intention to play this=20 game.
 
James Morgan
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C1B021.A64DA400-- From josh@w... Thu Feb 07 20:56:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 04:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 21209 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 04:56:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 04:56:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 04:56:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 29995 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 04:56:23 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 04:56:23 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([207.172.77.167]) by wmffl.com ; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:56:22 -0600 Message-ID: <3C635A54.20406@w...> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:55:48 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: rule 4. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt Craig wrote: > I propose the following Rule 4: > > > A new position will be created, that of Gazjatna. The holder of this > position may, at any time, surrender eir Gazjatna-hood to any other player. > The duties of the Gazjatna include maintaining a list of the current holders > of all positions, as well as a list of all players and how they have voted > on any currently pending proposals. The Gazjatna may also renumber the rules > as ey see fit, but may not change the text of any rules. Other duties may be > conferred upon the Gazjatna by other rules. Non-players are not eligible for > Gazjatna-hood, nor are those not subscribed to the n_omic@yahoogroups.com > mailing list. > Uhh, unfortuatly, I can not support this rule as written. The renumbering thing bothers me. While the number of rules doesn't really matter right now, its inevitable that at some point we are going to need to develop a method of handling rules that conflict with each other. Anyone that has played other nomics should be aware that rule number is the common solution to this. So I can't support a rule that allows a single person to change the numbering of rules and therefore potentially the meaning of rules as they interact with each other. Take out that one sentence and I think its a good rule. Josh From josh@w... Thu Feb 07 20:57:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 04:57:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 94312 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 04:57:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 04:57:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 04:57:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 30235 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 04:57:04 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 04:57:04 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([207.172.77.167]) by wmffl.com ; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:57:01 -0600 Message-ID: <3C635A7B.1040305@w...> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:56:27 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: Rule 5 References: <000c01c1b04d$9c5e9860$afb0fe3f@c...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt JAMES MORGAN wrote: > The official mailing list for this game is > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic which is accessible by email at > n_omic@yahoogroups.com .. > Sounds good to me. Josh From ragnarok@p... Fri Feb 08 03:15:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 11:15:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 58407 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 11:15:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 11:15:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 11:15:53 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A37364400FA; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 06:16:03 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposal: rule 4. Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 06:16:01 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3C635A54.20406@w...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Uhh, unfortuatly, I can not support this rule as written. The >renumbering thing bothers me. While the number of rules doesn't really >matter right now, its inevitable that at some point we are going to need >to develop a method of handling rules that conflict with each other. >Anyone that has played other nomics should be aware that rule number is >the common solution to this. So I can't support a rule that allows a >single person to change the numbering of rules and therefore potentially >the meaning of rules as they interact with each other. Take out that >one sentence and I think its a good rule. I had been thinking of it as a way to handle problems like the fact that the rules are currently numbers 1 and 3 - no 2 anymore. But I had forgotten about the rule conflicts that will inevitably arise. So yes, the gazjatna should definitely not get to renumber the rules, and it was foolish of me to put that line in. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Fri Feb 08 22:23:12 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72075 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 06:23:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 06:23:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.64) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 06:23:12 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.140] by n14.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2002 06:25:04 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2002 06:23:11 -0000 Message-ID: <1013235791.605.860.w53@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Players and votes.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : current 09 Feb 00:12 You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Players%20and%20votes.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From stavrogin@t... Sat Feb 09 05:18:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 13:18:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 81240 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 13:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 13:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.149) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 13:18:02 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.1.146) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C60548F0019DE94 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01c1b16b$b1208500$92010a3e@s...> To: References: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: rule 4. Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:52:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin > A new position will be created, that of Gazjatna. Why not simply 'the Watcher'? BTW, I support proposed rule #5. Stefano From ragnarok@p... Sat Feb 09 08:38:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 16:38:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 74696 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 16:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 16:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 16:38:40 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A08F1500066; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 11:38:39 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposal: rule 4. Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:38:39 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002c01c1b16b$b1208500$92010a3e@s...> X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> A new position will be created, that of Gazjatna. >Why not simply 'the Watcher'? >BTW, I support proposed rule #5. Because I didn't think of it. Since it is my change proposal, consider it now to contain the title of Watcher everywhere where it originally used the term Gazjatna. Thank you, Sefano. --Craig Daniel 'I used to go crazy for days at a time now I'm takin' my time with my days.' -Jimmy Buffett pgp public key ID: 0x5C3A1E74 From ragnarok@p... Sat Feb 09 08:40:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 16:40:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 14973 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 16:40:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 16:40:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 16:40:40 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A1073DF0072; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 11:40:39 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposal: rule 4. Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:40:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl BTW, I support my own proposal. From adistius@y... Sat Feb 09 11:37:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 19:37:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 44496 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 19:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 19:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.70) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 19:37:41 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.160] by n20.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2002 19:25:49 -0000 Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 19:37:37 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Rule 4 & 5 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 76 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 63.214.109.156 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius I support Rule 4 as amended at this point. And I support rule five. David From jmorgantx@p... Sat Feb 09 13:11:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 21:11:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 49749 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 21:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 21:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 21:11:55 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0109.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.109]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g19LBs9227456 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:11:54 -0500 Message-ID: <000b01c1b1ae$a3f2aaa0$6db0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: QUESTION: Rule 4 Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:13:33 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B17C.571F1380" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B17C.571F1380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So Craig we changed the Gazjatna to Watcher, right? (I kind of liked Gazjat= na, it was classy) and did you delete the numbering clause? James=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B17C.571F1380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So Craig we changed the Gazjatna t= o=20 Watcher, right? (I kind of liked Gazjatna, it was classy) and did you delet= e the=20 numbering clause?
 
James 
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B17C.571F1380-- From jmorgantx@p... Sat Feb 09 13:21:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 21:21:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 40043 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 21:21:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 21:21:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 21:21:36 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0109.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.109]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g19LLZ9172362 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:21:35 -0500 Message-ID: <001401c1b1af$fe389a00$6db0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: PROPOSAL 6: Putting the rules in order Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:23:14 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C1B17D.B15BDB20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C1B17D.B15BDB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The current ruleset shall read as follows: 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. A player is any person subscribed to the Official mailing list,=20 who has announced their intention to be a player and has posted=20 a message in the last two weeks. 3. The official mailing list for this game is=20 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com Rules which are passed shall be added to the list with the next highest int= eger. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C1B17D.B15BDB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The current ruleset shall read as= =20 follows:
 
1. All players must agree to any c= hanges to=20 the game.
 
2. A player is any person subscrib= ed to the=20 Official mailing list,
   who has announced their intention t= o be=20 a player and has posted
   a message in the last two=20 weeks.
 
3. The official mailing list for t= his game=20 is
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group= /n_omic=20 which
    is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com
 
Rules which are passed shall be ad= ded to=20 the list with the next highest integer.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C1B17D.B15BDB20-- From ragnarok@p... Sat Feb 09 13:58:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 21:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 5236 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 21:58:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 21:58:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 21:58:22 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABAB304001E8; Sat, 09 Feb 2002 16:59:10 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] QUESTION: Rule 4 Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:58:22 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000b01c1b1ae$a3f2aaa0$6db0fe3f@c...> X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >So Craig we changed the Gazjatna to Watcher, right? (I kind of liked Gazjatna, it was classy) and did you delete the numbering clause? Yeah, we did. I don't really care what we call it, though. Gazjatna and Watcher could be declared synonyms, by adding a clause to the end reading "The titles of 'Watcher' and 'Gazjatna', will be used interchangeably and shall refer to the same being and the same subset of eir duties." From jmorgantx@p... Sat Feb 09 14:36:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 9 Feb 2002 22:36:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 53876 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2002 22:36:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2002 22:36:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout2-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.101) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 22:36:17 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0103.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.103]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g19MaFj207808 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:36:15 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c1b1ba$6c2e6da0$67b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: EDIT-Proposal 6 Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:37:52 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C1B188.1E4E4880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C1B188.1E4E4880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry about this but this is closer to what I wanted to say: Proposal 6: Putting the Rules in Order The current ruleset shall be ordered as follows:=20 1. All players must agree to change any changes to the game.=20 2. A player is any person subscribed to the Official mailing list, who has= announced their intention to be a player and has=20 posted a message in the last two weeks.=20 3. The official mailing list for this game is http://groups.yahoo.com/grou= p/n_omic which is accessible by email at=20=20 n_omic@yahoogroups.com The next proposal which passes shall be added to the list with the next hig= hest integer. Then each succeeding proposal which=20 passes will be numbered with the next succeeding highest integer. The newes= t rule will have the highest integer. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C1B188.1E4E4880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry about this but this is close= r to what=20 I wanted to say:
 
Proposal 6: Putting the Rules in=20 Order
 
The current ruleset shall be order= ed as=20 follows:
1. All players must agree to change any changes to the game. <= BR>2.=20 A player is any person subscribed to the Official mailing list,  who h= as=20 announced their intention to be a player and has
posted a message in th= e=20 last two weeks.
3. The official mailing list for this game is  http://groups.yahoo.com/group= /n_omic=20 which  is accessible by email at 
n_omic@yahoogroups.com
The ne= xt=20 proposal which passes shall be added to the list with the next highest inte= ger.=20 Then each succeeding proposal which
passes will be numbered with the ne= xt=20 succeeding highest integer. The newest rule will have the highest=20 integer.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C1B188.1E4E4880-- From ragnarok@p... Sun Feb 10 07:18:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 15:18:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 31403 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 15:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 15:18:37 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AF877D420042; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 10:19:35 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] EDIT-Proposal 6 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 10:18:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <000a01c1b1ba$6c2e6da0$67b0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I support proposal 6 as it currently stands. From stavrogin@t... Sun Feb 10 10:36:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 18:36:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 36072 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 18:36:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 18:36:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.152) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 18:36:02 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.0.185) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C6054A4001E0355 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:35:58 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c1b261$472ba8e0$b9000a3e@s...> To: References: <000a01c1b1ba$6c2e6da0$67b0fe3f@c...> Subject: R: [n_omic] EDIT-Proposal 6 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:29:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B269.37659940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B269.37659940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Two things. 1) If proposal 6 passes, will it be written in the rules? Or will it repeal= instantly after taking effect? 2) It's very annoying that Yahoo sends ads in emails. I receive images that= try to dial up to my server when I read the messages, and so far it happen= s only with James' messages. It's like, if you use html, you send ads in th= e mailboxes. Can you fix that please? Stefano P.S. 3): I'll be away for some days. Until I'm back, I'll be a non-Player, = otherwise you're going to get stuck! If I'm not writing anything until wedn= esday, take it for supporting proposal #6. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B269.37659940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Two things.
 
1) If proposal 6 passes, will it be written in the rules? Or will it r= epeal=20 instantly after taking effect?
 
2) It's very annoying that Yahoo sends ads in emails. I receive images= that=20 try to dial up to my server when I read the messages, and so far it happens= only=20 with James' messages. It's like, if you use html, you send ads in the mailb= oxes.=20 Can you fix that please?
 
Stefano
 
P.S. 3): I'll be away for some days. Until I'm back, I'll be a non-Pla= yer,=20 otherwise you're going to get stuck! If I'm not writing anything until=20 wednesday, take it for supporting proposal #6.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C1B269.37659940-- From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 10 14:19:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 22:19:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 45677 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 22:19:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 22:19:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout5-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.98) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 22:19:52 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0123.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.123]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1AMJp7133118 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 17:19:51 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c1b281$4c945780$7bb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: RE:[n_omic] EDIT: Proposal 6 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:21:23 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin >>>1) If proposal 6 passes, will it be written in the rules? Or will it repeal >>>instantly after taking effect? My intentions were for it to be in the rules. I think the final clause needs to be in the rules. >>>2) It's very annoying that Yahoo sends ads in emails. I receive images that >>>try to dial up to my server when I read the messages, and so far it happens >>>only with James' messages. It's like, if you use html, you send ads in the >>>mailboxes. Can you fix that please? This message is written in the only way I know how to fix the problem. Let me know if it doesn't work and then I need some suggestions as to how to fix the problem. :) James From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 10 14:26:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 22:26:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 43266 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 22:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 22:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout5-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.98) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 22:26:14 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0123.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.123]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1AMQD7126452 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 17:26:13 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c1b282$303ed000$7bb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Players and Votes file Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:27:50 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin For those who are intrested in my game tracking I have updated the *Players and Votes* file in the *Pure N_omic* folder in the files. James From stavrogin@t... Mon Feb 11 11:16:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 19:16:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 98707 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 19:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 19:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.148) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 19:15:58 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.109.36) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C6054880024845A for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:15:56 +0100 Message-ID: <00ee01c1b330$0961efe0$866a0a3e@s...> To: References: <000701c1b281$4c945780$7bb0fe3f@c...> Subject: RE:[n_omic] EDIT: Proposal 6 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:00:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin > My intentions were for it to be in the rules. I think the final clause needs > to be in the rules. I don't like it to be in the rules. The final clause, yes, but the list, no. I don't support Proposal #6. > This message is written in the only way I know how to fix the problem. Let > me know if it doesn't work and then I need some suggestions as to how to fix > the problem. :) > > James > Yes, hooray for text-only! Stefano From jmorgantx@p... Mon Feb 11 20:19:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 04:19:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 55150 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 04:19:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 04:19:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout1-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 04:19:44 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0052.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.52]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1C4JgP240382 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:19:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01c1b37c$b5bf1500$34b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: RE: Proposal 6 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:21:04 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin How about I change the proposal so that the first clause is self-repealing and keep the 2nd clause intact? Would that address your concerns? You know now that I think about it, this proposal doesn't solve the problem. Say we decide to repeal another rule somewhere in game play. By this rule the next new rule would go to the end of the list. For example, we have 50 rules and vote to repeal rule #17. The next rule that passes would be rule 51 so we would still have holes in our order. Actually I may just withdraw this proposal. Let me think on it somemore. James From josh@w... Mon Feb 11 21:27:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 05:27:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 26667 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 05:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 05:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 05:27:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 20176 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 05:27:48 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 05:27:48 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([207.172.77.213]) by wmffl.com ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:27:45 -0600 Message-ID: <3C68A7AE.10209@w...> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:27:10 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: A variety of things Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt 1) I support the Watcher proposal, I guess that is #4. 2) I do not support proposal 6, if it means that the first clause, that causes the reordering, is placed in the rules. I don't think that it actually does the way it is currently written, but it sounds like that is how it is being interpreted, so I have to reject it. To address the ambiquity associated with what actually goes in the rule see my proposal in point 3. 3) I propose a new rule be added to the rule set with the following text: "Players, and only players, are entitled to make proposals to change the game. One possible type of proposal is to add a new rule to the ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it explictly states that it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, but not the ruleset, is assumed to only have its effects applied one time, unless the proposal explicitly states otherwise." Basiclly, this just codifies what we are already doing. Proposal 6, could easily be changed so that the first part is a change to the game and the second part is an new rule. That way the re-ordering would only be a one time effect. 4) Finally, since everyone else is using real names (or at least not handles) I am going to go by the name Josh instead of Fenrir. Just thought I'd let everyone know so you don't get confused, yes we are the same person. ;) Josh From ragnarok@p... Tue Feb 12 04:19:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 12:19:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 36205 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 12:19:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 12:19:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 12:19:50 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A87F507C0164; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:20:15 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] A variety of things Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:19:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3C68A7AE.10209@w...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >3) I propose a new rule be added to the rule set with the following text: >"Players, and only players, are entitled to make proposals to change the >game. One possible type of proposal is to add a new rule to the >ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it explictly states that >it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, but not the ruleset, >is assumed to only have its effects applied one time, unless the >proposal explicitly states otherwise." I support this. From adistius@y... Tue Feb 12 06:28:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 14:28:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 76401 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 14:28:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 14:28:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11601.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.53) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 14:28:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20020212142845.97490.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11601.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:28:45 PST Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:28:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: [n_omic] A variety of things To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius > >3) I propose a new rule be added to the rule set > with the following text: > > >"Players, and only players, are entitled to make > proposals to change the > >game. One possible type of proposal is to add a > new rule to the > >ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it > explictly states that > >it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, > but not the ruleset, > >is assumed to only have its effects applied one > time, unless the > >proposal explicitly states otherwise." I also support this. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com From stavrogin@t... Tue Feb 12 11:08:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 19:08:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 70244 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 19:08:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 19:08:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.147) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 19:08:50 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.108.252) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C605473003D4139 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:08:47 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c1b3f8$32586640$fc6c0a3e@s...> To: References: <20020212142845.97490.qmail@w...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] A variety of things Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:05:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin > > >3) I propose a new rule be added to the rule set > > with the following text: > > > > >"Players, and only players, are entitled to make > > proposals to change the > > >game. One possible type of proposal is to add a > > new rule to the > > >ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it > > explictly states that > > >it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, > > but not the ruleset, > > >is assumed to only have its effects applied one > > time, unless the > > >proposal explicitly states otherwise." > I support it, too. Stefano From ragnarok@p... Tue Feb 12 15:52:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 23:52:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 10735 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 23:52:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 23:52:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 23:52:08 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AAAA581014E; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:52:10 -0500 To: Subject: Proposal: official logo Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:52:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I propose the following new rule. "The official logo of this pure nomic shall be the image at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/purenomic.bmp. This shall be used whenever a graphic connected to this nomic is required." From jmorgantx@p... Tue Feb 12 19:17:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 03:17:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 21648 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 03:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 03:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout1-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 03:17:23 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0016.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.16]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1D3HLP153660 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:17:22 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c1b43d$34a4b9e0$10b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: A Cornucopia of items :) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:19:06 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin 1) I withdraw Prop 6. 2) I support Josh's propsal ( I think I am the last one so it is now a rule) and I also support Craig's proposal (nice pic) 3) Players and votes is updated. 4) I am still pondering Prop 4. I am feeling anarchistic these days. James From adistius@y... Wed Feb 13 06:36:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 14:36:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 23574 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 14:35:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 14:35:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11602.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.54) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 14:35:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20020213143559.17358.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11602.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:35:59 PST Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:35:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Support the logo To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <000701c1b43d$34a4b9e0$10b0fe3f@c...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius I support the adoption of the offical purenomic logo. In case you were wondering, I'm thinking up a proposal -- give me a few minutes of uninterrupted time at work today to thrash out details. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com From stavrogin@t... Wed Feb 13 12:09:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 20:09:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 14243 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 20:09:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 20:09:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.149) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 20:09:44 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.108.19) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C60548F004A4AEB for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:09:42 +0100 Message-ID: <003601c1b4c9$ddd78600$136c0a3e@s...> To: References: Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: official logo Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:59:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin I support the new logo. Stefano From josh@w... Wed Feb 13 13:44:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 21:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 2420 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 21:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 21:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 21:44:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5655 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 21:44:08 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 21:44:08 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([216.164.223.168]) by wmffl.com ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:43:51 -0600 Message-ID: <3C6ADDE3.3040209@w...> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:42:59 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal: official logo References: <003601c1b4c9$ddd78600$136c0a3e@s...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt Stefano Artesi wrote: > I support the new logo. > I also support it. Josh From ragnarok@p... Wed Feb 13 14:12:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 22:12:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 55932 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 22:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 22:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 22:12:06 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A4B793700FE; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:12:07 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposal: official logo Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:12:06 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >I propose the following new rule. >"The official logo of this pure nomic shall be the image at >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/purenomic.bmp. This shall be used >whenever a graphic connected to this nomic is required." Now that everyone has supported it, I have uploaded the all red and all blue versions: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/purenomicred.bmp http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/purenomicblue.bmp From ragnarok@p... Wed Feb 13 14:24:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 22:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 91126 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 22:24:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 22:24:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 22:24:29 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A79F49D008A; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:24:31 -0500 To: Subject: PROPOSAL: alter rule 1 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:24:30 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I propose that the text of rule 1 undergo the following change: replace 'all players' with 'at least two thirds of all players'. Note that at present, this will allow us to pass new rules with only four people supporting them. From josh@w... Thu Feb 14 14:51:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 14 Feb 2002 22:51:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 59852 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 22:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2002 22:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 22:51:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6395 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 22:51:48 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO infusionists.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 22:51:48 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by scorpius.hosting4u.net ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:40:24 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:40:21 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: alter rule 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Craig wrote: > I propose that the text of rule 1 undergo the following change: > > replace 'all players' with 'at least two thirds of all players'. Note that > at present, this will allow us to pass new rules with only four people > supporting them. > We, knew this one was coming sooner or later. 2/3rds huh? Sounds fine to me. Josh From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 14 19:52:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 15 Feb 2002 03:52:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 54451 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 03:52:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2002 03:52:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 03:52:45 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0174.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.174]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1F3qi1230560 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:52:44 -0500 Message-ID: <002201c1b5d4$7e987760$aeb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: MY VOTES Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:54:36 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1B5A2.31A34E80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1B5A2.31A34E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We, knew this one was coming sooner or later. 2/3rds huh? Sounds fine to me. Josh Yeah I was just kind of hoping it would be later. I support this proposal = and I will also support 'The Watcher' proposal. I guess that adds the Watch= er to the ruleset. James ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1B5A2.31A34E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We, knew this one was coming soone= r=20 or
           &nb= sp;   =20 later. 2/3rds huh? Sounds fine=20 to
           &nb= sp;   =20 me.
 
           =     =20 Josh
 
Yeah I was just kind of hoping it = would be=20 later.  I support this proposal and I will also support 'The Watcher'= =20 proposal. I guess that adds the Watcher to the ruleset.
 
James
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C1B5A2.31A34E80-- From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Feb 14 20:07:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71757 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 04:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2002 04:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n26.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.76) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 04:07:12 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.172] by n26.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Feb 2002 03:52:27 -0000 Date: 15 Feb 2002 04:07:11 -0000 Message-ID: <1013746031.1014.97734.w81@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Players and votes.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 14 Feb 22:06 You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Players%20and%20votes.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 14 20:33:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 15 Feb 2002 04:33:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 98649 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 04:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2002 04:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 04:33:23 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0174.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.174]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1F4XL121518 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:33:21 -0500 Message-ID: <002801c1b5da$2b27a140$aeb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: PROPOSAL 10 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:35:13 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I propose to add this new rule to the ruleset: A point system is created for Pure n_omic. A player whose proposal passes recieves one point. A player whose proposal fails loses one point. James From stavrogin@t... Fri Feb 15 07:38:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 15 Feb 2002 15:38:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 20275 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 15:38:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2002 15:38:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.147) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 15:38:07 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.109.128) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C60547300600F05 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:38:05 +0100 Message-ID: <008d01c1b636$41c986a0$806d0a3e@s...> To: References: Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: alter rule 1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:00:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin Yes, agree to that. Stefano ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:24 PM Subject: [n_omic] PROPOSAL: alter rule 1 > I propose that the text of rule 1 undergo the following change: > > replace 'all players' with 'at least two thirds of all players'. Note that > at present, this will allow us to pass new rules with only four people > supporting them. From stavrogin@t... Fri Feb 15 07:43:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 15 Feb 2002 15:43:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 15223 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 15:43:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2002 15:43:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.153) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 15:43:43 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.109.128) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C6054DC005D17DB for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:43:41 +0100 Message-ID: <00a801c1b637$09d9a6c0$806d0a3e@s...> To: References: <002801c1b5da$2b27a140$aeb0fe3f@c...> Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL 10 & 11 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:40:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin I support this one. I propose to add this new rule: If a player's score is at any time equal to or less than 10 negative points, every score is resetted to zero. Stefano (hope this won't start my descent...) From adistius@y... Fri Feb 15 13:08:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 15 Feb 2002 21:08:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 20685 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Feb 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11604.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.56) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2002 21:08:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20020215210815.56906.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11604.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:08:15 PST Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:08:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL 10 & 11 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <00a801c1b637$09d9a6c0$806d0a3e@s...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius --- Stefano Artesi wrote: > I support this one. > I propose to add this new rule: > > If a player's score is at any time equal to or less > than 10 negative points, > every score is resetted to zero. > Could we fix the tense so that it reads "every score is reset to zero"? ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail http://mail.yahoo.com From stavrogin@t... Sat Feb 16 05:56:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 13:56:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 35013 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 13:56:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 13:56:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.152) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 13:56:19 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.106.253) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C6054A4004385B3 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:56:15 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01c1b6f1$33d11ac0$fd6a0a3e@s...> To: References: <20020215210815.56906.qmail@w...> Subject: R: [n_omic] PROPOSAL 10 & 11 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:52:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin Sure, ahem. Apologies. Stefano ----- Original Message ----- From: David Riley To: Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [n_omic] PROPOSAL 10 & 11 > > --- Stefano Artesi wrote: > > I support this one. > > I propose to add this new rule: > > > > If a player's score is at any time equal to or less > > than 10 negative points, > > every score is resetted to zero. > > > > Could we fix the tense so that it reads "every score > is reset to zero"? > > ===== > --- > David Riley > adistius@y... > > "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken From jmorgantx@p... Sat Feb 16 08:37:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 16:37:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 22779 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 16:37:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 16:37:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 16:37:44 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0066.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.66]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1GGbh1113658 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:37:43 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c1b708$883ff9c0$42b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Proposal 10 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:48:25 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I support Proposal 10. James From jmorgantx@p... Sat Feb 16 09:04:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 17:04:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 629 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 17:04:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 17:04:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 17:04:51 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0066.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.66]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1GH4o113736 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:04:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c1b70c$51ea88a0$42b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: SUPPORT Proposal 11 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:06:43 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Yep I support, Stefano's Proposal 11. James From jmorgantx@p... Sat Feb 16 09:14:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 17:14:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 75649 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 17:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 17:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 17:14:22 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0066.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.66]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1GHEL1217342 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:14:21 -0500 Message-ID: <001001c1b70d$a629ce20$42b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Proposal 12 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:16:12 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I propose we add a new rule to the ruleset: ****Start*** Unless the player explicitly states to the contrary all players are assumed to support passage of eir proposals. ****End*** I support it. James From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 17 02:23:43 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10113 invoked by uid 7800); 17 Feb 2002 10:23:42 -0000 Date: 17 Feb 2002 10:23:42 -0000 Message-ID: <1013941422.7722627.86844.m12@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: File - Current Ruleset for *Pure* N_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Numbered according to passage 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. REPEALED 3. A player is any person subscribed to the Official mailing list, who has announced their intention to be a player and has posted a message in the last two weeks. 4. The official mailing list for this game is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com 5. "Players, and only players, are entitled to make proposals to change the game. One possible type of proposal is to add a new rule to the ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it explictly states that it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, but not the ruleset, is assumed to only have its effects applied one time, unless the proposal explicitly states otherwise." From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 17 02:23:43 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10114 invoked by uid 7800); 17 Feb 2002 10:23:43 -0000 Date: 17 Feb 2002 10:23:43 -0000 Message-ID: <1013941423.7722709.86844.m12@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: File - Ruleset MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. Players take turns suggesting a new rule. From ragnarok@p... Sun Feb 17 15:17:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 17 Feb 2002 23:17:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 79383 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2002 23:17:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Feb 2002 23:17:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Feb 2002 23:17:08 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A9F6153200A0; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:17:10 -0500 To: Subject: votes Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:17:07 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I support all current proposals. From ragnarok@p... Sun Feb 17 17:37:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 18 Feb 2002 01:37:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 76212 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2002 01:37:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2002 01:37:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2002 01:37:20 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AAD310AB012A; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:37:23 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] File - Current Ruleset for *Pure* N_omic Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:37:20 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <1013941422.7722627.86844.m12@yahoogroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl This needs updating. EG, I think the logo is official now, as is the Gazjatna rule. -----Original Message----- From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:n_omic@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 5:24 AM To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] File - Current Ruleset for *Pure* N_omic Numbered according to passage 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. REPEALED 3. A player is any person subscribed to the Official mailing list, who has announced their intention to be a player and has posted a message in the last two weeks. 4. The official mailing list for this game is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com 5. "Players, and only players, are entitled to make proposals to change the game. One possible type of proposal is to add a new rule to the ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it explictly states that it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, but not the ruleset, is assumed to only have its effects applied one time, unless the proposal explicitly states otherwise." From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 17 18:42:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 18 Feb 2002 02:42:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 86618 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2002 02:42:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2002 02:42:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout5-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.98) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2002 02:42:23 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0022.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.22]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1I2gFc201344 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:42:17 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c1b826$2729bf80$16b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Files Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:33:38 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ---This needs updating. EG, I think the logo is official now, as is the Gazjatna rule. You are right. I need to reset the group where it isn't sending that message. I try to keep the Players and Votes page current everyday but the other files lag behind a bit. I will try to rectify this right now. James From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 17 18:46:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 18 Feb 2002 02:46:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 34505 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2002 02:46:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2002 02:46:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout5-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.98) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2002 02:46:02 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0022.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.22]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1I2k0c156646 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:46:01 -0500 Message-ID: <000601c1b826$aae6b940$16b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: File #2 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:47:44 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Current ruleset is updated. Players and Votes updated to show Craig's votes. And I have another proposal to post in the near future. James From josh@w... Wed Feb 20 15:22:14 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 20 Feb 2002 23:22:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13742 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 23:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2002 23:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 23:22:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 10732 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 23:22:09 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 23:22:09 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([207.172.141.87]) by wmffl.com ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:22:06 -0600 Message-ID: <3C742F71.4030604@w...> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:21:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Votes and Proposals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I cast my votes in favor of proposals 10 and 12. However, I don't like proposal 11, why should someone with a high point total get reset to 0, because someone else made bad proposals? (Yes, consider that a vote against #11.) I would also like to make a proposal to create a rule with the following text: "Any proposal that has not received enough votes to pass after a period of ten days from the date the proposal was made, shall be considered rejected and removed from consideration." Josh From ragnarok@p... Wed Feb 20 18:45:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 21 Feb 2002 02:45:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 62065 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 02:45:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2002 02:45:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 02:45:50 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.22] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AF6120FA009C; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:45:53 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Votes and Proposals Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:45:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C742F71.4030604@w...> X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >I cast my votes in favor of proposals 10 and 12. However, I don't like >proposal 11, why should someone with a high point total get reset to 0, >because someone else made bad proposals? (Yes, consider that a vote >against #11.) How should it be changed to get your support? Also, why do you care if the points mean nothing? Because they do, I was indifferent - and thus supported so I wouldn't block it - and would be interested in hearing why you care about your score. >I would also like to make a proposal to create a rule with the following >text: >"Any proposal that has not received enough votes to pass after a period >of ten days from the date the proposal was made, shall be considered >rejected and removed from consideration." I support this. From adistius@y... Thu Feb 21 07:41:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 21 Feb 2002 15:41:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 53010 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 15:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2002 15:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11606.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.58) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 15:41:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20020221154124.46429.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11606.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:41:24 PST Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:41:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Votes and Proposals To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <3C742F71.4030604@w...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius --- Josh Utterback wrote: > I would also like to make a proposal to create a > rule with the following > text: > > "Any proposal that has not received enough votes to > pass after a period > of ten days from the date the proposal was made, > shall be considered > rejected and removed from consideration." I'm not voting on this at the moment, but would like to ask if we might not be better off using a "veto" voting system in which your silence, rather than being a no vote, is your consent. This might arrange matters so that people who drop out for a time aren't suddenly killing proposals during the two week period when they are still (under the present rules) players. Just an idea. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com From mhoney@t... Fri Feb 22 09:50:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 22 Feb 2002 17:50:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 20684 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2002 17:50:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2002 17:50:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n9.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.59) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 2002 17:50:42 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.119] by n9.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2002 17:50:41 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:50:40 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Official Announcement Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 132 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I would like to officially announce my intention to become a player as per rule 2 of the current ruleset. Regards, Mark Honeycutt From mhoney@t... Sat Feb 23 10:00:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 23 Feb 2002 18:00:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 20244 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2002 18:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2002 18:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.78) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2002 18:00:46 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.90] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Feb 2002 18:00:46 -0000 Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:00:43 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: MY VOTES Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 883 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 Since according to the rules I am now officially a player, and since all players must agree to any changes to the game (Rule 1), I feel that I need to cast some votes quickly to keep the proposals rolling along. Proposal 9: Two Thirds Majority - Although I like this proposal and I certainly prefer a two thirds majority to a simple majority I feel that this one might be a little premature at this time. As the timing on passing this proposal is critical I will not vote on Proposal 9 just yet and maintain consensual voting until the ruleset gets a little more stable. Proposal 10: Point System - I cast my vote in favor of this. Proposal 11: Point Reset - I cast my vote in favor of this. Proposal 12: Assume Support of Self Proposals - I cast my vote in favor of this. Proposal 13: 10 Day Time Limit - I cast my vote in favor of this. Thank You Mark From mhoney@t... Sat Feb 23 10:48:14 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 23 Feb 2002 18:48:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 15274 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2002 18:48:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2002 18:48:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n16.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.66) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2002 18:48:12 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.124] by n16.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Feb 2002 18:47:58 -0000 Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:48:05 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New Proposal Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1362 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I am in favor of David's idea for a "veto" voting system because it provides strong incentive for all players to participate in the game while also keeping the game moving if players do not participate. Players will need to keep in touch or they may unwittingly be making changes to the gamestate. This is excellent idea and probably will require some type of rule which will somehow eliminate the deadwood out there. Here's the proposal: ========================================= If an active player has not submitted a vote on a pending proposal within a 10 day period of the time that the proposal becomes a pending proposal, then that players vote is assumed to be in favor of the pending proposal. If at some point the voting period for a proposal becomes closed before the status of the proposal is resolved, then the 10 day period begins at the time the voting period reopens. An 'active player' is any player who is eligible to cast votes. A 'pending proposal' is any proposal for which the voting period is open and the 'time a proposal beomes a pending proposal' is the timestamp given to the message that posts the proposal. ========================================= David, please forgive me for 'stealing your thunder' and proposing what is really your idea. I hope this proposal as written suits your needs. Regards, Mark From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 14:38:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 24 Feb 2002 22:38:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 74594 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2002 22:38:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Feb 2002 22:38:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2002 22:38:35 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0138.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.138]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1OMcY192574 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:38:34 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c1bd84$4e85aa40$8ab0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Some votes, discussion and Gazjatna-ish Business--- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:40:39 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin even though I am not the Gazjatna ;) 1) A hearty welcome to Mark! 2) Players and Votes will be updated shortly. Please check it for errors. I see a lot of blank holes where votes should be and a few question marks. 3) I dont think I have ever formally stated my votes on Props. 9-13. I support all of them. Though I must admit that I have doubts on Proposal 11. 4) Prop 14- If I am reading this correctly (and I probably am not, I am sick right now) this extends the 'pending' status of a proposal for upwards of 20 days. Not sure I like that. Also it seems that a vote for 14 is should be a vote against Prop 13. James From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 24 14:46:57 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77401 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2002 22:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Feb 2002 22:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n30.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.80) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2002 22:46:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.162] by n30.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Feb 2002 22:46:55 -0000 Date: 24 Feb 2002 22:46:52 -0000 Message-ID: <1014590812.1506.98072.w72@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Players and votes.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 24 Feb You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Players%20and%20votes.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 14:50:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 24 Feb 2002 22:50:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 14858 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2002 22:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Feb 2002 22:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2002 22:50:25 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0138.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.138]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1OMoO1163456 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:50:24 -0500 Message-ID: <001101c1bd85$f5663220$8ab0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: NON-GAME POST to JEFF Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:52:27 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Hey Jeff... what happened to Imperial Nog? I have been lurking and it has been quiet. Has it gone back to real life play? James From mhoney@t... Sun Feb 24 15:58:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 24 Feb 2002 23:58:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 12480 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2002 23:58:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Feb 2002 23:58:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.74) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2002 23:58:26 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.40] by n24.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Feb 2002 23:58:25 -0000 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:58:21 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Some votes, discussion and Gazjatna-ish Business--- Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c1bd84$4e85aa40$8ab0fe3f@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2450 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 > 1) A hearty welcome to Mark! Thank you. > 4) Prop 14- If I am reading this correctly (and I probably am not, I am sick > right now) this extends the 'pending' status of a proposal for upwards of 20 > days. Not sure I like that. Also it seems that a vote for 14 is should be a > vote against Prop 13. Allow me to clarify this a bit. I had no intention of extending the pending status of any proposal with the language I used in Proposal 14, nor do I wish to contradict 13 in any way. The confusion probably comes from the sentence "If at some point the voting period for a proposal becomes closed before the status of the proposal is resolved, the the 10 day period begins at the time the voting period reopens." 1) By "10 day period" I am referring to the 10 days in which players have an opportunity to cast votes. This in no way refers to any other 10 day period put forth in other Rules and Proposals. I simply don't want my vote cast in favor of something I don't like just because voting was closed due to some kind of judgement or waiting for the rewording of a proposal or some such. I want to ensure that once all other issues are resolved and the final draft of a proposal is on the table, there will be a 10 day period in which players can decide how to vote on the issue before that vote is assumed to be in favor. 2) I now note from James' reaction that Proposal 13 and Proposal 14 present a timing issue. Which comes first, a 10 day old propoal is rejected and removed from consideration (as per 13), or the proposal recieves assumed votes in favor and may get passed (as per 14). We can do one of the following: a) Pass one proposal and reject the other as James suggests. b) Make a judgement call here and now as to how to resolve the issue. c) Rewrite one of the proposals to some time period other than 10 days. d) Write another proposal to resolve timing issues. I am open to suggestions. I am going to cast votes in favor of both 13 and 14 so as not to be blocking either of them and keep the game going. My personal judgement call would be to apply Proposal 14 first and then apply Proposal 13 second. As far as rewriting the Proposals go, I would be happy to change the time frame in Proposal 14 to 7 days. I will be working on a new proposal to resolve timing issues soon. It will probably involve the institution of an office of time-keeper or some such. Regards, Mark From mhoney@t... Sun Feb 24 16:12:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 00:12:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 50429 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 00:11:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 00:11:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n21.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.71) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 00:11:52 -0000 Received: from [216.115.97.83] by n21.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Feb 2002 23:56:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:11:48 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: My votes on 9 and 14 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 702 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 As far as my vote on Proposal 9, the two thirds majority proposal, my vote is not really an abstension, rather it is a temporary block. I currently am AGAINST Proposal 9 at this time. I will allow proposal 9 to be passed at some point in the near future but as long as rule changes require unanimity then we can continue moving the game in a fashion that is more or less satisfactory to everyone before we open the forum to actions which players disapprove of. On Proposal 14, I vote in FAVOR of this proposal. If you've read my previous message than you are aware that this one may require some work. I would be happy to amend it at the request of the other players. Regards, Mark From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 16:50:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 00:50:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 12149 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 00:50:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 00:50:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout5-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.98) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 00:50:04 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0002.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.2]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P0o3c131088 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:50:03 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c1bd96$b0e49900$02b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: RE: My votes on 9 and 14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:52:16 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I will make the necessary changes to Players and Votes so the gamestate doesn't get cloudy. I am pondering your other post and will post a response soon. James From ragnarok@p... Sun Feb 24 16:55:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 00:55:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 7497 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 00:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 00:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 00:55:29 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB84444800FE; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:55:32 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Some votes, discussion and Gazjatna-ish Business--- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:55:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <000901c1bd84$4e85aa40$8ab0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >even though I am not the Gazjatna ;) Since James has been doing all the Gazjatna duties anyway, I propose that his status be made official. I support this proposal, of course. From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 17:12:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 01:12:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 38213 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 01:12:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 01:12:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 01:12:11 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0002.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.2]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P1C91102336 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:12:10 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c1bd99$c60be9c0$02b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Prop 13 & 14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:14:19 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. Maybe we need to combine the two into some sort of 'Order of Play' rule. This is off the cuff but maybe someone can take the idea and play with it. Perhaps something like: 1) Proposer makes a proposal. 2) Players have X number of days to make suggestions etc for proposer to consider. 3) Proposer gives final draft of proposal. 4) When final draft is written a ten day voting period opens. 5) Players who fail to vote within ten days will be transgussicated. Ok maybe #5 is a bad idea but I think my maundering thought is understood nonetheless. Any thoughts? James From ragnarok@p... Sun Feb 24 17:18:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 01:18:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 85194 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 01:18:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 01:18:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 01:18:39 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0F03D0500FC; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:18:40 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Prop 13 & 14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:18:37 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <000901c1bd99$c60be9c0$02b0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >5) Players who fail to vote within ten days will be transgussicated. Maybe if you don't vote you should lose your player status until you announce your intention to become a player again. I don't know if this is what you mean, Merriam-Webster online has no idea what 'transgussicate' means. From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 17:25:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 01:25:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 56347 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 01:24:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 01:24:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 01:24:48 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0002.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.2]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P1Ok1101872 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:24:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01c1bd9b$88a6d520$02b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: RE: Prop 13 & 14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:26:55 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin >5) Players who fail to vote within ten days will be transgussicated. Maybe if you don't vote you should lose your player status until you announce your intention to become a player again. I don't know if this is what you mean, Merriam-Webster online has no idea what 'transgussicate' means. Ok let's do it your way. :) I am not sure what transgussicated is either. I read it in an old Calvin and Hobbes carton the other day. James From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 17:39:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 01:39:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 81881 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 01:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 01:38:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 01:38:46 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0002.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.2]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P1ci1163666 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:38:44 -0500 Message-ID: <001501c1bd9d$7b633960$02b0fe3f@c...> To: References: Subject: Re: RE: [n_omic] Some votes, discussion and Gazjatna-ish Business--- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:40:58 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin This is now listed as Proposal 15. And what the heck... I support it too. James > --- In n_omic@y..., "Craig" wrote: > >even though I am not the Gazjatna ;) > > Since James has been doing all the Gazjatna duties anyway, I propose > that > his status be made official. I support this proposal, of course. > > > From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 18:07:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 02:07:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22250 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 02:07:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 02:07:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 02:07:10 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0002.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.2]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P2791114278 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:07:09 -0500 Message-ID: <001b01c1bda1$72d301a0$02b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Proposal 16: A revision and merging of 13 &14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:09:19 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I propose to add this rule to the ruleset: ---- This rule outlines the Order of Play in Pure N_omic. 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a draft proposal. 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the proposal which will identify the proposal during play. 3) Messages on the Official Mailing List must use at least the proposal number in the subject line of the message. [For example a subject line might read 'PROPOSAL 999: Debate' or 'PROPOSAL 999: Vote'] 4) The proposal may be commented on by other players for a period of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by the mailing list. 5) The proposer may make any changes e wants to the draft proposal and then may submit it as the 'final draft.' 6) The proposer is under no obligation to make changes to eir proposal. 7) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. 7a) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. 7b) Support means to agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but an abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still playing the game. 8) Players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will no longer be considered active players unless they state explicitly their intention to play. ---- From ragnarok@p... Sun Feb 24 18:26:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 02:26:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 51376 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 02:25:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 02:25:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 02:25:57 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0B83DC700FC; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:26:00 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposal 16: A revision and merging of 13 &14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <001b01c1bda1$72d301a0$02b0fe3f@c...> Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >I propose to add this rule to the ruleset: I support it. >5) The proposer may make any changes e wants to the draft proposal and then >may submit it as the 'final draft.' We should standardize our Spivak pronouns. I prefer ey to e, as it fits the pattern of 'take the plural and drop the th-'. >7b) Support means to agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose >passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but >an abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still >playing the game. Rule 1 will have to be rewritten so that an abstention does not stop passage, as it is not 'agree(ing) to' a change. From mhoney@t... Sun Feb 24 18:29:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 02:29:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 54936 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 02:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 02:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.51) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 02:28:44 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.178] by n1.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 02:28:44 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:28:42 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 13 & 14 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c1bd99$c60be9c0$02b0fe3f@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2083 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 > 1) Proposer makes a proposal. > 2) Players have X number of days to make suggestions etc for proposer to > consider. > 3) Proposer gives final draft of proposal. > 4) When final draft is written a ten day voting period opens. > 5) Players who fail to vote within ten days will be transgussicated. > Ok, but I want to revise this a little. Let's try some changes in terminology and clarification on 'transgussicated': 1) Author makes a suggestion. 2) Players have X days to discuss and make recommendations concerning suggestion. 3) Author submits suggestion as a formal proposal or if time limit runs out suggestion automatically becomes proposal. 4) Ten day voting period begins. 5) Players who fail to vote during the voting period are assumed to be in favor of proposal. 6) If proposal does not have sufficient votes, it is rejected. Let's make note of some of the effects and possible concequences of this state of affairs. First of all, the author becomes the owner of their idea so it cannot be 'stolen' by another player. Secondly, once an idea is moved into the public forum, there is a maximum time limit for the idea to be entered in as a new rule or rejected. A few questions: Consider the effect of new players entering the forum during the voting period. Will they be eligible to vote? Will their votes be assumed at the end of the voting period? What people that vote while the proposal is still a suggestion? What about authors that make suggestions into formal proposals and then want to make changes to that proposal? What about players who wish to change their vote? Are there any ways the voting period may be suspended or interrupted by judgements or disputes concerning interpretation of rules? How do these interruptions affect this timetable? Lastly, I want to say that I like the direction that this discussion is going in. Let's keep it up. I see this idea as turning into a core theme of our n_omic game. It pays here to work carefully and think it through here. Your comments are essential. Regards, Mark From mhoney@t... Sun Feb 24 19:10:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 03:10:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 80316 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 03:10:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 03:10:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.78) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 03:10:11 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.158] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 03:10:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:10:08 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Order of Play with commentary Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2941 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 This rule outlines the Order of Play in Pure N_omic. 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a draft proposal. ---------------------- [COMMENT: we need to have a crystal clear distinction between 'draft proposal' and 'final proposal'. I recommend different terminology, such as 'suggestion' or 'submission' rather than the term 'draft proposal'] 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the proposal which will identify the proposal during play. ------------------------ [COMMENT: this number will stay with the idea all through it's proposal status. Even if the proposal is rejected, this number may not be used again for another proposal] 3) Messages on the Official Mailing List must use at least the proposal number in the subject line of the message. [For example a subject line might read 'PROPOSAL 999: Debate' or 'PROPOSAL 999: Vote'] ------------------------- [COMMENT: This is good. Perhaps this belongs under 'player ettiquitte' or 'proper address' rather than order of play. What is the penalty for not doing this?] 4) The proposal may be commented on by other players for a period of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by the mailing list. -------------------------- [COMMENT: A MINIMUM timeframe for comments? What about a MAXIMUM timeframe? How long do you get to hang around in draft limbo?] 5) The proposer may make any changes ey wants to the draft proposal and then may submit it as the 'final draft.' --------------------------- [COMMENT: This establishes the proposer as the owner of the idea and the one in control of final draft submission. What if this step never occurs? What happens then?] 6) The proposer is under no obligation to make changes to eir proposal. 7) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. 7a) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. --------------------------- [COMMENT: May we use the words FOR and AGAINST? Do our votes count if we used the wrong word?] 7b) Support means to agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but an abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still playing the game. ----------------------------- [COMMENT: Good! I particularly like the definition of 'abstain'. Be extra careful with the wording of '2/3rds vote required for passage' stuff. Does that mean abstensions do not count as part of the total population of voters in calculating 2/3rds?] 8) Players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will no longer be considered active players unless they state explicitly their intention to play. [COMMENT: This is a part I don't like. It's like your saying they are out of the game until they are in the game. Isn't that obvious? How does there refusal to vote effect the passage of the proposal? Do they count as support, block, or abstain?] Regards, Mark From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 19:48:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 03:48:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 885 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 03:48:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 03:48:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout6-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.99) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 03:48:23 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0198.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.198]) by pimout6-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P3mL6175580 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:48:21 -0500 Message-ID: <000501c1bdaf$99ca8f40$c6b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Prop 16 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:50:35 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ---------------------- [COMMENT: we need to have a crystal clear distinction between 'draft proposal' and 'final proposal'. I recommend different terminology, such as 'suggestion' or 'submission' rather than the term 'draft proposal'] ---------------------- I can live with submission or suggestion. Perhaps we can edit Rule 4 to use the word 'suggest' or cognates of suggest as the case may be. ------------------------ [COMMENT: this number will stay with the idea all through it's proposal status. Even if the proposal is rejected, this number may not be used again for another proposal] Correct. ------------------------- [COMMENT: This is good. Perhaps this belongs under 'player ettiquitte' or 'proper address' rather than order of play. What is the penalty for not doing this?] -------------------------- Transgussication? I reckon this is really an optional section. It was me thinking on how to make the Watcher's job easier. -------------------------- [COMMENT: A MINIMUM timeframe for comments? What about a MAXIMUM timeframe? How long do you get to hang around in draft limbo?] -------------------------- Well you are right but I was thinking about us being in the middle of a good debate and having to vote on an unfinished proposal. I am not sure what time limit to place on the debate. Some good rules might be made better with the addition of another day of debate. --------------------------- [COMMENT: This establishes the proposer as the owner of the idea and the one in control of final draft submission. What if this step never occurs? What happens then?] --------------------------- I am hoping that the point system will enter play sometime soon so the proposer needs to get credit for eir work. Of course I am perfectly comfortable trodding the path of anarchism and consensus if everybody else chooses. --------------------------- [COMMENT: May we use the words FOR and AGAINST? Do our votes count if we used the wrong word?] ----------------------------- Good questions. For the first one my choice of words is a hangover from an experiment I was in that used the consensus decision making process. For and against work just as well. For the second, I hadn't really thought of that. ----------------------------- [COMMENT: Good! I particularly like the definition of 'abstain'. Be extra careful with the wording of '2/3rds vote required for passage' stuff. Does that mean abstensions do not count as part of the total population of voters in calculating 2/3rds?] ---------------------------- Interesting. The abstention is technically not a vote at all. So I would not count them in the total. Which brings ups Craig's concerns on rule #1. More thought required. -------------------------- [COMMENT: This is a part I don't like. It's like your saying they are out of the game until they are in the game. Isn't that obvious? How does there refusal to vote effect the passage of the proposal? Do they count as support, block, or abstain?] -------------------------- You are right this doesn't address Josh's goal on eir proposal. Well it partly does, it pulls the proposal out of a state of limbo waiting on votes. As far as the punitive effects of not voting perhaps I need to find a better wording. But really if you are not playing the game then you are not in the game and by our rules one becomes a player by stating they are one. James From jmorgantx@p... Sun Feb 24 19:54:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 03:54:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 11482 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 03:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 03:54:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout6-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.99) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 03:54:48 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0198.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.198]) by pimout6-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1P3sk6108894 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:54:46 -0500 Message-ID: <000b01c1bdb0$7f7bd440$c6b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposal 16: A revision and merging of 13 &14 Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:57:05 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin ----------------- We should standardize our Spivak pronouns. I prefer ey to e, as it fits the pattern of 'take the plural and drop the th-'. ------------------ Typically I prefer 'ey' as well. I used 'e' in deference to any Spivak purists in the group. ---------------- Rule 1 will have to be rewritten so that an abstention does not stop passage, as it is not 'agree(ing) to' a change. ---------------- Well an abstention is not disagreeing to a change either. It could be a sign of marked ambivalence but a willingness to go along if that is what everybody else wants to do. James From mhoney@t... Sun Feb 24 21:00:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 05:00:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 12479 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 05:00:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 05:00:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.51) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 05:00:55 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.158] by n1.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 05:00:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:00:51 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Mark's adjustments to Proposition 16 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001b01c1bda1$72d301a0$02b0fe3f@c...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2392 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 OK, I'm going to take some liberties here and provide another version of Proposition 16. Please note that this is not my proposition and this version is not an official version. It is simply meant to address some commentary and hopefully improve on what is a good idea. ---- This rule outlines the Order of Play in Pure N_omic. 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a suggestion. 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the suggestion which will identify the suggestion during play. This number will stay with the suggestion even if it becomes a proposal and cannot be used again for another suggestion or proposal. 3) The suggestion may be commented on by other players for a period of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by the mailing list. 4) Only the proposer may make any changes ey wants to the suggestion and then may submit it as a proposal bearing the same number as the suggestion. The proposer is under no obligation to make changes to eir proposal. If the proposer ceases to be a player prior to this step, then another player may begin with step 1 and resubmit the suggestion whereby the new suggestion will receive a different number than the earlier one. 5) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. 6) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. Support means to agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but an abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still playing the game. An abstainer is not part of the total population of voters for the purposes of this vote. 7) Active players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will be assumed to be in support of the proposal. ---- I have tried to clean up the proposal overall and have made some changes with respect to recent conversations concerning this proposal. Please note the major change to the last item. I also have renumbered and removed items I felt could best be addressed elsewhere. I hope that we can all come to an agreement of some sort on some version of this proposal. THIS IS NOT A FORMAL PROPOSAL! James will have to submit that. James, please feel free to take or leave any of my ideas here. You will find that in general I will support any reasonable version of this. Regards, Mark From josh@w... Mon Feb 25 08:02:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 16:02:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 20557 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:02:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 16:02:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:02:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 19995 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:02:51 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:02:51 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:02:48 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:02:46 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Prop 13 & 14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I would like to clearify some of my reasoning behind proposal number 13. The existing ruleset had (has) no way of removing proposals, even those that have no chance of passing or have already been rejected. Therefore, a proposal could have been turned down, but someone could change their vote, or new players could come in and pass a proposal days or weeks after it had already been rejected. #13 was intended to take care of that. I don't have any problem with saying that players that don't vote count as affirmative votes (such as #14 does) as long failed proposals get cleaned up. However, I would prefer to see nonvotes count as abstentions if something resembling #16 passes. Josh From josh@w... Mon Feb 25 08:17:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 16:17:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 44098 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 16:17:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n22.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.72) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:17:09 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.116] by n22.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 16:17:08 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:17:06 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Votes and Proposals Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 963 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "joshutt" X-Originating-IP: 192.207.234.65 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt --- In n_omic@y..., "Craig" wrote: > How should it be changed to get your support? Also, why do you care if the > points mean nothing? Because they do, I was indifferent - and thus supported > so I wouldn't block it - and would be interested in hearing why you care > about your score. It comes down to personal philosophy. I fundamentally believe that an individual has sole determination of domain over his production (whatever that may be, money, reward, points, etc). No one has the right to take something from someone else without their consent, nor does anyone have the right to expect something from anyone else. So while points are in fact meaningless, they are still (or will be if proposal 10 ever passes) a result of your production. It would be a violation of my personal beliefs to support any system which takes these points away from another without their consent. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Josh From adistius@y... Mon Feb 25 08:29:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 16:29:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 71923 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:29:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 16:29:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11607.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.59) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:29:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20020225162917.22083.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:29:17 PST Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:29:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [n_omic] Order of Play with additional commentary To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius My comments on the proposal with referece also to Mark's comments > This rule outlines the Order of Play in Pure N_omic. > > 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes > a draft proposal. > ---------------------- > [COMMENT: we need to have a crystal clear > distinction between 'draft > proposal' and 'final proposal'. I recommend > different terminology, > such as 'suggestion' or 'submission' rather than the > term 'draft > proposal'] My commment: I'd also like to see some system in which 'submissions' are given numbers preceeded by the letter 'S' and then become proposals, whose numbers are proceeded by the letter 'P'. This way, looking at email subject lines will assist in knowing more about the game state. > > 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the > proposal which will > identify the proposal during play. > ------------------------ > [COMMENT: this number will stay with the idea all > through it's > proposal status. Even if the proposal is rejected, > this number may > not be used again for another proposal] My Comment: And this number need have nothing to do with the eventual rule number. > > 3) Messages on the Official Mailing List must use at > least the > proposal number in the subject line of the message. > [For example a > subject line might read 'PROPOSAL 999: Debate' or > 'PROPOSAL 999: > Vote'] > ------------------------- > [COMMENT: This is good. Perhaps this belongs under > 'player > ettiquitte' or 'proper address' rather than order of > play. What is > the penalty for not doing this?] My comment: We could add a 'penalty' clause to the rules specifying loss of points. Or just say if you don't follow this format, your post won't count if you are trying to "do" anything (like vote). > > 4) The proposal may be commented on by other players > for a period of > no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by > the mailing list. > -------------------------- > [COMMENT: A MINIMUM timeframe for comments? What > about a MAXIMUM > timeframe? How long do you get to hang around in > draft limbo?] My comment: I say this following would work: At least 24 hours and no more than 10 days, with the ability to close discussion by posting a message calling for the question on submission S___. Such an effort to close discussion should be successful if noone objects within 24 hours. If anyone objects, discussion continues. > > 5) The proposer may make any changes ey wants to the > draft proposal > and then may submit it as the 'final draft.' > --------------------------- > [COMMENT: This establishes the proposer as the owner > of the idea and > the one in control of final draft submission. What > if this step > never occurs? What happens then?] My comment: Then the submission never becomes a proposal? Or the submission automagically becomes a proposal when its ten days are up. The first means submissions might die like flies if people don't pay attention, the second means we might have many, many no votes. A third option would be to say that submissions could be withdrawn and then re-submitted later. I do like the idea of the proposer as 'owner' of the proposal. > 6) The proposer is under no obligation to make > changes to eir > proposal. > > 7) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the > proposal. > > 7a) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. > --------------------------- > [COMMENT: May we use the words FOR and AGAINST? Do > our votes count > if we used the wrong word?] That has potential. I rather like the idea of only specific words counting as votes. > > 7b) Support means to agree to passage of the > proposal. To block is to > oppose passage of the proposal. To abstain is > neither to support nor > to block, but an abstain vote will notify other > players that the > abstainer is still playing the game. > ----------------------------- > [COMMENT: Good! I particularly like the definition > of 'abstain'. Be > extra careful with the wording of '2/3rds vote > required for passage' > stuff. Does that mean abstensions do not count as > part of the total > population of voters in calculating 2/3rds?] My comment: Abstaining should remove a player from the population in caluculating the 2/3rds. Otherwise an abstention is merely a no vote by another name. Or in this case, a BLOCK vote. > 8) Players who do not vote within the 10-day > timeframe will no longer > be considered active players unless they state > explicitly their > intention to play. > [COMMENT: This is a part I don't like. It's like > your saying they > are out of the game until they are in the game. > Isn't that obvious? > How does there refusal to vote effect the passage of > the proposal? Do > they count as support, block, or abstain?] My comment: What he said. Oh, and I'm back. Sorry for the delay in votes. I'll catch up today. Work tried to murder me this weekend and I'm just clawing my way to the top of the stack. Regards, David ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com From adistius@y... Mon Feb 25 08:40:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 16:40:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 77801 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:40:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 16:40:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11607.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.59) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:40:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20020225164026.23987.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:40:26 PST Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:40:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Votes on 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius I SUPPORT 9, 10, 12 and 13 I BLOCK (vote no) on 11. I'm considering 14, 15, and 16 still. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com From mhoney@t... Mon Feb 25 08:52:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 16:52:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 31269 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.61) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.91] by n11.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 16:52:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:52:03 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Small changes to files Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 566 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I would like to recommend some small changes to the current files. Could James please add my name to the list of current players? Also, since propositon 7 and 8 have passed, I humbly request he add these to the current ruleset. I also note that Proposition 10 (establishment of a point system) needs only David's support to pass and Proposition 15, which has the undefined term gazdanza instead of watcher, is the type of propositon specified in proposition 7 that is a change to the gamestate without being a change to the ruleset. Thank you, Mark From mhoney@t... Mon Feb 25 08:53:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 16:53:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 49722 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 16:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 16:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.58) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 16:53:30 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.131] by n8.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 16:53:26 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:53:24 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposition 10 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 64 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 Proposition 10 has now passed and can be added to the ruleset! From josh@w... Mon Feb 25 09:09:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 17:09:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 59888 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 17:09:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 17:09:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 17:09:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 29024 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 17:09:01 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 17:09:01 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:08:55 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:08:50 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Small changes to files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, mark33703 wrote: > I would like to recommend some small changes to the current > files. Could James please add my name to the list of current > players? Also, since propositon 7 and 8 have passed, I humbly > request he add these to the current ruleset. They are in the ruleset, rules 4 and 5 respectivly. > I also note that Proposition 10 (establishment of a point system) > needs only David's support to pass and Proposition 15, which has the > undefined term gazdanza instead of watcher, is the type of propositon > specified in proposition 7 that is a change to the gamestate without > being a change to the ruleset. True about #15, it needs to be modified to use the correct term. Josh From josh@w... Mon Feb 25 09:20:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 17:20:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 66455 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 17:20:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 17:20:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 17:20:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 2987 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 17:20:55 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 17:20:55 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:20:32 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:19:58 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Small changes to files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 josh@w... wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, mark33703 wrote: > > > I would like to recommend some small changes to the current > > files. Could James please add my name to the list of current > > players? Also, since propositon 7 and 8 have passed, I humbly > > request he add these to the current ruleset. > > They are in the ruleset, rules 4 and 5 respectivly. Sorry, I did intend to write more here, but got distracted and lost my train of thought. Sorry if it sounded kind of rude. Anyway, if you go to Files then the folder *Pure* n_omic there are a number of files. The Current Players and Ruleset files are a bit outdated and are basiclly not used. But the current ruleset is listed in "Current Ruleset for *Pure* N_omic" as well as at the bottom of "Players and votes" Hope that helps. Josh From ragnarok@p... Mon Feb 25 18:44:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 02:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 46202 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 02:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 02:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 02:44:12 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A67F5945014E; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:44:15 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Small changes to files Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:44:12 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >needs only David's support to pass and Proposition 15, which has the >undefined term gazdanza instead of watcher, is the type of propositon Gazjatna was the original title before the proposal was revised. James said he thought it 'classier', and has since used it. I feel that since everyone (except maybe you, the proposal passed before you registered) knew the term, it was safe to assume that it was a synonym. I hereby revise my proposal to read: "Since James has been doing all of the duties of the Watcher, he is hereby officially made Watcher. The rule responsible for the creation of the office shall be ammended with the following addition to the end: 'The title of "Gazjatna" shall be accepted as a synonym for that of "Watcher", as will the shortened form "Jatna".'" --Craig Daniel 'If it takes all the future, well live through the past If the phone doesn't ring, it's me.' -Jimmy Buffett pgp public key ID: 0x5C3A1E74 From mhoney@t... Mon Feb 25 19:02:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 03:02:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 15237 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 03:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 03:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n9.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.59) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 03:02:45 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.181] by n9.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 2002 03:02:44 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:02:37 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote on Proposal 15 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 43 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I cast my vote in SUPPORT of proposal 15. From ragnarok@p... Mon Feb 25 19:24:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 03:24:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 86306 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 03:24:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 03:24:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 03:24:14 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AFE154CA0138; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:24:17 -0500 To: Subject: prop 16 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:24:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I support prop 16. From jmorgantx@p... Mon Feb 25 20:11:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 04:11:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 82793 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 04:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 04:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n34.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.84) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 04:11:47 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.118] by n34.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 2002 04:11:47 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:11:43 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: UPDATES from James Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1321 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.125 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I will upload my current Players and Votes (I will start calling this PnV for short) shortly. Please check for errors. Two queries- Craig- is your prop 16 vote for the Proposal 16 on the PnV or for Mark's revision? Mark- is your vote on Prop 15 for the revised one now on the PnV or the original? Some notations from the PnV- Proposal 10 is now officially in the ruleset as the seventh rule passed. Proposal 11 is dead. Proposal 9 is technically dead but Stefano has not voted yet on a number of proposals including Prop 9. I will get the *Current Ruleset* and *Players* files updated. I spend so much time looking at PnV that I forget those othe files are there. Sorry. I am seriously considering adopting Mark's revision of Prop 16, I would like to see a section added in there somewhere that says something like: "X) Nothing in this rule will be used to violate the provisions of Rule 1 as amended." I believe this will address Craig's concerns. Hopefully I will be able to address the topic more fully tommorrow. One philosophical question- how do we assign points on a truly consensus written rule? Think about Prop 16- I gave an outline and everybody else filled in the blanks. It seems a little odd for me to recieve points because I had an idea and y'all did a large part of work... James From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Mon Feb 25 20:25:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 45531 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 04:25:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 04:25:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n29.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.79) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 04:25:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.46] by n29.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 2002 04:24:44 -0000 Date: 26 Feb 2002 04:24:42 -0000 Message-ID: <1014697482.1914.90926.w22@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/Players and votes.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 25 Feb You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/Players%20and%20votes.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From mhoney@t... Mon Feb 25 21:09:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 26 Feb 2002 05:09:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 25516 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2002 05:09:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2002 05:09:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.56) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2002 05:09:47 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.126] by n6.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 2002 05:09:47 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:09:44 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: UPDATES from James Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 702 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 > Mark- is your vote on Prop 15 for the revised one now on the > PnV or the original? My vote is for the revised version of proposal 15. > One philosophical question- how do we assign points on a truly > consensus written rule? Think about Prop 16- I gave an outline and > everybody else filled in the blanks. It seems a little odd for me to > recieve points because I had an idea and y'all did a large part of > work... The key point here is that you had an idea. That's what gives you the credit and the points. No matter how much the other players work on it the kernel that got it started came from you. This provides incentive for us to come up with our own ideas. Regards, Mark From ragnarok@p... Wed Feb 27 13:47:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 27 Feb 2002 21:47:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 99524 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2002 21:47:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2002 21:47:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2002 21:47:51 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A40858E700FE; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:47:52 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] UPDATES from James Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:47:50 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >is your prop 16 vote for the Proposal 16 on the PnV or for Mark's >revision? The original. From stavrogin@t... Wed Feb 27 14:55:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: stavrogin@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 27 Feb 2002 22:55:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 85761 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2002 22:55:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2002 22:55:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.tiscalinet.it) (195.130.225.150) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2002 22:55:15 -0000 Received: from stavrogin (62.10.109.230) by mail.tiscalinet.it (5.5.053) id 3C60549900B671E0 for n_omic@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c1bfe1$501fe960$e66d0a3e@s...> To: References: Subject: leaving :-( Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:26:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 From: "Stefano Artesi" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=56017260 X-Yahoo-Profile: Nick_Stavrogin I leave this game of nomic. I'm sorry but I feel like I can't fulfil my players' duties, and I don't want to be a burden for the game. Nice playing with you anyway and see you next time! Stefano From jmorgantx@p... Wed Feb 27 16:53:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 00:53:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 34784 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 00:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 00:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout1-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 00:53:25 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0069.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.69]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1S0rOl197320 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:53:24 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c1bff2$ad071d40$45b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Current Gamestate Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:55:51 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin With Stefano's regrettable leaving Proposals 12 and 13 are now added to the ruleset and Josh and I lunge forward in points with one point each. Prop 14, 15 and 16 are still pending. PnV will be updated soon. Hopefully tonight I will find time to totally redesign the PnV to make it easier to find info. James From jmorgantx@p... Wed Feb 27 17:02:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 01:02:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 736 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 01:02:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 01:02:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout1-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 01:02:31 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0069.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.69]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g1S12Ul110372 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:02:30 -0500 Message-ID: <001301c1bff3$f2474640$45b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Gazjatna-ish bidness Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:04:57 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Files updated: Current Ruleset is now current. Current Players now shew current players. Players and Votes is updated to include a *points* category and reflects the current gamestate. Thank you for your kind support ;) James From mhoney@t... Wed Feb 27 19:51:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 03:51:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 19500 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 03:51:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 03:51:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.58) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 03:51:55 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.141] by n8.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2002 03:51:54 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:51:50 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Amend Prop 14 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1329 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 Since no other players have voted on my Proposal 14 yet and it is not clear how this proposal interacts with the recently passed Prop 13, I would like to take this opportunity to amend my proposal and perhaps resolve some possible confusion. Therefore, I am hereby changing my proposal to a 7 day period before non-voting players get their votes set in favor of pending proposals. Please note that even with this proposal in place, Proposal 13 can still have an effect if there are not enough votes for a new proposal to pass. Proposal 14: If an active player has not submitted a vote on a pending proposal within a 7 day period of the time that the proposal becomes a pending proposal, then that players vote is assumed to be in favor of the pending proposal. If at some point the voting period for a proposal becomes closed before the status of the proposal is resolved, then the 7 day period begins at the time the voting period reopens. An 'active player' is any player who is eligible to cast votes. A 'pending proposal' is any proposal for which the voting period is open and the 'time a proposal beomes a pending proposal' is the timestamp given to the message that posts the proposal. Thank you. I hope that you will give this idea your serious consideration, I still think it's a good one. Mark From mhoney@t... Wed Feb 27 20:04:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 04:04:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 39801 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.57) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 04:04:08 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.112] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2002 04:04:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:04:03 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Discussion on Proposal 16 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 768 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I have decided that it would be unwise for me to post any new proposals until we can all agree on some form of Proposal 16. I feel that this one is by far the most important proposal to date and we really need to be clear as to what it will look like before I can comfortably vote on it. I was thinking that perhaps we need to come to a 'gentleman's agreement' here. Can we just resolve to keep changing and fixing 16 until we get it in a form that every player feels comfortable with? In my humble opinion, the language and the numbering is still a bit sloppy and it could use a rewrite. So what do you say, can we cut some slack here and get it right before the 10 days are up and the proposal dies? Your comments are welcome. Regards, Mark From jmorgantx@p... Wed Feb 27 20:18:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 04:18:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 9277 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 04:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 04:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.73) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 04:18:30 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.129] by n23.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2002 04:18:29 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:18:26 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 715 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.104 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Well firstly would Proposals 14, 15, and 16 fall under the ten day rule stipulated in Rule 9? They were all proposed prior to passage of rule 9? Boy do we need a judicial system. Secondly, I like your proposal revision of 16 except for clause 7 which is directly against rule 9 and I actually thought about formally proposing it tonight w/out the clause. What further changes would you like to see? IMHO, when I propose this again the ten day clock starts ticking on it. I agree that these are very important matters and I would like to see these settled before we move on to some of my more colourful ideas;) I will read 16 over another 20 or 30 times and make sure it says what I think it does. James From mhoney@t... Wed Feb 27 21:01:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 05:01:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 33218 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 05:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 05:01:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.78) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 05:01:30 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.32] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2002 05:01:30 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:01:25 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Discussion of Proposal 16 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3603 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 > Well firstly would Proposals 14, 15, and 16 fall under the ten day > rule stipulated in Rule 9? They were all proposed prior to passage > of rule 9. My feeling is that rule 9 DOES apply even to Proposals 14, 15, and 16 but I don't intend to be a hard-ass about it. The game is still way to unstable to start enforcing unpopular stuff this early. By the way, I noticed the calendar feature of this Yahoo.Group site and decided to use it to document approximately when I think these proposals may expire. I set the calendar to send warning messages 2 days and 1 day prior to the expiration of these proposals. Consider it an experiment and a test of the efficiency of the calendar system. >Boy do we need a judicial system. Absolutely! I am going to reserve discussion of this topic to immediately follow the resolution of Proposal 16. > Secondly, I like your proposal revision of 16 except for clause 7 > which is directly against rule 9 and I actually thought about > formally proposing it tonight w/out the clause. What further > changes would you like to see? OK, let's revisit these changes again just to be clear on what we are discussing. Here is the text of my proposal revision again: 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a suggestion. 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the suggestion which will identify the suggestion during play. This number will stay with the suggestion even if it becomes a proposal and cannot be used again for another suggestion or proposal. 3) The suggestion may be commented on by other players for a period of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by the mailing list. 4) Only the proposer may make any changes ey wants to the suggestion and then may submit it as a proposal bearing the same number as the suggestion. The proposer is under no obligation to make changes to eir proposal. If the proposer ceases to be a player prior to this step, then another player may begin with step 1 and resubmit the suggestion whereby the new suggestion will receive a different number than the earlier one. 5) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. 6) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. Support means to agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but an abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still playing the game. An abstainer is not part of the total population of voters for the purposes of this vote. 7) Active players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will be assumed to be in support of the proposal. That you would like to strike number 7 does not surprize me. It is confusing in light of the current ruleset and I've tried to cover the issue in Proposal 14 anyway. Get rid of 7. Also, I feel it is important that we use the term 'suggestion' and not 'draft proposal', particularly since the language of Rule 9 is about 'proposals'. I would also like to add a sentence to item 4 saying something like, "When proposer submits his proposal then it is no longer subject to revision or amendment and must be voted on as is." I know this may sound harsh, particularly when I just finished amending my own proposal, but otherwise we have potential chaos. > IMHO, when I propose this again the ten day clock starts > ticking on it. Normally, I would disagree. However, I am willing to let an easier interpretation of the rules apply if that's what it takes to get this proposal to pass. Regards, Mark From ragnarok@p... Thu Feb 28 04:03:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 12:03:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 20650 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 12:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 12:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 12:03:14 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC89249900EC; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:03:21 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Discussion of Proposal 16 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:03:17 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> Well firstly would Proposals 14, 15, and 16 fall under the ten day >> rule stipulated in Rule 9? They were all proposed prior to passage >> of rule 9. >My feeling is that rule 9 DOES apply even to Proposals 14, 15, and 16 I would agree, except when does its ten-day period begin? >but I don't intend to be a hard-ass about it. The game is still way >to unstable to start enforcing unpopular stuff this early. By the I agree - which is why I didn't block the repeal of rule two on the grounds that the proposer was not technically a player. >>Boy do we need a judicial system. >Absolutely! I am going to reserve discussion of this topic to >immediately follow the resolution of Proposal 16. As do I. I suggest right now that the instant prop 16 resolves, we brainstorm on structure, then have the proposal come from everyone involved (giving us all points). >1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a suggestion. >2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the suggestion which >will identify the suggestion during play. This number will stay with >the suggestion even if it becomes a proposal and cannot be used again >for another suggestion or proposal. We really need a Watcher. From josh@w... Thu Feb 28 07:42:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 15:42:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 14645 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 15:42:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 15:42:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 15:42:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 30570 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 15:42:23 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 15:42:23 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:42:22 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:42:22 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Amend Prop 14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I hesitate to support Prop. 14 because I do not particularly like the fact that non-votes are counted as affirmative (although I agree they shouldn't count against the proposal either). But, until abstaining is a valid option this rule is probably necessary to keep the game moving, if someone disappears. So I will cast my vote in SUPPOR of proposal 14. Josh On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, mark33703 wrote: > Since no other players have voted on my Proposal 14 yet and it is not > clear how this proposal interacts with the recently passed Prop 13, I > would like to take this opportunity to amend my proposal and perhaps > resolve some possible confusion. Therefore, I am hereby changing my > proposal to a 7 day period before non-voting players get their votes > set in favor of pending proposals. Please note that even with this > proposal in place, Proposal 13 can still have an effect if there are > not enough votes for a new proposal to pass. > > Proposal 14: > > If an active player has not submitted a vote on a pending proposal > within a 7 day period of the time that the proposal becomes a > pending proposal, then that players vote is assumed to be in favor of > the pending proposal. If at some point the voting period for a > proposal becomes closed before the status of the proposal is > resolved, then the 7 day period begins at the time the voting period > reopens. > An 'active player' is any player who is eligible to cast votes. > A 'pending proposal' is any proposal for which the voting period is > open and the 'time a proposal beomes a pending proposal' is the > timestamp given to the message that posts the proposal. > > Thank you. I hope that you will give this idea your serious > consideration, I still think it's a good one. > > Mark > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > From josh@w... Thu Feb 28 08:11:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 16:11:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 17125 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 16:11:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 16:11:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 16:11:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 13690 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 16:11:17 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 16:11:17 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:11:16 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:11:10 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Discussion of Proposal 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, mark33703 wrote: > > 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a suggestion. > > 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the suggestion which > will identify the suggestion during play. This number will stay with > the suggestion even if it becomes a proposal and cannot be used again > for another suggestion or proposal. > > 3) The suggestion may be commented on by other players for a period > of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by the mailing > list. > > 4) Only the proposer may make any changes ey wants to the suggestion > and then may submit it as a proposal bearing the same number as the > suggestion. The proposer is under no obligation to make changes to > eir proposal. If the proposer ceases to be a player prior to this > step, then another player may begin with step 1 and resubmit the > suggestion whereby the new suggestion will receive a different number > than the earlier one. > > 5) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. > > 6) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. Support means to > agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose passage of > the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but an > abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still > playing the game. An abstainer is not part of the total population > of voters for the purposes of this vote. > > 7) Active players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will be > assumed to be in support of the proposal. > > > That you would like to strike number 7 does not surprize me. It is > confusing in light of the current ruleset and I've tried to cover the > issue in Proposal 14 anyway. Get rid of 7. I disagree that number 7 should be struck altogether. I'd rather see it admended to have a non-voting player's vote count as an abstention. Of course, that might require a slight modification to the defintion of abstain. Although, lets not let this one little point hang up the whole proposal. I think that we also could have a problem in that the revised proposal 14 contradicts point 7. It also contradicts the spirt of point 5, although both could exists without a legal contradiction. Maybe we could attach another clause to this proposal, something along the lines of: "Upon passage of this proposal, proposal 14 shall no longer be considered under consideration. If proposal 14 has already passed, then any rule created as a result of proposal 14 shall be repealed." I think we are getting close. Josh From adistius@y... Thu Feb 28 08:34:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 16:34:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 22012 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 16:34:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 16:34:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n34.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.84) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 16:34:52 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.150] by n34.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2002 16:34:28 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:29:53 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTES on 14, 15, and 16 and a few notes Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 366 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 64.61.53.102 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius I'm voting to support 14, 15, and 16. I would like to note that I think 16 will need some amending soon, but I think it provides us with an excellent framework. I'm going to work on a judiciary proposal for us to tear apart and discuss -- a framework, if you will, for discussion. Hopefully, I'll be able to send something later today or first thing tommorrow. From josh@w... Thu Feb 28 12:44:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 20:44:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 76687 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 20:44:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 20:44:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 20:44:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 16612 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 20:43:58 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 20:43:58 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:43:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:43:56 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote on proposal 15 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I forgot to mention this, but I support proposal 15. Josh From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 28 19:21:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 1 Mar 2002 03:21:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 59103 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 03:21:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2002 03:21:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.78) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2002 03:21:45 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.121] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Mar 2002 03:21:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:21:43 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE Prop 14 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 210 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I must admit that I still have many a doubt on this proposal but I figure if everybody else is jumping at it then I must be missing something. Maybe the abstention clause in prop 16 will ease my mind. James From jmorgantx@p... Thu Feb 28 19:23:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 1 Mar 2002 03:23:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 83603 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 03:23:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2002 03:23:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.53) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2002 03:23:09 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.119] by n3.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Mar 2002 03:23:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:23:07 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: PnV bidness Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 147 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin If my calculations are correct Proposal 15 has passed. One point is awarded to Craig and the appropiate changes have been made to the PnV. James From ragnarok@p... Sat Mar 02 08:45:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 16:45:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 73686 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 16:45:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 16:45:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 16:45:55 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A1C25BD200F4; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:45:54 -0500 To: Subject: Proposal (17?) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:46:11 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl As no official ruleset has been compiled (and the rules do not provide for one to be), and thus there is no way to settle disputes about rules, I propose the following new rule: A position of the Rulekeeper, who may also be known as the Jvastegau, will be created, and its holder is required to maintain a copy of the current rules. This must be kept up to date, with any changes to the ruleset being added within 36 hours. It will be the only official version of the ruleset and will supercede all other versions. This ruleset may only be modified from the proposal texts by fixing any misspellings, and must have the rules listed in order of pasage. It must be made availible for viewing by all players. Jvastegau means rule-list maker in Lojban (the same language that gives us the term Gazjatna, organizing leader). I also wish to add that although it doesn't matter now, with only one job, the list of position-holders that the Gazjatna is required to make does not seem to exist. If this proposal passes, it will become necessary. --Craig Daniel 'Now away in the near furture, southeast of disorder, You can shake the hand of the mango man as he greets you at the border.' -Jimmy Buffett pgp public key ID: 0x5C3A1E74 From ragnarok@p... Sat Mar 02 09:09:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 17:09:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 19582 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 17:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 17:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 17:09:32 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A74B3243008C; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:09:31 -0500 To: Subject: Vote on prop 14 Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:09:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I hereby ABSTAIN on proposal 14. From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 02 13:07:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:07:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 3976 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n32.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.82) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:07:26 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.169] by n32.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 21:07:25 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:07:24 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: OPINION needed: Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 181 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin As per rule 1 and the fact that 'abstain' has as yet been defined Proposal 14 has failed, correct? I updated PnV that way but if y'all think otherwise please let me know. James From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 02 13:09:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:09:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 7182 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:09:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:09:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n12.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.62) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:09:33 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.121] by n12.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 21:09:18 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:08:08 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: OPINION needed: Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 181 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin As per rule 1 and the fact that 'abstain' has as yet been defined Proposal 14 has failed, correct? I updated PnV that way but if y'all think otherwise please let me know. James From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 02 13:12:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:12:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 71392 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:12:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:12:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n4.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.54) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:12:53 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.127] by n4.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 21:12:52 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:12:50 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote FOR Proposal 17 (NIM) Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 25 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin NIM= no internal message From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 02 13:33:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:33:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 2707 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n10.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.60) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:33:25 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.139] by n10.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 21:33:25 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:33:20 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: PROP 16 Amended Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1989 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin As no one has had another suggestion in a couple of days and as I am comfortable with the text I give you the amended Prop 16. Please note the wording of section 7. I adopted Josh's suggestion. I am regrettably not sure when the timeframe is up on this if we are keeping track. I will hunt it down after I post this letter. Thanks to everybody for your help. ----start---- I propose to add this rule to the ruleset: ---- This rule outlines the Order of Play in Pure N_omic. 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a suggestion. 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the suggestion which will identify the suggestion during play. This number will stay with the suggestion even if it becomes a proposal and cannot be used again for another suggestion or proposal. 3) The suggestion may be commented on by other players for a period of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided by the mailing list. 4) Only the proposer may make any changes ey wants to the suggestion and then may submit it as a proposal bearing the same number as the suggestion. The proposer is under no obligation to make changes to eir proposal. If the proposer ceases to be a player prior to this step, then another player may begin with step 1 and resubmit the suggestion whereby the new suggestion will receive a different number than the earlier one. 5) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. 6) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. Support means to agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to block, but an abstain vote will notify other players that the abstainer is still playing the game. An abstainer is not part of the total population of voters for the purposes of this vote. 7) Active players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will be assumed to have voted abstain on the proposal. ----end---- James From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 02 13:45:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:45:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 15695 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:45:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:45:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n25.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.75) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:45:26 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.37] by n25.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 21:43:20 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:45:22 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Prop 16 vote ends Wed 6 March... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 30 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin if I figured correctly James From mhoney@t... Sat Mar 02 13:50:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:50:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 53364 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:50:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:50:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n22.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.72) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:50:11 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.127] by n22.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 21:50:11 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:50:07 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PROP 16 Amended Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1744 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 > ----start---- > I propose to add this rule to the ruleset: > > ---- > This rule outlines the Order of Play in Pure N_omic. > > 1) A player, henceforth known as the Proposer, makes a suggestion. > > 2) The Watcher will assign a unique number to the suggestion which > will identify the suggestion during play. This number will > stay with the suggestion even if it becomes a proposal and cannot > be used again for another suggestion or proposal. > > 3) The suggestion may be commented on by other players for a period > of no less than 24 hours from the timestamp provided > by the mailing list. > > 4) Only the proposer may make any changes ey wants to the > suggestion and then may submit it as a proposal bearing the same > number as the suggestion. The proposer is under no obligation to > make changes to eir proposal. If the proposer ceases to be a > player prior to this step, then another player may begin with > step 1 and resubmit the suggestion whereby the new suggestion > will receive a different number than the earlier one. > > 5) The players have 10 days in which to vote on the proposal. > > 6) Legal votes are: support; block; or abstain. Support means to > agree to passage of the proposal. To block is to oppose > passage of the proposal. To abstain is neither to support nor to > block, but an abstain vote will notify other players that the > abstainer is still playing the game. An abstainer is not part of > the total population of voters for the purposes of this vote. > > 7) Active players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will > be assumed to have voted abstain on the proposal. > > ----end---- I vote in SUPPORT of proposal 16 as amended above. -Mark From ragnarok@p... Sat Mar 02 13:56:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 21:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 30357 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 21:56:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 21:56:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 21:56:25 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA8A35060128; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 16:56:26 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] OPINION needed: Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >As per rule 1 and the fact that 'abstain' has as yet been defined >Proposal 14 has failed, correct? I updated PnV that way but if y'all >think otherwise please let me know. I didn't mean to block it. I meant my abstention in the prop-16 intent way, where I don't want it but I will 'agree to' it since everyone else wants it. So that means it passes, but not because I care either way. If others feel I am wrong, change my vote to for. Having no opinion is no reason for me to do something that would kill a proposal others want. From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 02 14:32:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 22:32:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 25397 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 22:32:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 22:32:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n22.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.72) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 22:32:17 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.127] by n22.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 22:32:17 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:32:14 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Pnv moves (for now) Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 338 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin For some reason my computer doesn't like the yahoogroups site so the Pnv is moving to: http://www.geocities.com/redneck_penguin/nomic/pnv.html This should be a fairly permanent address so I reckon y'all can bookmark it ifn you want. Hopefully this will spur me to getting the PnV all cleaned up and more user friendly... James From mhoney@t... Sat Mar 02 14:45:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 22:45:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 99337 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 22:45:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 22:45:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.64) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 22:45:30 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.47] by n14.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Mar 2002 22:47:32 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:45:25 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Another look at Proposal 14 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 644 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 --- In n_omic@y..., "Craig" wrote: > I didn't mean to block it. I meant my abstention in the prop-16 > intent way, where I don't want it but I will 'agree to' it since > everyone else wants it. So that means it passes, but not because I > care either way. If others feel I am wrong, change my vote to for. > Having no opinion is no reason for me to do something that would > kill a proposal others want. If I understand Craig's message correctly, then Proposal 14 has PASSED. You did ask for opinions on this topic and Craig has provided his. Can you please make the appropriate changes to the ruleset? Thank you, Mark From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 03 05:16:35 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26753 invoked by uid 7800); 3 Mar 2002 13:16:35 -0000 Date: 3 Mar 2002 13:16:35 -0000 Message-ID: <1015161395.18093895.15997.m12@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: File - Current Ruleset for *Pure* N_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CURRENT RULESET: kxent rMlset Rules in order of passage. This ruleset has NO official standing. 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. A player is any person subscribed to the Official mailing list, who has announced their intention to be a player and has posted at least one message in the last two weeks. 3. The official mailing list for this game is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic which is accessible by email at n_omic@yahoogroups.com . 4. Players, and only players, are entitled to make proposals to change the game. One possible type of proposal is to add a new rule to the ruleset. A proposal may only add a new rule if it explictly states that it will do so. Any proposal that affects the game, but not the ruleset, is assumed to only have its effects applied one time, unless the proposal explicitly states otherwise. 5. The official logo of this pure nomic shall be the image at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/purenomic.bmp. This shall be used whenever a graphic connected to this nomic is required. 6. A new position will be created, that of Watcher. The holder of this position may, at any time, surrender eir Watcher-hood to any other player. The duties of the Watcher include maintaining a list of the current holders of all positions, as well as a list of all players and how they have voted on any currently pending proposals. Other duties may be conferred upon the Watcher by other rules. Non-players are not eligible for Watcher-hood, nor are those not subscribed to the n_omic@yahoogroups.com mailing list. 7. A point system is created for Pure n_omic. A player whose proposal passes recieves one point. A player whose proposal fails loses one point. 8. Unless the player explicitly states to the contrary all players are assumed to support passage of eir proposals. 9. Any proposal that has not received enough votes to pass after a period of ten days from the date the proposal was made, shall be considered rejected and removed from consideration. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 03 05:16:35 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26754 invoked by uid 7800); 3 Mar 2002 13:16:35 -0000 Date: 3 Mar 2002 13:16:35 -0000 Message-ID: <1015161395.18093978.15997.m12@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: File - Ruleset MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. All players must agree to any changes to the game. 2. Players take turns suggesting a new rule. From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 03 10:05:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 18:05:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 11159 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 18:05:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 18:05:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 18:05:26 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A5E5469B014A; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:05:25 -0500 To: Subject: Problem Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:05:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I have found a problem with our rules. I see no obvious reason to prefer one fix over another, but for those who might I will demonstrate this flaw by exploiting it to my own advantage, then suggest three solutions. Don't worry, I will be willing to support a proposal that undoes what I do, as well as ones that plug the hole. I hereby propose that I have exactly fifty points. Since this is a change to the gamestate but not to the game itself (which is defined by the rules and players, since it is still the same game after I post this message), it does not require consensus. And since rule 7 does not forbid scores changing other than by proposal passage, I can do that. So I have fifty points. James, pleas update PnV to reflect this (probably temporary) fact. Here are my solutions; none of them is a proposal yet. Possible Fix Number 1. Ammend rule 1 to read, "All players must agree to any changes to the game itself or to the current gamestate." Possible Fix Number 2. Ammend rule 7 by adding, "Points may not be changed unless the change is specified by the rules." Possible Fix Number 3. Add a rule defining the game to include the gamestate. Possible Fix Number 4. Create a judicial system, and add a rule stating that all changes to the gamestate happen through either proposals or the necessary actions of said system. From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 03 10:20:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 18:20:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 80166 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 18:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 18:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 18:20:35 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A971386B0128; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:20:33 -0500 To: Subject: Formatting Proposal Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:20:56 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I know I am taking a slight risk with points here, because after it passes the inclusion of this in the ruleset will look silly, but I figure I have enough points anyway. I propose the following: All rules surrounded by quotation marks lose said quotation marks. A rule will be added to the ruleset, reading, "If a rule in the ruleset is surrounded by quotation marks, they will be removed on the grounds that it looks damned silly to have those on some rules and not others." From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 03 10:23:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 18:23:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 26280 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 18:23:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 18:23:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 18:23:18 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA165F4E012A; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:23:18 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Formatting Proposal Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:23:41 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >looks damned silly to have those on some rules and not others." Note that the Current Ruleset file does not have this problem, but PnV's ruleset does. If the Jvastegau proposal passes, then it might someday matter if some of the rules are simply quotes in the official version of the ruleset - a version which does not exist now. From mhoney@t... Sun Mar 03 13:50:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 21:50:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 4930 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 21:50:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 21:50:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n4.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.54) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 21:50:39 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.113] by n4.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2002 21:50:38 -0000 Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:50:36 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: James, which version is real? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1329 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 --- In n_omic@y..., "redneck_penguin" wrote: > For some reason my computer doesn't like the yahoogroups site so > the Pnv is moving to: > > http://www.geocities.com/redneck_penguin/nomic/pnv.html > > This should be a fairly permanent address so I reckon y'all can > bookmark it ifn you want. > > Hopefully this will spur me to getting the PnV all cleaned up and > more user friendly... The files version and the geocites.com version of the current gamestate differ in that one of them has proposal 14 as PASSED and one of them has proposal 14 as FAILED. If I am reading the above message correctly, the more official version is the geocities.com one. Maybe the yahoogroups files updated too slowly and it looked like the thing wasn't responding. Try it again. Perhaps you can get better results now. I hope we can work it out. The files in the yahoogroup are very confusing overall. There are several versions of rulesets, some of them dating back a few years. Can you delete these old ones or at least move them to the archive folder? I am thinking here that we can get some more players soon if we clean up this part of the site a little bit. What do you think? My feeling is after we get proposal 16 and a judicial system going we can try to recruit new players. Regards, Mark From mhoney@t... Sun Mar 03 14:22:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 22:22:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 7636 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 22:22:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 22:22:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.51) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 22:22:34 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.46] by n1.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2002 22:22:34 -0000 Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:22:30 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Problem Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3827 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 --- In n_omic@y..., "Craig" wrote: > I hereby propose that I have exactly fifty points. > > Since this is a change to the gamestate but not to the game itself > (which is defined by the rules and players, since it is still the > same game after I post this message), it does not require > consensus. And since rule 7 does not forbid scores changing other > than by proposal passage, I can do that. So I > have fifty points. James, pleas update PnV to reflect this (probably > temporary) fact. Craig, I am absolutely OPPOSED to your proposal. Give me a break, Craig. Just because there's no rule forbidding it, does not at all imply that something is legal. Hell, I can just as easily, and with just as much authority I might add, propose that you lose 50 points. The problem with it is that it isn't legal. Or even better, I can propose that you be removed from this game. Do I need consensus for that? Look, Craig, I think that we all know that the game is unstable. We hardly need foolhardy moves like this for you to prove it. Just relax a bit and let's get some groundwork under our feet first. > Here are my solutions; none of them is a proposal yet. > Possible Fix Number 1. Ammend rule 1 to read, "All players must >agree to any changes to the game itself or to the current gamestate." NO WAY! There are many 'changes to the game itself' that do not require consensus. For example, when I place a vote that is a change to the game. I don't need your approval for THAT. What about a point of order or a call for judgement? NO. The gamestate is controlled by the ruleset. Changes to the ruleset (currently) need the approval of all players. Players simply cannot throw game elements such as points around willy-nilly. Frankly I felt that this was so obvious that it did not need to be put down as a rule. Just as, for example, a requirement that all rules be written in English. Look, there will be some implied assumptions intrinsic in every rule and intrinsic in every gamestate. We can play hardball with exactly where the limits of those assumptions currently reside, but the GAME IS VERY UNSTABLE RIGHT NOW. Fooling around with this idea will surely kill N_omic and it will quietly enter the failed nomic graveyard with all the other dead games out there. > Possible Fix Number 2. Ammend rule 7 by adding, "Points may not be > changed unless the change is specified by the rules." My God! You actually need a rule to state this? How about, "Points must be a number."? I mean, what in the rules prevents my points from being 'shazbot' right now? Or how about, "N_omic points are not redeemable for US currency."? C'mon, Craig, this is a slippery slope and it leads to absolute chaos. > Possible Fix Number 3. Add a rule defining the game to include the > gamestate. Once again, my reaction is, You actually need a rule to state this? Did you ever think for a moment that the game might not include the gamestate? Perhaps it's the other way around and the gamestate includes the game? Who cares anyway? > Possible Fix Number 4. Create a judicial system, and add a rule > stating that all changes to the gamestate happen through either > proposals or the necessary actions of said system. Well, I guess this one is better. However, there are still some problems with it. Votes are changes to the gamestate. I suspect that possible fix number 4 gets closest to your core issue here. Yes, I do not doubt that we need a judicial system. I have a very definate idea in mind and will be proposing it soon. I would like my proposal to follow the guidelines we are putting forth in proposal 16 and that is why I am waiting for the passage of that proposal before starting that discussion in earnest. Regards, Mark From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 03 14:46:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 22:46:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 8518 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 22:46:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 22:46:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 22:46:56 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A7E22E5800F0; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:46:58 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: Problem Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:47:19 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >imply that something is legal. Hell, I can just as easily, and with >just as much authority I might add, propose that you lose 50 points. Yes, you can. >The problem with it is that it isn't legal. Or even better, I can What makes it illegal? >propose that you be removed from this game. Do I need consensus for >that? Look, Craig, I think that we all know that the game is No, you don't. But, I am still a player because of the definition of a player. >unstable. We hardly need foolhardy moves like this for you to prove >it. Just relax a bit and let's get some groundwork under our feet >first. I demonstrated this problem now precisely because the game is not yet mature. If it were, then the number of points I have being fifty instead of one might matter. However, it doesn't yet, so my demonstration hurts nobody. >> Here are my solutions; none of them is a proposal yet. >> Possible Fix Number 1. Ammend rule 1 to read, "All players must >> agree to any changes to the game itself or to the current gamestate." >NO WAY! There are many 'changes to the game itself' that do not >require consensus. For example, when I place a vote that is a change >to the game. I don't need your approval for THAT. What about a Good point. >point of order or a call for judgement? NO. The gamestate is Seeing as there are no such things as CFJs or points of order in this nomic as yet... >where the limits of those assumptions currently reside, but the GAME >IS VERY UNSTABLE RIGHT NOW. Fooling around with this idea will >surely kill N_omic and it will quietly enter the failed nomic >graveyard with all the other dead games out there. Which is why I didn't try this with something that mattered. POINTS ARE MEANINGLESS RIGHT NOW! >> Possible Fix Number 2. Ammend rule 7 by adding, "Points may not be >> changed unless the change is specified by the rules." >must be a number."? I mean, what in the rules prevents my points >from being 'shazbot' right now? Or how about, "N_omic points are not Nothing. If a proposal making your points be 'shazbot' were adopted, then your points would be 'shazbot'. The only reason that they are not is that there is not yet any way for people's points to become 'shazbot' other than that, and nobody is about to try it. >> Possible Fix Number 4. Create a judicial system, and add a rule >> stating that all changes to the gamestate happen through either >> proposals or the necessary actions of said system. >Well, I guess this one is better. However, there are still some This is my preferred solution also. >problems with it. Votes are changes to the gamestate. I suspect >that possible fix number 4 gets closest to your core issue here. I agree. Somehow, we have to stop people from doing what I have done at a time when it makes a difference. >Yes, I do not doubt that we need a judicial system. I have a very >definate idea in mind and will be proposing it soon. I would like my Good. We need one. Having made my point, I hereby propose that I am back to my former number of points, namely, one. From jmorgantx@p... Sun Mar 03 17:17:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 4 Mar 2002 01:17:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 17021 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 01:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 01:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.57) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 01:17:39 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.175] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2002 01:17:39 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 01:17:35 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: LOL! All right guys... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 507 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.55 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Firstly- Mark the geocities one is the current gamestate. Secondly- Craig I will remove nefarious quotations from the rules (BTW is this a real proposal?) Thirdly- I am not a big fan of the proposed 50 pts to Craig (BTW is that an official proposal? If so I need to add it to the record) but I do understand the point you were driving at. Fourthly- I will try to do something to archive the N_omic stuff. Last time I tried... well you see the results. No updates on PnV or aything tonight. James From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 03 19:43:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 4 Mar 2002 03:43:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 73887 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 03:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 03:43:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 03:43:07 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD4E652900CC; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:43:10 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] LOL! All right guys... Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:43:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Secondly- Craig I will remove nefarious quotations from the rules Great. >(BTW is this a real proposal?) No, but I wasn't sure what other terms to put it in. >Thirdly- I am not a big fan of the proposed 50 pts to Craig (BTW is >that an official proposal? If so I need to add it to the record) but I'm not really sure myself. Anyway, if it was I have proposed myself back to only one, so it doesn't matter. What does matter is the need for a judicial system, and the need for greater clarity in what does and doesn't require consensus - the ladder being a problem not yet commented on, and unseen (at least by me) before I posted that. >I do understand the point you were driving at. From josh@w... Mon Mar 04 07:18:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 4 Mar 2002 15:18:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 78262 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 15:18:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 15:18:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n21.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.71) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 15:18:22 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.141] by n21.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2002 15:01:56 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:18:20 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Another look at Proposal 14 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1030 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "joshutt" X-Originating-IP: 192.207.234.65 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt --- In n_omic@y..., "mark33703" wrote: > --- In n_omic@y..., "Craig" wrote: > > I didn't mean to block it. I meant my abstention in the prop-16 > > intent way, where I don't want it but I will 'agree to' it since > > everyone else wants it. So that means it passes, but not because I > > care either way. If others feel I am wrong, change my vote to for. > > Having no opinion is no reason for me to do something that would > > kill a proposal others want. > > If I understand Craig's message correctly, then Proposal 14 has > PASSED. You did ask for opinions on this topic and Craig has > provided his. This would be true ONLY because Craig said that he was willing to change his vote to support the proposal. If his vote had remained ABSTAIN then it would not have passed because "all players must agree..." There is no method for handling abstentions. Of course that will change if Prop.16 passes (although it is still ambigous as to whether abstain does what we think it should.) Josh From adistius@y... Mon Mar 04 07:37:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 4 Mar 2002 15:37:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 63768 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 15:37:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 15:37:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11606.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.58) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 15:37:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20020304153712.24956.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11606.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 07:37:12 PST Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:37:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: My proto-proposal for a judiciary To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=58675104 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius First, my congratulations to Craig on early exploitation of rule-set weakness. While I admire genteel conduct in the early stages of a game, it rarely produces interesting results. Here is my proto-proposal for a judical system which may be discussed, altered, or amended freely. It is not, at this time, a proposal. It is just a set of talking points. 1. Issues involving interpretation of the rules, the validity of various actions by players, and/or resolution of conflicting interepetations of the game state shall be resolved by the Judical System. 2. The Judical System shall not issue hypothetical or advisory opinions. 3. Any player may requested a ruling from the Judical System by sending a message which conforms to the following format to the offical Pure N_omic list. This message shall be called a “Call for Judgement” or CFJ. a. The message shall have the words “Call for Judgement” in the subject line. b. The message shall contain a statement concerning the interpretation of the rules or the state of the game which can be determined by the Judicial System to be either False or True. This statement shall be preceeded by the word clause “Resolved:”, be enclosed in brackets ([]) and be refered to as the Resolution. c. The player who issues the CFJ may but need not follow the Resolution with a statement of facts or an argument explaing the reason for the CFJ and/or supporting a particular opinion. 4. No later than ten (10) days following the CFJ, the Watcher shall appoint a Judge for the CFJ by randomly selecting a player who: a. Is not the player who issued the CFJ b. Is not a player named in the CFJ c. Is not the Watcher. 5. Should the conditions of 4a and 4b of this Rule be impossible to meet, the the Watcher shall be the Judge, any other provision of these Rules notwithstanding. 6. The Watcher shall appoint the judge by sending an email to the offical list which: a. Has a subject line that contains the words “Judge Appointed” b. Clearly and plainly names a specific player as judge c. Assigns a unique, sequential number to the CFJ by which it and the resulting ruling may be referenced. 7. The Judge shall have 10 (ten) days from the date of eir appointment to issue a ruling which conforms to these rules. Failure to do so, shall result in two points being deducted from the player named judge’s score and the Watcher appointing a new judge. 8. In making a ruling, the Judge shall be guided by: a. The rule set b. The game state c. The precedent set by previous rulings on CFJs 9. The Judge shall issue a ruling on the CJF which shall conform to the following standards: a. The ruling shall be an email sent to the offical list. b. The ruling shall contain the words “Ruling on CFJ” followed by the unique number assigned this CFJ by the Watcher. c. The ruling shall restate the Resolution in brackets ([ ]) d. The ruling shall consist of the words “I find the Resolution” followed by either the word “True” or the word “False.” e. The judge is strongly encouraged follow the ruling with a statement of facts or arguments explaining the ruling. 10. Once the ruling is issued, it shall have no force or effect for a period of 5 days. 11. During the 5 day period following the issuance of a ruling, any player may present a proposal which attempts to reverse the ruling. Such a proposal shall take the form “The Ruling on CFJ [unique number assigned by the Watcher” shall be” followed by either the word True or the word False. 12. Such a proposal as described in section 11 of this rule shall pass if and only if two-thirds of all players active at the time of the making of the proposal shall vote to SUPPORT the proposal. 13. The method of voting and time period for voting on a proposal to reverse a CFJ ruling shall be identical to the method and time period for proposals which attempt to add an new rule to the ruleset. 14. The Watcher shall maintain a file which shall be easily accessed by all players which shall contain the text of all CFJ rulings as well as a statement which states that the CFJ was revered by vote of the players in the case of rulings which are, in fact, reversed by vote of the players. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 06:50:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 5 Mar 2002 14:50:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 51564 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 23:29:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 23:29:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 23:29:32 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A35D36CD00F0; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:29:33 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] My proto-proposal for a judiciary Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:29:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >ki'esai. Don't worry, there's more coming, but I'll wait on the ones that do matter until there is no risk that such antics would kill the game. Sorry, brain got stuck in Lojban mode. ki'esai = thanks. From josh@w... Tue Mar 05 10:53:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 5 Mar 2002 18:53:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 5288 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 16:14:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 16:14:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 16:14:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 16381 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 16:14:51 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 16:14:51 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:14:50 -0600 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:14:47 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposals 16 and 17 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I will support both proposals 16 and 17. In order to clear up the obvious contradiction that will exist between Prop. 16 and rule 10, I offer the following proposal: If, at the time of the passage of this proposal, proposal 16 has passed, then rule 10 will be repealed. If proposal 16 has not passed, but is still under consideration, rule 10 will be repealed upon the passage of proposal 16. Josh From adistius@y... Tue Mar 05 13:17:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 5 Mar 2002 21:17:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 7249 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 17:13:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 17:13:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web11604.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.172.56) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 17:13:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20020304171337.9703.qmail@w...> Received: from [64.61.53.102] by web11604.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 09:13:37 PST Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:13:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Email troubles To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20020304153712.24956.qmail@w...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Riley Reply-To: adistius@y... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: public Yahoo groups is giving me fits as I fiddle with my email addy. In the event that I vanish for a few hours, know that I intend to continue to play. ===== --- David Riley adistius@y... "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com From adistius@e... Tue Mar 05 15:31:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@e... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 5 Mar 2002 23:31:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 40026 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 15:01:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2002 15:01:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.61) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 15:01:11 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.91] by n11.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Mar 2002 15:01:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 15:01:06 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Welcome back and Vote to support 16 & 17 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 99 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 64.61.53.102 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=79239828 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius Hello, Evidently Yahoo! Groups is functioning again. Whee! Okay, I SUPPORT proposals 16 & 17. From adistius@e... Tue Mar 05 16:36:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@e... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 00:36:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 53485 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 15:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2002 15:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n16.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.66) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 15:09:13 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.24] by n16.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Mar 2002 15:08:56 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 15:09:10 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: An idea Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 700 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 64.61.53.102 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=79239828 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius We could use the Yahoo! Groups Poll function to conduct votes. The advantages are: 1) the Watcher can set the date on which the poll closes, thus ensuring the time limits are accurately observed 2) the Poll can be set to show voter identity to prevent double voting and such 3) It seems fairly functional and easy to use and will do the counting for the Watcher so as to lessen the administrative burdern of the office some what. The disadvantages (that I can think of) are: 1) Less chance of error and resulting interesting game play and 2) It is subject to the whim of Yahoo!. What do ya'll think? I would make this a proposal, but would prefer some comment first. Yours, David From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 18:46:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 02:46:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 3262 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 22:48:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2002 22:48:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 22:48:37 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB477CB80148; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:48:39 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] My proto-proposal for a judiciary Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:48:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl Here is the message my last message was about, which yahoo seems to have et. -----Original Message----- From: Craig [mailto:raganok@i...] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:55 PM To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [n_omic] My proto-proposal for a judiciary >First, my congratulations to Craig on early >exploitation of rule-set weakness. While I admire >genteel conduct in the early stages of a game, it >rarely produces interesting results. ki'esai. Don't worry, there's more coming, but I'll wait on the ones that do matter until there is no risk that such antics would kill the game. >2. The Judical System shall not issue hypothetical or >advisory opinions. I disagree. Judgements as to what is best for pure n_omic, at least while the game is still unstable, should be permitted. >3. Any player may requested a ruling from the Judical >System by sending a message which conforms to the >following format to the offical Pure N_omic list. >This message shall be called a “Call for Judgement” or >CFJ. CFJ is such a boring name, seemingly copied from every other nomic. We should think of our own name. >4. No later than ten (10) days following the CFJ, the >Watcher shall appoint a Judge for the CFJ by randomly >selecting a player who: >a. Is not the player who issued the CFJ >b. Is not a player named in the CFJ >c. Is not the Watcher. >5. Should the conditions of 4a and 4b of this Rule be >impossible to meet, the the Watcher shall be the >Judge, any other provision of these Rules >notwithstanding. We need to settle on a randomizing algorithm. I propose using this web page: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ >6. The Watcher shall appoint the judge by sending an >email to the offical list which: >a. Has a subject line that contains the words “Judge >Appointed” >b. Clearly and plainly names a specific player as >judge >c. Assigns a unique, sequential number to the CFJ by >which it and the resulting ruling may be referenced. I'd rather make a new position than vest all the power in the watcher, but I won't block over that. >11. During the 5 day period following the issuance of >a ruling, any player may present a proposal which >attempts to reverse the ruling. Such a proposal shall >take the form “The Ruling on CFJ [unique number >assigned by the Watcher” shall be” followed by either >the word True or the word False. >12. Such a proposal as described in section 11 of this >rule shall pass if and only if two-thirds of all >players active at the time of the making of the >proposal shall vote to SUPPORT the proposal. This could be abused, easily. I don't see any solution, though. From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 19:06:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 03:06:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 49781 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 22:50:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2002 22:50:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 22:50:37 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABBE76490130; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:50:38 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Email troubles Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:50:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20020304171337.9703.qmail@w...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >In the event that I vanish for a few hours, know that >I intend to continue to play. Unfortunately, you will still be a non-player for those few hours. From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 19:32:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 03:32:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 88774 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 22:55:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 22:55:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 22:55:17 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB5769B90126; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:55:19 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] My proto-proposal for a judiciary Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:55:16 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20020304153712.24956.qmail@w...> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >First, my congratulations to Craig on early >exploitation of rule-set weakness. While I admire >genteel conduct in the early stages of a game, it >rarely produces interesting results. ki'esai. Don't worry, there's more coming, but I'll wait on the ones that do matter until there is no risk that such antics would kill the game. >2. The Judical System shall not issue hypothetical or >advisory opinions. I disagree. Judgements as to what is best for pure n_omic, at least while the game is still unstable, should be permitted. >3. Any player may requested a ruling from the Judical >System by sending a message which conforms to the >following format to the offical Pure N_omic list. >This message shall be called a “Call for Judgement” or >CFJ. CFJ is such a boring name, seemingly copied from every other nomic. We should think of our own name. >4. No later than ten (10) days following the CFJ, the >Watcher shall appoint a Judge for the CFJ by randomly >selecting a player who: >a. Is not the player who issued the CFJ >b. Is not a player named in the CFJ >c. Is not the Watcher. >5. Should the conditions of 4a and 4b of this Rule be >impossible to meet, the the Watcher shall be the >Judge, any other provision of these Rules >notwithstanding. We need to settle on a randomizing algorithm. I propose using this web page: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ >6. The Watcher shall appoint the judge by sending an >email to the offical list which: >a. Has a subject line that contains the words “Judge >Appointed” >b. Clearly and plainly names a specific player as >judge >c. Assigns a unique, sequential number to the CFJ by >which it and the resulting ruling may be referenced. I'd rather make a new position than vest all the power in the watcher, but I won't block over that. >11. During the 5 day period following the issuance of >a ruling, any player may present a proposal which >attempts to reverse the ruling. Such a proposal shall >take the form “The Ruling on CFJ [unique number >assigned by the Watcher” shall be” followed by either >the word True or the word False. >12. Such a proposal as described in section 11 of this >rule shall pass if and only if two-thirds of all >players active at the time of the making of the >proposal shall vote to SUPPORT the proposal. This could be abused, easily. I don't see any solution, though. From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 19:59:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 03:59:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 30756 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 22:50:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2002 22:50:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 22:50:00 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB997CC10148; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:50:01 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Proposals 16 and 17 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:50:03 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >If, at the time of the passage of this proposal, proposal 16 has passed, >then rule 10 will be repealed. If proposal 16 has not passed, but is >still under consideration, rule 10 will be repealed upon the passage of >proposal 16. I support this. From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 20:31:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 04:31:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 22340 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 22:49:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2002 22:49:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 22:49:05 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB635674014A; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:49:07 -0500 To: Subject: Currency (prop 19?) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:49:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I propose the following rule, to allow for points to be used as currency within Pure n_omic: "A player may give any or all of eir points to any other player, by stating eir intention to do so on the official mailing list. No player may give a negative number of points, and no player may give a number of points that would cause eir own total to be less than zero." From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 05 20:33:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 04:33:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 45757 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 00:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 00:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 00:55:38 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A90C75C40140; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 19:55:40 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] An idea Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:55:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >What do ya'll think? I would make this a proposal, but would prefer >some comment first. I don't care, and would not block such a proposal. From mhoney@t... Tue Mar 05 21:35:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 05:35:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 35264 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 05:35:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 05:35:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n27.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.77) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 05:35:20 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.160] by n27.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2002 05:34:38 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 05:34:37 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: My proto-proposal for a judiciary Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20020304153712.24956.qmail@w...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 7171 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I've been thinking about what I would like to see in a judicial system for this game. My ideas essentially are not all that different from David's. This is not a formal submission of any type but rather just an open discussion of ideas at this point. The way I see it, the judicial system is a way of solving disputes wherein different players have different opinions concerning what the proper gamestate should be. There should be a formal system for settling these disputes. Invoking such a system will temporarily suspend normal gameplay until a judgement is made concerning which gamestate is the correct one. Since this can stop the game in its tracks, there should be certain minimum requirements that have to be met before the Call For Judgement is made. The first requirement is that this is a real situation and not a hypothetical one. If a player percieves a hypothetical problem that might come up then that player should be going through normal channels of play and not invoking judgement. The second requirement is that there should be a clear definition of what the issue is under dispute. This definition should be in the form of a question although it may not nessessarily be a yes/no or true/false question. An example might be: "How do we resolve Proposal 58?" or "Is Mary allowed to change her vote on Prop. 72?" The third requirement is that there must be a dispute between at least 2 players over what the proper resolution of the issue is. Each of these players needs to have a clearly stated view of how the issue is to be resolved. If a player disagrees with all the stated resolutions of the issue then that player should have the opportunity to add ier possible solution to the mix. Fourthly, the watcher or some official office holder needs to assign a unique number to the call for judgement. It is at this point, the point at which all of these requirements have been met, that I feel that a formal call for judgement has been made. The way I see it, the first person to bring up the problem should be called the Plaintiff. It will be the Plaintiff's responsibility put eir problem in the form of a question and state eir case for a possible resolution. If there are no disagreements, then that's it. The issue is resolved right there and there's no need for a judicial process. On the other hand, any dissenting opinions shall be made by other players called Dissenters. There may be as few as one or as many Dissenters as there are available players. It is the responsibility of each Dissenter to state eir case and suggest a resolution. The watcher (or some official office) also has the responsibility of making sure that all of the other necessary ingredients are there before ey assigns a unique number to the call for judgement. Once a call for judgement has been logged, then the next order of business will be the assignment of a judge. I feel the judge should be the most impartial player for the issue. That judge should meet the following requirements: (these requirements are listed in decreasing order of importance with the most important requirement first) 1. The Judge must be a player. 2. The Judge may not be the Plaintiff. 3. The Judge may not be a Dissenter. 4. The Judge may not be the Watcher. 5. The Judge may not be the author of central proposal under dispute. 6. The Judge may not be the author of any of the proposals mentioned as supporting evidence in any of the cases of the Plaintiffs and Dissenters. 7. The Judge, if more than one such person exists who has met all of the above requirements, shall be the individual who has posted the most recent message prior to the formal call for judgement. The Judge shall be that player who reaches the furthest level down this requirement list. If there is more than one such person the tie breaker shall be the judge who has most recently posted a message prior to the formal call for judgement. Then the Judge must weigh the cases before em and decide who's case has the most validity. Guidelines for making such a decision should be the persuasiveness of the stated cases, precedents set by previous Judges, the spirit of the game, common sense, morality, and a sincere effort at fairness. The Judge must choose among the possible resolutions before em and may not suggest alternatives other than those put forth by Plaintiffs and Dissenters. A proposal of this type will also need appropriate time limits for different stages of this process and perhaps there may be some type of appeal process although I personally am against any appeal. I am sorry that this message is so long! I just thought that I might put these ideas down in plain English first. I agree with Craig about the part that CFJ is a boring and overused term and welcome any alternative vocabulary anybody may have. How about: Dispute, Storm, Red Flag, or Discontinuity? ********************************************* Some comments on David's idea: > Here is my proto-proposal for a judical system which > may be discussed, altered, or amended freely. It is > not, at this time, a proposal. It is just a set of > talking points. > > 7. The Judge shall have 10 (ten) days from the date of > eir appointment to issue a ruling which conforms to > these rules. Failure to do so, shall result in two > points being deducted from the player named judge's > score and the Watcher appointing a new judge. I like this part about the losing two points and assigning a new judge. > 10. Once the ruling is issued, it shall have no force > or effect for a period of 5 days. > 11. During the 5 day period following the issuance of > a ruling, any player may present a proposal which > attempts to reverse the ruling. Such a proposal shall > take the form "The Ruling on CFJ [unique number > assigned by the Watcher" shall be" followed by either > the word True or the word False. > 12. Such a proposal as described in section 11 of this > rule shall pass if and only if two-thirds of all > players active at the time of the making of the > proposal shall vote to SUPPORT the proposal. > 13. The method of voting and time period for voting on > a proposal to reverse a CFJ ruling shall be identical > to the method and time period for proposals which > attempt to add an new rule to the ruleset. This is an interesting appeal process, but I am against it. I think it takes too long, is too cumbersome (it requires active participation of two-thirds of the players just to agree with the Judge's ruling) and takes away all of the authority and power of the Judge. Also, item 13 is particularly vague. Especially in cases where the issues mentioned in item 13 are the issues under dispute in the CFJ. > 14. The Watcher shall maintain a file which shall be > easily accessed by all players which shall contain the > text of all CFJ rulings as well as a statement which > states that the CFJ was revered by vote of the players > in the case of rulings which are, in fact, reversed by > vote of the players. A CFJ file becomes an essential element of the gamestate. I agree with this. Regards, Mark From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Tue Mar 05 21:54:13 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68078 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 03:39:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 03:39:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.53) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 03:39:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.141] by n3.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2002 03:39:46 -0000 Date: 6 Mar 2002 03:39:44 -0000 Message-ID: <1015385984.221.64523.w54@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New poll for n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the n_omic group: This is a test poll. Nothing on the table here, I just want to see how this works. Settings are: Vote one choice only Display results during polling Display voter identity Conclude poll manually Send results to me via email Practice making a vote and then see if the system will let you change your vote or cheat the voting system somehow. o Support o Block o Abstain To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/polls Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Tue Mar 05 22:39:27 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 42866 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 03:43:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 03:43:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.81) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 03:43:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.156] by n31.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2002 03:43:37 -0000 Date: 6 Mar 2002 03:43:37 -0000 Message-ID: <1015386217.221.61315.w67@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: poll X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New poll for n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the n_omic group: This is a test closed poll. Settings are: Vote one choice only. Display results at end of polling. Do not display voter identity. Conclude poll manually. Send results to entire group via email. Go ahead and try to cheat this system any way you can. o Support o Block o Abstain To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/polls Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From mhoney@t... Tue Mar 05 23:25:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 07:24:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 60807 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 04:05:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 04:05:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n34.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.84) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 04:05:01 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.132] by n34.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2002 04:04:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:04:15 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote in SUPPORT of Proposal 17 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 65 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I hereby cast my vote in SUPPORT of Proposal 17. Regards, Mark From mhoney@t... Tue Mar 05 23:31:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 07:31:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 71684 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 05:46:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 05:46:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.70) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 05:46:00 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.180] by n20.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2002 05:31:25 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 05:45:51 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: test Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 6 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 test From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Wed Mar 06 07:02:07 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 40020 invoked by uid 7800); 5 Mar 2002 23:11:34 -0000 Date: 5 Mar 2002 23:11:34 -0000 Message-ID: <1015369894.66.40018.m4@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: calendar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reminder - Proposal 16 dies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Proposal 16 dies Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2002 Time: 9:00PM EST (GMT-05:00) Proposal 16 dies due to expiration of 10 day period. From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 06 08:13:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 16:13:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 51151 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 00:54:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 00:54:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 00:54:43 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A8D5379900E6; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 19:54:45 -0500 To: Subject: Another Rule Exploitation Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:54:47 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I see a hole that allows me to either fix it, be malicious, or leave it for others to find. I choose the former. Rule 1 now reads, "No change to the game may take effect without the consent of all players." This is a change to the game, so the old rule 1 states that "all players must agree to" it. If there are any better rewordings suggested, I'm sure we will all give our consent, but this seems to capture the spirit of the old rule. From mhoney@t... Wed Mar 06 15:34:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhoney@t... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 23:34:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 27748 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 03:53:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 03:53:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n34.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.84) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 03:53:53 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.118] by n34.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2002 03:53:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 03:53:00 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vote IN SUPPORT of proposal 17 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 47 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "mark33703" X-Originating-IP: 65.34.96.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=98578153 X-Yahoo-Profile: mark33703 I hereby vote FOR proposal 17. Regards, Mark From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Wed Mar 06 15:38:40 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25966 invoked by uid 7800); 6 Mar 2002 12:31:40 -0000 Date: 6 Mar 2002 12:31:40 -0000 Message-ID: <1015417900.62.25963.m6@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: calendar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reminder - Proposal 16 dies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Proposal 16 dies Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2002 Time: 9:00PM EST (GMT-05:00) Proposal 16 dies due to expiration of 10 day period. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Wed Mar 06 19:33:14 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36402 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 03:32:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2002 03:32:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.57) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 03:32:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.23] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Mar 2002 03:31:17 -0000 Date: 7 Mar 2002 03:31:16 -0000 Message-ID: <1015471876.3102.74351.w1@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 6 March 2002 You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Wed Mar 06 19:37:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 7 Mar 2002 03:37:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 95729 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 03:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2002 03:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.56) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 03:36:38 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.133] by n6.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Mar 2002 03:36:35 -0000 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 03:36:34 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I'm here still... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 216 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.9 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin PnV back here at Yahoo check the files for 'pnv.html' NOT the players and votes file. I am rushed today and will clean it up tommorrow. I have no votes today and I am still perusing the proto judiciary thing. JM From arkangl985@y... Sat Mar 09 21:36:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arkangl985@y... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 10 Mar 2002 05:36:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 76013 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2002 05:36:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Mar 2002 05:36:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.64) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2002 05:36:46 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.89] by n14.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Mar 2002 05:38:52 -0000 Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 05:36:44 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: announcing intention to play... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 244 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "antimatter271828" X-Originating-IP: 162.83.147.123 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=74464436 X-Yahoo-Profile: antimatter271828 Hey everyone. I've been looking for a Nomic to play for a while now (everything seems to be dead, wah ;) ) and this seems rather well alive. So, I officially announce my intention to play n_omic! (sound of crowds cheering madly) - Hubert From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 10 08:47:20 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16840 invoked by uid 7800); 10 Mar 2002 16:47:18 -0000 Date: 10 Mar 2002 16:47:18 -0000 Message-ID: <1015778838.19.16837.m10@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: calendar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reminder - Proposal 17 dies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Proposal 17 dies Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Time: 11:45AM EST (GMT-05:00) Proposal 17 dies due to expiration of 10 day period. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Mon Mar 11 08:48:54 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96203 invoked by uid 7800); 11 Mar 2002 16:47:57 -0000 Date: 11 Mar 2002 16:47:57 -0000 Message-ID: <1015865277.22.96200.m8@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: calendar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reminder - Proposal 17 dies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Proposal 17 dies Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Time: 11:45AM EST (GMT-05:00) Proposal 17 dies due to expiration of 10 day period. From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 12 07:50:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 15:50:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 40844 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 15:50:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 15:50:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 15:50:48 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3FB5D40092; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:51:23 -0500 To: Subject: PnV needs updating Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:50:49 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl For example, prop 17 has passed already (so why is the group telling us it will die?). The proposal that alters rule 1 does not appear, nor does my currency proposal. Proposal 18 is not there either, but that is now a moot point. PLEASE update this! From rsholmes@m... Tue Mar 12 11:25:47 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 19:25:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 52496 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 19:24:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 19:24:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 19:24:08 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0077D940@m...>; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:24:08 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA06892; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:24:07 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Pure n_omic References: Date: 12 Mar 2002 14:24:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:50:49 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes I'm considering announcing myself as a player here. But I have a few questions. 1. Originally this Nomic was announced as "a very short round (in the neighbourhood of one or two months long) of Nomic". I haven't seen anything in any subsequent messages to indicate this Nomic will intentionally end soon, so I assume that's no longer the intent; is that correct? 2. Intent, schmintent: *is* this game going to continue much longer? I note that in the past five days only four messages have been posted, two of which were automated postings and one was from a new player announcing emself. Is interest waning? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 12 15:12:47 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 23:12:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 86024 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 23:11:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 23:11:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 23:11:56 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB66FD8008A; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:12:38 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Pure n_omic Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:11:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >1. Originally this Nomic was announced as "a very short round (in the > neighbourhood of one or two months long) of Nomic". I haven't seen > anything in any subsequent messages to indicate this Nomic will > intentionally end soon, so I assume that's no longer the intent; is > that correct? IIRC, it was originally intended as a winter holiday thing - but it seems to be happening all year round, so I doubt it will be killed. >2. Intent, schmintent: *is* this game going to continue much longer? > I note that in the past five days only four messages have been > posted, two of which were automated postings and one was from a new > player announcing emself. Is interest waning? I expect so. For some, at least, this is spring vacation season, so it may be slowing down. However, I expect a judiciary to pass within a day or two of being proposed, and I hereby ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO VOTE ON THE CURRENCY PROPOSAL - which could make things a little more interesting. Sorry for shouting, but I don't think many people would read that far otherwise. But, in general, I don't think y'all should be not voting on anything - if you don't like it, either just kill it or (MUCH BETTER) state what ammendments would make you vote in favor; if you do like it, support it. From jmorgantx@p... Tue Mar 12 19:03:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 03:03:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 38074 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 03:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 03:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n21.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.71) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 03:03:50 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.182] by n21.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Mar 2002 02:46:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:03:49 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: PnV needs updating Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 55 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.165 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Huh? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/1026 From ragnarok@p... Tue Mar 12 19:05:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 03:05:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 63614 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 03:05:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 03:05:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 03:05:10 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2137030094; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:05:55 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: PnV needs updating Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:05:10 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Huh? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/message/1026 n e v e r m i n d . . . From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 13 10:47:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 18:47:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 91257 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 18:47:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 18:47:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 18:47:03 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078450D@m...>; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:47:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02452; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:47:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New player and judicial thoughts Date: 13 Mar 2002 13:47:01 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 44 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes I hereby announce my intention to be a player of Pure N_omic. In order not to impede progress I hereby support all pending proposals. This is not to say I like all of them; don't be surprised if I propose to alter or repeal them later. Do I understand correctly that there is no formal proposal yet for a judicial system? My thoughts: the suggestions I've seen strike me as a little too formal and cumbersome for a Nomic at this early stage. Later on such a judicial system might be appropriate, but for now when the ruleset is still in its formative stages, a theme for this Nomic hasn't been developed, and a certain amount of trust in one another is necessary, I believe a simpler, less formal, and less cumbersome judicial arrangement would suit the game better. Such a system is likely not to be as airtight against abuse, but I don't think game-killing abuse is on anyone's agenda anyway. Something, perhaps, like this (yes, regard this as a formal suggestion): Questions regarding legality and consequence of game actions and shall be settled by a Call for Judgement (CFJ). Any player may send a message to the mailing list calling for a CFJ; the message must contain a single suggestion identifying a single particular action which has occurred and asserting either (1) that the action is illegal and has no effect or (2) that the action is legal and has certain specified effects. A CFJ may also be issued by a former player if the disputed action caused that person to cease to be a player. The CFJ shall then be treated like any other suggestion with the following exceptions: (1) if the Proposer does not submit the suggestion as a proposal within 3 days, it shall be regarded as withdrawn and ineligible to be acted upon (2) the voting period shall be 3 days (3) the disputed action shall be regarded as having had no effect until the end of the voting period. Yes, CFJ is a common and boring name. But it's descriptive and easily understood. When and if a theme for this Nomic develops we can always amend this to change the name, if we want. I *don't* go for giving *everything* Lojban names; first, it'll make the ruleset incomprehensible to non-Lojban speakers, and second, BO-ring! -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 13 10:54:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 18:54:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 72168 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 18:54:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 18:54:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mepserv.phy.syr.edu) (128.230.72.24) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 18:54:03 -0000 Received: from mailbox.syr.edu (IDENT:rsholmes@m... [127.0.0.1]) by mepserv.phy.syr.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03659 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:00:45 -0500 Message-ID: <33284EDD.6040408@m...> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:00:45 -0500 Organization: Syracuse University Physics Department User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Testing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Sorry, just a test. From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 13 11:11:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 19:11:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 3423 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 19:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 19:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 19:10:10 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007846E6@m...>; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:10:10 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08745; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:10:09 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Timestamp (was Re: [n_omic] Testing) References: <33284EDD.6040408@m...> Date: 13 Mar 2002 14:10:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Richard S. Holmes"'s message of "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:00:45 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes The ruleset refers in places to "the timestamp" of a message, without defining that term. You will note that I just posted a message with subject "Testing" which, when viewed from the Yahoo group's web site, is shown with a date of 13 Mar 1997. That date is also shown in the Date header of that same message as received here. That is, of course, the date I temporarily set my computer's clock to. If you select "show source" on the Yahoo page, or if you look at the headers of the delivered email message, you of course see several "Received" headers showing that Yahoo received and relayed the message on 13 Mar 2002, and if you receive individual emails from Yahoo your copy probably has more Received headers showing you received it that date too. It may be reasonable to regard the latest Received header on the message as archived by Yahoo as the timestamp, but if so the rules should probably say so -- and the fact that the most visible date associated with each message is *not* the timestamp should be borne in mind. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 13 11:23:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 19:23:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 10257 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 19:22:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 19:22:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 19:22:37 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A731B7D0098; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:23:29 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] New player and judicial thoughts Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:22:36 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Questions regarding legality and consequence of game actions and >shall be settled by a Call for Judgement (CFJ). Any player may send >a message to the mailing list calling for a CFJ; the message must >contain a single suggestion identifying a single particular action >which has occurred and asserting either (1) that the action is >illegal and has no effect or (2) that the action is legal and has >certain specified effects. A CFJ may also be issued by a former >player if the disputed action caused that person to cease to be a >player. The CFJ shall then be treated like any other suggestion >with the following exceptions: (1) if the Proposer does not submit >the suggestion as a proposal within 3 days, it shall be regarded >as withdrawn and ineligible to be acted upon (2) the voting period >shall be 3 days (3) the disputed action shall be regarded as having >had no effect until the end of the voting period. The problem here is that if you allege that an action is illegal, the doer of the action will kill your CFJ. If you don't want one individual chosen for each CFJ, then I suggest a majority vote - consensus just won't work for a judicial system. Change this and I will support the proposal. >Yes, CFJ is a common and boring name. But it's descriptive and easily >understood. When and if a theme for this Nomic develops we can always And nobody will stop a proposal using the term CFJ; that would be too fussy. >amend this to change the name, if we want. I *don't* go for giving >*everything* Lojban names; first, it'll make the ruleset Nor do I, and I am the only one who has put any there. Please understand that Gazjatna was included because James thought it sounded classier than Watcher, and Jvastegau because I assumed that anyone who liked Gazjatna would like Jvastegau. I do encourage interesting English names, though. >incomprehensible to non-Lojban speakers, and second, BO-ring! I think that doing everything the same way is boring regardless of what that way is. --Craig Daniel 'I used to go crazy for days at a time now I'm takin' my time with my days.' -Jimmy Buffett pgp public key ID: 0x5C3A1E74 From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 13 13:03:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 21:03:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 84634 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 21:03:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 21:03:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 21:03:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007856B5@m...>; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:03:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07668; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:03:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New player and judicial thoughts References: Date: 13 Mar 2002 16:03:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:22:36 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > The problem here is that if you allege that an action is illegal, the doer > of the action will kill your CFJ. If you don't want one individual chosen > for each CFJ, then I suggest a majority vote - consensus just won't work for > a judicial system. Change this and I will support the proposal. Right, I overlooked that. If this goes to proposal I'll make it a majority -- or should it be 2/3 majority? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From firestarter985@a... Wed Mar 13 17:06:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: firestarter985@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 01:06:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 79145 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 01:06:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 01:06:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.56) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 01:06:49 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.155] by n6.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2002 01:06:48 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:06:47 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: various things Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 639 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Arkangl985" X-Originating-IP: 162.83.148.148 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=65074581 X-Yahoo-Profile: Arkangl985 OK, so, having looked over the most recent version of pnv.html, I support proposals 18, 19, and 20. And I'll support Rich's proposal as well if the offending bit about unanimous support is replaced with something like 2/3 majority - there are 6 players, so the fractions work out nicely too :) And I propose a new rule also (proposal...22, I think): "Any player with a position will earn a salary, which is set at +2 points per week of 7 days, and will be paid at noon EST every Sunday, except for the first Sunday after this rule passes. If a player holds more than one position, e is only paid once for eir positions." -Hubert From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Wed Mar 13 18:59:21 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 84915 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 02:59:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 02:59:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.57) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 02:59:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.169] by n7.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2002 02:59:19 -0000 Date: 14 Mar 2002 02:59:16 -0000 Message-ID: <1016074757.3977.90379.w79@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 13 March You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Wed Mar 13 19:04:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 03:04:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 48754 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 03:04:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 03:04:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.78) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 03:04:38 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.157] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2002 03:04:37 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:04:32 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I SUPPORT 19 and 20.... add suggestion 23 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 320 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.159 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I am not thrilled about 18, but unwilling to block it just yet. I also want to add Proposal 23: Change to the game: Craig is now the Jvastegau and is charged with fulfilling the provisions of the 12th rule passed. Also welcome to the new folks... check the PnV and make sure I haev y'all's names correct. James From jmorgantx@p... Wed Mar 13 19:17:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 03:17:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 93949 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 03:17:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 03:17:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 03:17:06 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0159.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.159]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g2E3H4R212470 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:17:04 -0500 Message-ID: <003701c1cb07$1c178e80$9fb0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: PROPOSAL 18 DIES SOMETIME TOMMORROW ---- VOTES NEEDED Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:19:51 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I changed my mind and I SUPPORT Proposal 18. James From adistius@e... Thu Mar 14 07:16:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@e... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 15:16:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 53214 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 15:16:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 15:16:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n33.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.83) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 15:16:16 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.132] by n33.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2002 15:16:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:16:13 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTE ON: 18 Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 270 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 64.61.53.102 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=79239828 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius I SUPPORT proposal 18 I SUPPORT proposal 19 I OPPOSE proposal 20 (it is too cumbersome, in my opinion, even at this point) I SUPPORT proposal 22 I SUPPORT proposal 23 I'm holding off on 21 for now. I'll be sending my own proposal shortly for your consideration. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 07:20:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 15:20:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 24226 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 15:20:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 15:20:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 15:20:05 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007899D3@m...>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:19:19 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA17604; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:19:17 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] New player and judicial thoughts References: Date: 14 Mar 2002 10:19:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "13 Mar 2002 16:03:01 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Amended suggestion: Questions regarding legality and consequence of game actions and shall be settled by a Call for Judgement (CFJ). Any player may send a message to the mailing list calling for a CFJ; the message must contain a single suggestion identifying a single particular action which has occurred and asserting either (1) that the action is illegal and has no effect or (2) that the action is legal and has certain specified effects. A CFJ may also be issued by a former player if the disputed action caused that person to cease to be a player. The CFJ shall then be treated like any other suggestion with the following exceptions: (1) if the Proposer does not submit the suggestion as a proposal within 3 days, it shall be regarded as withdrawn and ineligible to be acted upon (2) the voting period shall be 3 days (3) the proposal shall be adopted if it receives a vote of "support" from at least 2/3 of the players active at the end of the voting period (4) the disputed action shall be regarded as having had no effect until the end of the voting period. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From adistius@e... Thu Mar 14 07:29:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: adistius@e... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 15:29:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 48741 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 15:29:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 15:29:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.53) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 15:29:17 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.179] by n3.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2002 15:29:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:29:16 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1978 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "adistius" X-Originating-IP: 64.61.53.102 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=79239828 X-Yahoo-Profile: adistius My proposal, deliminated by == The goal is to make voting easy and to reduce the administrative burden on the game by using the Yahoo! polling system. == Votes on proposals and other matters requiring votes shall, other provisions of these rules notwithstanding, be conducted via the Yahoo! Groups poll function. When the Watcher recieves a proposal, e shall open a poll. The Watcher shall: 1) Assign a number to proposal in accordance with other provisions of this rules. 2) Create a summary of the proposal which shall serve as the "question" for the purpouses of the Yahoo! Groups poll. This summary shall always contain the number of the proposal being polled. 3) Create in the polling function one choice for each possible, valid vote. 4)Set the selection function to "vote for one choice" unless a provision of these rules shall specifically state otherwise. 5) Set the Voter identity function to "Display voter identity with each vote." 6)Set the conclude poll function to end the voting automatically on the date specified by these rules. If no date is specified or if polling shall not close on a specific date known to the Watcher at the time the poll is created, then the Watcher shall set the poll to conclude manually and shall conclude the poll at the appropriate time. 7) Set the Results distribution function to "Send results to entire group via email." 3) Send a notice to the offical list restating the proposal, notifiying the list of the number assigned to the proposal, and stating the question as it appears on the Yahoo! Groups poll. In the event that a flaw is detected in the Yahoo! Groups polling system or Yahoo! Groups disables polling or the use of the polling system becomes unstable or unpredictable, the Watcher may declare that players must vote by sending their votes to the offical mailing list. Such a declaration shall state the reason for the determination and may be reversed by a majority vote of players. == From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 08:08:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 16:08:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 29277 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 16:08:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 16:08:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 16:08:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00789ED3@m...>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:07:11 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00051; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:07:10 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] VOTE ON: 18 References: Date: 14 Mar 2002 11:07:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: "adistius"'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:16:13 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "adistius" writes: > I'm holding off on 21 for now. The PnV lists this as a "Pending proposal" whereas it is in fact only a suggestion at this point. I believe the same is true of some of the other "proposals" listed. Could we get a clear delineation between suggestions and proposals please? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 08:22:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 16:22:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 87179 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 16:21:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 16:21:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 16:21:15 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078A047@m...>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:21:15 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04230; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:21:14 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Proposal References: Date: 14 Mar 2002 11:21:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: "adistius"'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:29:16 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 61 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "adistius" writes: > My proposal, deliminated by == > > The goal is to make voting easy and to reduce the administrative > burden on the game by using the Yahoo! polling system. I assume this is in fact a suggestion and not a proposal since I have not seen this suggested yet. Anyway, if it's a proposal, I hereby block it. If it's a suggestion, be informed that I will block any such proposal. I have several problems with Yahoo! polls but it's sufficient to point out this one: You cannot vote via email. The Yahoo Groups web site is not particularly well-behaved and frequently crashes my browser of choice (Mozilla for Linux). Even when it doesn't crash my browser it is often slow, and bombards the user with ads. I prefer to participate in Pure N_omic by email as much as possible. (For that reason I also would like to see the PnV distributed to the mailing list each time it's updated -- but I can live without that.) To my mind, we don't need to "make voting easy" -- I think it *is* easy. Easier than navigating to the Yahoo Groups site, going to the poll page, finding the appropriate poll, and voting in it -- especially if the site is slow or it's messing up the browser. As for reduction of administrative burden, > When the Watcher recieves a proposal, e > shall open a poll. The Watcher shall: > > 1) Assign a number to proposal in accordance with other provisions of > this rules. > 2) Create a summary of the proposal which shall serve as > the "question" for the purpouses of the Yahoo! Groups poll. This > summary shall always contain the number of the proposal being polled. > 3) Create in the polling function one choice for each possible, valid > vote. > 4)Set the selection function to "vote for one choice" unless a > provision of these rules shall specifically state otherwise. > 5) Set the Voter identity function to "Display voter identity with > each vote." > 6)Set the conclude poll function to end the voting automatically on > the date specified by these rules. If no date is specified or if > polling shall not close on a specific date known to the Watcher at > the time the poll is created, then the Watcher shall set the poll to > conclude manually and shall conclude the poll at the appropriate time. > 7) Set the Results distribution function to "Send results to entire > group via email." > 3) Send a notice to the offical list restating the proposal, > notifiying the list of the number assigned to the proposal, and > stating the question as it appears on the Yahoo! Groups poll. The Watcher may feel otherwise, but it doesn't look to me as though this reduces the Watcher's administrative burden to any significant degree. It might even increase it. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From josh@w... Thu Mar 14 10:46:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 18:46:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 32443 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 18:46:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 18:46:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.64) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 18:46:55 -0000 Received: from [216.115.97.83] by n14.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Mar 2002 18:48:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:46:29 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: General Stuff Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 423 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "joshutt" X-Originating-IP: 192.207.234.65 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt Just letting everyone know, that I'm still around. I'm having a little bit of a tiff with my hosting company, so my email has been down. I'm trying to catch-up via the Yahoo archives but it's very time consuming. Since I haven't read through all the posts, I'm not going to vote or comment just yet on proposals 20+, but I'll cast a vote to support proposal 19. That's all for now. You'll hear from me again so. Josh From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 14 12:50:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 20:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 60415 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 20:50:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 20:50:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 20:50:31 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD151F92008A; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:50:29 -0500 To: Subject: Votes Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:50:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I vote FOR all current proposals, though I would prefer a simple majority on CFJs, with the following exception: I will block the proposal to use Yahoo groups polling. Voting by e-mail is easier, and advocates are saying they want easy, so... From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 14 13:32:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 21:32:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 62047 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 21:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 21:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 21:32:02 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A6CF245B0078; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:31:59 -0500 To: Subject: CFJ Loophole Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:32:01 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl In the current judicial proposal, there exists the following loophole. No, it's not going to be exploited. Yes, we'd better amend the prop to make sure. Player 1 makes a proposal. We'll call it prop A. Player 2 requests a CFJ - we'll call it CFJ B - ruling that prop A results in player 2 gaining fifty points. Player 2 requests a CFJ (CFJ C) ruling that all votes against CFJ B are illegal. CFJ C will therefore only fail after CFJ B has already passed. I don't know how to stop such an thing, but I urge others to try. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 14:17:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 22:17:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 66210 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 22:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 22:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 22:17:39 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078C33A@m...>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:17:38 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA13218; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:17:38 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole References: Date: 14 Mar 2002 17:17:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:32:01 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 64 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > In the current judicial proposal, there exists the following loophole. No, > it's not going to be exploited. Yes, we'd better amend the prop to make > sure. > > Player 1 makes a proposal. We'll call it prop A. > Player 2 requests a CFJ - we'll call it CFJ B - ruling that prop A results > in player 2 gaining fifty points. > Player 2 requests a CFJ (CFJ C) ruling that all votes against CFJ B are > illegal. CFJ C will therefore only fail after CFJ B has already passed. > > I don't know how to stop such an thing, but I urge others to try. There's a good point here. But the scenario described above doesn't quite work, for two reasons. CFJ C can't be directed at all votes against CFJ B; it must be directed at a particular single action, e.g. Alice's vote against. But that's, I think, beside the point. Multiple CFJ C's could be proposed, one for each vote against. But these CFJ Cs won't cause CFJ B to pass; they'll *temporarily* nullify the votes against, but that's not enough to get it to pass -- it needs the *support* of 2/3 of all active players. So the scenario as described above, I think, doesn't work. There may be other, similar scenarios that do work. But I haven't thought of one. However, would this be better? Change the disputed action shall be regarded as having had no effect the end of the voting period. to the disputed action shall be regarded as having had no effect until and unless the CFJ proposal fails, in which case its effects shall be regarded as having occurred as and when they would have in the absence of the CFJ. Then, even if it required only a majority of votes cast to pass a CFJ, the rejection of CFJ C would cause the votes against CFJ B to have been cast legally during the voting period, thus killing CFJ B. Another option would be to say that the effects of a disputed action *are unknown* until the CFJ voting period is over. In that case we would not know what the votes on CFJ B were until CFJ C (presumably) fails, at which point we "learn" that CFJ B was rejected too. This might allow some game-killing circularity, some scenario in which a CFJ calls the CFJ procedures into question in such a way that we can't know whether that CFJ has passed or not until we know whether that CFJ has passed or not. But we can probably come up with an escape clause for that -- or just hope in that situation we'd make a gentleperson's agreement to override the rules, consider such a CFJ rejected, and move on. (For an example of an escape clause, see Rule 0 of the SocialNomic ruleset at .) -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 14 14:23:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 22:23:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 63028 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 22:23:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 22:23:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 22:23:27 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2DA2F6F0032; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:23:22 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:23:24 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >However, would this be better? Change > the disputed action shall be regarded as having had no effect > the end of the voting period. >to > the disputed action shall be regarded as having had no effect until > and unless the CFJ proposal fails, in which case its effects shall > be regarded as having occurred as and when they would have in the > absence of the CFJ. >Then, even if it required only a majority of votes cast to pass a CFJ, >the rejection of CFJ C would cause the votes against CFJ B to have >been cast legally during the voting period, thus killing CFJ B. >Another option would be to say that the effects of a disputed action >*are unknown* until the CFJ voting period is over. In that case we >would not know what the votes on CFJ B were until CFJ C (presumably) >fails, at which point we "learn" that CFJ B was rejected too. This I support either or both of these. >might allow some game-killing circularity, some scenario in which a >CFJ calls the CFJ procedures into question in such a way that we can't >know whether that CFJ has passed or not until we know whether that CFJ >has passed or not. But we can probably come up with an escape clause We could also add a rule that anyone who creates a paradox wins, causing a new round to begin. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 14:28:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 22:28:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 74371 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 22:28:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 22:28:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 22:28:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078C3CF@m...>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:28:18 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA16287; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:28:18 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole References: Date: 14 Mar 2002 17:28:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:23:24 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > We could also add a rule that anyone who creates a paradox wins, causing a > new round to begin. With, presumably, a suitable definition of "new round". But if the paradox rule itself is called into question by the paradox... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 14 14:36:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 22:36:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 13928 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 22:36:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 22:36:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 22:36:30 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A5ED47E0238; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:36:29 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:36:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> We could also add a rule that anyone who creates a paradox wins, causing a >> new round to begin. >With, presumably, a suitable definition of "new round". But if the >paradox rule itself is called into question by the paradox... I would suggest the following: A new round has the same rules. All other parts of the gamestate are reset. The previous winner is given one point. Nobody may win within twenty days, to give time for the old paradox-opening to be proposalled away so that no two rounds are won by the same trick. From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 14 18:33:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 02:33:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 65760 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 02:33:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 02:33:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 02:33:00 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD5619A022A; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:32:54 -0500 To: Subject: paradox proposal (was: RE: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:32:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >We could also add a rule that anyone who creates a paradox wins, causing a >new round to begin. I hereby propose this. Here is how I do so: ----start proposal---- Any person who causes the gamestate to enter an ambiguous state which will not resolve itself through the interactions of the players and through the rule-driven behavior of the gamestate shall be declared the winner of that round of Pure N_omic. To claim such a victory, a CFJ alleging that such a state (to be referred to as a Paradoxical Gamestate) exists and assigning responsibility for it to a specific player must be judged TRUE. In the event of a Paradoxical Gamestate, the current round ends. Twenty-four hours afterwards, a new round shall begin with the same rules, but all features of the gamestate reset (Positions emptied, scores set to zero, and proposals ceasing to have official status). However, no CFJ giving anyone a victory will be valid until a period of fifteen days from the start of the new round has passed. All Paradoxical Gamestates appearing in that period shall be resolved by a simple majority vote of the players. As soon as the fifteen day period ends, two points are given to the winner of the previous round. -----end proposal----- This proposal shall not be considered (and thus its voting period will not begin) until a judicial proposal has passed. From jmorgantx@p... Thu Mar 14 19:11:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 03:11:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 61044 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 03:11:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 03:11:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.53) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 03:11:04 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.180] by n3.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2002 03:10:35 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:08:11 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestions and Proposals Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 562 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.23 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin >>>The PnV lists this as a "Pending proposal" whereas it is in fact only a suggestion at this point. I believe the same is true of some of the other "proposals" listed. Could we get a clear delineation between suggestions and proposals please?<<< THis is my mistake, Richard. I believe you are correct. I shall rectify this as soon as I can. I will change the status to suggestion on the ones that are not finalised by the author. James From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Mar 14 19:42:35 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34357 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 03:42:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 03:42:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n25.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.75) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 03:42:34 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.49] by n25.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2002 03:40:16 -0000 Date: 15 Mar 2002 03:42:33 -0000 Message-ID: <1016163753.4406.70268.w25@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 14 March You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Thu Mar 14 19:51:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 03:51:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 55265 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 03:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 03:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.58) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 03:51:48 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.135] by n8.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2002 03:51:48 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:51:43 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestion 23 and other bidness... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 690 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.23 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Suggestions 18- 24 are all active suggestions. I hereby formally propose Suggestion 23. Ten days from now is the end of voting. 24- is evidently a proposal. It started with the words I propose... (?) I have updated the PnV to show 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, as suggestions as they have not been *proposed.* SO, if I am correct in my interpretation of the 11th rule passed 18 did not die today as I stated last night because it has never been proposed only suggested. ***PLEASE NOTE THIS*** I did not track down each proposal to see if the author stated words "I propose..." So I may be and probably am wrong. If I am in error notify me and I will correct it over the weekend. James From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 14 19:56:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 03:56:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 57983 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 03:56:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 03:56:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 03:56:16 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0E21E40258; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:56:18 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Votes Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:56:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >I vote FOR all current proposals, though I would prefer a simple majority on >CFJs, with the following exception: >I will block the proposal to use Yahoo groups polling. Voting by e-mail is >easier, and advocates are saying they want easy, so... I had been unclear on what was and wasn't a proposal when I posted this. The things that have only since then become proposals I also agree with. That means that I support pending proposals 21 thru 23, of the things PnV doesn't have me supporting. I also block 24. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Mar 14 19:58:22 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62592 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 03:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 03:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.81) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 03:58:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.167] by n31.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2002 03:58:20 -0000 Date: 15 Mar 2002 03:58:19 -0000 Message-ID: <1016164699.4795.13375.w77@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 14 March with 25 You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Mar 14 20:01:43 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 54763 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 04:01:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 04:01:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.81) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 04:01:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [216.115.96.167] by n31.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2002 04:01:42 -0000 Date: 15 Mar 2002 04:01:41 -0000 Message-ID: <1016164901.4796.13551.w77@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 14 March amended You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Thu Mar 14 20:03:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 04:03:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 73872 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 04:03:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 04:03:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n27.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.77) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 04:03:19 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.172] by n27.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Mar 2002 04:03:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 04:03:15 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Gazjatna lost in the woods somewhere... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 105 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.23 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin PLEASE check the PnV and make sure I have edited it correctly. Craig I updated your 21-23 votes. James From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 22:18:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 06:18:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 25813 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 06:18:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 06:18:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 06:18:11 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078E3F5@m...>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 1:18:11 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA10179; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:18:10 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: paradox proposal (was: RE: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole) References: Date: 15 Mar 2002 01:18:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:32:55 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 30 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > I hereby propose this. Here is how I do so: > > ----start proposal---- Again, as I understand it, this must be a suggestion at this point, not a proposal... > Any person who causes the gamestate to enter an ambiguous state which will > not resolve itself through the interactions of the players and through the > rule-driven behavior of the gamestate shall be declared the winner of that > round of Pure N_omic. To claim such a victory, a CFJ alleging that such a > state (to be referred to as a Paradoxical Gamestate) exists and assigning > responsibility for it to a specific player must be judged TRUE. Some good ideas here. But: 1. What if it's not the gamestate that enters a paradoxical state but the ruleset? 2. What if the paradoxical gamestate so paralyzes play that a CFJ cannot be proposed or voted on? 3. What if there is a non-ambiguous, non-paradoxical situation that nevertheless prevents play from continuing? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 22:23:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 06:23:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 56576 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 06:23:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 06:23:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 06:23:09 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078E40A@m...>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 1:23:09 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA11149; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:23:08 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestion 23 and other bidness... References: Date: 15 Mar 2002 01:23:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: "redneck_penguin"'s message of "Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:51:43 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "redneck_penguin" writes: > 24- is evidently a proposal. It started with the words I propose... > (?) The "order of play" rule, it seems to me, requires a player to post a suggestion and allow at least 24 hours for comment before converting the suggestion to a proposal. I don't see that the rules allow for submitting a proposal that has not been a suggestion first. Mind you, I think the rule allows the proposal to bear no resemblance whatsoever to the suggestion... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 14 22:48:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 06:48:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 92780 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 06:48:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 06:48:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 06:48:35 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078E4BA@m...>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 1:48:35 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA16236; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:48:34 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Judicial proposal Date: 15 Mar 2002 01:48:33 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes The following is submitted as a proposal: New Rule: Questions regarding legality and consequence of game actions and shall be settled by a Call for Judgement (CFJ). Any player may send a message to the mailing list calling for a CFJ; the message must contain a single suggestion identifying a single particular action which has occurred and asserting either (1) that the action is illegal and has no effect or (2) that the action is legal and has certain specified effects. A CFJ may also be issued by an (apparently) former player if the disputed action (apparently) caused that person to cease to be a player. The CFJ shall then be treated like any other suggestion with the following exceptions: (1) if the Proposer does not submit the suggestion as a proposal within 3 days, it shall be regarded as withdrawn and ineligible to be acted upon (2) the voting period shall be 3 days (3) the proposal shall be adopted if it receives a vote of "support" from at least 2/3 of the players active at the end of the voting period. The disputed legality or disputed effects of an action shall be regarded as unknown whenever any suggested or pending CFJ exists on that action. Resolution of CFJs renders the legality or effects of an action known; it does not alter the actual legality, effects, or timing of the effects of that action. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 04:34:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 12:34:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 10527 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 12:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 12:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 12:34:36 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA623AA40032; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:34:42 -0500 To: Subject: RE: paradox proposal (was: RE: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:34:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> I hereby propose this. Here is how I do so: >> >> ----start proposal---- >Again, as I understand it, this must be a suggestion at this point, >not a proposal... Yes, sorry, my mistake. >> Any person who causes the gamestate to enter an ambiguous state which will >> not resolve itself through the interactions of the players and through the >> rule-driven behavior of the gamestate shall be declared the winner of that >> round of Pure N_omic. To claim such a victory, a CFJ alleging that such a >> state (to be referred to as a Paradoxical Gamestate) exists and assigning >> responsibility for it to a specific player must be judged TRUE. >Some good ideas here. But: >1. What if it's not the gamestate that enters a paradoxical state but > the ruleset? >2. What if the paradoxical gamestate so paralyzes play that a CFJ > cannot be proposed or voted on? I do not know what do do about these. Since this is not actually a proposal yet, does anyone want to suggest solutions? >3. What if there is a non-ambiguous, non-paradoxical situation that > nevertheless prevents play from continuing? Then the game is stuck. nobody has tied it into any logical knots; they've only killed it. From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 04:44:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 12:44:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 730 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 12:44:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 12:44:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 12:44:20 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ACAA397F0062; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:44:26 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Judicial proposal Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:44:24 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl > Questions regarding legality and consequence of game actions and > shall be settled by a Call for Judgement (CFJ). Any player may send > a message to the mailing list calling for a CFJ; the message must > contain a single suggestion identifying a single particular action > which has occurred and asserting either (1) that the action is > illegal and has no effect or (2) that the action is legal and has > certain specified effects. A CFJ may also be issued by an > (apparently) former player if the disputed action (apparently) > caused that person to cease to be a player. The CFJ shall then be > treated like any other suggestion with the following exceptions: (1) > if the Proposer does not submit the suggestion as a proposal within > 3 days, it shall be regarded as withdrawn and ineligible to be acted > upon (2) the voting period shall be 3 days (3) the proposal shall be > adopted if it receives a vote of "support" from at least 2/3 of the > players active at the end of the voting period. > The disputed legality or disputed effects of an action shall be > regarded as unknown whenever any suggested or pending CFJ exists on > that action. Resolution of CFJs renders the legality or effects of > an action known; it does not alter the actual legality, effects, or > timing of the effects of that action. I vote to SUPPORT this proposal. From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 06:51:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 14:51:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 77745 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 14:51:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 14:51:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 14:51:04 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA5F2908005E; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:51:11 -0500 To: Subject: Suggestion Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:51:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I make the following suggestion. In twenty-four hours, it will become a proposal, with any amendments made in that time, and then I will BLOCK it. -----start suggestion----- The following changes to the game WILL NOT be made: A. Craig is given a point to make up for the one he will lose when this fails. B. A new rule is added, reading, "Proposals whose passage would not result in any change to the game, or whose failure would result in a change to the game, shall be prohibitied. ------end suggestion------ From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 07:12:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 15:12:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 70724 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 15:12:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 15:12:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 15:12:57 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AF7F2130192; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:13:03 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Suggestion Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:13:01 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >in any change to the game, or whose failure would result in a change to the >game, shall be prohibitied. That needs to be amended to "or whose failure would directly result in a change to the game" so that you can still lose a point. From rsholmes@m... Fri Mar 15 08:00:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 16:00:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 84373 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 16:00:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 16:00:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 16:00:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0078FED5@m...>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:00:19 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26515; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:00:18 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestion References: Date: 15 Mar 2002 11:00:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:51:09 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 24 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > B. A new rule is added, reading, "Proposals whose passage would not result > in any change to the game, or whose failure would result in a change to the > game, shall be prohibitied. *All* proposals change the game if they fail, by reducing the proposer's point total. If the PnV is considered part of the game, failure (or passage) of a proposal results in a change to that too. (One problem with Rule 1 is that "game" and "change to the game" are not defined, and it's not always obvious what these terms really refer to.) I do not believe the present rules support any other effects of failed proposals. Failure of a CFJ proposal under my judicial proposal would change *knowledge* of the gamestate, but not (other than the above noted effects) the game itself. In particular, if your proposal fails, I do not believe you would escape loss of a point, nor that your new rule would be enacted. For one thing, Rule 1 would be violated. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 08:02:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 16:02:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 37596 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 16:02:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 16:02:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 16:02:49 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB3019810034; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:02:56 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Suggestion Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:02:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >your new rule would be enacted. For one thing, Rule 1 would be >violated. Okay then, the loophole I was trying to close doesn't exist. Suggestion withdrawn, do to being unnecessary. From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 14:32:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 22:32:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 35950 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 22:31:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 22:31:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 22:31:43 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A64C1A50214; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:31:40 -0500 To: Subject: PnV wierdness Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:31:47 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl PnV has David opposing prop 20 (which is a proposal, because it was suggested ten days ago, so its voting period ends tomorrow). However, if you reread the message in which it was proposed, YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THAT! Proposal twenty passes, because, as I said ten days ago, This is a change to the game, so the old rule 1 states that "all players must agree to" it. So David, I am changing your vote. The old one wasn't allowed. From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 15 14:32:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 15 Mar 2002 22:32:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 77908 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2002 22:32:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2002 22:32:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2002 22:32:54 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A695346F008A; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:32:53 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Reminder - Proposal 16 dies Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:33:00 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <1015417900.62.25963.m6@yahoogroups.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. >Proposal 16 dies >Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2002 >Time: 9:00PM EST (GMT-05:00) >Proposal 16 dies due to expiration of 10 day period. What the hell?!? That was over a week ago; the proposal has passed. From firestarter985@a... Fri Mar 15 19:50:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: firestarter985@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 16 Mar 2002 03:50:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 95066 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2002 03:50:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Mar 2002 03:50:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.61) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2002 03:50:10 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.150] by n11.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Mar 2002 03:50:10 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:50:10 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: my update Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 379 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Arkangl985" X-Originating-IP: 162.83.151.199 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=65074581 X-Yahoo-Profile: Arkangl985 I SUPPORT #21. I make #22 (proposed by me) a proposal, if it has not actually happened yet. I SUPPORT #23. I BLOCK #24 now or whenever it becomes a proposal. I have to think a bit more about #25 in the context of CFJs... if #21 indeed passes (which I don't doubt). [I had a better, less terse message, but it was swallowed up by the e- mail program. Booooo....] - Hubert From rsholmes@m... Sun Mar 17 08:07:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 17 Mar 2002 16:07:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 56178 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 16:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2002 16:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2002 16:07:26 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007949DE@m...>; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 0:27:49 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA17870; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:27:48 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I SUPPORT Proposal 22. References: Date: 16 Mar 2002 00:27:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Arkangl985"'s message of "Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:50:10 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 10 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Arkangl985" writes: > I make #22 (proposed by me) a proposal, if it has not actually > happened yet. I SUPPORT this. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 17 11:27:14 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 69388 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 19:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2002 19:27:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.86) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2002 19:27:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [66.218.67.169] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2002 19:27:13 -0000 Date: 17 Mar 2002 19:27:11 -0000 Message-ID: <1016393231.68.82404.w47@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 17 March You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From jmorgantx@p... Sun Mar 17 13:43:29 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 17 Mar 2002 21:43:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 7572 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 19:46:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2002 19:46:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout5-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.98) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2002 19:46:20 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0061.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.61]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g2HJkJe61484 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:46:19 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c1cdec$cd170b60$3db0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Votes Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:43:56 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I SUPPORT 21. I SUPPORT 22 I BLOCK 24 James From jmorgantx@p... Sun Mar 17 14:36:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 17 Mar 2002 22:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 80681 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 19:36:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2002 19:36:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout1-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.77) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2002 19:36:43 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0061.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.61]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g2HJagc178596 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:36:42 -0500 Message-ID: <001501c1cdeb$759210c0$3db0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Re: PnV Weirdness Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:39:24 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I think you need to read section 4 of rule 11 a little closer. Just because ten days has passed doesn't mean the suggestion becomes a proposal. You need to resubmit it as a proposal just as Rich did with 21. David's vote is, IMHO, invalid because it is an *oppose* rather than the legal *support,* *block,* or *abstain.* All this is moot because 20 is not a pending proposal. But if I interpret what you are saying correctly 20 would fail anyway because it has an illegal vote and two non-votes, which means rule 1 has not been complied with. James James From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 17 15:45:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 17 Mar 2002 23:45:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 33284 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 22:40:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Mar 2002 22:40:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2002 22:40:57 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB785D360096; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:40:56 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: PnV Weirdness Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001501c1cdeb$759210c0$3db0fe3f@c...> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >All this is moot because 20 is not a pending proposal. But if I interpret >what you are saying correctly 20 would fail anyway because it has an illegal >vote and two non-votes, which means rule 1 has not been complied with. Reread the message it came from. I have interpreted rule 1 in such a way that it cannot fail - "All players must agree to" it because it is a change to the game. From josh@w... Sun Mar 17 20:22:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 18 Mar 2002 04:22:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 32814 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 04:22:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2002 04:22:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 04:22:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 21695 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 04:22:50 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 04:22:50 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([207.172.77.78]) by wmffl.com ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:22:46 -0600 Message-ID: <3C956B6D.2040606@w...> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:22:05 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: VOTES Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt I support proposal 21 I block proposal 22 (I'm not opposed to giving salaries, but since only 1 point is given per passed proposals, a salary of 2 pts per week is excessive. Yes, I know that points don't mean anything yet, but we all know what they could potentially mean.) I support proposal 23 with comment (I don't really like the terminology that has been adopted the "12th rule passed." The 12th rule passed is not necessarly the same thing as rule 12. In fact, since rule 1 was never passed but was part of the game from the beginning, I would argue that the second part of the proposal is currently meaningless. Although it would still make Craig the Jvastegau) Josh From josh@w... Sun Mar 17 20:28:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 18 Mar 2002 04:28:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 39571 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 04:28:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2002 04:28:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 04:28:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 22878 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 04:28:47 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 04:28:47 -0000 Received: from wmffl.com ([207.172.77.78]) by wmffl.com ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:28:43 -0600 Message-ID: <3C956CD2.80907@w...> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:28:02 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal/Suggestion 18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rcpt-To: From: Josh Utterback X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt Why is "suggestion 18" only a suggestion? It was a proposal before rule 11 was passed, I don't see how it would revert to a suggestion. I think the same might be true of 19 and 20. Well, if it is only a suggestion then good for me. I now submit suggestion 18 as proposal 18. Josh From ragnarok@p... Mon Mar 18 03:32:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 18 Mar 2002 11:32:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 82435 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 11:32:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2002 11:32:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 11:32:41 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A05E73A8009E; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 06:32:46 -0500 To: Subject: Away From Email Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 06:32:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I will be away from my e-mail until wednesday. If the proposal to make me Jvastegau passes during that time, I cannot fulfill my duties until then. Also, 18 and 19 appear to have all the required votes to pass. However, if 23 passes, I will need to know when. Anyone care to figure it out? From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 18 08:15:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 18 Mar 2002 16:15:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 98953 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 16:15:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2002 16:15:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 16:15:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0079DBA8@m...>; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:15:02 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16173; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:15:01 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Judicial reconsideration Date: 18 Mar 2002 11:15:01 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Looking over the rules again, I realize there's potentially a fatal flaw in my proposal or *any* proposal to add a judicial system: namely, we already have one -- Rule 1. Any judicial proposal basically is a system for making changes to the game, or for deciding whether changes to the game have or have not occurred, *in the presence of disagreement about those changes*. But under the conventional interpretation of Rule 1 (which Craig is trying to undermine, but I assume the conventional interpretation is what will be used by most players) there can be only one answer: if any players disagree about a change, that change cannot occur. Supposing Prop 21 passes, if I claim a given change has occurred, and a 2/3 majority votes that it has not in a CFJ proposal, then the judicial rule says the change occurred -- but Rule 1 says it hasn't. You can issue another CFJ saying the judicial rule takes precedence over Rule 1, if you like, but then I can oppose the second CFJ and we're back in the same boat. Given the undefined terms in Rule 1 (What's "the game"? What's a "change in the game"?) and its unfortunate wording which, as Craig observes, seems to restrict players rather than restricting changes to the game, I think this or any Pure Nomic is on dangerously unstable ground until Rule 1's problems are addressed. Prop 20 attempted to remedy the wording problem but I'd still feel better if I knew exactly what a "change in the game" is. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From josh@w... Mon Mar 18 10:00:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 18 Mar 2002 18:00:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 69088 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 18:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2002 18:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO epimetheus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.70) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 18:00:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 6944 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 18:00:24 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO wmffl.com) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 18:00:24 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by wmffl.com ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:00:23 -0600 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:00:19 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Possible Rule 1 Fix Suggestion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt As Rich just mentioned there is still a lot of ambiguity surrounding rule 1 and what exactly is the game. Here is my suggestion for a proposal that I think will clear this up. It also will fix the flaw that an abstaining vote is the same as a block (since "all players must agree to changes" (R1), not just the "total population of voters" (R11.6)) Its quite possible that I have overlooked something, so would love to hear everyone's opinions on this. Josh The following suggestion is offered: Amend Rule 1 to be the text enclosed by the ===RULE 1=== delimiter and append to the end of Rule 4 the text enclosed by the ===RULE 4=== delimiter. ===RULE 1=== The term 'game' or 'the game' shall refer to all aspects of Pure N_omic, including but not limited to; the ruleset, players, positions, proposals, suggestions and points, as well as any effects that occur as a result of the above. The game may only be changed in ways allowed by the ruleset. ===RULE 1=== ===RULE 4=== Any proposal to change the game will only take effect upon completion of the Order of Play for that proposal and if the number of supporting votes divided by the number of supporting votes plus blocking votes equals 1. ===RULE 4=== From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 20 07:45:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 15:45:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 85589 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 15:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 15:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 15:45:05 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007B0279@m...>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:45:05 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00342; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:45:04 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Prop 21 Date: 20 Mar 2002 10:45:04 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes I notice Mark has apparently not sent any email to this list since 6 Mar, so sometime in the next day or so e'll cease to be a player unless we hear from em. Aside from Mark, I see David and Josh have not voted on Prop 21 yet. I encourage them to do so. All others have voted to support. As stated in an earlier message, it's not clear the resulting new rule would have any effect in the presence of Rule 1, but if not I think it still wouldn't hurt to have a judicial system in place in the ruleset, ready to kick in when Rule 1 is amended. And if they don't vote they'll be considered to have abstained, which by Rule 1 probably has the effect of blocking the proposal. If they want to block the proposal, I'd rather they just said so. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 20 08:17:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 16:17:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 82117 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 16:17:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 16:17:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 16:17:22 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007B0814@m...>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:17:22 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08336; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:17:21 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Possible Rule 1 Fix Suggestion References: Date: 20 Mar 2002 11:17:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: josh@w...'s message of "Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:00:19 -0600 (CST)" Message-ID: Lines: 51 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes josh@w... writes: > ===RULE 1=== > The term 'game' or 'the game' shall refer to all aspects of Pure N_omic, > including but not limited to; the ruleset, players, positions, proposals, > suggestions and points, as well as any effects that occur as a result of > the above. > > The game may only be changed in ways allowed by the ruleset. > ===RULE 1=== I'd prefer a more active verb than "allowed" -- such as "specified" or "prescribed". Other Nomics have taken various approaches but it seems to be useful to distinguish between that which one is allowed to do and that which one is able to do. For example, you're allowed to have 50 more points than you currently do, but does that mean you're able to get them just by saying so? Under your suggested rule the answer could arguably be yes. In the first sentence, "all aspects" strikes me as a little too inclusive, especially if you do say "specified" instead of "allowed". For instance, if everyone for some reason started submitting all proposals in iambic pentameter, that'd be a change to an aspect of the game, but not one made as specified by the ruleset. Some Nomics have a rule saying "Any action not permitted by the rules is forbidden" while others have "Any action not forbidden by the rules is permitted". I incline toward the latter, *provided* the distinction between "allowed" and "able" is recognized, and the rules and significant aspects of the gamedata (points, votes, etc.) are changeable only as specified by the rules. That leaves insignificant aspects of the game (like iambic pentameter) unregulated unless a rule specifically regulates them. > ===RULE 4=== > Any proposal to change the game will only take effect upon completion of > the Order of Play for that proposal and if the number of supporting votes > divided by the number of supporting votes plus blocking votes equals 1. > ===RULE 4=== I'd support this. Actually the position of "only" in both rules makes it a modifier for the verb and not for the clause after the verb, which is one of those grammatical things that sets my nerves on edge ("It only rains on the weekends" is not the same as "It rains only on the weekends" -- technically the former means it never snows on the weekends, the latter means it never rains on weekdays) but I can live with it. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 20 08:47:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 16:47:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 63835 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 16:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 16:47:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 16:47:30 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007B0CC9@m...>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:47:30 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA15701; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:47:29 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Precedence Date: 20 Mar 2002 11:47:28 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Suggestion: Add as a new rule the following ==rule== delimited text: == rule == Whenever a provision of a rule is in conflict with a different provision of that rule, or with a provision of a different rule, precedence shall be determined as follows: 1. If, apart from this rule, the ruleset consistently and unambiguously assigns one provision higher or lower precedence than the other, the precedence so defined takes effect. 2. Otherwise, if both provisions are part of the same rule, then neither provision shall have any effect. 3. Otherwise, the provision in the rule that was less recently adopted or amended takes precedence. == rule == The third case is likely to be the most controversial. Making the *most* recently adopted/amended rule take precedence makes it easier to successfully amend the rules; you don't have to make sure each and every conflicting provision in the existing rules is taken care of for the new rule to take full effect. On the other hand, making the *least* recently adopted/amended rule take precedence makes the game safer; if a new rule is belatedly found to conflict with checks and balances already enacted, those checks and balances override the mistake (or scam!) hidden in the new rule. In matters of precedence my preference is to err on the side of caution. Anyway, a proposal can always include language claiming precedence if you're *really* sure it won't lead to trouble. But I regard either approach to precedence as better than none, so speak up if you'd support one but block the other. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From josh@w... Wed Mar 20 13:10:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: josh@w... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:10:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 70089 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:10:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:10:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO janus.hosting4u.net) (209.15.2.37) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:10:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 20362 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:10:33 -0000 Received: from scorpius.hosting4u.net (HELO sefarad.org) (209.15.2.32) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:10:33 -0000 Received: from localhost ([209.15.2.32]) by scorpius.hosting4u.net ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:11:07 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:10:29 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: wmffl@s... To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Prop 21 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rcpt-To: From: josh@w... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=67216266 X-Yahoo-Profile: joshutt On 20 Mar 2002 rsholmes@m... wrote: > I notice Mark has apparently not sent any email to this list since 6 > Mar, so sometime in the next day or so e'll cease to be a player > unless we hear from em. I noticed this as well. Mark's ceasing to be a player, will of course get the game moving again. > Aside from Mark, I see David and Josh have not voted on Prop 21 yet. Actually, I have. See my message from March 17, subject VOTES. Josh From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 13:12:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:12:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 75129 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:12:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:12:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:12:35 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB42DC60214; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:34 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Prop 21 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:47 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >they'll be considered to have abstained, which by Rule 1 probably has >the effect of blocking the proposal. If they want to block the There has been some disagreement about this; I am of the opinion that an abstainer basically says "I'm not enthusiastic about it, but I'll agree to it" because if you won't agree to it then you block it. However, by not voting, the rules are clear that they abstain, no probably about it. The intent of R11 is clearly to allow abstainers to not stop a proposal, so I think it will go through once its ten days are up. From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 13:17:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:17:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 84392 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:16:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:16:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:16:59 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC4AA17E0096; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:16:58 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Precedence Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:17:11 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >But I regard either approach to precedence as better than none, so >speak up if you'd support one but block the other. I prefer the 'more recent' version; we all respect the current instability of the game and will not use the precedence rule to scam anything yet (and when we do will be when the game can handle it). I also want the game to be more fluid; it's kinda bland (for a nomic) right now. From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 13:20:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:20:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 31673 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:20:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:20:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:20:01 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ACFF6EE01EA; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:19:59 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Prop 21 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:20:12 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> Aside from Mark, I see David and Josh have not voted on Prop 21 yet. >Actually, I have. See my message from March 17, subject VOTES. A similar vote laundry list from David recently announced that he was holding off for now. Come on, david, make up your mink! From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 13:21:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:21:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 91151 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:20:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:20:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:20:46 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD2C1415025E; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:20:44 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Precedence Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:20:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >>But I regard either approach to precedence as better than none, so >>speak up if you'd support one but block the other. >I prefer the 'more recent' version; we all respect the current instability >of the game and will not use the precedence rule to scam anything yet (and >when we do will be when the game can handle it). I also want the game to be >more fluid; it's kinda bland (for a nomic) right now. BTW, I did not mean to imply that I will block either version. I won't. From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 13:28:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:28:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21756 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:28:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:28:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:28:15 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AEED5ACA005E; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:28:13 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Prop 21 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:28:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >>> Aside from Mark, I see David and Josh have not voted on Prop 21 yet. >>Actually, I have. See my message from March 17, subject VOTES. >A similar vote laundry list from David recently announced that he was >holding off for now. Come on, david, make up your mink! Sorry about that bizarre request. If you don't have a mink, you may make up your mind instead. From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 13:42:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 21:42:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 89774 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:42:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:42:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:42:01 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2281454025E; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:42:00 -0500 To: Subject: vacant position suggestion and voting suggestion Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:42:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I suggest the following new rule: Whenever a position exists but is unfilled, an approval-voting system is used. Each player posts a list of all players with whether they approve of each one filling the position or not. A player may vote for any number of people, but may only vote once for each player. The player who recieves the most approvals becomes the new holder of that position. This has the problem of not fulfilling rule one, so I also suggest the following: By agreeing to the passage of this rule or any rule which mandates a vote other than a consensus, players agree to whatever changes those elections make. New players agree to any such change by becoming players, as they may be assumed to have read the ruleset and know that this rule stands. Therefore, 2/3 majority CFJ passages and my vacant position suggestion both fulfill rule 1, despite making non-consensual changes to the game. From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 20 14:08:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 22:08:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 90716 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 21:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 21:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 21:57:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007B3D31@m...>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:57:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04975; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:57:56 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Precedence References: Date: 20 Mar 2002 16:57:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:17:11 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > >But I regard either approach to precedence as better than none, so > >speak up if you'd support one but block the other. > > I prefer the 'more recent' version; we all respect the current instability > of the game and will not use the precedence rule to scam anything yet (and > when we do will be when the game can handle it). I also want the game to be > more fluid; it's kinda bland (for a nomic) right now. You know, almost as soon as I'd posted that message, I asked myself, "do I *really* think so?" And I don't think I do. I don't think caution is what this Nomic needs at the moment. But I'll listen to both sides for now. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 20 14:18:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 22:18:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 18766 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 22:04:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 22:04:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 22:04:55 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007B3E89@m...>; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:03:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06268; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:03:56 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] vacant position suggestion and voting suggestion References: Date: 20 Mar 2002 17:03:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:42:13 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 33 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > I suggest the following new rule: > > Whenever a position exists but is unfilled, an approval-voting system is > used. Each player posts a list of all players with whether they approve of > each one filling the position or not. A player may vote for any number of > people, but may only vote once for each player. The player who recieves the > most approvals becomes the new holder of that position. Even if e doesn't want to? > This has the problem of not fulfilling rule one, so I also suggest the > following: > > By agreeing to the passage of this rule or any rule which mandates a vote > other than a consensus, players agree to whatever changes those elections > make. New players agree to any such change by becoming players, as they may > be assumed to have read the ruleset and know that this rule stands. > > Therefore, 2/3 majority CFJ passages and my vacant position suggestion both > fulfill rule 1, despite making non-consensual changes to the game. Urg. I've never liked shrink wrap licenses. To my way of thinking this rule renders Rule 1 more or less meaningless. If we're going to drop unanimity, partially or completely (and, at least for CFJ situations, I think we will have to), I'd rather amend or repeal Rule 1 than try to end run around it. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 14:27:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 22:27:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 35472 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 22:15:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 22:15:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 22:15:40 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA0B53190034; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:15:39 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Precedence Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:15:52 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >And I don't think I do. I don't think caution is what this Nomic >needs at the moment. This nomic CERTAINLY needs caution. But it needs it on the part of players acting as individuals, not as a rulepassing whole. That is, we need people to hold off on the big scams (and there are some coming, I can guarantee it) until the game can recover. But we need to be adventurous and pass rules, making a stable game that can handle such scams, because without them being there to deal with I don't think this nomic will be as much fun. From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 20 14:35:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 20 Mar 2002 22:35:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 1495 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 22:23:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2002 22:23:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 22:23:51 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABF599520092; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:23:49 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] vacant position suggestion and voting suggestion Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:24:02 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> I suggest the following new rule: >> >> Whenever a position exists but is unfilled, an approval-voting system is >> used. Each player posts a list of all players with whether they approve of >> each one filling the position or not. A player may vote for any number of >> people, but may only vote once for each player. The player who recieves the >> most approvals becomes the new holder of that position. >Even if e doesn't want to? Good point. I'll ammend that by adding the phrase 'who has approved emself' between the words 'approvals' and 'becomes' in the final sentence. >> This has the problem of not fulfilling rule one, so I also suggest the >> following: >> >> By agreeing to the passage of this rule or any rule which mandates a vote >> other than a consensus, players agree to whatever changes those elections >> make. New players agree to any such change by becoming players, as they may >> be assumed to have read the ruleset and know that this rule stands. >> >> Therefore, 2/3 majority CFJ passages and my vacant position suggestion both >> fulfill rule 1, despite making non-consensual changes to the game. >Urg. I've never liked shrink wrap licenses. >To my way of thinking this rule renders Rule 1 more or less >meaningless. If we're going to drop unanimity, partially or >completely (and, at least for CFJ situations, I think we will have >to), I'd rather amend or repeal Rule 1 than try to end run around it. I agree. If you propose a fix, I will support it. I withdraw this suggestion, and hope that some way to allow non-consensual elections is proposed. I reject Josh's fix as it stands; it replaces R1 with something almost completely different. If we change it to repeal R1, and adding a new rule with the proposed new R1 text, I will support it. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Wed Mar 20 19:47:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59493 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 03:47:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2002 03:47:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.73) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 03:47:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: notify@yahoogroups.com Received: from [66.218.67.130] by n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Mar 2002 03:47:05 -0000 Date: 21 Mar 2002 03:47:02 -0000 Message-ID: <1016682422.5838.28779.w11@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: files X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: New file uploaded to n_omic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the n_omic group. File : /*Pure* n_omic/pnv.html Uploaded by : redneck_penguin Description : 20 March You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n_omic/files/%2APure%2A%20n_omic/pnv.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, redneck_penguin From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 21 10:50:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 21 Mar 2002 18:50:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 32077 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 18:50:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2002 18:50:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 18:50:56 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007BB8CB@m...>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:50:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28099; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:50:55 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: I BLOCK Prop 23 Date: 21 Mar 2002 13:50:55 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 8 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Sorry, but I BLOCK Proposal 23, on the grounds that (1) it isn't a legal proposal anyway (never having first been a suggestion) and (2) I don't know what the "12th rule passed" is; as someone else has pointed out, it probably isn't Rule 12. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 21 12:28:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 21 Mar 2002 20:28:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 51009 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 20:28:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2002 20:28:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 20:28:50 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007BC850@m...>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:28:51 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22846; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:28:49 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Precedence References: Date: 21 Mar 2002 15:28:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "20 Mar 2002 11:47:28 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 32 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Proposal: Add as a new rule the following ==rule== delimited text: == rule == Whenever a provision of a rule is in conflict with a different provision of that rule, or with a provision of a different rule, precedence shall be determined as follows: 1. If, apart from this rule, the ruleset consistently and unambiguously assigns one provision higher or lower precedence than the other, the precedence so assigned takes effect. 2. Otherwise, if both provisions are part of the same rule, then neither provision shall have any effect. 3. Otherwise, the provision which is in the rule that was more recently adopted takes precedence. == rule == [[Changes from the suggestion: "assigned" instead of "defined" in 1. Reason: clarity. "more recently" instead of "less recently" in 3. Reason: see posted comments. "adopted" instead of "adopted or amended" in 3. Reason: difficulty of determining when a rule was most recently amended; also a feeling that a minor amendment to an old rule shouldn't make it suddenly the highest priority rule.]] -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 21 14:35:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 21 Mar 2002 22:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 10912 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 22:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2002 22:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 22:35:02 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A00C23101AC; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:34:52 -0500 To: Subject: David, please vote Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:35:11 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl You have four days to vote on prop 21. Yours is the only missing vote, and it is the deciding vote as nobody else has blocked it. If you don't want it passing, it's time to speak up. From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 21 15:21:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 21 Mar 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 12031 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2002 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB07659C0034; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:21:43 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Precedence Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl I support this. -----Original Message----- From: rsholmes@m... [mailto:rsholmes@m...] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:29 PM To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Precedence Proposal: Add as a new rule the following ==rule== delimited text: == rule == Whenever a provision of a rule is in conflict with a different provision of that rule, or with a provision of a different rule, precedence shall be determined as follows: 1. If, apart from this rule, the ruleset consistently and unambiguously assigns one provision higher or lower precedence than the other, the precedence so assigned takes effect. 2. Otherwise, if both provisions are part of the same rule, then neither provision shall have any effect. 3. Otherwise, the provision which is in the rule that was more recently adopted takes precedence. == rule == [[Changes from the suggestion: "assigned" instead of "defined" in 1. Reason: clarity. "more recently" instead of "less recently" in 3. Reason: see posted comments. "adopted" instead of "adopted or amended" in 3. Reason: difficulty of determining when a rule was most recently amended; also a feeling that a minor amendment to an old rule shouldn't make it suddenly the highest priority rule.]] -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: n_omic-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Thu Mar 21 22:02:23 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6397 invoked by uid 7800); 22 Mar 2002 06:02:21 -0000 Date: 22 Mar 2002 06:02:21 -0000 Message-ID: <1016776941.18.6394.m10@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: calendar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reminder - Proposal 23 dies 21:51 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Proposal 23 dies 21:51 Date: Sunday, March 24, 2002 Time: 12:00AM CST (GMT-06:00) From n_omic@yahoogroups.com Fri Mar 22 22:02:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47648 invoked by uid 7800); 23 Mar 2002 06:02:25 -0000 Date: 23 Mar 2002 06:02:25 -0000 Message-ID: <1016863345.15.47647.m10@yahoogroups.com> X-eGroups-Application: calendar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: system From: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Reminder - Proposal 23 dies 21:51 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Proposal 23 dies 21:51 Date: Sunday, March 24, 2002 Time: 12:00AM CST (GMT-06:00) From ragnarok@p... Sun Mar 24 13:17:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 24 Mar 2002 21:17:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 86090 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2002 21:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Mar 2002 21:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2002 21:17:54 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A281BA2C0062; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:17:53 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Reminder - Proposal 23 dies 21:51 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:18:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1016863345.15.47647.m10@yahoogroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Proposal 23 dies 21:51 So, has it passed or not? David didn't vote; what does this mean for the proposal? From jmorgantx@p... Sun Mar 24 18:50:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Mar 2002 02:50:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 88686 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2002 02:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2002 02:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 02:50:01 -0000 Received: from computer (A010-0065.MDND.splitrock.net [63.254.176.65]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id g2P2nxI78654 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:49:59 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c1d3a8$36b543a0$41b0fe3f@c...> To: Subject: Prop 23 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:40:13 -0600 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "JAMES MORGAN" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin Prop 23 is dead and has been dead for a couple of days. Rich alleges that it was illegally submitted (which I do not believe) and that the wording was poor (which I do believe.) One of us will need to resubmit it with better wording. James From ragnarok@p... Mon Mar 25 12:53:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Mar 2002 20:53:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 85862 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2002 20:53:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2002 20:53:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 20:53:18 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AE3A563023C; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:14 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Prop 23 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:14 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c1d3a8$36b543a0$41b0fe3f@c...> X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Prop 23 is dead and has been dead for a couple of days. Rich alleges that it >was illegally submitted (which I do not believe) and that the wording was >poor (which I do believe.) Wait, it's prop 21 I was worried about (we really need to start naming these!). That one dies tommorrow, so there's still a day. But if David fails to vote, what happens to it? From rsholmes@m... Mon Mar 25 13:47:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Mar 2002 21:47:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 96853 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2002 21:47:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2002 21:47:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 21:47:22 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007D4EDA@m...>; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:47:21 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA20203; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:47:21 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Prop 23 References: Date: 25 Mar 2002 16:47:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:14 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 38 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > >Prop 23 is dead and has been dead for a couple of days. Rich alleges that > it > >was illegally submitted (which I do not believe) and that the wording was > >poor (which I do believe.) > > Wait, it's prop 21 I was worried about (we really need to start naming > these!). That one dies tommorrow, so there's still a day. But if David fails > to vote, what happens to it? We argue about it, I guess. Rule 1 says we have to have David's agreement. Rule 11, step 7 says David is considered to have abstained. Rule 11, step 8 says an abstain counts as neither a support or a block. What is not explicit is whether abstaining is agreement, and if so, how abstain differs from support. Rule 11 describes how proposals are voted upon, but nothing in the ruleset other than Rule 1 says how such votes affect the game. Since Rule 1 requires "agreement" and Rule 11 provides for "support", "block", or "abstain", there's clearly a gap between the two. Here's an interesting interpretation: David last posted to the list, apparently, on 14 Mar. If e does not post again by 28 Mar, e ceases to be a player. Since e has not agreed to Prop 21 (here interpreting "abstain" as not being agreement), it cannot be enacted at the end of its voting period. But a couple days later, David ceases to be a player, which means all players agree to Prop 21; so it's enacted then! I'm not seriously pushing for this interpretation, but I do think there's nothing in the present ruleset that rules such a bizarre interpretation out. (Personally I'd favor interpreting the ambiguities in favor of the obvious intent of Rule 11, and saying Prop 21 passes and is enacted at the end of its voting period if David abstains.) -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 27 09:51:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 27 Mar 2002 17:51:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 80145 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 17:51:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Mar 2002 17:51:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 17:51:55 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007E480F@m...>; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:51:55 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17644; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:51:54 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Last posting dates Date: 27 Mar 2002 12:51:54 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes David 14 Mar Hubert 16 Mar Josh 20 Mar James 24 Mar Craig 25 Mar Rich 27 Mar It's been nearly 2 weeks since David or Hubert has been heard from, and a week for Josh. Any suggestions for bolstering the player list before this Nomic goes under? I don't mean just getting people to join, I mean keeping them too. Seems to me that this Nomic needs to find an interesting identity soon. At present it's pretty blah. No great inspirations from me, though. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Mar 27 09:55:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 27 Mar 2002 17:55:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 14924 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 17:55:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Mar 2002 17:55:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 17:55:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007E48A1@m...>; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:55:16 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18479; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:55:16 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: spam: DocNomic Date: 27 Mar 2002 12:55:16 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes I'd like to start up Round 4 of DocNomic. DocNomic is an Imperial Nomic variant I started up in 2000. Round 3 ended last November. Since then DocNomic's been on hold due to various Real World time pressures. I think those are ebbing now. So -- when and if enough people express interest, Round 4 will begin. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Wed Mar 27 16:38:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Mar 2002 00:38:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 35364 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 00:38:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 00:38:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 00:38:56 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A621E0C30034; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:38:57 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Last posting dates Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:38:55 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Seems to me that this Nomic needs to find an interesting identity >soon. At present it's pretty blah. No great inspirations from me, >though. We could create a provision for sub-games with various specific rulesets, each with their own style, and give points in the main game for winning one of those. We could come up with a setting the way Garden Nomic did, but I don't recommend that - GN seemed pretty dead when I left, and it wasn't my fault. We could, now that the CFJ proposal has been passed (its one abstainer having not posted recently enough) and my Paradox Victory proposal has by its own terms become a pending proposal, pass prop 25 and let the paradoxes begin. Or we could always declare war on another nomic. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 07:53:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 15:53:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 55474 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 15:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 15:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 15:53:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007EB533@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:53:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21858; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:53:05 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Last posting dates References: Date: 28 Mar 2002 10:53:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:38:55 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > We could create a provision for sub-games with various specific rulesets, > each with their own style, and give points in the main game for winning one > of those. Sure, but sufficiently interesting subgame(s) would be needed. And I feel subgames ought to be fairly closely tied to the overall Nomic; otherwise the Nomic becomes all about the subgame, and then you might as well just be playing the subgame and forget about Nomic. (A phenomenon observed in the short-lived WikiNomic... and of course, there's FRC.) > We could come up with a setting the way Garden Nomic did, but I don't > recommend that - GN seemed pretty dead when I left, and it wasn't my fault. I don't think it was the setting's fault, either. If anything I thought the setting helped keep Garden Nomic II going until Gardener burnout apparently did it in. > We could, now that the CFJ proposal has been passed (its one abstainer > having not posted recently enough) and my Paradox Victory proposal has by > its own terms become a pending proposal, pass prop 25 and let the paradoxes > begin. A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing paradox... > Or we could always declare war on another nomic. How about DocNomic? ;-) -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 07:54:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 15:54:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 2036 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 15:54:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 15:54:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 15:54:41 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007EB547@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:54:41 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22426; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:54:40 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: paradox proposal (was: RE: [n_omic] CFJ Loophole) References: Date: 28 Mar 2002 10:54:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:32:55 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 7 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes While I have reservations about particular provisions of this rule, I feel the basic idea is good and none of my reservations are especially serious. So, I SUPPORT this. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 08:21:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 16:21:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 92429 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 16:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 16:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 16:21:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007EB847@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:21:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26851; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:21:56 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestion Date: 28 Mar 2002 11:21:56 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 40 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Suggestion: Amend Rule 11 as follows: Change steps 5-7 to read 5) The voting period begins as soon as the proposal is posted and ends 10 days later, or when all active players have cast legal votes, whichever comes first. 6) Legal votes are: "accept" or "reject". "Accept" means the player agrees to allow the proposed change to the game. "Reject" means the player does not agree to allow the proposed change. Attempts to vote anything other than "accept" or "reject" will be disregarded. A player who has cast a vote may change eir vote at any time until the voting period ends. 7) Active players who do not cast legal votes within the voting period will be assumed to have voted "accept" on the proposal. [[The change to 5) will speed up adoption of most proposals. [[The changes to 6) abolish "abstain" voting, and explicitly allow votes to be changed -- unclear in the present ruleset. "Abstain" in the present ruleset seems intended to mean "I don't care, I don't actually support this, but I agree to it". However, that meaning is not entirely clear, and its effect (if that is the meaning) is exactly the same as "support". Removing "abstain" and replacing "support" with "accept" accomplishes the same thing less ambiguously. [[The changes to 7) just make the terminology of that step consistent with 5) and 6). [[I considered making some similar changes to the CFJ rule, but since that rule seems to be in conflict with Rule 1 I figured it'd be OK to wait until that conflict is resolved.]] -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 28 08:56:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 16:56:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 57172 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 16:56:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 16:56:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 16:56:05 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AB2D3C82008A; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:56:13 -0500 To: Subject: Call For Judgement to resolve unambiguity of the CFJ rule Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:56:06 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl This Call For Judgement is legal, and has the effect of being passed if two thirds of players vote to support it, as all players agreed to the CFJ rule and its provision that only a two-thirds majority is needed to pass a Call For Judgement. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 09:25:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 17:25:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 86959 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 17:25:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 17:25:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 17:25:50 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007EBFC0@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:25:49 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09868; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:25:47 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Call For Judgement: Illegality of previous Call For Judgement References: Date: 28 Mar 2002 12:25:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:56:06 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 49 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > This Call For Judgement is legal, and has the effect of being passed if two > thirds of players vote to support it, as all players agreed to the CFJ rule > and its provision that only a two-thirds majority is needed to pass a Call > For Judgement. The above is, of course, a CFJ suggestion, for which voting will be open only once it becomes a CFJ proposal at least 24 hours from now. So is the following ===CFJ=== delimited text:: ===CFJ=== Craig's Call for Judgement suggestion, quoted above, is illegal and has no effect. ===CFJ=== Reasoning: By issuing this CFJ asserting its own legality, Craig opens the possibility of its being rejected and thereby finding that CFJ *not* to be legal. But if the CFJ is found not to be legal, then the process of finding it not to be legal will have been illegal. This paradoxical state can seemingly be avoided only by finding Craig's CFJ legal; a neat trap. But there is an out: Craig's CFJ can be found to be illegal by a legal CFJ. But *is* Craig's CFJ illegal? Notwithstanding any possible conflict with Rule 1, it is. The CFJ rule states Any player may send a message to the mailing list calling for a CFJ; the message must contain a single suggestion identifying a single particular action which has occurred and asserting either (1) that the action is illegal and has no effect or (2) that the action is legal and has certain specified effects. No action which "has occurred" (i.e. had occurred before the Craig's CFJ suggestion was made) has been identified as being the disputed action here. To issue a CFJ asserting that that CFJ itself is legal is to identify an action which had not occurred at the time. Therefore Craig's CFJ suggestion is illegal, and has no effect, as can be unparadoxically established by passage of this (legal) CFJ. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 28 09:26:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 17:26:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 92839 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 17:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 17:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 17:26:52 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A264372D009E; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:27:00 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Last posting dates Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:26:52 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> We could create a provision for sub-games with various specific rulesets, >> each with their own style, and give points in the main game for winning one >> of those. >Sure, but sufficiently interesting subgame(s) would be needed. And I >feel subgames ought to be fairly closely tied to the overall Nomic; >otherwise the Nomic becomes all about the subgame, and then you might >as well just be playing the subgame and forget about Nomic. (A >phenomenon observed in the short-lived WikiNomic... and of course, >there's FRC.) I agree. This would be very hard to do well. >> We could come up with a setting the way Garden Nomic did, but I don't >> recommend that - GN seemed pretty dead when I left, and it wasn't my fault. >I don't think it was the setting's fault, either. If anything I >thought the setting helped keep Garden Nomic II going until Gardener >burnout apparently did it in. Huh. I assumed that the setting failed to preserve it, because it was not preserved. >> We could, now that the CFJ proposal has been passed (its one abstainer >> having not posted recently enough) and my Paradox Victory proposal has by >> its own terms become a pending proposal, pass prop 25 and let the paradoxes >> begin. >A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing paradox... How quaint the ways of Paradox! At common sense she gaily mocks! >> Or we could always declare war on another nomic. >How about DocNomic? ;-) But if you participate in the war, then it will kill DocNomic. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 09:40:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 17:40:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 20698 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 17:40:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 17:40:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 17:40:26 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007EC185@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:40:25 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA12507; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:40:25 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Last posting dates References: Date: 28 Mar 2002 12:40:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:26:52 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > >How about DocNomic? ;-) > > But if you participate in the war, then it will kill DocNomic. How could you tell? Anyway, it depends on *how* I participated, doesn't it? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 28 10:01:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 18:01:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 95692 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 18:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 18:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 18:01:16 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA74F1720034; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:01:24 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Last posting dates Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:01:17 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> >How about DocNomic? ;-) >> >> But if you participate in the war, then it will kill DocNomic. >How could you tell? >Anyway, it depends on *how* I participated, doesn't it? True. One problem with consensus and war is that if an enemy joins pure n_omic, they can kill any proposal at all. From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 28 10:06:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 18:06:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 94480 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 18:06:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 18:06:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 18:06:25 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABAA5480294; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:06:34 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Call For Judgement: Illegality of previous Call For Judgement Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:06:26 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >No action which "has occurred" (i.e. had occurred before the Craig's >CFJ suggestion was made) has been identified as being the disputed >action here. To issue a CFJ asserting that that CFJ itself is legal >is to identify an action which had not occurred at the time. I had not thought about that; my CFJ suggestion is hereby withdrawn. >Therefore Craig's CFJ suggestion is illegal, and has no effect, as can >be unparadoxically established by passage of this (legal) CFJ. However, we need to be sure that CFJs are passable nonconsensually, so I suggest the following CFJ: Rich's CFJ is legal, and passes if and only if two thirds of players vote for it. It does not require a unanimous vote to pass, as all players have already agreed to let two-thirds be sufficient. From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 10:34:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 18:34:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 78927 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 18:34:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 18:34:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 18:34:45 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007EC79C@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:34:45 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA22926; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:34:44 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Call For Judgement: Illegality of previous Call For Judgement References: Date: 28 Mar 2002 13:34:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:06:26 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 28 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > However, we need to be sure that CFJs are passable nonconsensually, so I > suggest the following CFJ: > > Rich's CFJ is legal, and passes if and only if two thirds of players vote > for it. It does not require a unanimous vote to pass, as all players have > already agreed to let two-thirds be sufficient. Er, OK, but how can I proceed with my CFJ if the CFJ it refers to has been withdrawn? Granted, the CFJ suggestion has been made, and one could dispute its legality, but I don't think that's relevant to what you're trying to establish. The question you're trying to address is not, Are CFJs legal, but, Do CFJs bring about a disputed change if they pass non-unanimously? And since no CFJ has yet passed non-unanimously, there's no test case available yet. Tell you what, I'll give you a test case, one that, if you do your bit properly, should result in a non-unanimously passed CFJ. *After* that happens, *then* issue a CFJ asserting its legality. OK? I hereby withdraw my first CFJ. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Thu Mar 28 11:05:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 19:05:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 41168 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 19:05:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 19:05:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 19:05:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007ECAF8@m...>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:05:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28611; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:05:05 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed Date: 28 Mar 2002 14:05:05 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 49 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes I suggest the following ==CFJ== delimited text: ==CFJ== The passage of Proposal 20 was legal, and had the effect of amending Rule 1 and increasing Craig's point total by one. ==CFJ== Discussion: Proposal 20 is described in the PnV as follows: Change the game: Rule 1 now reads, "No change to the game may take effect without the consent of all players." Proposed by: Craig Status: suggestion Date: 5 March 18:54 Notwithstanding the status claimed therein, this proposal is not and never was a suggestion, since it was proposed before passage of Proposal 16, which resulted in Rule 11, the rule which mandates a 24-hour suggestion period before the start of voting. Rule 11 does not make explicit how to handle proposals that were open to voting at the time of its passage. Such cases must then be decided by a CFJ such as this. I assert that the reasonable interpretation is that such proposals should have been voted on as provided by steps 5-7 of Rule 11 (which govern how proposals are handled once they have become proposals), disregarding steps 1-4 (governing how suggestions are handled until they become proposals). Therefore voting on Proposal 20 opened on 5 March at 18:54 and ended 10 days later. On 14 Mar, adistius (David), who was then a player, wrote I OPPOSE proposal 20 (it is too cumbersome, in my opinion, even at this point) However, OPPOSE is not a legal vote according to Rule 11. Since David did not submit a legal vote on Proposal 20, e is assumed (by Step 7 of Rule 11) to have abstained. To abstain is to agree to allow passage without actually supporting it. All other players voted to support (according to the PnP), and therefore Proposal 20 passed and its rewrite of Rule 1 took effect on 15 March at 18:54. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Mar 28 11:31:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 28 Mar 2002 19:31:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 2851 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 19:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2002 19:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 19:31:35 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AFA03935009E; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:31:44 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Call For Judgement: Illegality of previous Call For Judgement Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:31:36 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >Tell you what, I'll give you a test case, one that, if you do your bit >properly, should result in a non-unanimously passed CFJ. *After* that >happens, *then* issue a CFJ asserting its legality. OK? OK, my second CFJ is withdrawn. From firestarter985@a... Thu Mar 28 18:39:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: firestarter985@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Mar 2002 02:39:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 6180 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 02:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2002 02:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n19.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.74) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 02:39:08 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.178] by n19.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Mar 2002 02:39:08 -0000 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:39:08 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Suggestion Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 413 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Arkangl985" X-Originating-IP: 162.83.146.151 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=65074581 X-Yahoo-Profile: Arkangl985 --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > Amend Rule 11 as follows: > > Change steps 5-7 to read > > 5) The voting period begins as soon as the proposal is posted and ends > 10 days later, or when all active players have cast legal votes, > whichever comes first. > As soon as the proposal is posted? What about suggestions? Sorry about not having posted recently (or not-so-recently)... -hubert From rsholmes@m... Fri Mar 29 08:29:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Mar 2002 16:29:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 10177 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 16:29:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2002 16:29:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 16:29:16 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F212D@m...>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:29:16 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04673; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:29:15 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Suggestion References: Date: 29 Mar 2002 11:29:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Arkangl985"'s message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:39:08 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Arkangl985" writes: > --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > > Amend Rule 11 as follows: > > > > Change steps 5-7 to read > > > > 5) The voting period begins as soon as the proposal is posted and > ends > > 10 days later, or when all active players have cast legal votes, > > whichever comes first. > > > > As soon as the proposal is posted? What about suggestions? As soon as the suggestion, posted at least 24 hours earlier, is re-posted as a proposal. Yes. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Fri Mar 29 11:35:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Mar 2002 19:35:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 32656 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 19:35:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2002 19:35:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 19:35:00 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F2F9F@m...>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:34:59 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA02788; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:34:59 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal: Rule 11 amendment References: Date: 29 Mar 2002 14:34:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "28 Mar 2002 11:21:56 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 26 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Proposal: Amend Rule 11 as follows: Change steps 5-7 to read 5) The voting period begins as soon as the suggestion becomes a proposal and ends 10 days later, or when all active players have cast legal votes, whichever comes first. 6) Legal votes are: "accept" or "reject". "Accept" means the player agrees to allow the proposed change to the game. "Reject" means the player does not agree to allow the proposed change. Attempts to vote anything other than "accept" or "reject" will be disregarded. A player who has cast a vote may change eir vote at any time until the voting period ends. 7) Active players who do not cast legal votes within the voting period will be considered to have voted "accept" on the proposal. [[Change from suggestion: slight rewording of 5) to clarify the clock start time. "Considered" instead of "assumed" in 7).]] -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Fri Mar 29 13:21:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 29 Mar 2002 21:21:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 95918 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 21:21:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2002 21:21:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 21:21:34 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F382B@m...>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:21:33 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19530; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:21:33 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Suggestion: Kudos Date: 29 Mar 2002 16:21:33 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 38 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Suggestion: Add a rule: Players may possess kudos. The number of kudos possessed by a player must be a finite integer. The Watcher shall keep track of kudos totals for all players. Any player (the giver) may change the kudos total of any other player (the recipient) by +2, +1, -1, or -2 at any time, by announcing they do so in a message to the list, subject to the following restrictions: 1. A kudos change must occur within 72 hours of the recipient's having performed some game action *other than* voting, executing the duties of eir position, or making a kudos change. The giver must clearly identify the action in the kudos change message. 2. No giver may perform more than one negative kudos change in any 24 hour period. 3. No giver may change the kudos total of any particular recipient more than once in any 7 day period, unless the changes are of opposite sign. 4. No giver may change the kudos total of any recipient for 7 days after that recipient changed the kudos of that giver, unless the changes are of equal magnitude and opposite sign. No player may change eir own kudos total, except that a player who has at least +10 kudos may exchange +10 kudos for +1 point. Points may not be converted to kudos. Any player who has never had eir kudos changed has zero kudos. Kudos totals may not be changed except as specified in this rule. All provisions of this rule take precedence over Rule 1. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Fri Mar 29 16:30:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 30 Mar 2002 00:30:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 86017 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2002 00:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2002 00:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2002 00:30:27 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A723A7B029C; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:30:27 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Suggestion: Kudos Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl > 2. No giver may perform more than one negative kudos change in any > 24 hour period. I would encourage adding: 2a. No recipient may have eir kudos changed negatively more than once in any 24 hour period. >No player may change eir own kudos total, except that a player who has >at least +10 kudos may exchange +10 kudos for +1 point. Points may >not be converted to kudos. Could we make it five? Also, can we put a minimum on the number of kudos you can have, so you don't wind up with -3000000 or some such? I will support this; it seems like a great idea. From rsholmes@m... Fri Mar 29 20:28:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 30 Mar 2002 04:28:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 27155 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2002 04:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2002 04:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2002 04:27:59 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007F540F@m...>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:28:00 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA08980; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:27:58 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Suggestion: Kudos References: Date: 29 Mar 2002 23:27:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:30:35 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 32 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > > 2. No giver may perform more than one negative kudos change in any > > 24 hour period. > > I would encourage adding: > > 2a. No recipient may have eir kudos changed negatively more than once in > any 24 hour period. Mmm, no, I'd rather not. If some player really pisses off everyone, why shouldn't everyone lower eir kudos? > >No player may change eir own kudos total, except that a player who has > >at least +10 kudos may exchange +10 kudos for +1 point. Points may > >not be converted to kudos. > > Could we make it five? I have no idea what a reasonable exchange rate would be -- given that we don't know what values a point and a kudo really have, and only a vague idea of how difficult each is to get! Five is fine with me. > Also, can we put a minimum on the number of kudos you can have, so you don't > wind up with -3000000 or some such? Could, though I don't see how even a thousandth of that would be likely to occur. How about -100 as a lower limit? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Sat Mar 30 08:03:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 30 Mar 2002 16:03:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 63134 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2002 16:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2002 16:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2002 16:03:49 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A1ED141F008E; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:03:57 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Suggestion: Kudos Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:04:01 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> > 2. No giver may perform more than one negative kudos change in any >> > 24 hour period. >> >> I would encourage adding: >> >> 2a. No recipient may have eir kudos changed negatively more than once in >> any 24 hour period. >Mmm, no, I'd rather not. If some player really pisses off everyone, >why shouldn't everyone lower eir kudos? Good point. >> >No player may change eir own kudos total, except that a player who has >> >at least +10 kudos may exchange +10 kudos for +1 point. Points may >> >not be converted to kudos. >> >> Could we make it five? >I have no idea what a reasonable exchange rate would be -- given that >we don't know what values a point and a kudo really have, and only a >vague idea of how difficult each is to get! Five is fine with me. How hard kudos are to get will depend entirely on how much they are worth. With five kudos per point, the other three players can give you a point. With ten, they can give you two thirds of one. >> Also, can we put a minimum on the number of kudos you can have, so you don't >> wind up with -3000000 or some such? >Could, though I don't see how even a thousandth of that would be >likely to occur. How about -100 as a lower limit? fine with me. From jmorgantx@p... Sat Mar 30 18:19:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 31 Mar 2002 02:19:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 65458 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 02:19:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Mar 2002 02:19:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.77) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 02:19:18 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.170] by n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Mar 2002 02:19:15 -0000 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:19:14 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Business Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 466 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "redneck_penguin" X-Originating-IP: 63.254.176.76 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=70163434 X-Yahoo-Profile: redneck_penguin I have had some sudden family business that has come up and I am out of town for the next few days while everything gets settled. I resign my duties as Watcher in favor of Craig, if ey is willing. If ey is not then I guess you guys need to decide who. This is the first time I have been freed up enough to post and the affairs seem to be becoming settled so I may have some irregular postings in the next week. I support Rich's amendment to Rule 11. James From ragnarok@p... Sat Mar 30 19:49:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 31 Mar 2002 03:49:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 22510 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 03:49:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Mar 2002 03:49:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 03:49:17 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A73F23920062; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:49:19 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Business Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:49:32 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >I have had some sudden family business that has come up and I am out >of town for the next few days while everything gets settled. I resign >my duties as Watcher in favor of Craig, if ey is willing. If ey is >not then I guess you guys need to decide who. This is the first time >I have been freed up enough to post and the affairs seem to be >becoming settled so I may have some irregular postings in the next >week. Wow. I feel honored to be the one you would want as Gazjatna in your absence. However, I'm going to be a bit busy myself rather soon, so if anyone wants the job, please speak up. From (no email address) Mon Apr 01 06:04:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 Apr 2002 14:04:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 34739 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2002 14:01:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Apr 2002 14:01:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2002 14:01:30 -0000 Received: from smtp.intrex.net [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A841281C008C; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:01:37 -0500 SUBJECT: Suggestion: temporary rules I suggest adding the following rule: Message-Id: <200204010901664.SM00804@s...> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:01:38 -0500 From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Any player may, at a cost of two points, make a rule Immune. This lasts for one week. Every Monday, if there are any non-Immune rules, a rule is chosen at random. If that rule is not Immune, it is removed from the ruleset. This rule is Immune. From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 01 07:21:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 Apr 2002 15:21:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 3008 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2002 15:20:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Apr 2002 15:20:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2002 15:20:34 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007FE360@m...>; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:20:33 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13490; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:20:33 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed References: Date: 01 Apr 2002 10:20:32 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes I propose the following ==CFJ== delimited text as a Call for Judgement: ==CFJ== The passage of Proposal 20 was legal, and had the effect of amending Rule 1 and increasing Craig's point total by one. ==CFJ== [[Changes from suggestion: None.]] By the CFJ rule: - You have 3 days to vote on this proposal. And if you don't? Hmm, the CFJ rule says nothing explict, so it's treated like any other proposal, and Rule 11 says "Active players who do not vote within the 10-day timeframe will be assumed to have voted abstain on the proposal." So you can only vote in the next 3 days, but we can't assume you voted abstain until 10 days from now? Yuck. But no, if you don't vote within 3 days you can't vote within 10 days, because the voting period is then closed. I say we can count abstains at the end of 3 days. Or is that *another* CFJ? - NOTE: I explicitly do NOT yet vote on this proposal. Rule 8 does NOT apply here. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Mon Apr 01 10:57:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 Apr 2002 18:57:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 75139 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2002 18:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Apr 2002 18:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2002 18:57:24 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AD94DD011C; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 13:57:24 -0500 To: Subject: FW: [lojban] Important - Yahoo list subscribers pls read (fwd) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:57:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> If you're using Yahoogroups (and you are, because this list is run >> through Yahoogroups), make sure you go and change your profile. Yahoo >> has just made a sneaky change to everybody's 'Marketing Preferences', >> the result of which will be a load of spam. To change them back >> here's what you need to do to avoid all the ads. >> >> Go to My Groups and click on Account Info, verify your password if it >> asks you to, and your Yahoo ID card comes up. Click on 'Edit your >> Marketing Preferences' and change all those Yes's back to to No's! >> Click Save Changes. From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 01 11:10:29 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 Apr 2002 19:10:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 83974 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2002 19:10:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Apr 2002 19:10:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2002 19:10:27 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00800297@m...>; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:10:27 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA17252; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:10:26 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Proposal: Kudos References: Date: 01 Apr 2002 14:10:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "29 Mar 2002 16:21:33 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 43 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes rsholmes@m... writes: Suggestion: Add a rule: Players may possess kudos. The number of kudos possessed by a player must be a finite integer. The Watcher shall keep track of kudos totals for all players. Any player (the giver) may change the kudos total of any other player (the recipient) by +2, +1, -1, or -2 at any time, by announcing they do so in a message to the list, subject to the following restrictions: 1. A kudos change must occur within 72 hours of the recipient's having performed some game action *other than* voting, executing the duties of eir position, or making a kudos change. The giver must clearly identify the action in the kudos change message. 2. No giver may perform more than one negative kudos change in any 24 hour period. 3. No giver may change the kudos total of any particular recipient more than once in any 7 day period, unless the changes are of opposite sign. 4. No giver may change the kudos total of any recipient for 7 days after that recipient changed the kudos of that giver, unless the changes are of equal magnitude and opposite sign. 5. No giver may decrease the kudos total of any recipient to a value less than -100. No player may change eir own kudos total, except that a player who has at least +5 kudos may exchange +5 kudos for +1 point. Points may not be converted to kudos. Any player who has never had eir kudos changed has zero kudos. Kudos totals may not be changed except as specified in this rule. All provisions of this rule take precedence over Rule 1. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From firestarter985@a... Wed Apr 03 09:34:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: firestarter985@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 17:34:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 84507 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 17:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 17:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.90) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 17:34:35 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.165] by n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Apr 2002 17:34:16 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:34:16 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: temporary rules Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200204010901664.SM00804@s...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 861 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Arkangl985" X-Originating-IP: 151.202.71.211 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=65074581 X-Yahoo-Profile: Arkangl985 --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Any player may, at a cost of two points, make a rule Immune. This lasts for one week. > > Every Monday, if there are any non-Immune rules, a rule is chosen at random. If that rule is not Immune, it is removed from the ruleset. > > This rule is Immune. This rule should be interesting, at the very least. :) You just need to make a couple clarifications on the wording: Add the sentence 'No player may spend points in this manner such that eir points would then be negative.' after the first sentence. 'This lasts for one week' - add the words 'Immune status' after 'This.' Paragraph two - were you intending that rules might not be removed? Interesting. 'This rule is Immune' -> add the word "permanently" so as to distinguish it from the regular, purchased, temporary immunity. - hubert hwang From firestarter985@a... Wed Apr 03 09:56:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: firestarter985@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 17:56:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 45282 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 17:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 17:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.69) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 17:56:30 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.164] by n14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Apr 2002 17:56:29 -0000 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:56:27 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1390 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Arkangl985" X-Originating-IP: 151.202.71.211 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=65074581 X-Yahoo-Profile: Arkangl985 --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > By the CFJ rule: > > - You have 3 days to vote on this proposal. And if you don't? Hmm, > the CFJ rule says nothing explict, so it's treated like any other > proposal, and Rule 11 says "Active players who do not vote within > the 10-day timeframe will be assumed to have voted abstain on the > proposal." So you can only vote in the next 3 days, but we can't > assume you voted abstain until 10 days from now? Yuck. But no, if > you don't vote within 3 days you can't vote within 10 days, because > the voting period is then closed. I say we can count abstains at > the end of 3 days. Or is that *another* CFJ? > - Rich Holmes > Syracuse, NY Suggestion: Modify rule 11 such that: Step 5 now reads: "The players have until the end of the voting period in which to vote on the proposal." Step 7 now reads: "Active players who do not vote before the end of the voting period are assumed to have voted 'abstain' on the proposal." Also, add the following ==PATCH== delimited text as a new rule: ==PATCH== Unless otherwise stated in another rule, the default voting period is 10 days. This rule is overridden by any other rule that sets the length of a voting period. ==PATCH== [end suggestion] Comments, anyone? I'm sure there's a better way to manage this than the way I've just suggested. -hubert hwang From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 03 10:22:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 18:22:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 3296 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 18:22:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 18:22:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 18:22:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00810953@m...>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:22:24 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19637; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:22:23 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Suggestion: temporary rules References: Date: 03 Apr 2002 13:22:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Arkangl985"'s message of "Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:34:16 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 37 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Arkangl985" writes: > --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > Any player may, at a cost of two points, make a rule Immune. This > lasts for one week. > > > > Every Monday, if there are any non-Immune rules, a rule is chosen > at random. If that rule is not Immune, it is removed from the > ruleset. > > > > This rule is Immune. Huh?? Not only did I not write that, I also didn't receive that. Hmm. OK, I see it in the archive. But I didn't receive it as email, and I certainly didn't send it. The first Received header is Received: from smtp.intrex.net [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A841281C008C; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:01:37 -0500 intrex.net appears to be where Craig posts from. But the headers include: From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes 1 Apr, eh? Someone having a little joke here? Or is this Yahoo screwing up? I don't like the proposal, by the way. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 03 10:31:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 18:31:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 90189 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 18:31:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 18:31:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 18:31:33 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00810A4F@m...>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:31:32 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21510; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:31:31 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed References: Date: 03 Apr 2002 13:31:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Arkangl985"'s message of "Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:56:27 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Arkangl985" writes: > Suggestion: > > Modify rule 11 such that: > > Step 5 now reads: "The players have until the end of the voting > period in which to vote on the proposal." > > Step 7 now reads: "Active players who do not vote before the end of > the voting period are assumed to have voted 'abstain' on the > proposal." This would conflict with my proposal of 29 March. You might want to add language saying this change would take effect only if my proposal fails. I would of course not vote to support your proposal unless my proposal were to fail. In that case I would support it, though I suggest as long as you're cleaning up the length of the voting period you should also add language clarifying when the voting period begins. > Also, add the following ==PATCH== delimited text as a new rule: > > ==PATCH== > Unless otherwise stated in another rule, the default voting period is > 10 days. This rule is overridden by any other rule that sets the > length of a voting period. > ==PATCH== This is OK, I guess... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 03 11:15:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 19:15:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 60670 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00811089@m...>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:15:43 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29062; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:15:42 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Suggestion: temporary rules References: Date: 03 Apr 2002 14:15:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Arkangl985"'s message of "Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:34:16 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Arkangl985" writes: > --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > > Any player may, at a cost of two points, make a rule Immune. This > lasts for one week. > > > > Every Monday, if there are any non-Immune rules, a rule is chosen > at random. If that rule is not Immune, it is removed from the > ruleset. > > > > This rule is Immune. Guess I should be less terse about my reactions. Assuming this *isn't* an April Fool joke, that is. There are rules which, if deleted, would cause much havoc. Rule 1, for instance. Or Rule 3: if deleted, then the rules would specify no official mailing list; Rule 2 says you have to be subscribed to the official mailing list to be a player; if there is no official mailing list then there are and can be no players and the game is over. Such damage, even if not severe enough to preclude its being repaired, can't be repaired quickly. At present it takes a minimum of 11 days to pass a new rule. Much can happen in 11 days. Perhaps there ought to be language somehow allowing immediate repair of the ruleset, or prohibiting a rule's deletion, if deletion of the rule would make the game unplayable... or something. But how to implement that, I have no idea. The last sentence suggests a rule can become Immune, permanently, merely by asserting that it is. I foresee the same last sentence on every new rule proposed from now on, if this rule passes. And proposals to add it to all the other rules. Kind of takes the teeth out, doesn't it? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Wed Apr 03 12:54:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 3 Apr 2002 20:54:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 76561 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 20:54:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 20:54:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 20:54:56 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC365344006E; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:55:18 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: Suggestion: temporary rules Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:55:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >1 Apr, eh? Someone having a little joke here? Or is this Yahoo Yes. I wasn't sure if anyone would notice. >I don't like the proposal, by the way. Neither do I. It was meant to be as bizarre as possible. Must try harder next time. From rsholmes@m... Wed Apr 03 19:36:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 03:36:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 1384 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 03:36:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 03:36:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 03:36:47 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.008145A4@m...>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:36:46 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA09112; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:36:45 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Suggestion: temporary rules References: Date: 03 Apr 2002 22:36:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:55:13 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > >1 Apr, eh? Someone having a little joke here? Or is this Yahoo > > Yes. I wasn't sure if anyone would notice. I thought about forging a post in another player's name to FRC last round, when the theme was "Illusion or Reality?" Never worked up the nerve, though. > >I don't like the proposal, by the way. > > Neither do I. It was meant to be as bizarre as possible. Must try harder > next time. Indeed. I've seen stranger things proposed in all seriousness before! Well, nearly, anyway. If you'd posted it under your own name I might not have considered the possibility of its being a joke... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Apr 04 03:33:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 11:33:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 72024 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 11:33:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 11:33:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 11:33:18 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AA1C1A90012A; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 06:33:48 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: Suggestion: temporary rules Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 06:33:39 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> >1 Apr, eh? Someone having a little joke here? Or is this Yahoo >> >> Yes. I wasn't sure if anyone would notice. >I thought about forging a post in another player's name to FRC last >round, when the theme was "Illusion or Reality?" Never worked up the >nerve, though. To get it to work, with the program I use at least, it has to be someone whose e-mail address shows up in the 'from' field, rather than a name. But it is always fun to see the reaction of the fake sender. It is also fun to have someone simply recieve an e-mail from emself. >> >I don't like the proposal, by the way. >> >> Neither do I. It was meant to be as bizarre as possible. Must try harder >> next time. >Indeed. I've seen stranger things proposed in all seriousness before! What's the wierdest? >Well, nearly, anyway. If you'd posted it under your own name I might >not have considered the possibility of its being a joke... Of course not. But you, as the alleged originator of the idea, were the only one who could possibly figure it out. From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 04 11:24:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 19:24:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 61540 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 19:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 19:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 19:24:32 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00819100@m...>; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:24:32 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03963; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:24:31 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Death of a Nomic, was Re: [n_omic] Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed References: Date: 04 Apr 2002 14:24:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: rsholmes@m...'s message of "01 Apr 2002 10:20:32 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes rsholmes@m... writes: > I propose the following ==CFJ== delimited text as a Call for Judgement: > > ==CFJ== > The passage of Proposal 20 was legal, and had the effect of amending > Rule 1 and increasing Craig's point total by one. > ==CFJ== The voting period ended at 10:20 EST this morning. No one voted. I didn't even vote. (Sorry. I intended to. Remembered just a few hours late.) Apparently it passed by a vote of 0 SUPPORT, 0 BLOCK, and n ABSTAIN (whatever n is these days). But the lack of response, coupled with a similar lack of response to my Rule 11 amendment proposal (submitted 29 Mar) and my Kudos proposal (submitted 1 Apr) leads me to conclude this Nomic is dead. Does anyone dispute this? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Apr 04 13:17:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 21:17:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 90723 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 21:17:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 21:17:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 21:17:29 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A30B12ED0116; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:18:03 -0500 To: Subject: RE: Death of a Nomic, was Re: [n_omic] Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:17:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> I propose the following ==CFJ== delimited text as a Call for Judgement: >> >> ==CFJ== >> The passage of Proposal 20 was legal, and had the effect of amending >> Rule 1 and increasing Craig's point total by one. >> ==CFJ== >The voting period ended at 10:20 EST this morning. No one voted. >I didn't even vote. (Sorry. I intended to. Remembered just a few >hours late.) Oh crap! I forgot about the short voting periods for CFJs. I support it, but I guess it's too late. >But the lack of response, coupled with a similar lack of response to >my Rule 11 amendment proposal (submitted 29 Mar) and my Kudos proposal >(submitted 1 Apr) leads me to conclude this Nomic is dead. Does >anyone dispute this? Lack of response to kudos? I suppose so, looking back on it. It's just us. And it appears to me that this Nomic is dead also from the small number of players: Me, Rich, Hubert, James (who only posted recently enough to announce his out-of-townness). I would like to suggest that this mailing list be kept open, because we are all seen to enjoy small, new, nomics and this is a great forum for announcing them. However, it is probably the case that the nomic for which this list was created has died. From rsholmes@m... Thu Apr 04 13:42:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 21:42:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 65345 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 21:42:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 21:42:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 21:42:04 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0081A409@m...>; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:42:04 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA28422; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:42:03 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Death of a Nomic, was Re: [n_omic] Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed References: Date: 04 Apr 2002 16:42:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:17:53 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > However, it is probably the case > that the nomic for which this list was created has died. Er, the Nomic for which this list was created (n_omic) died last year some time. Pure N_omic was the second Nomic run on this list. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Thu Apr 04 13:43:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 4 Apr 2002 21:43:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 4681 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 21:43:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2002 21:43:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 21:43:24 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A91D37F8005E; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:43:57 -0500 To: Subject: RE: Death of a Nomic, was Re: [n_omic] Yet Another Call For Judgement: Proposal 20 passed Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:43:47 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> However, it is probably the case >> that the nomic for which this list was created has died. >Er, the Nomic for which this list was created (n_omic) died last year >some time. Pure N_omic was the second Nomic run on this list. Really? I didn't know that. From ragnarok@p... Fri Apr 05 13:13:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 21:13:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 10607 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 21:13:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 21:13:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 21:13:32 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3A81A0C012E; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:14:16 -0500 To: Subject: SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:13:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl When I did my april fools 'Temporary Rules' suggestion, I was surprised to see Hubert's reaction of 'This rule should be interesting, at the very least.' While I do not believe it would have worked in Pure N_omic, I feel that something vaguely similar could form the basis for a rather unusual Nomic. Having been bitten by the Nomic bug, but loving the democratic feel of the game too much to try DocNomic, I want something now that Pure N_omic seems to have died. I am thus beginning ThermodyNomic, an especially quirky Nomic. Due to its quirkiness, I do not expect ThermodyNomic to last very long, but it will be fun while it does. So, come check it out. I intend to start the game as soon as we have five people interested in being the players at the beginning, and with myself as the first Speaker (an office similar to the Gazjatna of Pure N_omic but without the requirement of an up-to-date PnV file). To subscribe to the mailing list, send an e-mail to thermodynomic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To post to the ThermodyNomic mailing list, send an e-mail to thermodynomic@yahoogroups.com --Craig Daniel 'Still it's all a mystery, this place we call the world Where most live as oysters while some become pearls.' -Jimmy Buffett pgp public key ID: 0x5C3A1E74 From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 05 13:43:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 21:43:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 81357 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 21:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 21:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 21:43:02 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00821BBF@m...>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:43:01 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15215; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:43:00 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic References: Date: 05 Apr 2002 16:43:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:13:31 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > I am thus beginning ThermodyNomic, an especially quirky > Nomic. Due to its quirkiness, I do not expect ThermodyNomic to last very > long, but it will be fun while it does. So, come check it out. What's quirky about it? I don't see a ruleset lying around... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 05 13:49:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 21:49:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 12614 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 21:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 21:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 21:49:38 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00821C69@m...>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:49:37 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA16341; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:49:36 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic References: Date: 05 Apr 2002 16:49:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:13:31 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > Having been bitten by the Nomic bug, but loving the democratic feel > of the game too much to try DocNomic... So join and submit a proposal to strip Doc of his powers and vest them in the players... hey, it might work... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Fri Apr 05 13:51:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 21:51:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 3954 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 21:51:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 21:51:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 21:51:43 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC9B1CC6011E; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:52:27 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:51:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> I am thus beginning ThermodyNomic, an especially quirky >> Nomic. Due to its quirkiness, I do not expect ThermodyNomic to last very >> long, but it will be fun while it does. So, come check it out. >What's quirky about it? I don't see a ruleset lying around... The ruleset is archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset and is sent to all new subscribers to the mailing list. However, since only listmembers have access to the files and you may not want do subscribe without seeing a ruleset, here it is. I meant to provide this with the original announcement, but forgot. T h e r m o d y N o m i c R u l e s e t THERMODYNOMIC 0.0 The full name of this game of Nomic shall be 'ThermodyNomic'. 0.1 Those who need a shorter name for this Nomic may refer to it by the nickname 'Thermo'. 0.2 Because Thermo is a relatively new Nomic, players are not to try to kill it. 0.3 To ensure that random selections really are random, HotBits (accessible at http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/) shall be used whenever anything random is called for. THE RULESET 4.0 A rule is a single sentence. 4.1 Every rule shall have a number which uniquely identifies it. 4.2 A group of rules is any number of rules under a common heading, followed by a short commentary on the rules of that group. 4.3 The commentary within a group of rules shall not affect what is and is not legal. 4.4 Anything not prohibited by the rules is permitted. 4.5 The Ruleset shall consist of all groups of rules. 4.6 The Official Mailing List is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/ and can be accessed by e-mail at thermodynomic@yahoogroups.com 4.7 A group of rules is not a Thing, it is a collection of Things. 4.8 The version of the ruleset archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset shall be the only official version. Comment: Groups of rules serve as a coherent whole, acting as a single rule would in most Nomics. However, individual rules are not ammendable, but groups are, so it is helpful to have short individual rules. PROPOSALS 5.0 A proposal consists of a suggested change to the game. 5.1 A proposal belongs to the person who submits it. 5.2 A pending proposal is a proposal which obeys the Three Sacred Laws, has been submitted to the official mailing list, and has not expired. 5.3 A proposal may expire in only as directed in the rules within the group headed by the word PROPOSALS. 5.4 A proposal expires if all players vote on it. 5.5 A legal vote consists of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. 5.6 To vote on a proposal, a player must announce what pending proposal they are voting on and how they choose to vote. 5.7 A proposal expires if one week has passed since it was submitted. 5.8 No player may vote on a proposal which is not pending. Comment: This defines the process of submitting proposals, and voting on them. CHANGING THE GAMESTATE 6.0 The Three Sacred Laws are the groups of rules headed FIRST SACRED LAW, SECOND SACRED LAW, and THIRD SACRED LAW. 6.1 A proposal may pass only as defined in the rules within the group headed by the phrase CHANGING THE GAMESTATE. 6.2 A proposal which does not suggest altering one of the Three Sacred Laws passes if and only if, by the time it expires, the number of votes cast FOR it exceeds the number of votes cast AGAINST it. 6.3 A proposal which suggests altering one of the Three Sacred Laws passes if and only if, by the time it expires, the number of votes cast FOR it exceeds the number of ABSTAIN votes it recieves, and it recieves no votes AGAINST it. 6.4 When a proposal passes, the changes it suggests are adopted. 6.5 No changes to the gamestate may occur except as defined in the ruleset. 6.6 No proposal may modify any individual rule, aside from adding or removing it. Comment: This defines what a proposal is and what is needed for a proposal to pass. DEREGISTRATION 7.0 A player is someone who has registered more recently than ey has deregistered. 7.1 A player may deregister by announcing that ey wishes to do so. 7.2 A player deregisters if ey fails to post a message to the official mailing list in a week. 7.3 Whenever a player deregisters, one of eir points is destroyed, while the rest are distributed randomly among all players. Comment: This defines how to not be a player. REGISTRATION 8.0 A proposal submitted by a non-player is called a registration proposal. 8.1 Nobody may submit a registration proposal if a registration propsal ey submitted is currently a pending proposal. 8.2 A person who submits a registration proposal which subsequently passes is considered to have registered. Comment: This group of rules prevents a player who does not have any good ideas from joining. THINGS 9.0 Any in-game item is a Thing, with the exception of Therms. 9.1 Currently, the types of Things are as follows: Rules, players, proposals, offices, and points. 9.2 No new type of Thing may be created without adding it to the list of Things. 9.3 Whenever a Thing is destroyed, the number of Therms is increased by one. 9.4 A player who deregisters is considered to have been destroyed. 9.5 A player who is destroyed automatically deregisters. 9.6 A rule which is destroyed is automatically removed from the ruleset. 9.7 Any Thing which is not a player or a Rule must be posessed by a player. 9.8 Each individual office shall be declared to exist by the rules of the group headed OFFICES 9.9 Each individual office carries with it its own duties. Comment: This defines Things. OFFICES 10.0 An office exists known as the Office of the Speaker, whose possessor shall be called the Speaker. 10.1 The Speaker shall be in charge of tabulating votes and making any random decisions necessary. 10.2 The Speaker may not deregister. Comment: This group lists offices, of which the initial ruleset only has one. FIRST SACRED LAW 1.1 No proposal may be submitted whose passage would increase the number of Things in the game, unless it is explicitly permitted by rules in the group headed FIRST SACRED LAW. 1.2 A Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in the game by up to two, one of which is of course the player who submits that proposal. 1.3 Whenever a player Registers and the number of Therms exceeds the number of players by at least five, all players recieve a point and all Therms are destroyed. 1.4 Whenever the number of Things is decreased, the removed Things of that type are destroyed. Comment: The number of things can only increase when the game is influenced by external people. SECOND SACRED LAW 2.1 Any player who submits a proposal that would destroy at least three Things recieves a point if that proposal passes. 2.2 If two weeks have gone by without a proposal passing, a Thing is chosen at random and destroyed. Comment: Without external influence, the number of Things may slowly decrease as they are replaced by Therms. THIRD SACRED LAW 3.1 If a rule in one of the Three Sacred Laws conflicts with another rule, the rule in the Sacred Law takes precedence. 3.2 If two rules contradict one another, the rule with the lower number takes precedence. 3.3 No proposal to alter one of the Three Sacred Laws may pass if any player votes against the proposal. Comment: This makes sure the Three Sacred Laws remain inviolate. From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 05 14:14:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 22:14:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 59757 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 22:14:19 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00821EDD@m...>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:14:19 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19799; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:14:18 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic References: Date: 05 Apr 2002 17:14:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:51:40 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > The ruleset is archived at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset and is sent to all > new subscribers to the mailing list. However, since only listmembers have > access to the files and you may not want do subscribe without seeing a > ruleset, here it is. I meant to provide this with the original announcement, > but forgot. I suggest you make the group's files (and message archive) readable to non-subscribers. It's a lot easier to get new subscribers if they can see what they're getting into before they subscribe. Will there be any opportunity to tune the ruleset before play starts? I do have a thought or two. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Fri Apr 05 14:33:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 22:33:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 70802 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 22:33:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 22:33:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 22:33:54 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A67F5803006C; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:34:39 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:33:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> The ruleset is archived at >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset and is sent to all >> new subscribers to the mailing list. However, since only listmembers have >> access to the files and you may not want do subscribe without seeing a >> ruleset, here it is. I meant to provide this with the original announcement, >> but forgot. >I suggest you make the group's files (and message archive) readable to >non-subscribers. It's a lot easier to get new subscribers if they can >see what they're getting into before they subscribe. I agree. I am new to moderating Yahoo mailing lists, and will do this as soon as I can figure out how. >Will there be any opportunity to tune the ruleset before play starts? >I do have a thought or two. Yes. The initial ruleset is not yet finalized; this is just the current draft. From ragnarok@p... Fri Apr 05 14:37:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 22:37:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 76724 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 22:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 22:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 22:37:20 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A74D26B0012A; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:38:05 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:37:19 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >>> The ruleset is archived at >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset and is sent to >all >>> new subscribers to the mailing list. However, since only listmembers have >>> access to the files and you may not want do subscribe without seeing a >>> ruleset, here it is. I meant to provide this with the original >announcement, >>> but forgot. >>I suggest you make the group's files (and message archive) readable to >>non-subscribers. It's a lot easier to get new subscribers if they can >>see what they're getting into before they subscribe. >I agree. I am new to moderating Yahoo mailing lists, and will do this as >soon as I can figure out how. Found it. Messages and files are now availible to all. From ragnarok@p... Fri Apr 05 14:43:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 5 Apr 2002 22:43:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 63746 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 22:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Apr 2002 22:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 22:42:38 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A88C26660148; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:43:24 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:42:38 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> Having been bitten by the Nomic bug, but loving the democratic feel >> of the game too much to try DocNomic... >So join and submit a proposal to strip Doc of his powers and vest them >in the players... hey, it might work... That would rob DocNomic of the thing that makes it DocNomic - namely, its Imperial-Nomicness. From rsholmes@m... Fri Apr 05 16:49:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 6 Apr 2002 00:49:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 38557 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 00:47:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Apr 2002 00:47:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2002 00:47:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00822991@m...>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:47:17 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07675; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:47:16 -0500 (EST) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic References: Date: 05 Apr 2002 19:47:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:42:38 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > That would rob DocNomic of the thing that makes it DocNomic - namely, its > Imperial-Nomicness. Bah. It would rob DocNomic of its Nomicness if you couldn't rob DocNomic of its Imperial-Nomicness. Or something like that. I'll have what he's having. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From ragnarok@p... Fri Apr 05 20:08:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 6 Apr 2002 04:08:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 64088 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 04:04:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Apr 2002 04:04:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2002 04:04:15 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3EE65DB0032; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:05:02 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:04:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> That would rob DocNomic of the thing that makes it DocNomic - namely, its >> Imperial-Nomicness. >Bah. It would rob DocNomic of its Nomicness if you couldn't rob >DocNomic of its Imperial-Nomicness. I believe it should be possible. I just wouldn't want to do it. From firestarter985@a... Sat Apr 06 15:48:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: firestarter985@a... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 6 Apr 2002 23:48:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 11938 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 23:48:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Apr 2002 23:48:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.82) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2002 23:48:24 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.189] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Apr 2002 23:48:23 -0000 Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:48:23 -0000 To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: SPAM: ThermodyNomic Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 488 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Arkangl985" X-Originating-IP: 151.202.59.185 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=65074581 X-Yahoo-Profile: Arkangl985 Wow. Looks like I've inadvertently inspired someone. :) And this after I was smacking myself for not noticing the April Fools' joke... (Craig, you evil evil person. Hubert, you stupid stupid person.) I was about to smack myself some more when I realized that my last post in an almost-dead Nomic would be a dumb response to an April Fools' joke. Thankfully, that is not the case. At least a new Nomic is (hopefully) about to rise out of the ashes of Pure n_omic... -hubert hwang From ragnarok@p... Sat Apr 06 18:37:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 7 Apr 2002 02:37:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 45200 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 02:37:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2002 02:37:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 02:37:38 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0EF2C430120; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 21:37:35 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:37:34 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >At least a new Nomic is (hopefully) about to rise out of the ashes >of Pure n_omic... It's trying to. Rich has said he has some ideas for changes to the initial ruleset before we begin, but so far he hasn't joined the ThermodyNomic mailing list to suggest them; there's only you and me right now. From ragnarok@p... Sat Apr 06 18:45:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@i... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 7 Apr 2002 02:45:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 4606 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 02:45:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2002 02:45:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 02:45:48 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A2D93E400066; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 21:45:45 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [n_omic] Re: SPAM: ThermodyNomic Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:45:44 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >And this after I was smacking myself for not noticing the April >Fools' joke... (Craig, you evil evil person. Hubert, you stupid >stupid person.) I was about to smack myself some more when I >realized that my last post in an almost-dead Nomic would be a >dumb response to an April Fools' joke. Not dumb at all - it inspired a whole new nomic! From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 08 07:43:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 8 Apr 2002 14:43:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 15453 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 14:43:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2002 14:43:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 14:43:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0082DDA7@m...>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:43:12 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03208; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:43:11 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: SPAM: ThermodyNomic References: Date: 08 Apr 2002 10:43:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:37:34 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes "Craig" writes: > It's trying to. Rich has said he has some ideas for changes to the initial > ruleset before we begin, but so far he hasn't joined the ThermodyNomic > mailing list to suggest them I'll be there soon. > ; there's only you and me right now. Meanwhile... I'd suggest rewording the description in NomicWiki. "designed to be as quirky as possible" is not, I would think, a description that will encourage interest. "Quirky" = good, I'd say, but "as quirky as possible" = bad. It's also not really true -- in fact, it might be amusing (as a separate project) to develop an initial ruleset that really *is* as quirky as possible -- though I doubt I'd want to play it! Mentioning that the name is not just a pun, but that the ruleset really is based on thermodynamics might spur more interest. It'd also be worthwhile announcing on the Nomic BB: -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 08 09:44:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 8 Apr 2002 16:44:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 16657 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 16:44:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2002 16:44:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 16:44:53 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0082F57A@m...>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 12:44:53 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27191; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 12:44:52 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com, thermodynomic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Ruleset comments (was Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic) References: Date: 08 Apr 2002 12:44:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Craig"'s message of "Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:51:40 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 199 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes Interesting ruleset, to say the least. I have no idea how playable it will turn out to be! I have a number of quibbles and questions (and one compliment) though: "Craig" writes: > 0.2 Because Thermo is a relatively new Nomic, players are not to try to > kill it. Hah! I like this rule. Unenforceable, but... > 4.1 Every rule shall have a number which uniquely identifies it. How does it acquire this number? Is the number part of the rule, and therefore specified when the rule is proposed? What happens if someone proposes a new rule but fails to specify a unique number for it? Is "4.1" a number, or two numbers? That is, does "number" refer to a non-integer number expressed in decimal form, or to a pair of integers separated by a dot? Can a rule number be negative, zero, irrational, transcendental, imaginary? See also question about 3.2. > 4.2 A group of rules is any number of rules under a common heading, > followed by a short commentary on the rules of that group. How does a new rule acquire its position in the ruleset? Must the part of the rule number before the dot be the same as that of the other rules in the same group and different from that of rules in any other group? Must rules occur in numerical order? No, obviously not, since they don't. Must rules in any particular group occur in numerical order? Does it matter? > 4.6 The Official Mailing List is > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/ and can be accessed by e-mail > at thermodynomic@yahoogroups.com Why's this in the Rules group? > 4.8 The version of the ruleset archived at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thermodynomic/files/ruleset shall be the only > official version. Is this taken to mean no rule change takes effect until it is administered into this file? > 5.0 A proposal consists of a suggested change to the game. Exactly one change? If so, then see 1.1 for a possible problem. If not, then see 6.6 for a possible problem. "Change to the game" is ambiguous at best -- in some Nomics it's hard to do better, but in this one, what about something like A proposal consists of a suggested creation or destruction of a Thing. (This, if adopted without further refinement, would probably have effects different from what your version intended. For instance, groups and commentaries would not be able to be changed.) > 5.2 A pending proposal is a proposal which obeys the Three Sacred Laws, has > been submitted to the official mailing list, and has not expired. I see no prohibition of putting multiple proposals in one submission. Is this intended? If a submission contains multiple suggested changes is it a proposal, multiple proposals, or neither? > 5.8 No player may vote on a proposal which is not pending. What happens to them if they do? > 6.2 A proposal which does not suggest altering one of the Three Sacred Laws > passes if and only if... > 6.3 A proposal which suggests altering one of the Three Sacred Laws passes > if and only if, What about a proposal which suggests altering two or more of the Three Sacred Laws? Or is that not possible? Is destruction "altering"? > 6.4 When a proposal passes, the changes it suggests are adopted. Which seems to suggest, no, you do NOT have to wait until the archived ruleset is changed before a rule change takes effect. If so, in what sense is the archived ruleset an "official version"? > 6.6 No proposal may modify any individual rule, aside from adding or > removing it. If a proposal may make multiple changes, then modifying a rule can be accomplished by removing it and adding the modified version. > 9.0 Any in-game item is a Thing, with the exception of Therms. > > 9.1 Currently, the types of Things are as follows: Rules, players, > proposals, offices, and points. This seems redundant and/or contradictory. For example: what about rule commentaries? They are items specified by the ruleset, hence would seem to be Things according to 9.0, but according to 9.1 they are not. How about something like: 9.0 A Thing is any item declared by the rules to be a Thing. 9.1 Rules, players, proposals, offices, and points are Things. > 9.6 A rule which is destroyed is automatically removed from the ruleset. Again: immediately, or when the official ruleset is edited? > 9.7 Any Thing which is not a player or a Rule must be posessed by a player. What if that player is destroyed? What happens to eir Things? How is the quality of being possessed acquired or lost? Is it legal to propose a rule which creates new Things (other than a player or a Rule) without proposing a rule to specify how those Things acquire possessors? Or would such a rule simply be regarded as contradicting 9.7? > 9.8 Each individual office shall be declared to exist by the rules of the > group headed OFFICES > > 9.9 Each individual office carries with it its own duties. Why not put these as the first two rules of the OFFICES group? > 10.1 The Speaker shall be in charge of tabulating votes and making any > random decisions necessary. What happens if e fails to? Who tallies and keeps track of the Things? Who administers the ruleset? > 10.2 The Speaker may not deregister. What if e does? Note that the deregistration rules, which have higher priority than this rule, specify means by which any player can deregister. > 1.1 No proposal may be submitted whose passage would increase the number of > Things in the game, unless it is explicitly permitted by rules in the group > headed FIRST SACRED LAW. Does this mean no rule change may add a new rule, unless some other Thing also is destroyed (or it's submitted as a registration proposal)? But wouldn't that be two changes, hence prohibited by 5.0? Therefore there can be no new rules except those proposed in registration proposals. Unless the new rule itself mandates immediate destruction of a Thing, but if that's allowable, it's an ugly loophole in the "a proposal is a single suggested change" idea. Suppose rule 1.2 were destroyed, and someone proposed a "new rule" with the same text as the destroyed rule 1.2. Its passage would create a new rule, and a new player (if, as argued above, this could happen only in a registration proposal). So far so good. But now another registration proposal comes along, it passes, and at least one new Thing is created. Indirectly, the first proposal (to restore rule 1.2) made this possible, so one could say that proposal has increased the number of Things by 3. I assume that's not the sort of thing you meant. Perhaps the word "directly" before "increase" would clarify this. But what does "directly" mean? > 1.3 Whenever a player Registers and the number of Therms exceeds the number > of players by at least five, all players recieve a point and all Therms are > destroyed. I see no effect defined in the present rules of the creation, existence, or destruction of Therms. Is this intended? > 3.1 If a rule in one of the Three Sacred Laws conflicts with another rule, > the rule in the Sacred Law takes precedence. By what means is it determined that such conflicts exist? And in general, by what means are actions of disputed legality handled? If a rule in one of the TSLs conflicts with another rule in one of the TSLs, then what does "the rule in the Sacred Law" refer to? Probably what was intended that 3.2 would apply in this case, but it would reduce ambiguity to replace "another rule" with "a rule not in one of the TSLs". > 3.2 If two rules contradict one another, the rule with the lower number > takes precedence. Is, e.g., 4.10 lower or higher than 4.9? -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From rsholmes@m... Mon Apr 08 10:13:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 8 Apr 2002 17:13:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 78342 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 17:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Apr 2002 17:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 17:13:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0082F87F@m...>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:13:05 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03172; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:13:05 -0400 (EDT) To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com, thermodynomic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Ruleset comments (was Re: [n_omic] SPAM: ThermodyNomic) References: Date: 08 Apr 2002 13:13:05 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=38226324 X-Yahoo-Profile: rsholmes > 1.3 Whenever a player Registers and the number of Therms exceeds the number > of players by at least five, all players recieve a point and all Therms are > destroyed. Also... here and elsewhere, "receive" is misspelled. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY