From oloros@b... Fri Jun 16 14:14:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26234 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:14:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:14:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c0mailgw09.prontomail.com) (216.163.180.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:14:33 -0000 Received: from c6web102 (216.163.178.10) by c0mailgw09.prontomail.com (NPlex 4.5.049) id 3946D62500034C7B for Socialnomic-DML@e...; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:14:30 -0700 X-Version: eb 6.0.2329.0 Message-Id: <3238BFD02B344D115AF40005B8CC1278@o...> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:16:27 -0700 X-Priority: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: Socialnomic-DML@e... Subject: a slew of mailing list info X-Mailer: Web Based Pronto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Oloros the Blue" ---- Begin Included Message ---- From: Xylen Sent: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:01:03 -0600 To: "Oloros", "GT", "TopHeavy" Subject: A slew of mailing list info As you all have noticed by now, the game of Socialnomic is alive with four mailing lists. Just ignore the stuff for communomic. I had that set up all wrong. All I have done is just start the groups so far. The info for each list, and all of the other stuff still needs to be set up. Go forth and have fun. =A0:) Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. ---- End Included Message ---- oloros@b... Get your Free Email at http://www.britannica.com From oloros@b... Fri Jun 16 14:19:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11283 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:19:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:19:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:19:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.94] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2000 21:19:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:19:37 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: re: settings up Message-ID: <8ie5l9+pqmv@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2116 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Salutations to All and Sundry. I have edited the descriptions of the 4 mailing lists to appropriately describe their functions. Those provisional descriptions follow, please suggest whatever changes seem necessary: Socialnomic-DML The Discussion Mailing List for Socialnomic, an Unmoderated Nomic. This list is to be used for discussion and game-related musings (and the occasional, well-justified, flame). Nothing posted to the Discussion Mailing List should have any effect on the Nomic. If you are interested in joining Socialnomic, please post an announcement of your interest on this list, and subscribe to the following: Socialnomic-DML The Discussion Mailing List Socialnomic-RULES The Ruleset Mailing List Socialnomic-AML The Actions Mailing List Socialnomic-VML The Voting Mailing List Socialnomic-AML The Actions Mailing List for Socialnomic, an Unmoderated Nomic. This list is used only for actions specified by the Ruleset that do not require Players to Vote. Examples include, but are not limited to: Announcement of Proposal Reminder of Proposal Announcement of Accusation Reminder of Accusation Announcement of Adoption other actions specified by the Ruleset If you are interested in subscribing to this list, please see the Discussion Mailing List for more information on joining Socialnomic. Socialnomic-VML The Voting Mailing List for Socialnomic, an Unmoderated Nomic. This list is limited to actions that require Players to Vote. Examples include, but are not limited to: Proposal Accusation Voting If you are interested in subscribing to this list, please see the Discussion Mailing List for more information on joining Socialnomic. Socialnomic-RULES The Ruleset Mailing List for Socialnomic, an Unmoderated Nomic. This list is limited to posts of enacted and amended Rules. The contents of the list represent the Current Ruleset. If you are interested in subscribing to this list, please see the Discussion Mailing List for more information on joining Socialnomic. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 16 14:27:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30949 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:27:57 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA10948 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:27:56 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA82364 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:27:56 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] re: settings up Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:23:52 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ie5l9+pqmv@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ie5l9+pqmv@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061615265802.03054@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Salutations to All and Sundry. > > I have edited the descriptions of the 4 mailing > lists to appropriately describe their functions. > Those provisional descriptions follow, please > suggest whatever changes seem necessary: Since the pertinent information looked good to me, I have modified the ruleset to include the mailing list info. I also included the Escape Hatch in the defintions and removed the "do whatever you want if there are no rules against it" from the ruleset. The ruleset has been posted to the RULE list. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Fri Jun 16 14:30:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29896 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:30:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:30:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:30:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.93] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2000 22:30:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:28:36 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: settings up Message-ID: <8ie664+7vhg@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ie5l9+pqmv@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1242 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Oloros the Blue" wrote: > > Socialnomic-AML > The Actions Mailing List for Socialnomic, an Unmoderated Nomic. > This list is used only for actions specified by the Ruleset that > do not require Players to Vote. > Examples include, but are not limited to: > Announcement of Proposal > Reminder of Proposal > Announcement of Accusation > Reminder of Accusation > Announcement of Adoption > other actions specified by the Ruleset > Xylen had previously written: > I agree that reminders may be necessary, but I don't want to > see a dozen messages today, tommorow and the next day > advertising a proposal up for vote. On the OAML we could have > an announcement of a prop up for vote, but any reminders should > be on the DML. I see that list as being the busiest and hopefully, > most read list. Players will almost have to check that one every > day, so a reminder would be better there. > and I seem to have ignored it. So I am removing the "Reminder of .." items from the description of the Socialnomic-AML and will not mention them on the Socialnomic-DML. And later this afternoon I'll have a stern conversation with myself regarding this inattentiveness. -Oloros the Blue From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 16 14:39:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19338 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:39:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:39:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:39:35 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA62312 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:39:35 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA74592 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:39:34 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: settings up Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:33:52 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ie664+7vhg@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ie664+7vhg@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061615383604.03054@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > So I am removing the "Reminder of .." items from the description of > the Socialnomic-AML and will not mention them on the Socialnomic-DML. > And later this afternoon I'll have a stern conversation with myself > regarding this inattentiveness. And then I proceded to blindly copy your descriptions. However, the rules say "Examples include, but are not limited to:" so I think I will just leave it in for now. All of us know what we mean, and that sort of fiddling would be good for a proposal. My first proposal will probaly be to strike those items from the OAML. Nice to have something to look forward to. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Fri Jun 16 14:46:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8136 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 21:46:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 21:46:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 21:46:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2000 21:46:56 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:46:52 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: meta-settings Message-ID: <8ie78c+t5nd@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 From: "Oloros the Blue" That big yellow "Unsubscribe Author" button is looking attractive, and it's nice to have some reminder of my not-so temporal powers, but the listings along the left-hand navig column under Messages/Pending and Members/Bouncing ~/Pending pique my interest too. So far, those of us posing are Moderators, and our postings are going through, but these areas and the check-box "Approve messages" in the Member Settings suggest that the Moderators might be set up to vote on any outside message reaching the list. Ideally that function would be deleted and the administration of the list be done solely through the Owner account. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 16 15:03:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17307 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 22:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 22:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 22:03:34 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA62238 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:03:33 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA75302 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:03:33 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] meta-settings Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:57:00 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ie78c+t5nd@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ie78c+t5nd@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061616023505.03054@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > That big yellow "Unsubscribe Author" button is looking attractive, Aw gee, I don't have that. The Linux version of Netscape handles some images a bit differently. > and it's nice to have some reminder of my not-so temporal powers, but > the listings along the left-hand navig column under Messages/Pending > and Members/Bouncing ~/Pending pique my interest too. Those links are for messages that have not yet been delivered. Occasionaly egoups takes an entire minute to deliver a message, so the Pending link shows the ones no sent yet. Bouncing is for those messages that are being bounced back due to a bad email addy. If someone complains that they aren't getting any messages, we can check the Bouncing link to see if there is a delivery problem. > So far, those > of us posing are Moderators, and our postings are going through, but > these areas and the check-box "Approve messages" in the Member > Settings suggest that the Moderators might be set up to vote on any > outside message reaching the list. Ideally that function would be > deleted and the administration of the list be done solely through the > Owner account. Hmm, I'll look into that. I think the owner can decided whether or not a moderator can do some things. I just give moderators all abilities, but I think I'll go back in and see what can be done. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Fri Jun 16 15:12:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 505 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 22:12:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 22:12:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 22:12:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.67] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2000 22:12:03 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:12:00 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: meta-settings Message-ID: <8ie8ng+6jkk@e...> In-Reply-To: <00061616023505.03054@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 632 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" That sounds reasonable, I suppose, except the bit about "an entire minute". -Oloros --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > > the listings along the left-hand navig column under > > Messages/Pending > > > Those links are for messages that have not yet been delivered. > Occasionaly egoups takes an entire minute to deliver a message, > so the Pending link shows the ones no sent yet. Bouncing is for > those messages that are being bounced back due to a bad email > addy. If someone complains that they aren't getting any messages, > we can check the Bouncing link to see if there is a delivery > problem. > From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 16 15:49:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8922 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 22:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 22:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 22:49:58 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA50368 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:49:58 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA57356 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:49:57 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Loss of moderation Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:38:51 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061616490006.03054@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Having the four of us as moderators is handy for setting things up, but as Oloros has metnioned, the power can go to a person's head. I think we should leave the moderators in place for the weekend, to allow everyone to make tweaks and fixes easily from their own egroups account. Then we can go in, and remove the moderator status. That way, only the owner can make any future changes. It's not a perfect system, because any of us can do things as owner, and if things get real nasty I am the only one who can get the new password for the owner's mailing addy. But I think the extra trouble of having to login as the owner, with a differnt password from the normal egroups password will make things a bit harder for a militant takeover of the game. At some point security has to stop, and we have to trust people. Besides, if all else fails, the dissidents can always start another nomic. Xylen, pondering proposals for using points for something when the game gets started. -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Fri Jun 16 16:01:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1074 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 23:01:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 23:01:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 23:01:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.28] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2000 23:01:18 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:01:12 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: point taken Message-ID: <8iebjo+4nda@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 557 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" I would like to begin discussion on two matters relating to Points, as mentioned in Rules 10 and 12. I should, in the imitation of one revered ecomonist, like to avoid any intimation of inflation, and I would like to offer for discussion that all numbers of points in the Rule-Set be divided by 5. or 2 if there are great objections. I would also like to have these points renamed "Greenspans". I apologize to Gallavanting Tripper for any perceived american- centricity in the above. Then again, what is the name of the Australian currency? -Oloros From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 16 21:51:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 472 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2000 04:51:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jun 2000 04:51:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2000 04:51:37 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24976 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:51:36 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA79540 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:51:36 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] point taken Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:27:53 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8iebjo+4nda@e...> In-Reply-To: <8iebjo+4nda@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006162250380A.03054@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, you wrote: > I would like to begin discussion on two matters relating to Points, > as mentioned in Rules 10 and 12. I should, in the imitation of one > revered ecomonist, like to avoid any intimation of inflation, and I > would like to offer for discussion that all numbers of points in the > Rule-Set be divided by 5. or 2 if there are great objections. I would > also like to have these points renamed "Greenspans". When I went thru the Suber rules, I removed the winning condition of collecting points. I left points in to be used as a sort of currency or something. Although the most common use for points is currency, we could decide to use them more as a score. As currency, points could be used to buy vetoes, extra votes, or other things. As a score, they would be used for senority, or other game ability ratings. It all depends on what we want to do with them. Personally, I am in favor of using them as currency, and developing other methods for game ratings. As such, does it really make a difference whether we get 10 points for passing a proposal or 5.00 Greenspans? They are just numbers. It is how the use of the currency changes that we need to be concerned with. For example, is a false accusation really twice as bad a making a bad proposal, or should it be half as bad? The real question isn't the point values, but the relative value of the offense. Unless it gets to be a problem for writing it out, (I have 100000 points not 10000) I don't see why reducing the value will actually change anything. Actually, I also was thinking of another way to use points. Mostly as part of a sub-game. Points can be used to define lines, planes and dimensions. As a player gains points, they can add to their description of a nomic-geometry figure. If they lose points, then part of their figure dissapears. With enough points a player can draw some complicated figures, and even define local geometry rules for their muti-dimensional space. Just a random thought, but it treats points in a manner different than the usual interpretation. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From dmarsh@v... Sat Jun 17 13:19:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24873 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2000 20:19:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jun 2000 20:19:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jun 2000 20:19:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: dmarsh@v... Received: from [10.1.10.68] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jun 2000 20:19:26 -0000 Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:19:21 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Observers Message-ID: <8igmg9+stpt@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1289 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: dmarsh@v... I received the invitation to join Socialnomic, and I'd like to make a pair of suggestions. First: Since I wish to keep up with developments in the game, and probably comment on them, but don't want to officially participate (I'm involved in another Nomic), I'd like to suggest that you explicitly define Observers in the ruleset, and what they can and cannot do. Second: I'd like to receive Discussion, and Proposals, and have the ability to read the current ruleset. So: I should subscribe to Socialnomic-DML and Socialnomic-RULES. And I should subscribe to Socialnomic-VML, but I don't want to read "I vote FOR proposal XYZ," I just want to read the proposals. So: I suggest that the rules be modified so that a proposal goes to -AML, and votes go to -VML. That way an observer, or a player who never wishes to be an Adopter, can completely ignore votes. I'd point out again that I'm not a player, and players don't have to do or even listen to anything I say. But I was a player in the early days of Ackanomic (according to the archives, my earliest proposals seem to have been in the 600's), and some of the best insight into the game was provided by non-players. (Hmm, and now I've set high standards for myself. Ach, well.) -- Dan Marsh, aka The Governor From oloros@b... Mon Jun 19 07:52:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31352 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 14:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 14:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 14:52:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 14:51:59 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:51:50 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Observers Message-ID: <8ilc26+7d0v@e...> In-Reply-To: <8igmg9+stpt@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 959 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" I was just about to make such suggestions. Something along the lines of a Proposal gets posted to -VML and -AML, Approvals posted to - RULES and -VML and -AML, and Defeats posted to -VML and -AML. At the time being, at least until the Escape Hatch is closed, Observers and Players are equivalent. With Agora, were observers considered to be prospective players? -Oloros --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, dmarsh@v... wrote: > > Second: I'd like to receive Discussion, and Proposals, and have the > ability to read the current ruleset. So: I should subscribe to > Socialnomic-DML and Socialnomic-RULES. And I should subscribe to > Socialnomic-VML, but I don't want to read "I vote FOR proposal XYZ," > I just want to read the proposals. So: I suggest that the rules be > modified so that a proposal goes to -AML, and votes go to -VML. That > way an observer, or a player who never wishes to be an Adopter, can > completely ignore votes. > From oloros@b... Mon Jun 19 08:17:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21421 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 15:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 15:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 15:16:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 15:16:16 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:16:14 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: a slow hiss Message-ID: <8ildfu+f4da@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1993 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" This message contains more than a couple of suggustions submitted under the Escape Hatch clause of Rule 0. Please be patient as you consider them. (Official Action Mailing List, Rule 0) Have we come to agreement on removing mention of Proposal and Accusation Reminders from this list? (Rule 0) We should add the following definition: Game Data: Any data required by the rules. (Rule 0) The definition of the Rules Mailing List: This list is limited to the posting of enacted and amended Rules, and updates of Game Data. (Rule 1) Would seem to require that even the initial rules be posted individually to the RML. (Rule 3) Two sentences: one relates to Proposing, Rule 2, "All rule- changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on", and dangles a preposition; the other to Adoption, Rule 7, "If a Rule-Change is adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were posted to the VML" (also replaceing "they" with "it" to avoid personification of a clause). (Rule 7) straightening out the lists: A message "Proposal [n] Adopted" should be posted to the OAML and VML. A message "Rule [n]" should be posted to the OAML and RML. (Rule 8) more A message "Proposal [n] Defeated" shoul dbe posted to the OAML and VML. (Rule 10) amend to the following: Points are Game Data. A Player who Votes AGAINST a Proposal that is subsequently Adopted Shall receive 10 Points. A Player whose Proposal is Adopted shall receive 10 Points. A Player whose Proposal is Defeated shall lose 10 Points. (Rule 7) The Adopter must update any Game Data affected by the Rule-change, and post such updates to the RML. (Rule 8) The Player who posts the "Proposal [n] Defeated" message must update any Game Data affected by the defeat of that Proposal and post such updates to the RML. (Rule 0) Abbreviations: Official Action Mailing Mist (OAML or AML) Rules Mailing List (RML or RULES) Does anyone mind running together Ruleset and Rulechange? They coul dbe considered seperately. From oloros@b... Mon Jun 19 08:31:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6280 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 15:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 15:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 15:31:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.28] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 15:30:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:30:49 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: point taken Message-ID: <8ileb9+4qam@e...> In-Reply-To: <0006162250380A.03054@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1660 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > > The real question isn't the point values, but the > relative value of the offense. > I don't see why reducing the value will actually change > anything. > Relative values. Of course economics is all smoke and mirrors, dependent upon the appearance of market forces, which generate market forces, which, in turn, generate.. anyway. Then again, maybe the meta- game should award more points than any aspect of a sub-game. > > Actually, I also was thinking of another way to use points. > Mostly as part of a sub-game. Points can be used to define lines, > planes and dimensions. As a player gains points, they can add > to their description of a nomic-geometry figure. If they lose > points, then part of their figure disapears. With enough points > a player can draw some complicated figures, and even define local > geometry rules for their multi-dimensional space. Just a random > thought, but it treats points in a manner different than the > usual interpretation. > Wow. I thought that I had predilictions for complicated sub-games. I enjoy the pun. Perhaps the midway between this idea and my feelings on devaluation would be to have multiple denominations of a currency that can be traded for Points: 4 points equals 1 square or 1 tetrahedron, 6 points equals 1 hexagon or 1 triangular prism, 8 points equals 1 octagon or a cube; currencies cannot be traded between dimensions, or can at great cost (6 squares equals 1 cube), but each dimensional type is uniquely valuable, or applicable to a single sub-game. -Oloros, "I don't know, I never went to Burger King." From mctupper@h... Mon Jun 19 09:21:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19813 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 16:18:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 16:18:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 16:18:01 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA42862 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:18:01 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA73546 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:18:00 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Moderation Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:13:31 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061910170101.25971@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen All moderators have been removed from the four Socialanomic mailing lists. Any future changes to the mailing list setups must be made through the Socilanomic owner. Socialnomic is now moderator free. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Mon Jun 19 10:01:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13978 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 16:56:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 16:56:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 16:56:49 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA50866 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:56:48 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA50326 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:56:48 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: point taken Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:44:08 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ileb9+4qam@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ileb9+4qam@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061910554904.25971@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Wow. I thought that I had predilictions for complicated sub-games. I > enjoy the pun. Perhaps the midway between this idea and my feelings > on devaluation would be to have multiple denominations of a currency > that can be traded for Points: 4 points equals 1 square or 1 > tetrahedron, 6 points equals 1 hexagon or 1 triangular prism, 8 > points equals 1 octagon or a cube; currencies cannot be traded > between dimensions, or can at great cost (6 squares equals 1 cube), > but each dimensional type is uniquely valuable, or applicable to a > single sub-game. I like that idea. It keeps my pun on points, and seems to solve your inflantion worries. We could use the 2-D currency for sub-games that don't require a lot of points and the 3-D for games requireing more. For a really complicated game, we could have X-D currencies. Looks like a good idea for starting proposal or two. 2-dimensional Currency: 1 point = 1 point 2 points = 1 line 3 points = 1 triangle 4 points = 1 square 5 points = 1 pentagon 6 points = 1 hexagon 3-dimensional currency 1 point = 1 point 2 points = 1 line 3 points = 1 plane 4 points = 1 tetrahedron 6 points = 1 triangular prism 8 points = 1 cube Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Mon Jun 19 10:05:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3911 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 16:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 16:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 16:52:25 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA47046 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:52:25 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA62814 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:52:24 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] a slow hiss Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:51:03 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061910512503.25971@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Oloros the Blue wrote: > This message contains more than a couple of suggustions submitted > under the Escape Hatch clause of Rule 0. Please be patient as you > consider them. > > (Official Action Mailing List, Rule 0) Have we come to agreement on > removing mention of Proposal and Accusation Reminders from this list? There may be a problem with Top Heavy and Tripper in gaining access to the mailing list. Hopefully that will be fixed today, and we can hear their voice in this. > > (Rule 0) We should add the following definition: > Game Data: Any data required by the rules. > (Rule 0) The definition of the Rules Mailing List: > This list is limited to the posting of enacted and amended Rules, and > updates of Game Data. > (Rule 10) amend to the following: > Points are Game Data. <> Do we want Gamedata to be in the Rules or in Official Actions? Gamedata falls under the idea of official actions that do not require votes. That would leave the RULES list with just the rules, and not any activity or action resulting from application of the rules. I think it would be easier deal with gamedata in the Actions mailing list. > > (Rule 1) Would seem to require that even the initial rules be posted > individually to the RML. Yes it does, but this should make things easier to track. Instead of reading through the entire ruleset, you would only need to see which rule was modified or repealed. There is nothing in the defintions that would prevent someone from posting a condensed version occasionaly. > > (Rule 3) Two sentences: one relates to Proposing, Rule 2, "All rule- > changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on", and dangles a > preposition; the other to Adoption, Rule 7, "If a Rule-Change is > adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were posted > to the VML" (also replaceing "they" with "it" to avoid > personification of a clause). How about this then. 3. All Rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on by the Active Players. If a Rule-change is adopted, then it shall guide play in the form in which it was posted to the VML. I also capitalized both instances of Rule-change. We don't specify capitilazation in our rules, but I think it might be a good idea for consistency. > > (Rule 7) straightening out the lists: > A message "Proposal [n] Adopted" should be posted to the OAML and VML. > A message "Rule [n]" should be posted to the OAML and RML. > (Rule 8) more > A message "Proposal [n] Defeated" shoul dbe posted to the OAML and > VML. Yes, those actions would seem to be indicated by Rule 0. > (Rule 0) > Abbreviations: > Official Action Mailing Mist (OAML or AML) > Rules Mailing List (RML or RULES) > Does anyone mind running together Ruleset and Rulechange? They coul > dbe considered seperately. I assume you mean removing the hypehns from those two terms. Either way my spellchecker will complain, but it is easeir to type without the hyphen. Along this line, do we want to specify capitilazaion of defined terms? Personally, I think that is getting to be fiddly, but in a way it does make sense. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. ------------------------------------------------------- -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Mon Jun 19 10:24:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26756 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 17:24:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 17:24:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 17:24:53 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA47016 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:07:19 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA83564 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:07:19 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Observers Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:56:04 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8igmg9+stpt@e...> In-Reply-To: <8igmg9+stpt@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061911062005.25971@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, you wrote: > I received the invitation to join Socialnomic, and I'd like to make a > pair of suggestions. > > First: Since I wish to keep up with developments in the game, and > probably comment on them, but don't want to officially participate > (I'm involved in another Nomic), I'd like to suggest that you > explicitly define Observers in the ruleset, and what they can and > cannot do. I don't think it's a case of defining what an Observor can do, but more restricting who can take official actions. I don't have a problem with your commenting on anything, but if you wish to participate in the sub-games or voting, then you would need to be an active player. Simply by not signing up for all of the lists, you fail to meet the defintion for player, and hence active player. I think some of the changes suggested by Oloros should make an observors life easier. Just the DML, RULES, and the AML should keep you up-to-date on everything. Reading the VML may give you some sense of what 'may' happen slightly before it actually occurs. Others may wish to just read the RULES list, or some people may prefer to just read the DML. It all depends on what you want to observe and how much in-depth information you want to see. The only real problem comes from someone who signs up for all four lists, discusses things, but doesn't want to vote. We may need to define Active player a bit more stricly if that sort of thing starts to be a problem. Perhaps something like posting a message saying they want to be an active player. Something to think about for future proposals. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Mon Jun 19 10:51:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23024 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 17:43:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 17:43:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 17:43:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.124] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 17:43:39 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:43:31 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: a slow hiss Message-ID: <8ilm43+sapf@e...> In-Reply-To: <00061910512503.25971@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2239 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > > Do we want Gamedata to be in the Rules or in Official Actions? > Gamedata falls under the idea of official actions that do not > require votes. > That would leave the RULES list with just the rules, and not any > activity or action resulting from application of the rules. > I think it would be easier deal with gamedata in the Actions > mailing list. > Agreed, however tampering with Gamedata should be paramount to tampering with Rules. > > There is nothing in the defintions that would prevent someone > from posting a condensed version occasionaly. > Not at all. It should be welcome, as well as necessary, to track the full extent of possible Ruleset conflicts. > > (Rule 3) Two sentences: one relates to Proposing, > > Rule 2, "All rule- changes proposed in the proper > > way shall be voted on", and dangles a preposition; > > the other to Adoption, Rule 7, "If a Rule-Change is > > adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which > > they were posted to the VML" (also replaceing "they" > > with "it" to avoid personification of a clause). > > How about this then. > 3. All Rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be > voted on by the Active Players. If a Rule-change is adopted, > then it shall guide play in the form in which it was posted > to the VML. > My asides on grammer might have distracted from the argument that these two sentences belong in two different rules, which oul dalso trim our Ruleset by one number. > > I also capitalized both instances of Rule-change. We don't specify > capitilazation in our rules, but I think it might be a good idea for > consistency. > > I assume you mean removing the hypehns from those two terms. Either way > my spellchecker will complain, but it is easeir to type without the > hyphen. Along this line, do we want to specify capitilazaion of defined > terms? Personally, I think that is getting to be fiddly, but in a way > it does make sense. > Absolutely fiddly. I'd like to remove the hyphen, for such reasons as mentioned, and suggust that terms defined in Rule 0 be capitalized in use. Both suggestions are meant to improve legability of the rules at little sacrifice of typing speed and no reliance on email with HTML. From mctupper@h... Mon Jun 19 13:24:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32590 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 20:24:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 20:24:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 20:24:44 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA58644 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:24:43 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA22160 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:24:43 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Rule 0 with modifications Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:06:14 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061914234407.25971@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen I have made some of the suggested changes to this rule. Note the definition of Mailing List. With this description in place, we can start the game and still make changes to the Mailing Lists if everyone agrees. GameData has been added to the AML, but is not currently defined. Also Proposal and Accusations have been added to the AML. Are there any other problems, or any new ones? ==================================== 0. Definitions Rule-Changes which amend or repeal this rule cannot be adopted unless there are FOR votes equal to the number of Active Players Mailing Lists: There are four Mailing lists that make up the game of Socialnomic. Changes to the Mailing Lists can only be when sanctioned by the Rules Voting Mailing List (VML): Socialnomic-VML@egroups.com This list is limited to Actions that require Players to place a Vote. This includes: Proposals Accusations Voting Official Action mailing list(OAML or AML): Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com This list is used only for official game actions which do not require Players to place a Vote. This list is limited to: Announcement of Proposals Proposals Announcement of Accusations Accusations Announcements of Adoption GameData Rules Mailing List(RML or RULES):Socialnomic-RULES@egroups.com This list is limited to the posting of enacted and amended rules and represents the current Ruleset. Discussion mailing list(DML): Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com This list is used for discussion and game related musings. Nothing posted to the DML has any effect on the game. Examples include, but are not limited to: Discussions on proposals General discussion about the game. Player: A player is someone who is subscribed to the OAML, the VML, RML, and the DML. Active Player: A player is known as active if they have posted to the DML during the previous 14 days. In Stasis Player: A player is known as "In Stasis" if they have not posted to the DML during the previous 14 days. RuleSet or Rule-Set: The collection of all rules RuleChange or Rule-Change: The enactment, repeal, and/or amendment of one or more rules. Escape-Hatch: The Players of Socialnomic reserve the right to, by unanimous or near-unanimous informal decision, amend whatever parts of the ruleset that, for whatever reason, make the Game unplayable. The instant this Definition is repealed or modified, the Game restarts using its starting Ruleset. ============================================= Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Mon Jun 19 14:03:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29331 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 21:03:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 21:03:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 21:03:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 22:03:19 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:03:10 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Rule 0 with modifications Message-ID: <8im1qe+phun@e...> In-Reply-To: <00061914234407.25971@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 173 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Nice changes. It kind of pushes that "near-unanimous informal decision" bit, though. I thought that Gallavanting Tripper and TopHeavy both would have sounded in by now. From mctupper@h... Mon Jun 19 14:07:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8619 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 21:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 21:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 21:07:47 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA46882; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:07:46 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA38452; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:07:45 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Rule 0 with modifications Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:03:47 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8im1qe+phun@e...> In-Reply-To: <8im1qe+phun@e...> Cc: UnmoderatedNomic@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00061915064608.25971@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Nice changes. > It kind of pushes that "near-unanimous informal decision" bit, > though. I thought that Gallavanting Tripper and TopHeavy both would > have sounded in by now. I have been worried about that as well. That is why I just posted Rule 0 to the DML. I don't want to go thru and publish each rule on it's own to the RULES list until we hear from the others. I hope they are just busy and not having problems with the mailing lists. Btw, what does constitute 'near-unanimous' with four players? Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From topheavy@s... Mon Jun 19 15:27:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24493 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 22:27:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 22:27:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 22:27:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 22:27:57 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:27:52 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Rule 0 with modifications Message-ID: <8im6p8+qvd8@e...> In-Reply-To: <00061915064608.25971@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 823 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Yep. I am here, catching up on all the action of the past 4 days while trying to actually accomplish that stuff known as "work". The Ruleset is looking good, so i'm hoping we get some players besides ourselves. As a fiddly note, we probably shouldn't refer to the the Official Action mailing list as the "OAML or the AML" let's just pick one and stick with it. AML is shorter, and official probably implied. The observer idea seems like it is already taken care of. If you don't subscribe to the VML, you can't vote and you aren't considered a player. otherwise, it seems like Xylen has the most recently updated starting ruleset.. could you post it to this list so we can all review it for typos or leftovers from prior versions that need to be updated? When do we want to "activate" the game? -Topheavy From oloros@b... Mon Jun 19 15:41:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25701 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2000 22:41:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jun 2000 22:41:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2000 22:41:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2000 22:41:26 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:41:21 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: all hands stand by for submersion Message-ID: <8im7ih+4adh@e...> In-Reply-To: <8im6p8+qvd8@e...> 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 From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, topheavy@s... wrote: > > When do we want to "activate" the game? > I'd like to give it until the end of the week to shake down final changes in the starting ruleset. From s3036845@s... Mon Jun 19 18:42:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31895 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 01:42:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 01:42:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 01:42:33 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03989 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:42:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00061915064608.25971@X...> References: <8im1qe+phun@e...> <8im1qe+phun@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:47:47 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Rule 0 with modifications From: Gallivanting Tripper Hello GT here listening intently, but busy with work stuff Oh, and I think that Socialnomic has in fact willed itself into existence after the posting of the ruleset, so any tweaking now should be done by proper Proposals. And "near-unanimous" is just to stop one or two dickheads being - er - dickheads. Later GT From dmarsh@v... Mon Jun 19 19:39:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19053 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 02:39:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 02:39:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 02:39:51 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d115.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.125]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5K2dfp98671 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394EDAAC.59A1C36A@v...> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:45:00 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Observers References: <8ilc26+7d0v@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dan Marsh Oloros the Blue wrote: > I was just about to make such suggestions. Something along the lines > of a Proposal gets posted to -VML and -AML, Approvals posted to - > RULES and -VML and -AML, and Defeats posted to -VML and -AML. > > At the time being, at least until the Escape Hatch is closed, > Observers and Players are equivalent. With Agora, were observers > considered to be prospective players? Acka was the one I had experience with, tho' among our most prolific Observers was the Speaker of Agora. People might have considered them prospective players, but the rules didn't consider them anything but Observers. I seem to remember the rules required that once a month or so, some functionary had to ask Observers whether they preferred to continue as Observers, become Players, or leave entirely. Kind of a waste, except for cleaning up mailing-lists. (My experience with Acka actually goes back before it had ANY mailing-lists, but didn't continue. I don't recall that I was around long enough to see Proposal 1000.) Anyway, my recollection of SN's ruleset is that I'm not a Player, since I'm not subscribed to all of the mailing-lists. I don't know what that makes me. Perhaps the ruleset doesn't actually need to recognize Observers, though. Perhaps the ruleset doesn't need to do anything at all. It would be a good idea, though, to make sure that it continues to refer to "any Player" instead of "any person." ("Hi! I'm Joe Schmoe from Idaho, and under rule 123.456, I hereby declare the entire ruleset invalid.") -- From dmarsh@v... Mon Jun 19 19:43:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28402 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 02:43:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 02:43:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 02:43:53 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d115.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.125]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5K2hhp99577 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394EDB9D.E9535EBC@v...> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:49:01 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] a slow hiss References: <8ildfu+f4da@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dan Marsh Oloros the Blue wrote: > (Rule 7) > The Adopter must update any Game Data affected by the Rule-change, > and post such updates to the RML. > > (Rule 8) > The Player who posts the "Proposal [n] Defeated" message. . . . . . could also be called the Adopter, for simplification's sake. (I'm still feeling out my role as Observer. Since the message load of my "home" nomic was light tonight, I'm feeling like being more active in SN. But maybe it'd be more appropriate for me to participate in the "big" discussions. Ahh well, that's why I'm still feeling it out.) -- From s3036845@s... Mon Jun 19 20:36:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26999 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 03:36:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 03:36:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 03:36:51 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21271 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:36:48 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00061911062005.25971@X...> References: <8igmg9+stpt@e...> <8igmg9+stpt@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:42:03 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Observers From: Gallivanting Tripper >The only real problem comes from someone who signs up for all four >lists, discusses things, but doesn't want to vote. We may need to >define Active player a bit more stricly if that sort of thing starts to >be a problem. Perhaps something like posting a message saying they want >to be an active player. Something to think about for future proposals. I liked one of the earlier ideas about an official pledge of "citizenship" posted to the AML. This would sort out all the Observer/Active/Stasis rubbish. No-one can do any Game Actions apart from Discussion before they've pledged alleigance, and one they have, they're bound by all the Rules. Will add this to my list of Proposals when I have time GT From s3036845@s... Mon Jun 19 20:50:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6244 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 03:50:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 03:50:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 03:50:48 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23439 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:50:45 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:56:01 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Fake Accusation Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Rule 0 with modifications From: Gallivanting Tripper Just to be difficult ;-) I maintain that the game started immediately the initial Rule Set was posted. Hence or otherwise, I Accuse Xylen of invoking the Escape Hatch without near-unanimous consent, by changing Rule 0 which, as defined, requires unanimous voting anyway. I mean, you could have waited for TopHeavy and I to agree! It's the principle of the thing ;-) ----- Oh scratch that, you'll notice that a) this isn't a correct Accusation b) Rule 0 hasn't been modified, because nothing has been updated to the RULES list c) phew! d) let this be a warning to you all! e) I see no problem with starting the game as defined, it's not going to crash straight away, and we can iron out the little difficulties forthwith GT From s3036845@s... Mon Jun 19 23:04:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19895 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 06:04:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 06:04:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 06:04:55 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12350 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:04:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:10:09 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Jumping the Gun From: Gallivanting Tripper Well, there I've done it. I've officially posted three proposals, which will 1) fix a few bugs in the Points system (to whit, the starting number is currently not specified, and Players can currently get points for voting aGAINST a rule-change which has already been adopted, which hardly seems fair) 2) fix a major bug in the voting system which means a 2 for/2 against proposal has can neither be adopted nor defeated 3) introduce a declaration of loyalty for incoming players (and we'll have to do the same) If no-one else believes that the game has actually started, then I recommend that those changes be incorporated into the revised starting ruleset. Dan, I don't know if you're subscribed to the Rules list, but would you agree that if a ruleset is posted on that list that is internally consistent, the game has started? Ever stirring GT From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 08:07:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12933 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 15:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 15:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 15:07:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.96] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 16:07:34 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:07:23 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Jumping the Gun Indeed Message-ID: <8io1bb+2s8m@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 501 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > Well, there I've done it. > I've officially posted three proposals, which will > Hurrah. Now pay attention: we can Vote on these Proposals, but, once Voted upon, those Proposals cannot be Approved. According to the Escape- Hatch, clause, when it is repealed, the RuleSet reverts to its initial state, also repealling any new Rules or Amendments. So the first Proposal to pass must be the one to close th escape hatch. -Oloros From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 08:18:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31860 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 15:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 15:18:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.98] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 15:18:40 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:18:35 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Fake Accusation Message-ID: <8io20b+ggar@e...> In-Reply-To: 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 From: "Oloros the Blue" > > e) I see no problem with starting the game as defined, it's > not going to crash straight away, and we can iron out the > little difficulties forthwith > Let's open the game then, by first closing the Escape-Hatch, then applying outselves to fixes for a week or so, before beginning the onslaught of theme-defining proposals we all have prepared. -Oloros From topheavy@s... Tue Jun 20 09:24:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10849 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 16:24:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 16:24:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 16:24:53 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 16:24:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:24:45 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Fake Accusation Message-ID: <8io5sd+gl0p@e...> In-Reply-To: <8io20b+ggar@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 974 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... > > > > e) I see no problem with starting the game as defined, it's > > not going to crash straight away, and we can iron out the > > little difficulties forthwith > > > Let's open the game then, by first closing the Escape-Hatch, then > applying outselves to fixes for a week or so, before beginning the > onslaught of theme-defining proposals we all have prepared. > > -Oloros Actually, i think the intent is for the escape-hatch to stay during the game in order to allow unanimous changes to the ruleset without using process... In terms of the game actually starting, I believe it hasn't simply because there are no rules. Note that a "ruleset" has been posted, but rules need to be posted as "Rule 0" "Rule 1" Rule 2" etc. I have no problem with posting the rules as such and starting the game, but we do need to iron out Rule 0, specifically because we cannot change it once the game is underway, so there is no fixing as we go along. -TopHeavy From topheavy@s... Tue Jun 20 09:28:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17835 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 16:28:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 16:28:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mo.egroups.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 16:28:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 16:28:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:28:09 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Fake Accusation Message-ID: <8io62p+qi1@e...> In-Reply-To: <8io5sd+gl0p@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 66 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... whoops, forgot that we could modify Rule 0 through unanonimity... From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 20 10:23:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23004 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 17:23:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 17:23:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 17:23:47 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA55890 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:23:47 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA70698 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:23:46 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Jumping the Gun Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:14:22 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006201122460E.28104@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Well, there I've done it. > > I've officially posted three proposals, <> > Dan, I don't know if you're subscribed to the Rules list, but would you > agree that if a ruleset is posted on that list that is internally > consistent, the game has started? It is my opinion that the game would officialy start as soon as someone posted the first proposal. There are now four proposals, so the game is in progress. I have posted the rules individually to the RULES list, as well as posting a compilation called the Rule Set. I would like everyone to take notice of Rule 0. The one that I posted is the version that was posted to the DML yesterday. That version fixed a few minor problems that everyone seemed to agree with or at least didn't object to. Under the Escape Hatch clause, I have posted the new version. Regarding the slew of proposals, I would like to mention one thing. All four of those proposals were not posted to the DML for discussion prior to being posted to the VML and AML. This isn't a bad thing, and there is nothing illegal about such moves, but I hope people will discuss proposal ideas before posting in the future. Especially when we get to big complicated proposals. But for now, we are all excited to get started, so there isn't much danger. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 10:54:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3252 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 17:54:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 17:54:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 17:54:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.115] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 17:54:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:54:52 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Jumping the Moon Message-ID: <8iob5c+gtr0@e...> In-Reply-To: <0006201122460E.28104@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 614 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > > It is my opinion that the game would officialy start as soon as > someone posted the first proposal. > Xylen, you've Voted AGAINST closing the Escape-Hatch. I spirit of discussion, how do you interpret the final sentence? --from Rule 0, Escape-Hatch: The Players of Socialnomic reserve the right to, by unanimous or near-unanimous informal decision, amend whatever parts of the ruleset that, for whatever reason, make the Game unplayable. The instant this Definition is repealed or modified, the Game restarts using its starting Ruleset. From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 20 10:55:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24478 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 17:55:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 17:55:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 17:55:41 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAB62258 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:55:40 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA62334 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:55:39 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Whew! Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:43:40 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006201154390I.28104@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Okay, after posting all of the rules, voting on the current batch of proposals, then making a minor proposal myself, and circulating it, I finally have a chance to breath and make another comment. (The first comment is in an earlier post to the DML) I wanted to explain why I voted against proposal 4. I have been uncertain whether the Escape Hatch was meant to continue or existed only for the initial discussions. After re-reading the comments about it, I have decided that it was meant to remain. We can make changes to Rule 0 if everyone agrees, and it is only when the Escape Hatch is changed that the game is reset. Since the game hadn't really started, it can't be reset. By leaving it in the rules, it serves as a reminder to all players that they can't make everbody mad at them or the game can be restarted and leave them in the dust. This should make everyone think twice about nasty coup attempts. Of course, really nifty coups can still be appreciated by the players, without resorting to opening the Escape Hatch. One more thing, I realized after I posted Rule 0 and the Rule Set that I had made a grammatical error in the definition of the Mailing Lists. My proposal is meant to fix that little problem. I have plans for more interesting proposals later. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 11:29:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12566 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 18:29:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 18:29:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 18:29:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 18:29:20 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:24:39 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: bouncing between lists Message-ID: <8ioct7+2rne@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 535 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" If I may so suggest, it is something facilitated by eGroups to post the proposal text to the VML, then forward it to the AML, changing the subject line to "Proposal [n] Open for Voting". Also, speaking of observers, I should recommend the options of "No Email/Webpage Only" for reading the Socialnomic Mailing Lists as bulletin boards. -Oloros --- In Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > This message is provided for the benefit of the observers, and > is sanctioned by the current Rule 0 defintion of Mailing Lists. From dmarsh@v... Tue Jun 20 12:05:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14678 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 19:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 19:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 19:05:35 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d72.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.82]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5KJ5Kp62070 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394FC1BB.AC06A58C@v...> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:10:51 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Jumping the Gun References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > Well, there I've done it. > . . . > If no-one else believes that the game has actually started, then I > recommend that those changes be incorporated into the revised starting > ruleset. > > Dan, I don't know if you're subscribed to the Rules list, but would you > agree that if a ruleset is posted on that list that is internally > consistent, the game has started? Well, you've got a point; the posting of the rules represents the official ruleset, but I see nothing that indicates that the game either is OR is not active. My thought is that if proposals are made in accordance with the rules which have been published in accordance with the rules, then de facto the game has started. And a ruleset is almost never fully internally consistent. There's almost always an enterprising player who can figure out how to scam the rules, even when they're as well-put-together as most starting rulesets are. From dmarsh@v... Tue Jun 20 12:10:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24118 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 19:10:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 19:10:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 19:10:51 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d72.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.82]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5KJAVp63410 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394FC2F2.9E91B534@v...> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:16:02 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] bouncing between lists References: <8ioct7+2rne@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" Oloros the Blue wrote: > Also, speaking of observers, I should recommend the options of "No > Email/Webpage Only" for reading the Socialnomic Mailing Lists as > bulletin boards. Actually, I do this for -RULES. I have my mail client filter -DML, and shortly -AML, into a Socialnomic directory to read at my leisure. So I go through my messages then, in order of importance. From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 12:41:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19839 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 19:41:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 19:41:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 19:41:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 19:41:37 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:41:31 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: spamming the lists Message-ID: <8iohdb+u0t3@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1640 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" A bouquet of small fiddly proposals to adjust the Ruleset I just spammed to the VML and AML. Switch all power to forward deflector shields. I hope that by tomorrow we can start on the sweet fleshy parts of the nomic, rather than carving at the pith. I would like to bring up the possibility that instead of going with the co-operative (or socialistic) theme that is exhibited by the mechanics of the meta-game, we devote some thematic space to other ideas that include the word 'social': socials (tea and crumpets) socials (muddy feelings woh woh woh) social grace social standing society pages social climbing social contract (actually, GT, are you working on this?) social darwinism (perish the thought) social drinking And I would like to open that discussion with the following: Social Standing is Game Data. The Player with the highest Social Standing may be referred to as the Alpha Trendsetter. The Player with the second highestt Social Standing may be referred to as the Almost Trendsetter. Any Player with negative Social Standing may be referred to as a Pariah. A new Player shall be given Social Standing equal to the median of that of the current Active Players. The Adopter of this Proposal shall give each current Player a Social Standing of range 3-8, by random determination; and then remove this sentence from the Rule. I have a few ideas on to what 'trendsetter' refers, like the ability to dictate a word that must be used in any-player's posted opinion. maybe any-observer's as well, I mean, why not keep score for some types of non-player? -Oloros From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 20 12:43:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24884 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 19:43:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 19:43:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 19:43:43 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA42314 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:43:42 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA12072 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:43:42 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: The sound of money Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:37:04 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062013424100.28424@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen I have been working on a system to do 'something' with the points that we will all be accumulating soon. ====================================== Points are the fundamental system of currency in Socialnomic. There exist a form of coins called 2-D. There exists several denominations of 2-D coins. Costs for conversions to other denominations is given in the table below. Once a Point has been converted into a coin, it cannot be converted into a different coin except as specified by the Rules. 2-D coin price table ___________________ 2 Points = 1 Line 3 Points = 1 Triangle 4 Points = 1 Square 5 Points = 1 Pentagon 6 Points = 1 Hexagon ____________________ 3 Lines = 1 Triangle 4 Lines = 1 Square 5 Lines = 1 Pentagon 6 Lines = 1 Hexagon ____________________ 4 Triangles = 1 Square 5 Triangles = 1 Pentagon 6 Triangles = 1 Hexagon _____________________ ========================================== Let me give an example of how I want this to work. I have 10 Points. I have the following options for purchase with my Points. A. 5 Lines B. 3 Triangles and 1 Point C. 1 Square and 1 Hexagon D. 2 Squares and 1 Line ...and so on. So I purchase 3 Triangles and have one Point left over. Now during some sub-game I need a Pentagon, but I don't have one, and I don't have enough points left to get a Pentagon. But if I had bought 5 Lines, then I could convert them into a Pentagon. I don't even have enough Triangles to buy a Square. :( This system is meant to be a starting point for various sub-games as well as keeping Point inflation under control. Players will have to be careful with thier purchases. In my example, I could have bought 2 Pentagons orginally with my 10 Points, but I made the wrong decision. If I had bought 5 lines to start with, I could buy 1 Pentagon later. (Total cost at that time would be 10 points for the Pentagon!) I hope I have made myself clear on what I want. some parts of this don't sound right to me, so I would appreciate any comments. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From dmarsh@v... Tue Jun 20 13:20:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14063 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:20:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:20:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:20:15 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d72.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.82]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5KKJtp81545 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394FD335.194C2F6B@v...> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:25:25 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] The sound of money References: <00062013424100.28424@X...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" Xylen wrote:system of currency in Socialnomic. > 2-D coin price table > 4 Points = 1 Square > 4 Lines = 1 Square > 4 Triangles = 1 Square Geometrically speaking, you should probably use "rectangle," not square; a square is just a special case of a rectangle. (You didn't say, for example, "5 lines = 1 regular pentagon.") And two triangles can be used to make a square or rectangle. I'm leaning forward in my seat to see what sub-game will use all of these geometrical figures! From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 13:22:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19424 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:22:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.28] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 20:22:07 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:22:05 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: the color of money Message-ID: <8iojpd+pa6h@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062013424100.28424@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2012 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > > Points are the fundamental system of currency in Socialnomic. > > > Once a Point has been converted into a coin, it cannot be converted > into a different coin except as specified by the Rules. > These are the two trenchant points of the currency system under discussion that will curb inflation; and make each Polygon inherently valuable, rather than valuable only as change; and thereby, make it seem to us, as Players, that we never, ever have enough of the right kind of money, perhaps forcing us to negotiate and make disvalued trades. The problem will be encouraging Players, whether by system or mechanic, to invest their Points into Polygons rather than hold them until it is necessary. Some suggestions: Since the Adopter posts the names and Points of all Players, it might be appropriate to state that a Player has [x] days to convert their Points to Polygons, and put the onus on subsequent Adopters to dock Points from those Players who have not done so. Or, a seperate shared-function, the Accountant, could be created. The Adopter could be limited to reporting points-change after each Proposal is Adopted or Defeater; the Accountant submits a seperate message detailing the Points and Polygons of each Player as they expire. Or, Points remain in the background as a basis for exchange, and Polygons are directly rewarded or fined to the Proposer for the number of Votes by which a Proposal passes or fails, sides=votes. Any transaction of Points or Polygons should be reported in a message, and to keep things up to date, perhaps every such message should include the standings of every Player. Difficult. Maybe we all have to sig our posts with our balance. Now, if Polygons cannot be broken into Points, can they be broken into Lines, or Polygons of fewer sides? I take my 2 Squares (8 Lines), break them into 8 Triangles (24 Lines), assemble 1 Hexagon leave 2 Triangles (12 Lines). From dmarsh@v... Tue Jun 20 13:26:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26227 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:26:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:26:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:26:36 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d72.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.82]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5KKQFp83338 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394FD4B1.AD20FE92@v...> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:31:45 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] spamming the lists References: <8iohdb+u0t3@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" Oloros the Blue wrote: >I have a few ideas on to what 'trendsetter' refers, like the ability >to dictate a word that must be used in any-player's posted opinion. >maybe any-observer's as well, I mean, why not keep score for some >types of non-player? Interesting: I'm not sure whether I object or not. On the one hand, this stretches the definition of "observer." On the other hand, the extension of this is to apply it to people who've never heard of Socialnomic, Nomic generally, or even the Internet. This, I find an interesting experiment. Actually, speaking of people who've never heard of Nomic, I hear that Agora Nomic initiated diplomatic relations with Canada. I wonder whether that came to anything? From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 20 13:28:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32500 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:28:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:28:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:28:51 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA40478 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:28:50 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA65558 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:28:50 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] spamming the lists Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:02:04 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8iohdb+u0t3@e...> In-Reply-To: <8iohdb+u0t3@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062014274901.28424@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, you wrote: > I hope that by tomorrow we can start on the sweet fleshy parts of the > nomic, rather than carving at the pith. I think we could have fiddled with the intial ruleset for weeks before we got it perfect. At least we got most of the major problems dealt with, so the minor things can be fixed by proposal. > I would like to bring up the possibility that instead of going with > the co-operative (or socialistic) theme that is exhibited by the > mechanics of the meta-game, we devote some thematic space to other > ideas that include the word 'social': > socials (tea and crumpets) So a new player would be referred to as a debutantee? > social standing The start of a caste system. > society pages In today's news, Martha was seen proposing a new rule. The rule was nicely presented with a garnish of comments, and accented with a color coordinated Voting announcement. Humourous comments aside, some of these themes may work out. It will be interesting to see how the game develops. > > And I would like to open that discussion with the following: > > Social Standing is Game Data. <> I suppose no matter what the titles are, there will develop a power structure, with some players being able to do things that other players cannot. I'm just not sure if I like the terms for Social Standing. Personally, I would rather see serf, Lord, Knight, and King, but the Social Standing system would be unique in the nomic world. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 13:36:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10853 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:36:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:36:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:36:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.31] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 20:36:35 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:36:35 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: social-lite-nomic Message-ID: <8iokkj+mi4f@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062014274901.28424@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 629 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > <> > > I suppose no matter what the titles are, there will develop a power > structure, with some players being able to do things that other players > cannot. I'm just not sure if I like the terms for Social Standing. > Personally, I would rather see serf, Lord, Knight, and King, but the > Social Standing system would be unique in the nomic world. > Xylen, dahr-ling, you're so-oh old-faashaund. Positive-ly medieval. Actually I am hoping for a power structure of the paltry. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 20 13:46:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15469 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:46:54 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA35558 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:46:54 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA24150 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:46:54 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] The sound of money Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:30:20 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00062013424100.28424@X...> <394FD335.194C2F6B@v...> In-Reply-To: <394FD335.194C2F6B@v...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062014455202.28424@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Xylen wrote:system of currency in Socialnomic. > > > 2-D coin price table > > 4 Points = 1 Square > > 4 Lines = 1 Square > > 4 Triangles = 1 Square > > Geometrically speaking, you should probably use "rectangle," not square; a > square is just a special case of a rectangle. (You didn't say, for example, "5 > lines = 1 regular pentagon.") And two triangles can be used to make a square > or rectangle. I think I should include the fact that I am talking about regular Polygons, ie. equal length sides and equal interior angles. In that case I need to remove Triangles--> Squares and Triangles-->Pentagons. that just keeps things simplier and a bit more elegant. Regarding Oloros comments, Once you buy a Polygon, you are stuck with it. Polygons cannot be broken down into their component parts. I see Polygons as an industructable item. Now if a player is willing to exchange 5 points for your nice shiny new Pentagon, and you really want the Points, that should be allowed. Private trades can be made, but they will probaly be at a higher price than the 'Blue Book' value. Perhaps we do need an Officer of Geometry to track Polygons. Such a person would be responsible for posting each Players account to the AML as transactions are made. The Proposer would only need to record the change in points from a proposals passage or defeat. To encourage Players to buy Polygons: An extra AGAINST vote---1 Square The possesor of a dodecahedron is declared Emporer (3-D version only) Social Standing is increased 1 rank--1 Pentagon A sub game of some sorts---I'll work on that tonight Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 13:57:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31704 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 20:57:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 20:57:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 20:57:13 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.115] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 20:57:13 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:57:06 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: a wide angle lens Message-ID: <8iolr2+oev4@e...> In-Reply-To: <394FD4B1.AD20FE92@v...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1334 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" wrote: > > Oloros the Blue wrote: > > maybe any-observer's as well, I mean, why not keep score for > > some types of non-player? > > Interesting: I'm not sure whether I object or not. On the > one hand, this stretches the definition of "observer." On > the other hand, the extension of this is to apply it to people > who've never heard of Socialnomic, Nomic generally, or even the > Internet. This, I find an interesting experiment. > > But the definition of "observer", and its impariality has been under siege since Heisenberg, at least in a very narrow arena. One might say, though, that the good art attacts any sort of impartiality in its audience, by attempting some sort of emotional sympathy. I think that in this context, that of a nacent nomic, that as many accords that can be made to non-players that would invite them into the game as players should be taken. Even if it means a little more work on the part of the other players. A couple of statistics on any non-players seems facile, and perhaps amusing. It would be difficult, though, to attempt to track any off-list discussion regarding Socialnomic, and bring that (random) person into the game for an off-hand remark. Even if that person were already a player. -Oloros From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 15:18:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25794 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 22:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 22:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 22:18:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jun 2000 22:18:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:18:09 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: pledge Message-ID: <8ioqj1+ueeb@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1492 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > I liked one of the earlier ideas about an official pledge > of "citizenship" posted to the AML. This would sort out > all the Observer/Active/Stasis rubbish. No-one can do any > Game Actions apart from Discussion before they've pledged > alleigance, and one they have, they're bound by all the > Rules. > This came to mind as I saw noticed another person joined the mailing lists today. I guess the definition "Active Player: A player is known as active if they have posted to the DML during the previous 14 days" (Rule 0) holds for prospective players as well as vacationing players. How's that for involving non-players, Governor Marsh? (which is all very surreal, addressing a non-player as 'governor', for his opinion on relations with non-players, as if he is their non- representative or something) Speaking of which, I was not able to find anything on summit-level relations between Agora and Canada. Have you? So, a pledge or announcement from a new player. Something along the lines of a Pledge to conduct oneself as defined by Rule 1, and then an updated list of Players, by Active/Static, or whatever. Would an observer take the Pledge? Hmm. Doesn't really matter, as their actions on the mailing list would be answerable to the rules of the mailing list, and they would remain subject to our accounting. Operating in a foreign country without diplomatic immunity, as it were. -Oloros From dmarsh@v... Tue Jun 20 15:44:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26022 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2000 22:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jun 2000 22:44:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Jun 2000 22:44:02 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d72.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.82]) by mail1.mx.voyager.net (8.10.0/Voyager-MailX) with ESMTP id e5KMiFL15723 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <394FF4DC.D125DA8F@v...> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:49:00 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: pledge References: <8ioqj1+ueeb@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" Oloros the Blue wrote: > This came to mind as I saw noticed another person joined the mailing > lists today. I guess the definition "Active Player: A player is known > as active if they have posted to the DML during the previous 14 days" > (Rule 0) holds for prospective players as well as vacationing > players. How's that for involving non-players, Governor Marsh? (which > is all very surreal, addressing a non-player as 'governor', for his > opinion on relations with non-players, as if he is their non- > representative or something) Surreal indeed. But: "a PLAYER is known as active". I'm not a player, since I don't get all of the groups. So I can't be an active player. But yes, prospective and vacationing players might become "active" by this definition. That might cause problems, but I'm not sure it'll break anything. > Speaking of which, I was not able to find anything on summit-level > relations between Agora and Canada. Have you? >From the Net Nomic Database: "Canada has officially been recognized to be a peer Nomic by Agora. Their Proposal number 2031 had as its text: 'The present Directive on Foreign Policy Business of the Agora Nomic recognizes the nation of Canada as a peer Nomic. The Ambassador of Agora is hereby instructed to present official Greetings from the Players of Agora to the Citizens of Canada, along with a copy of this Directive,' and passed with 9 votes for, 4 against and 3 abstentions. " However, a search on "Canada" within Agora's current ruleset returns nothing, and they're up to Prop 4016. So it's now, apparently, of only historical interest. But I'm interested nonetheless: If you find out anything, let me know. From s3036845@s... Tue Jun 20 18:04:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14873 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 01:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 01:04:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 01:04:50 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12066 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:04:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8io1bb+2s8m@e...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:10:10 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Jumping the Gun Indeed From: Gallivanting Tripper >So the first Proposal to pass must be the one to close th escape >hatch. Umm, this was not quite what I had in mind. The escape hatch is not meant just for setting-up purposes, it is meant as a legitimate solutions to critical problems down the track. In any case, removing the escape hatch will cause the game to restart with a new escape hatch! I'd say that the only way to rmove the escape hatch is by invoking it (and you won't get my agreement at this stage) cheers GT From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 18:15:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16864 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 01:15:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 01:15:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 01:15:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 01:15:51 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:15:42 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: buggy Rule 7 Message-ID: <8ip4vu+44ft@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 146 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Noticed as I was Adopting Proposal 1, that Rule 7 is a little buggy, in that it does not specify that a new Rule be posted to the RML. -Oloros From oloros@b... Tue Jun 20 18:37:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13452 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 01:37:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 01:37:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 01:37:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 02:37:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:37:05 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: buggy Rule 7 Message-ID: <8ip681+hno1@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ip4vu+44ft@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 400 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Oloros the Blue" wrote: > Noticed as I was Adopting Proposal 1, that Rule 7 is a > little buggy, in that it does not specify that a new Rule > be posted to the RML. > Publishing problems to the RML and the AML (might as well call it that, as I expect it will soon be defined as such) were evident in the initial Rule 7. Try the fix with Proposal 9. -Oloros From dmarsh@v... Tue Jun 20 19:05:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24798 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 02:05:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 02:05:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 02:05:04 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d150.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.160]) by mail1.mx.voyager.net (8.10.0/Voyager-MailX) with ESMTP id e5L25HL04012 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <395023FE.810D5735@v...> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:10:07 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 11 References: <8ip7a8+g328@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" Oloros the Blue wrote: > --- In Socialnomic-VML@egroups.com, "Oloros the Blue" wrote: > > Social Standing is Gamedata. > > The Player with the highest Social Standing may be referred to as the > Alpha Trendsetter. > > The Player with the second highest Social Standing may be referred to > as the Almost Trendsetter. What about ties? From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 21 01:49:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17063 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 08:49:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 08:49:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 08:49:40 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA31272 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:49:40 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA69970 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:49:40 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:31:11 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062102311309.00919@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: By the Pale Moon Light From: Xylen A whole slew of proposals have passed, and the relevant postings have been made. Although Rule 7 does not require the posting of new rules to the RULES list (yet), I have done so anyway. Although Proposal 8 has 3 FOR votes, it cannot be processed yet. There is an instance of OAML in Rule 0 which requires four FOR votes. It is my opinion that this proposal cannot be passed until it has been approved by all of the Players. Once Top Heavy has voted, then the appropriate changes can be made. One other thing I have noticed is the Proposer often times forgets(?) to vote for thier own proposal. Since it is not specified one way or the other, we cannot assume the vote would be FOR. Actually if Proposal 10 had specified modifications to Rule 6 instead of Rule 8, there would be have been allowances for a proposal to be defeated if the proposer voted AGAINST. Yes, I know, there are Points at stake. Let everyone else vote FOR, you vote AGAINST, and voila, you get 20 points!. I'm sure I mucked up a few point mongering schemes by Adopting a couple proposals before the last player got a chance to get their points. But in a way, that gave me points by keeping the point spread minimal. If Social Standing gets going, I suppose my actions would qualify for Pariah. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Wed Jun 21 07:37:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1789 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 14:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 14:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 14:37:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.65] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 14:37:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:37:16 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: By the Pale Moon Light Message-ID: <8iqjus+ao1t@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062102311309.00919@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1015 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen] > Actually if Proposal 10 had specified modifications to Rule 6 > instead of Rule 8, there would be have been allowances for a > proposal to be defeated if the proposer voted AGAINST. > Actually, we could go so far as to say, if Proposal 10 had been written competantly, it would have effect if Adopted. Could we consider this Proposal again? Were Xylen and GT's objections to the specific wording/typo or the nature of the Proposal? > [Xylen] > Yes, I know, there are Points at stake. Let everyone else vote > FOR, you vote AGAINST, and voila, you get 20 points!. I'm sure > I mucked up a few point mongering schemes by Adopting a couple > proposals before the last player got a chance to get their points. > Oh yes, I think we all have expected this to arise. How about creating an incentive to be the Adopter? A payout of 3 points for taking on the responsibility of seeing through a Rulechange. We will have to payoff the adopter of a Defeated Rulechange as well, maybe only 2 points. From oloros@b... Wed Jun 21 07:45:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28067 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 14:45:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 14:45:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 14:45:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 14:45:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:45:47 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposals 11/12 Message-ID: <8iqker+a7h6@e...> In-Reply-To: <395023FE.810D5735@v...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 867 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Looking at the Voting on Proposals 11 & 12, one cannot help bu tnotice that Gallavanting Tripper has split his Vote, AGAINST Prop 11 and FOR Prop 12. Odd that, as Prop 11 is the scoring framework for a subgame that Prop 12 begins, a little like hitching a horse before it is shoed. GT, is there something specific that you object to, or are you looking at the two proposals and voting for 10 points from one that is more fundemental? Just wondering. > [The Governor, on Prop 11] > What about ties? > The game in Prop 12 will, I think, iron out any ties by increasing the ferment of competition between any Players tied for a Trendsetter position. If not, I suppose, we could drain a swimming pool, get some caviar and champagne, and force the contenders to fight to the finish for our entertainment. Err, I mean, develop the subgame further. -Oloros From oloros@b... Wed Jun 21 08:27:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32371 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 15:27:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 15:27:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 15:27:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 15:27:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:27:09 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: publicity stunt setup Message-ID: <8iqmsd+78k5@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 612 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" For our listing on the Net Nomic Database and and posting to the Nomic Bulletin Board, I was wondering one thing: What's so special about this Nomic? This is what I've got: 1) sharing of administrative duties among players \_ attempt to remove Speaker-lock \_ attempt to increase player interaction; 2) eradication of turn-based play; Naming date: 5 June 2000 (by Xylen) Founding date: 16 June 2000 (happens to be Bloomsday!) Looking for Active Players Also, by bringing this discussion into the open, I would like to suggest we each hold off making this posting for a week or so. -oloros From topheavy@s... Wed Jun 21 10:15:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25461 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 17:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 17:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 17:15:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.117] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 17:15:54 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:15:13 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Interesting. Message-ID: <8iqt71+545e@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 907 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Okay. With the passage of Prop 3, we suddenly have zero Players. Which means that nobody can take any actions until they declare that they will abide by the rules of SocialNomic on the OAML. Which means that TECHNICALLY, I could post that right now, then go to the VML and get to choose what happens to every single Proposal out right now.. MUHAHAHAHA. but of course i am not going to do that, but i encourage everyone to declare their allegiance pretty quickly here... Also, i am going to draft a prop saying that adoption or defeat should be included on the VML, it makes things so much neater. I did it just to save myself some headache.. Hope nobody minds. If so, i guess you should accuse me or something. Provided everyone uses the "Reply" function properly, the view by thread option in the egroups archive interface makes checking on the voting status of props super-easy. -TopHeavy From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 21 10:17:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29184 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 17:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 17:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 17:17:23 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA69364 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:17:22 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA42848 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:17:21 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: By the Pale Moon Light Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:12:31 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8iqjus+ao1t@e...> In-Reply-To: <8iqjus+ao1t@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062111162100.01829@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Could we consider this Proposal again? Were Xylen and GT's objections > to the specific wording/typo or the nature of the Proposal? Exactly my objection. If it would have refered to the propoer Rule, I would have voted for it. Since it will have slightly different wording, by one number, then it can be submitted properly. I am even willing to let you propose it and regain the points you lost. (Being nice like that should give me enough Social Standing to not be the Pariah) Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Wed Jun 21 11:20:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31801 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 18:20:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 18:20:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 18:20:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 18:20:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:20:12 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: flurry Message-ID: <8ir10s+aq68@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 444 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" When I noted "film at eleven" on the UnmoderatedNomic list this morning, I did not think that there would be anything so newsworthy to be filmed as hints at expulsion, and a non-attempt at a coup! Further, with TopHeavy, Xylen, and I scrambling around the mailing lists over the past 20 minutes, we had two same-numbered proposals for a moment. If there is a recommended method for dealing with such an occurance, please share. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 21 11:33:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15502 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 18:33:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 18:33:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 18:33:14 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA39878 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:33:13 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA23556 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:33:13 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] flurry Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:24:18 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ir10s+aq68@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ir10s+aq68@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062112321201.01829@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, you wrote: > When I noted "film at eleven" on the UnmoderatedNomic list this > morning, I did not think that there would be anything so newsworthy > to be filmed as hints at expulsion, and a non-attempt at a coup! > > Further, with TopHeavy, Xylen, and I scrambling around the mailing > lists over the past 20 minutes, we had two same-numbered proposals > for a moment. Not to mention that I think there was even a second proposal number 1 for a brief time. >If there is a recommended method for dealing with such > an occurance, please share. It certainly has been an interesting morning. For a while I was thinking we should have used the suggestion for an IRC nomic. I think that as long as people are paying attention, delete bad messages, and hit the refresh button a lot, we shouldn't have a problem. The only concern I have is if a person votes for a proposal that is later deleted and renumbered. I'm not sure, but I think all replies are deleted when the orginal post is deleted, so a voter may think he has voted, when he hasn't really. Players will have to check their votes occassionaly to verify their existence. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Wed Jun 21 11:41:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22435 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 18:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 18:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 18:41:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 19:41:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:41:41 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: money flow Message-ID: <8ir295+eh0l@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 405 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen, in Proposal 19] > Once a Point has been converted into a coin, it cannot be > converted into a different denomination except as specified > by the Rules. > There are three levels, from each of which one cannot back down: points lines polygons It just seems that the whole lines-level could be removed, because they are more convertible than the polygons, just like points. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 21 11:55:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20959 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 18:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 18:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 18:55:10 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA54938 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:55:09 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA61256 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:55:09 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] money flow Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:50:33 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ir295+eh0l@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ir295+eh0l@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062112540804.01829@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, you wrote: > > [Xylen, in Proposal 19] > > Once a Point has been converted into a coin, it cannot be > > converted into a different denomination except as specified > > by the Rules. > > > There are three levels, from each of which one cannot back down: > points > lines > polygons > It just seems that the whole lines-level could be removed, because > they are more convertible than the polygons, just like points. Actually, I have in mind something to do with Lines that don't form Polygons. My other hobby besides nomics is Fractals. With certain types of fractals, you can have several line segments forming a fractal line. Things like the Koch and Hilbert curves are composed of lines, but they have a dimension greater than 1, but less than 2. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 21 12:03:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30670 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 19:03:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 19:03:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 19:03:30 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA23038 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:03:29 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA45718 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:03:29 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Votes still needed Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:57:28 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062113022805.01829@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Now that the posting frenzy has died down, I was going back through to see what had passed. There is still not a vote for Proposal 8 by Top Heavy. I went thru the ruleset to check for a 'search and replace' and there is no problem with simply replacing OAML with AML, so that shouldn't be a problem. If this proposal passes, it would mean nearly every rule getting reposted, and the compiled ruleset should be reposted as well. It will be a bit of work, but I won't be able to do it until after midnight (MDT). Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From topheavy@s... Wed Jun 21 13:59:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28732 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 20:59:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 20:59:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 20:59:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 20:59:34 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:59:26 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Error in Points Message-ID: <8irabe+abj2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 770 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Okay, if i need to make an accusation to fix this, somebody let me know. But i maintain that the points posted by Xylen for the Adoption of Prop 16 and 12 are incorrect. Note that When Prop 3 passed there were suddenly zero players. By rule 12, when a player enters the game, they have zero points. Therefore, any points earned prior to the adoption of prop have dissapeared. Similarly, when Prop 10 was defeated, Oloros did not lose 10 points since Oloros was not a player at that time. Therefore, the only Oloros, Xylen, and TopHeavy have points at this time, and those points are as follows ____Player_Name____ __Points__ Oloros 10 TopHeavy 10 Xylen 0 _________________________________ -TopHeavy From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 21 14:07:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13531 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 21:07:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 21:07:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 21:07:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mctupper@h... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 21:07:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:07:46 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Error in Points Message-ID: <8irar2+2cta@e...> In-Reply-To: <8irabe+abj2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1568 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Xylen " --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, topheavy@s... wrote: > Okay, if i need to make an accusation to fix this, somebody let me > know. But i maintain that the points posted by Xylen for the > Adoption of Prop 16 and 12 are incorrect. > > Note that When Prop 3 passed there were suddenly zero players. > By rule 12, when a player enters the game, they have zero points. > > Therefore, any points earned prior to the adoption of prop have > dissapeared. Similarly, when Prop 10 was defeated, Oloros did not > lose 10 points since Oloros was not a player at that time. > Therefore, the only Oloros, Xylen, and TopHeavy have points at this > time, and those points are as follows > > ____Player_Name____ __Points__ > Oloros 10 > TopHeavy 10 > Xylen 0 > _________________________________ Okay, I can see that. I used the points as posted for an ealier proposal adoption, and failed to take into account the changes from Rule 3's repeal. The question then arises of the proper existance of proposals that were up for vote when rule 3 was repealed. Are those proposals valid? Are the votes for them valid, and is any action taken on those proposals valid? I would suggest that we allow the proposals to exist and allow the votes to count for them. The only real change would be the points as you stated above. I would be willing to let all of the affected proposals and subsequent actions to be in effect and just change the points. Seems like the simpliest and most reasonable solution. Xylen From dmarsh@v... Wed Jun 21 14:08:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15532 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 21:08:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 21:08:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 21:08:31 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d80.as1.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [216.93.61.209] (may be forged)) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5LL87p61920 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39513004.67E65374@v...> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:13:40 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mailing List SOCIALNOMIC Subject: Proposal Numbers Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')" I notice you're running into problems with proposal numbers.  It doesn't have to be so--you could submit proposals willy-nilly if you're willing to forego how they rate consecutively.

From the current ruleset of "GNomic":

proposals.numbers (Steadiness: 1)
Each proposal shall have a unique identifier.  This identifier shall consist of two words separated by a dot (period).  The first word shall be unique to each player, and shall be the same on all proposals made by any one player.  Both words shall consist only of lower- and upper-case roman letters and arabic digits.

In practice, we're submitting eg "marsh.10" or "zagarna.5," but there's nothing preventing a prop number from signifying what it's about, eg "marsh.fixCFJloophole."

With something like that, you oughtn't run into the problems you're having with keeping up with what proposals have already been made.

I should probably say, this wasn't my idea, although this rule now bears my name.  But it's one I kind of like, because we're trying not to be speaker-dependent, either.
 
  From topheavy@s... Wed Jun 21 14:36:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12612 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 21:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 21:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 21:36:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.120] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 21:36:03 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:35:53 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Social Idears Message-ID: <8ircfp+5fes@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1394 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Here's a mildly interesting thought for a proposal which continues the Social theme (ah, what would we be without a name that calls to mind such ideas? maybe i should think of something else...) Proposal centers around each player founding a group that has a dynamic membership of people... possibly later a group could hold events which would alter membership, or increase funding... I have no metagame effects in mind. Enact a new rule Any Player of SocialNomic may found a social organization by posting a message to the AML with the subject containing the following pieces of information: playername, organization type, and organization name. The organization name has no restrictions. Organization type must be one of the following: Cult Club Cabal Church Each Social Organization has the following properties: Funds Membership Meetingplace The Meetingplace property can be one of the following: None Storm Drains Derelict Building Sleazy Hotel Posh Hotel Modest Abode Mansion Great Hall All newly founded Organizations start with a 'None' MeetingPlace Funds are expressed in terms of Bits. All newly founded Organizations start with Funds of 100 Bits Membership is comprised of one or more of the following members: Joe Average Rich Tycoon Zealous Activist Suburban Family All newly founded Organizations start with a membership of 5 Joe Averages. -TopHeavy From oloros@b... Wed Jun 21 16:00:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19030 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 23:00:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 23:00:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 23:00:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jun 2000 23:00:15 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:57:53 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: social engagements Message-ID: <8irh9h+t2f4@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 651 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Considering a subgame of social engagements, in which a player may invite the others to an event, spending Polygons, in return for which the host and guests gain Social Standing. A simple way to start simply increasing everyone's standing, unless a rival player invites everyone to an event the same date, choosing an event that trumps the previous, starting a battle in the social milleu that will leave debutantes crying in is wake, if it's their party and if they want to, cry if they want to, cry if they want to. Still working on the types of social events (wiener roast, champagne & caviar, &cetra as nauseam) and their costs. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Wed Jun 21 16:46:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16281 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 23:46:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jun 2000 23:46:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 23:46:54 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19497 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:46:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8iqker+a7h6@e...> References: <395023FE.810D5735@v...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:52:16 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Proposals 11/12 From: Gallivanting Tripper >Looking at the Voting on Proposals 11 & 12, one cannot help bu >tnotice that Gallavanting Tripper has split his Vote, AGAINST Prop 11 >and FOR Prop 12. Odd that, as Prop 11 is the scoring framework for a >subgame that Prop 12 begins, a little like hitching a horse before it >is shoed. GT, is there something specific that you object to, or are >you looking at the two proposals and voting for 10 points from one >that is more fundemental? Just wondering. Two reasons: a) there are a few bugs in the Standing mechanics, to whit; I don't like randomness if I can avoid it; and there's no explanation of what happens when two or more players are tied for Trendsetter positions b) gamesmanship, I was pretty sure that 11 would pass so I voted agaisnt it for the points! c) I shall repropose my preferred system for Standing mechanics in a jiffy (G)T From s3036845@s... Wed Jun 21 19:34:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30354 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 02:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 02:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 02:34:52 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11683 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:34:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8ircfp+5fes@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:40:11 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Social Idears From: Gallivanting Tripper Easy on, I say simply because everybody has to keep track of everything, so lets not multiply the number of currencies unneccesarily. Btw, proposal 21 redoes the Social Standing such that everyone (including Observers) have social standing. The only thing I've missed out is who is responsible for keeping updates of social standing. ANy ideas on that one? (G)T From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 02:10:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17809 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 09:10:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 09:10:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 09:10:53 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA29276 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:10:52 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA13390 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:10:52 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Tornado Alert! Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:05:16 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062203095000.03146@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen As everyone is aware by now, yesterday was a bit hectic in Socialnomic. It was a fun party with lots going on all at once. Unfortunetly, no one noticed right away that there was a problem. Fortunetly the effects only cover a days worth of activities, but it is taking a bit of time to track everything down. I am curretnly going back thru all of the actions taken to see which ones really happened, and which ones were just rumors. Expect to see a full report later. If you feel the urge to do something, please be very careful. The Rules may not be what you think they are. Xylen, proud to be nominated as Socialnomic's Pariah. -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 02:34:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13107 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 09:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 09:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 09:34:37 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA30274 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:34:36 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA65292 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:34:36 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Tornado Alert! Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:22:39 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00062203095000.03146@X...> In-Reply-To: <00062203095000.03146@X...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062203333401.03146@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > The Rules may not be what you think they are. Boy is that ever true. Egoups is being a pain to access right now, so I can't complete my investigations. However, I thought I would post the intial report. =================== With the repeal of Rule 3 at 2:18 am Wednesday, Socialnomic suffered from a severe earthquake (or is that a nomicquake?). To be really fussy about it, Proposals 13-15 were not made as there were no Players in Socialnomic at that time. Also the votes from Oloros on 9, 11, 12, and the ill fated 13* were not legal. TopHeavy's votes on 3 and 9 were also improper. Timeline: 2:18--Rule 3 repealed, No players exist! Since there were a few live proposals at that time, they all passed as they had received more FOR votes than they needed (which was either one more than half of zero, or all of zero). These were proposals 3, 5, 7-9, 11-12 (Proposals 4 and 10 were defeated, and 6 was adopted prior to the earthquake). Since the proposing Players were no longer members of the game, no one gained any points from their passage. However, all of these proposals were eligble to be adopted. Unfortunetly, there were no Players to adopt them. 11:22 --TopHeavy joines the game: Adoptable proposals --- 3, 5, 7-9, 11-12. Players: TopHeavy - 0 points. 11:34--Oloros joins the game Adoptable proposals --- 3, 5, 7-9. 11-12 Players: TopHeavy and Oloros with 0 points 11:40--Xylen joins the game Adoptable proposals --- 3, 5, 7-9, 11-12 Players: TopHeavy, Oloros, Xylen (all with 0 points) Now comes the hard part. Were any of the proposals made after 11:40 legal? That is, did they modify something that didn't exist? Were the proposals made in the proper form and posted to the right lists, according to the ruleset _at that time_. As soon as I gain access to egroups, I will look into this. There is one other option to consider. We can invoke the Escape Hatch, and just fix the points for the players after they joined the game, and allow any adopted proposal to continue to exist. That will be much easier to do. The only thing to consider then, would be those proposals that were declared Defeated, but in reality had passed. Xylen, who is really enjoying this. Maybe we can make ruleset messes a subgame? -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 07:50:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6321 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 14:50:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 14:50:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 14:50:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.127] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 14:50:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:50:54 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Tornado Alert! Message-ID: <8it94e+lh4f@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062203333401.03146@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 508 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" The question is whether or not to take the escape hatch, or to adhere to the timeline. Good thing there's only the four of us. I would be in favor of peeling it all back to ruleset-discussion, so we can apply some of the ideas of the first 20 proposals to the initial ruleset. Not only that, it would give us a stable ground-zero to which to return. I think we have proven the theory that the initial ruleset is a fecund enough mass to begin ferment, now let us refine it to a criticality. -Oloros From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 08:02:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12433 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 15:02:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 15:02:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 15:02:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 15:02:05 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:01:41 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposals 11/12/21 Message-ID: <8it9ol+8ppq@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 329 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Gallivanting Tripper] > c) I shall repropose my preferred system for Standing > mechanics in a jiffy > I appreciate the clear definition of those non-players who subscribe and post to the DML as potentially having Social Standing. The only thing left is a mechanic to post the standings themselves. -Oloros From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 08:45:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28583 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 15:43:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 15:43:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 15:43:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.121] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 15:43:49 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:42:46 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: allegations are against the ruleset Message-ID: <8itc5m+phd1@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2242 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" The allegations of Xylen are ones directed against the Rulset itself, and not the fault of any single Player. At this point, it may be a simple thing to scuttle the ship and launch it again. With a more developed Ruleset, however, it would be difficult to lose the accumulated material. It seems to me that we need a means of resolving such matters that is consistant with the Ruleset, yet not vulnerable to accidental modification, and thorough enough to function under a highly reduced core Ruleset. And also gets the game started again as quickly as possible. And prevents the abuse of itself by Players who might Cry Wolf or have More Sinister Desires. I do not think that the following is anything near votable form. I present it for your consideration: If an Active Player has grave concerns about the ability of the Ruleset to administer the nomic, that Player may post a message to the VML and AML with the subject line "Stop the Presses!", and text that specifies the nature of the Ruleset crisis, and the steps that that Player will take to resolve the issue. This message may be referred to as a Stop Order, and the Player who posts it Overcautious. The Stop Order must be seconded by three other Active Players within 24 hours of its posting, by posting replies to the VML. The third Player to agree to the Stop Order must post to the VML, AML, and DML a message with subject line "Emergency Blackout". From the time of that posting, there will fall a 36 hour period, during which time no Voting may occur and no Rulechanges may be Adopted or Defeated. By the end of the Blackout, the Overcautious Player must post to the VML and AML a solution to the Ruleset crisis. This is a special Rulechange that may be Voted upon only by those three Players who seconded the Stop Order. If it is agreed to, the Overcautious Player may implement the solution they have written. If, after the end of the Emergency Blackout, the Overcautious Player cannot supply information that resolves the issue, that Player will lose all Currency and have Social Standing set to -5. If this Rulechange is Adopted, it will be modifiable only by a proposal that passes with Votes of unanimity-minus-one or unanimity. From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 09:01:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23540 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 16:01:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 16:01:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 16:01:11 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA67080 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:01:10 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA63442 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:01:09 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Tornado Alert! Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:50:11 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8it94e+lh4f@e...> In-Reply-To: <8it94e+lh4f@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062210000800.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > The question is whether or not to take the escape hatch, or to adhere > to the timeline. Good thing there's only the four of us. > > I would be in favor of peeling it all back to ruleset-discussion, so > we can apply some of the ideas of the first 20 proposals to the > initial ruleset. Not only that, it would give us a stable ground-zero > to which to return. I agree with that idea, with one reservation. The vast majority of the 20 proposals so far are fixing little things. Ony the Social Standing and the Points as currency proposals were new items. However, we must be careful to not set a precedent that we don't want to follow in the future. (I broke my new toy, so I'm just going to go get a new one). I think it would be more appropriate to continue the game as is, and just work with the mess. Every nomic has some problems at it's start, and the solutions to those problems are an important part of the game itself. What I plan on doing is continuing my investigations into the effects of the timeline, and then posting an Accusation with the results. and asking the players to approve those results. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 09:25:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21772 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 16:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 16:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hp.egroups.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 16:25:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.95] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 16:25:27 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:25:24 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Tornado Alert! Message-ID: <8itelk+bh4s@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062210000800.03938@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1079 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen] > What I plan on doing is continuing my investigations into > the effects of the timeline, and then posting an Accusation > with the results. and asking the players to approve those > results. > But a formal Accusation must be targeted at some Player(s), based on some particular (il)legal, or at least disputable, action. If the Ruleset invalidated many Players, it was an action of the Ruleset, which is not liable to be accused. If so many players were invalidated that there were no Players in the nomic, then it would be possible to declare the nomic closed and over. It is not a question of a tree falling in forest with an unheard wail of quiet despair, Socialnomic is a construct of our participation. However, if the Socialnomic starting Ruleset had been more broad with repsect to non/statis/active/players the nomic would have continued to exist after invalidating its active players and remained available to be joined. Like an escaped housecat that adopts a family. -Oloros, who will knock on the wooden table, theosophisticatedly. From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 10:09:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16729 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 17:09:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 17:09:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 17:09:42 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA43286 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:09:41 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA47142 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:09:41 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Tornado Alert! Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:03:35 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8itelk+bh4s@e...> In-Reply-To: <8itelk+bh4s@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062211084001.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > > [Xylen] > > What I plan on doing is continuing my investigations into > > the effects of the timeline, and then posting an Accusation > > with the results. and asking the players to approve those > > results. > > > But a formal Accusation must be targeted at some Player(s), based on > some particular (il)legal, or at least disputable, action. I see your point. Accusations must be made against a player and not the game itself. Perhaps I should have said something like a Clarification will be made, although that term is not defined. I have completed rolling the Ruleset back to the point of dispute, and I am now going thru to see what effects occured at the moment the nomicquake hit. There is actually less than I had orginally thought, so it shouldn't take long. Stayed tuned to this channel for further breaking news. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From topheavy@s... Thu Jun 22 10:17:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4555 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 17:17:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 17:17:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 17:17:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 18:17:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:17:13 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Tornado Alert! - Fundamental Flaw Message-ID: <8ithmp+nqhi@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062203333401.03146@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1851 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... > =================== > With the repeal of Rule 3 at 2:18 am Wednesday, Socialnomic > suffered from a severe earthquake (or is that a nomicquake?). To > be really fussy about it, Proposals 13-15 were not made as there were no > Players in Socialnomic at that time. Also the votes from Oloros on 9, > 11, 12, and the ill fated 13* were not legal. TopHeavy's votes > on 3 and 9 were also improper. > Here's the error, The Repeal of Rule 3 did not cause there to be zero players in the game. The ADOPTION of PROPOSAL 3 (and the subsequent Alteration of Rule 0) caused there to be zero players in the game. Interestingly, it seems that the egroups timestamp is individual.. i.e. it is adjusted for your own time zone. Note that my times are exactly 1 hour earlier than Xylen's... As long as we only reference times to our own archive, we can see what happened first... Proposal 3 was Adopted at 10 AM. New Timeline - Prop 3 adopted at 10AM. No players exist. > Timeline: >2:18--Rule 3 repealed, No players exist! Since there were a few live >proposals at that time, they all passed as they had received more FOR >votes than they needed. Not True... They were eligible for Adoption, but that doesn't mean they passed.. So no problem with legality. Between 10AM and 10:22 (when TopHeavy joins the game), TopHeavy takes the following actions. Defeat of proposal 10 Defeat of proposal 9 These two actions were illegal. Between 10AM and 10:34 (when Oloros joins the game), Oloros takes no actions. Between 10AM and 10:40 (When Xylen joins the game), Xylen takes the following action. Votes FOR proposal 13 This action was illegal. Between 10AM and 4:34PM (when Tripper joins the game), Tripper takes no acitons. So we are left with a much smaller laundry list of problems. 1 illegal vote, and 2 illegal Defeats. -TopHeavy From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 10:59:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15331 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 17:59:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 17:59:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 17:59:36 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA71772 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:59:35 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA63678 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:59:34 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Tornado Alert! - Fundamental Flaw Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:26:40 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ithmp+nqhi@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ithmp+nqhi@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062211583302.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > >2:18--Rule 3 repealed, No players exist! Since there were a few live > >proposals at that time, they all passed as they had received more FOR > >votes than they needed. > > Not True... They were eligible for Adoption, but that doesn't mean > they passed.. So no problem with legality. &&^$$#*( ?THUD THUD <--- sound of head hitting wall. For some reason I was thinking that rules take effect as soon as they _can_ be adopted, not necessarily when they are announced to be Adopted. That does make things a lot easier. (Note to self: don't do nomic stuff before coffee) > So we are left with a much smaller laundry list of problems. > > 1 illegal vote, and 2 illegal Defeats. In that case, the simpliest thing to do would be for the posting player to delete the offending messages. VML message 65 - 67 and AML message 34. No changes need to be made to the RULES list. With those actions, Points are as follows. TopHeavy +10 points Adoption of Proposal 16 Oloros +10 points for Adoption of Proposal 12 Proposals still up for voting (ie, not Adopted or Defeated) 9*, 10*, 11, 13^, 15^, 17^, 18^, 19, 20, and 21 ^Eligible for Adoption: *Eligible for Defeat: Not that bad. I will delete my improper message, and once the others have been deleted, we can proceed to muck things up again. :) Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From topheavy@s... Thu Jun 22 11:12:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15764 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 18:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 18:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 18:12:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.119] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 19:11:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:11:50 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Tornado Alert! - Fundamental Flaw Message-ID: <8itkt6+ceph@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062211583302.03938@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 153 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... > > In that case, the simpliest thing to do would be for the posting player > to delete the offending messages. > Done on my end. Next! -topheavy From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 11:26:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9809 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 18:26:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 18:26:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 18:26:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 18:26:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:26:09 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Standdown from Tornado Alert Message-ID: <8itlo1+j0r3@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062211583302.03938@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 577 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen] > > In that case, the simpliest thing to do would be for the posting player > to delete the offending messages. > > > Proposals still up for voting (ie, not Adopted or Defeated) > 9*, 10*, 11, 13^, 15^, 17^, 18^, 19, 20, and 21 > > ^Eligible for Adoption: > *Eligible for Defeat: > That's it, then? Alright. We now return you to your regular programming. At least on my channel is, our announcement to the Nomic Bulletin Board and the Net Nomic Database (Message 60), and the possible allowance of accusations against the ruleset (Message 80). -Oloros From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 11:56:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31540 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 18:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 18:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 18:56:10 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA56694 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:56:10 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA66688 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:56:09 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] publicity stunt setup Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:37:38 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8iqmsd+78k5@e...> In-Reply-To: <8iqmsd+78k5@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062212550804.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, you wrote: > For our listing on the Net Nomic Database and and posting to the > Nomic Bulletin Board, I was wondering one thing: > > What's so special about this Nomic? > > > This is what I've got: > 1) sharing of administrative duties among players > \_ attempt to remove Speaker-lock > \_ attempt to increase player interaction; The first point is especially important. I don't know of any other nomic that has effectively removed Speaker-lock. I think we should highlight that part. The other item to note is the the use of Society-Pages type theme. Light-hearted, yet open for strong actions. I think if we wait until this weekend, the Society should be on a lot firmer footing. > Naming date: 5 June 2000 (by Xylen) Oh boy, my first founding! > Founding date: 16 June 2000 (happens to be Bloomsday!) Good point. > Looking for Active Players This part needs a little more ummph. New players are cordially invited to join. Feel free to drop in for a tastefully coordinated party, or join one of the many Social groups currently being formed. > > Also, by bringing this discussion into the open, I would like to > suggest we each hold off making this posting for a week or so. I agree there. I would like to see everyone's opinion, including the Observor. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 12:37:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11752 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 19:37:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 19:37:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 19:37:53 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA40402 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:37:53 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA66450 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:37:53 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Interchanging Persons? Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:33:38 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006221336510C.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Proposal 21 contains the following paragraph. I'm not sure if I understand it's intent. As I see it, two Persons acquire identical Social Standing, and then their Standings are interchanged? What difference does that make. They are still identical. "If, as a result of a Person gaining or losing Social Standing, two Persons would have identical Social Standings, the Social Standings of the Persons are instead interchanged." Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 12:48:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3107 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 19:48:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 19:48:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 19:48:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.95] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 19:48:45 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:48:03 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Interchanging Persons? Message-ID: <8itqhj+ip7b@e...> In-Reply-To: <0006221336510C.03938@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 875 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen] > Proposal 21 contains the following paragraph. I'm not sure if I > understand it's intent. As I see it, two Persons acquire identical > Social Standing, and then their Standings are interchanged? What > difference does that make. They are still identical. > > [Prop 21] > If, as a result of a Person gaining or losing Social Standing, > two Persons would have identical Social Standings, the Social > Standings of the Persons are instead interchanged. > Looks like it hinges on the conditional. The wording might be made clearer. "identical" ought to be "equal". I am concerned with how it interacts with > [Rule 13] > If two or more Players are eligible as Trendsetters to set > the same In Word, the first one to post the new appropriate > In Word gains 1 Social Standing. > Seems to recommend two simultaneous actions. -Oloros, standing by the wall From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 13:01:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8159 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 20:01:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 20:01:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 20:01:21 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA39048 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:01:21 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA50212 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:01:20 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Interchanging Persons? Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:52:05 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8itqhj+ip7b@e...> In-Reply-To: <8itqhj+ip7b@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006221400180D.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > > [Xylen] > > Proposal 21 contains the following paragraph. I'm not sure if I > > understand it's intent. As I see it, two Persons acquire identical > > Social Standing, and then their Standings are interchanged? What > > difference does that make. They are still identical. > > > > [Prop 21] > > If, as a result of a Person gaining or losing Social Standing, > > two Persons would have identical Social Standings, the Social > > Standings of the Persons are instead interchanged. > > > Looks like it hinges on the conditional. > The wording might be made clearer. > "identical" ought to be "equal". A has 3 Social Standings B has 1 Social Standings Some action occurs that gives B 2 more Social Standing, so the end result would be: A has 1 Social Standings B has 3 Social Stanings > > I am concerned with how it interacts with > > [Rule 13] > > If two or more Players are eligible as Trendsetters to set > > the same In Word, the first one to post the new appropriate > > In Word gains 1 Social Standing. > > > Seems to recommend two simultaneous actions. As written, Prop 21 adds stuff to the begining of the Rule, so there would not be any case where there are tied Trendsetters. At least that is how I would interpet it. Each paragraph in a rule takes precedence over subsequent paragraphs. > > -Oloros, standing by the wall Xylen, hoping Oloros doesn't have his back to the wall. We don't have a firing squad yet. -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 13:04:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11052 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 20:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 20:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 20:04:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.67] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 20:04:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:04:39 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: society lines Message-ID: <8itrgn+9nc1@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 777 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" In Prop 19 are Lines considered Coins of the 2-D Currency? Could it be defined that the values given in the Coin Cost Table operate only in the direction left-to-right? i.e. 3 lines -> 1 triangle (read 'may be converted to') Any feedback on Prop 20 would be appreciated. If it shows promise, I will open discussion on appropriate summer menus. Which segues nicely to Ownership of Intellectual Property (boo! hiss! applause.) Do we consider some Rulechange ideas implicity 'ours'? in such manner that we might be upset to see something taken from a discussion thread and proposed formally. and at what level does this operate. I don't think we need a Patent Attorney, mind, but maybe the facility to share some of the points when/if a rulechange is adopted. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Thu Jun 22 13:31:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25294 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 20:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 20:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 20:31:27 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA65406 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:31:26 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA57540 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:31:26 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] society lines Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:12:52 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8itrgn+9nc1@e...> In-Reply-To: <8itrgn+9nc1@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0006221430230E.03938@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > In Prop 19 are Lines considered Coins of the 2-D Currency? > Could it be defined that the values given in the Coin Cost Table > operate only in the direction left-to-right? > i.e. 3 lines -> 1 triangle (read 'may be converted to') Yes, that was the intention. If the Proposals passes, I will make an amendment to it, to clear that up. > Any feedback on Prop 20 would be appreciated. If it shows promise, I > will open discussion on appropriate summer menus. I was looking at the list of Parties and noticed an interesting ratio. beer & pretzel----3.50 points/gain religous holiday---3.33 points/gain birthday party ----3.00 points/gain bachelor(ette) ----2.77 points/gain The bachelor(ette) party is obvioulsy the best bargain for the points spent. I expect to see quite a few of those, although getting the minimum number guests to attend may be difficult. Fortunetly that won't affect my plans. > > Which segues nicely to Ownership of Intellectual Property (boo! hiss! > applause.) Do we consider some Rulechange ideas implicity 'ours'? in > such manner that we might be upset to see something taken from a > discussion thread and proposed formally. and at what level does this > operate. I don't think we need a Patent Attorney, mind, but maybe the > facility to share some of the points when/if a rulechange is adopted. Perhaps tie it into Social Standing. A Player can complain to the Trendsetter, or maybe just the list, about the theft of a discussion idea. The thief would then lose a few Social Standings. Upon transferring points to the complainer, their Social Standing is restored. Xylen, already buying tacky paper plates, and plastic utensils. -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Thu Jun 22 14:45:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18924 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 21:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 21:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 21:45:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.119] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 21:45:33 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:45:24 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: society lines Message-ID: <8iu1dk+ft82@e...> In-Reply-To: <0006221430230E.03938@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1281 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen] > I was looking at the list of Parties and noticed an > interesting ratio. > beer & pretzel ----3.50 points/gain > religous holiday---3.33 points/gain > birthday party ----3.00 points/gain > bachelor(ette) ----2.77 points/gain > I'm sorry to admit that I am impressed by the regularity. Oh--not so regular, is it? one of the things that has been bugging me about the party-type list is that the parameters involved seem to be rather, shall we say, not random, no need to invoke the ire of the quantifiers among us, but whimsical, perhaps? only as whimsical as the proposed allocation of Social Standing by GT, I suppose. > [Xylen] > Perhaps tie it into Social Standing. A Player can complain to the > Trendsetter, or maybe just the list, about the theft of a discussion > idea. The thief would then lose a few Social Standings. Upon > transferring points to the complainer, their Social Standing is > restored. > Involves a strong-arm of sorts. I had thought about allowing a preamble to any proposed rulechange that would mark the points distrubtion to be split evenly between the proposer and any mentioned players. so that we play considerately. and maybe even begin to entangle any observers a little bit more. -Oloros, not one to stand on ceremony From topheavy@s... Thu Jun 22 17:19:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25502 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 00:19:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 00:19:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 00:19:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.93] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2000 00:18:59 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:18:58 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: ta ta Message-ID: <8iuadi+97l7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 226 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Ta ta.. just to let y'all know, I am digitially unplugged from friday- sunday every week, so i don't play during that time. So i shall ponder what sort of polygons to purchase with my vast collection of points... -topheavy From s3036845@s... Thu Jun 22 19:35:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24481 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 02:35:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 02:35:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 02:35:55 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13603 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:35:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0006221400180D.03938@X...> References: <8itqhj+ip7b@e...> <8itqhj+ip7b@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:41:13 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Interchanging Persons? From: Gallivanting Tripper >On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: >> > [Xylen] >> > Proposal 21 contains the following paragraph. I'm not sure if I >> > understand it's intent. As I see it, two Persons acquire identical >> > Social Standing, and then their Standings are interchanged? What >> > difference does that make. They are still identical. >> > >> > [Prop 21] >> > If, as a result of a Person gaining or losing Social Standing, >> > two Persons would have identical Social Standings, the Social >> > Standings of the Persons are instead interchanged. >> > >> Looks like it hinges on the conditional. >> The wording might be made clearer. >> "identical" ought to be "equal". > >A has 3 Social Standings >B has 1 Social Standings > >Some action occurs that gives B 2 more Social Standing, so the end >result would be: >A has 1 Social Standings >B has 3 Social Stanings Yup - that was my interpretation as the propser. The conditional is _very_ important! >> I am concerned with how it interacts with >> > [Rule 13] >> > If two or more Players are eligible as Trendsetters to set >> > the same In Word, the first one to post the new appropriate >> > In Word gains 1 Social Standing. >> > >> Seems to recommend two simultaneous actions. > >As written, Prop 21 adds stuff to the begining of the Rule, so there >would not be any case where there are tied Trendsetters. At least that >is how I would interpet it. Each paragraph in a rule takes precedence >over subsequent paragraphs. I didn't see the need to delete that paragraph, it's good as an escape hatch. But the new mechanic _should_ make it impossible for two Persons to have the same Social Standing. Also perhaps worthwhile to replace "Players" with "Persons" throughout Rule 13 >> -Oloros, standing by the wall Is that the Social equivalent of sitting on the fence? (G)T From dmarsh@v... Thu Jun 22 19:40:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 473 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 02:40:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 02:40:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 02:40:07 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d237.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.247]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5N2dVp34660 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3952CF3D.D902B7EF@v...> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:45:17 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Tornado Alert! References: <00062203095000.03146@X...> <00062203333401.03146@X...> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')"  

Xylen wrote:

[An excellent analysis of a Socialnomic "earthquake"]
There is one other option to consider. We can invoke the Escape Hatch,
and just fix the points for the players after they joined the game, and
allow any adopted proposal to continue to exist. That will be much
easier to do. The only thing to consider then, would be  those proposals
that were declared Defeated, but in reality had passed.
Invoking the Escape Hatch would be easier.  I encourage you to STRONGLY resist doing so.  I think it is sort of the -point- of Nomic to work your way out of messes, within the rules.  If necessary, Accuse your way out of them, but I think Discussion will reveal that Xylen's chronology is about right.  The question is, of course, then what.

Proposals probably stay in the hopper if their proposers leave the game, but votes are another story.  Perhaps all of the votes disappeared with the players.  I'd suggest that this is an appropriate question for your legal system to decide.

Xylen,
who is really enjoying this. Maybe we can make ruleset messes a subgame?
Well, in my opinion, they are.  It's called "Nomic."  :-)
 
  From dmarsh@v... Thu Jun 22 20:12:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12402 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 03:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 03:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.mx.voyager.net) (216.93.66.201) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 03:12:55 -0000 Received: from voyager.net (d213.as0.gdrp.mi.voyager.net [209.153.135.223]) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.10.1/Voyager) with ESMTP id e5N3CEp41244 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3952D6E0.A75555B6@v...> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:17:52 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] publicity stunt setup References: <8iqmsd+78k5@e...> <00062212550804.03938@X...> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dan Marsh (aka 'The Governor')"  

Xylen wrote:

I agree there. I would like to see everyone's opinion, including the
Observor.
Well, I'm more interested in seeing what you do geometrically, personally.  Social Standing can be boiled down to currency-trading, although it's got a nice feel to it.  My own Nomic is doing something that's a cross between currency-trading and a board game, but still territory that's been travelled before.

It -is- nice to see Speaker-independence, but that's becoming more common.  What I find interesting about your Nomic particularly is that you specifically rely upon the archives of your mailing-lists rather than set up a Web page for official documents -- the Webmaster could go belly-up.

There is a downside -- if a malicious player or even a non-player (say, me) posted weird stuff to "Socialnomic-RULES," it might be official, and you might have to repeal it.  Could be odd if the "weird stuff" has priority over your ability to repeal rules.
 
  From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 23 01:25:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15390 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 07:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 07:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 07:25:22 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA55624 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:25:22 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA72342 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:25:21 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: More Thunderstorms Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:09:18 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062301242002.05006@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen In todays weather, the storms continue. Although not as severe as the previous tornado's and earthquakes, todays thunderstorms still caused some damage. Reading over the VML, we seem to have a problem that is left over from the earlier frenzy. Tripper voted FOR 17a, which does't exist now. I don't recall what it became, but there is no Proposal 17a, so that vote counts for nothing. With Four Players, a proposal needs 3 FOR votes to be adopted or two AGAINST votes to be defeated. If we count Trippers 'AGAINST 17' vote, then Proposal 17 has in fact been defeated. The Adoptions is in error, and TopHeavy is guilty of a rules infraction. There is another problem with some post also. Post 118 in the VML(re prop 17 defeat) is in the thread for prop 18. Also, post 96 (proposal 21) is in the thread for prop 20. Both of these posts are improper and in violation of rules. I would suggest that Tripper delete his posts, and submit them properly. As there are no votes currently for Proposal 21, there shouldn't be any problem there. And now for a word from our sponsors.... Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 23 01:27:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8700 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 07:04:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 07:04:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 07:04:19 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA59416 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:04:18 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA81132 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:04:18 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Social Idears Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:56:13 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8ircfp+5fes@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ircfp+5fes@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062301031601.05006@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Here's a mildly interesting thought for a proposal which continues > the Social theme (ah, what would we be without a name that calls to > mind such ideas? maybe i should think of something else...) > > Proposal centers around each player founding a group that has a > dynamic membership of people... possibly later a group could hold > events which would alter membership, or increase funding... I have > no metagame effects in mind. Another thought occured to me tonight. There isn't much point to having a high Social Standing if there isn't any plebians to admire and envy us. We could add some of the necessary people as well. Trade people, police and fire personel, sports figures, and academic persons. They would make interesting guests at a Party, and could make up a large part of the organizations. Possible scenarios Xylen's Superbowl party with a star quarterback as the guest of honor Olorus Poetry Reading with a Poet Laureate. All police officers belong to the Fraternal Order of Police, a nice little club run by (G)Tripper. (Careful, or your party will be raided if you make him mad) Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 23 01:48:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2035 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 06:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 06:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 06:56:30 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA39852 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:56:29 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA78678 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:56:29 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] publicity stunt setup Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:51:41 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8iqmsd+78k5@e...> <00062212550804.03938@X...> <3952D6E0.A75555B6@v...> In-Reply-To: <3952D6E0.A75555B6@v...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062300552700.05006@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, you wrote: > Well, I'm more interested in seeing what you do geometrically, personally. I'm working on the Geometry subgame now. I should have it ready by this weekend. Just in time for (G)Tripper to spend his huge alloment of points if he can't sponsor a party. >

There is a downside -- if a malicious player or even a non-player (say, > me) posted weird stuff to "Socialnomic-RULES," it might be official, and > you might have to repeal it. Actually there is a way around that. The Escape Hatch allows the Players to decide that the weird stuff was improperly posted and then the owner of the mailing lists can be informed and the posts removed. Since a malicious (non)player can only delete their own posts, we don't need to worry about them deleting other people's posts either. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From s3036845@s... Fri Jun 23 02:18:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30962 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 07:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 07:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 07:23:37 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21171 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:23:33 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:28:55 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Against parties (P20) From: Gallivanting Tripper Although the idea sounds quite cute... - an initial problem is that attendance is moderated by private email, and thus liable for abuse - furthermore, there is as yet no system for monitoring of social standing and points changes, especially as a result of such complicated beasts as Parties still mulling over this one (G)T From oloros@b... Fri Jun 23 07:56:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22377 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 14:56:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 14:56:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 14:56:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2000 14:56:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:55:55 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 20 Message-ID: <8ivtps+kicd@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1002 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper notes: > > Although the idea sounds quite cute... > > - an initial problem is that attendance is moderated by > private email, and thus liable for abuse > I'll grant that a malicious Host might forge RSVPs from other Players, such an act could be responded to by allegations on the DML or Accusations on the VML, just like any other problem of points- allocation. > > - furthermore, there is as yet no system for monitoring > of social standing and points changes, especially as a > result of such complicated beasts as Parties > But there is no system for monitoring Rules changes either; it is up to each Player to be self-responsible enough not to get had. [from Proposal 20] On the Date of the Party, the Host must post a message to the OAML with the Subject Line "Society Pages", and the text to include the type of Party thrown, the names of all attendees (including the Host emself), and their updated Social Standing. From oloros@b... Fri Jun 23 08:11:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5221 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 15:11:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 15:11:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 15:11:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2000 15:11:38 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:11:36 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: publicity stunt setup Message-ID: <8ivun8+h32f@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062300552700.05006@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 488 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > > [the Governor] > > Well, I'm more interested in seeing what you do > > geometrically, personally. > [Xylen] > I'm working on the Geometry subgame now. I should have it > ready by this weekend. Just in time for (G)Tripper to spend > his huge alloment of points if he can't sponsor a party. > Are you including an explicit statement of the means by which points can be exchanged into currencies? Also a means, perhaps, of exchanging negative-points for anti-currencies? -Oloros From oloros@b... Fri Jun 23 08:22:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13765 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 15:22:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 15:22:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 15:22:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.112] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2000 15:22:32 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:22:26 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: open issues Message-ID: <8ivvbi+2ok5@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 204 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" By my records, the following Proposals are currently Open for Voting. Some of them may be availible for Adoption. Proposal 8 Proposal 11 Proposal 13 Proposal 20 Proposal 21 Proposal 22 Proposal 23 From oloros@b... Fri Jun 23 08:51:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21299 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 15:51:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 15:51:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 15:51:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.116] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2000 15:51:18 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:51:12 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: spun sugar castle Message-ID: <8j011g+cc8d@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1585 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Something that I thought was underdeveloped in Genomic was the Tower of Law thing. Even the Unspeakable Tower of Boing that replaced it did not get used for much. What I liked about the Tower of Law was that it suggested the use of the ruleset's table of contents as a game-board, and rewarded authorship of rules and the amendment of rules. Also, its presence demanded a numeric table of contents as an addendum to a ruleset ordered by logical-structure. Allow me to recapitulate the Tower of Law: -The numeric order of the Ruleset can be viewed as a listing of Floors of a tower. (Each Rule has a corresponding Floor, each Floor a corresponding Rule.) -Each Floor has an Owner, who is the Player who last Proposed a Rulechange that modified (or created) the Rule. I see a game akin to Snakes(Chutes) and Ladders: -Each Floor is connected to the adjacent Floors. (stairway) -A Floor is connected to any other Floor whose Rule Number is mentioned in the text of its Rule. (chute/ladder) -The Owner of a Floor may use a connection to their current Floor, moving to the connected Floor. (ladder) -A non-Owner of a Floor is subject to being moved to any Floor their current Floor is connected to. (chute!) -Any Player of the subgame may move to an adjecent Floor. (stairway) -The first Player to the Top is declared Winner and the other Players get consolation prizes. There are mechanical issues to resolve, like the timing of taking each move. I realize it is early for a second sub-game, but I figure, get started early. Comments are appreciated. -Oloros From oloros@b... Fri Jun 23 09:51:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23380 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 16:51:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 16:51:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 16:51:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.94] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2000 16:51:26 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:51:25 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: after Adopting Prop 8 Message-ID: <8j04id+mlr4@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 214 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Well, after Adopting Proposal 8, I dutifully posted the Ruleset and each Rule to the RML. The actual order in which I posted them was numeric, not that anyone would know to look at the message listing. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 23 12:36:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18584 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 19:36:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jun 2000 19:36:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 19:36:53 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA71820 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:36:52 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA37664 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:36:52 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 23 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:32:46 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062313355003.05146@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen I liked this proposal. It would make rules much easier to track. Unfortunetly, this proposal contains a reference to the OAML. With the recent change in the ruleset, OAML no longers exists. If this proposal is re-submitted with that minor change, I will vote for it. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From s3036845@s... Fri Jun 23 18:22:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18418 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2000 01:22:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jun 2000 01:22:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2000 01:22:57 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08991 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:22:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00062301242002.05006@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:28:13 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] More Thunderstorms From: Gallivanting Tripper >There is another problem with some post also. Post 118 in the VML(re >prop 17 defeat) is in the thread for prop 18. Also, post 96 >(proposal 21) is in the thread for prop 20. Both of these posts >are improper and in violation of rules. > >I would suggest that Tripper delete his posts, and submit them >properly. As there are no votes currently for Proposal 21, there >shouldn't be any problem there. Bugger. The hassles of working from POP mail! I'll do my best. Also my mailer has done funny temporal stuff to my defeats of P15, P17 and the Accusation, I received them in a nonsensical order. I'll delete and repost all of these when I get the web time (my excuse: POP mail from the Uni network is fast, Egroups however is rather slow) (G)T From s3036845@s... Fri Jun 23 18:30:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29289 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2000 01:30:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jun 2000 01:30:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2000 01:30:04 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09261 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:30:00 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00062313355003.05146@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:35:20 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Proposal 23 From: Gallivanting Tripper >I liked this proposal. It would make rules much easier to track. >Unfortunetly, this proposal contains a reference to the OAML. With the >recent change in the ruleset, OAML no longers exists. Bugger^2. a) I'll resubmit b) We need to do something about the contingency thing. I know that the Naming proposal had a contingency that un-named Proposals could be named by their adopter (taking the current load into account) but maybe we should formalise that in the ruleset so that changes made to the ruleset also affect proposals in the pipeline (when they are Adopted) Can't think exactly how to word it right now This afternoon maybe:-) (G)T From s3036845@s... Sat Jun 24 01:33:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9924 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2000 08:33:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jun 2000 08:33:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2000 08:33:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: s3036845@s... Received: from [10.1.10.124] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jun 2000 08:33:38 -0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 08:33:30 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Clarification of AML Messages 55-57 Message-ID: <8j1roq+n0ag@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 From: "Gallivanting Tripper" After checking the order these messages appeared in the archive, the chronological order should be: 57 55 56 - Accusation I don't think it's worth deleting and reposting as that would stuff the chronology up even more, what with the subsequent events and all. So the points I recommended in the Accusation are based on those in message 55, with the corrections based on the irregularities I pointed out in Proposals 14 and 17. If TopHeavy pleads Guilty, could he please research the correct points values taking into account subsequent Adoption/Rejections? Trying to claw out of this quagmire... (G)T From mctupper@h... Sat Jun 24 11:31:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13737 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2000 18:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jun 2000 18:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2000 18:31:30 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA32256 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:31:29 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA78264 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:31:29 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Logical Sub game Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:52:16 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062412302608.05146@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen One of my favorite pastimes when I'm away from my computer is logic puzzles. I have figured out a way to use these in our game. I would start out by posting the introduction that contains a few clues. Each player could spend a coin to get more clues. Those clues would be posted to the AML. For a higher price, the clues would be missing a few words when posted to the AML, but the paying player would recieve the secret words in a private email. The first player to post the correct solution would win the Logic Cup. The Logic Cup would be a travelling trophy, going to the most recent winning player. Possession of the Logic Cup would increase a player's Social Standing. If this sounds interesting as a sub game. I would be willing to write up the proposal and run the first few games. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From s3036845@s... Mon Jun 26 00:15:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5164 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 07:15:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 07:15:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 07:15:01 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26423 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:14:52 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00062412302608.05146@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:20:18 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Logical Sub game From: Gallivanting Tripper Sounds good, but the Thought Police disagree once more with the use of Private email... May I suggest another use for Coins, as an Admission Fee for Parties. i.e. the Host of a Party can specify an Admission Fee in Coins, proceeds of which may go to the Host, or perhaps to Charity (for an increase in Social Standing). As not everybody may have the required Admission Fee, it becomes a good way to exclude Pariahs from Parties. From oloros@b... Mon Jun 26 07:58:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26342 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:57:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 14:57:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:57:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2000 14:57:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:55:36 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: admission fee Message-ID: <8j7qt8+brg8@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1056 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > May I suggest another use for Coins, as an Admission Fee for Parties. > i.e. the Host of a Party can specify an Admission Fee in Coins, proceeds of > which may go to the Host, or perhaps to Charity (for an increase in Social > Standing). As not everybody may have the required Admission Fee, it > becomes a good way to exclude Pariahs from Parties. > I feel that one should have to donate the party to society. Well, I can see an oprion to make it a 'charity gala' with a political or charitable theme, for increased cost and standing might be a good idea. The way I see it is that the whole society-party-thing is a race to gain higher and higher social standing, kind of like a ponzi scheme. Maybe that means encouraging everyone (i.e. penalties for not) to throw a party twice per season, or something. Then again, I should probably stuff my foot in my mouth and let the idea run its nomic course. I don't want to act like I am monopolizing it, or anything. -Oloros From oloros@b... Mon Jun 26 08:20:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27693 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 15:20:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 15:20:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 15:20:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2000 15:20:56 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:20:44 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Props 29, 26, 23 Message-ID: <8j7scc+11n2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 737 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" The nature of patchwork. In Prop 29 I like the creation of a new class of proposals, ones that amend very little (point-corrections) for little cost and return on the part of the proposer. My problem with it is that it targets the proposal itself, while it is in the proposal hopper, rather than a rule that is enacted into the ruleset already. This makes proposals either subject to flux during their voting period or subject to extra rounds of voting in order to pass. That said, I do not like the example "patch", Prop 26, of Prop 23, as it relies overmuch on the timing of the adoption of each proposal; simultaneity being something we wanted to leave behind in this nomic. I do not find it an adequate fix. -Oloros From oloros@b... Mon Jun 26 08:29:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11540 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 15:29:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 15:29:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 15:29:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.69] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2000 15:29:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:28:59 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Logical Sub game Message-ID: <8j7srr+v6k1@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062412302608.05146@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 391 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > One of my favorite pastimes when I'm away from my computer is logic > puzzles. I have figured out a way to use these in our game. > This could be a lot of fun, particularly if it's thematically oriented (to whatever we orient ourselves). I expect it would be difficult to equalize the values of the hints themselves, though. -Oloros From oloros@b... Mon Jun 26 14:04:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4060 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 21:04:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 21:04:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 21:04:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2000 21:04:26 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:04:20 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: re: Proposal 21 Message-ID: <8j8ggk+nsku@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 148 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Proposal 21 seems to be missing from all lists. GT, have you withdrawn it? Do you plan to reintroduce a proposal with similar substance? -Oloros From s3036845@s... Tue Jun 27 10:53:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13086 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 15:35:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 15:35:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 15:35:24 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00772 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:11:40 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8j7r8r+e962@e...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:17:14 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: contingency From: Gallivanting Tripper Good idea, but obviously needs to be extensively reworded to make it into SocialNomic. I would argue that P29 is a good start. >359. Contingency trees. (amends 356) >Players may designate that a given proposal will only take effect if >a given other proposal is accepted or rejected. If the condition >placed on the first proposal is not achieved, the player receives no >points for these proposals. Players may make as many proposals as >they wish, provided that no combination of votes on these proposals >could cause more than the number of proposals allowed by Rule 304 to >pass. >Proposed by Mike as P353, amended by Thomas to 356 and Mike to 359, >28 July 1999. > >Perhaps if we had intellectual ownership implemented, the Governor >would have to propose something like this. > >-Oloros > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! >1. Fill in the brief application >2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds >3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR >http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/10/_/_/_/962031967/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >Socialnomic-DML-unsubscribe@egroups.com From s3036845@s... Tue Jun 27 10:54:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13453 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 15:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 15:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 15:35:28 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28967 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:59:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8j7scc+11n2@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:05:08 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Props 29, 26, 23 From: Gallivanting Tripper >The nature of patchwork. > >In Prop 29 I like the creation of a new class of proposals, ones that >amend very little (point-corrections) for little cost and return on >the part of the proposer. Not really, it's a "contingency" thing to stop what happened to P23 when P8 was adopted, i.e. having its ground shot out from under it. Patching such a proposal would enable it to land on the revised airstrip, so to speak >My problem with it is that it targets the >proposal itself, while it is in the proposal hopper, rather than a >rule that is enacted into the ruleset already. This makes proposals >either subject to flux during their voting period or subject to extra >rounds of voting in order to pass. No, I'm not so sure that it fluxes up proposals. Patching a proposal has no direct effect on the Adoption of that proposal. _If_ the players decide that a Patch is necessary, they need to hold up voting and adopting the original propsal until the Patch is rushed through. >That said, I do not like the example "patch", Prop 26, of Prop 23, as >it relies overmuch on the timing of the adoption of each proposal; >simultaneity being something we wanted to leave behind in this nomic. >I do not find it an adequate fix. Well why did you vote FOR it then? And my inbox also notes that you voted FOR proposal 23 but I can't find it in the archive. Did you delete that vote? The rules are unclear on the when messages could/should be deleted. Perhaps I should propose a Rule0-proposal such as: "A message to the AML, VML or RULES is legal if and only if it is explicitly permitted by the Ruleset. Illegal messages have no game effect and must be deleted. Legal messages may not be deleted." ()T From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 27 11:20:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10804 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 17:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m5.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 17:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 17:56:42 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA34900 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:12:05 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA77790 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:12:05 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Accusation - Proposal 17 has in fact been DEFEATED Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:41:57 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8jak9l+kmls@e...> In-Reply-To: <8jak9l+kmls@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062711110001.22051@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > --- In Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper > wrote: > May I draw topheavy's attention to the fact that Proposal 17 now has 2 > FOR > and 2 AGAINST votes, and has been Defeated, not Adopted as he claimed > > Furthermore he didn't give me points for voting against Proposal 14 Well I have finally had time to go thru and sort this mess out. Here is what I have for the points as of today. I wish to emphaise that these points are based on posts to the VML The AML still contains references to Proposal 17's passage. (All Players start with 0 points.) TopHeavy +10 Proposal 16 passing +10 Proposal 18 passing +10 Voting against 18 +3 Admistration for 18 +10 Voting against 19 +3 Administration for 19 +10 Proposal 8 passing +10 Proposal 22 passing ============================= +66 Total to date Oloros +10 Proposal 12 passing -10 Proposal 9 failing +10 Proposal 14 passing -10 Proposal 15 failing -10 Proposal 17 failing +3 Administration for 8 ============================= -7 Total to date Xylen +10 Proposal 19 passing -10 Proposal 13 failing +2 Administration for 13 +3 Administration for 22 ============================== +5 Total to date Tripper +10 Vote against 14 +2 Administration for 15 +2 Administration for 17 ============================== +14 Total to date Player Points ------------------ TopHeavy +66 Oloros -7 Xylen +5 Tripper +14 Now for one final matter. As there was an Accusation made, we need to track points as a result of Rule 12. Since the posts to the VML stating that Proposal 17 had passed has been removed, I am taking that to be an admission of guilt on the part of Top Heavy. However, he has not made a statement to the AML admitting his guilt. If he were to do that now, he would lose 10 points. However, if Tripper proceeds to make a formal Accusation, then either Top Heavy or Tripper would lose 25 points. On the otherhand, there is nothing to demand that Tripper actually put the Accusation up for a vote. It seems to be a gamble on Top Heavys part. He can do nothing further and hope that Tripper doesn't make a full Accusation. Then he does not need to lose any points at all. However, if Tripper does make the Accusation, and it is passed, then Top Heavy would lose 25 points. Considering the removal of the post to the VML about proposal 17 passing, this would be indicate that he feels that he would lose the Accusation. It is now up to Tripper to decide the next phase of this action. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From s3036845@s... Tue Jun 27 11:50:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 499 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 15:35:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 15:35:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 15:35:16 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00616 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:10:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8j8ggk+nsku@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:59 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] re: Proposal 21 From: Gallivanting Tripper >Proposal 21 seems to be missing from all lists. GT, have you >withdrawn it? Do you plan to reintroduce a proposal with similar >substance? Whoops - I deleted it from P20's thread, and must have forgot to repost it. Done now. From mctupper@h... Tue Jun 27 13:19:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12444 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 19:44:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 19:44:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 19:44:39 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA34832 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:15:28 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA48520 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:15:28 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Props 29, 26, 23 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:49:18 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8j7scc+11n2@e...> In-Reply-To: <8j7scc+11n2@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00062710142300.22051@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen I too have problems with Prop 29. Specifically, one sentence. "A Patch may not be Adopted after the Proposal specified in its Subject Line has been Adopted." The whole timing thing is bothersome. What would make more sense, is for a patch to be used as a modification to the orginal proposal and not a seperate proposal itself. Votes would count for both of them at once, and they would pass as one unit. As it is now, the proposal could pass, and the patch doesn't. That doesn't seem to make much sense. If Players approve the proposal without the patch, then the problems are either minor, or the players aren't paying attention. In either case, a simple proposal made later to modify the rule, would work just fine. Now, if Players are voting against the prop, and the proposer is concerned that it will fail, simply remove the proposal from voting, and submit the new-improved proposal with patch applied. That last sentence does bring up a point to be considered. We have all kinds of rules about submitting a proposal, but we all know how easy it is to simply remove a proposal. The proposer simply deletes that message, and *poof* it's gone. The players who voted for it may be upset it is gone, but if they really liked it, it can be resubmitted again. That gets back to the 'intellectual property' problem mentioned earlier. I think we should dicuss that problem further. As for patches, we don't need them. We have no limits on the number of proposals submitted, and there is no reason why a flawed proposal cannot be removed and re-submitted with fixes. If the proposer doesn't do it, and others feel that it needs patching, it can be modified after it becomes a rule or else defeated and re-submitted with the changes. Xylen -- Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during transmission. From oloros@b... Tue Jun 27 13:32:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8415 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 19:56:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 19:56:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c0mailgw07.prontomail.com) (216.163.180.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 19:56:07 -0000 Received: from c6web102 (216.163.178.10) by c0mailgw07.prontomail.com (NPlex 4.5.049) id 3946B1890016B4BE; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:56:02 -0700 X-Version: eb 6.0.2329.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:57:59 -0700 X-Priority: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: buggy nature X-Mailer: Web Based Pronto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Oloros the Blue" Having problems accesing eGroups this early afternoon, but I wanted to reply to GT on deletions. Yes, I had Voted for Prop 26, the patch. I deleted my Vote-message, as later reflection changed my mind as to whether or not it was a the correct means to fix the OAML/AML problem in Prop 23. Those reasons I outlined earlier in the mailing list. Here is my preference for a solution: Patches are proposals to change a previously proposed Rule-Change. They are Voted upon seperately, and must be Adopted like a Rule- Change, with the Adopter posting a new traget Proposal after the Patch passes. A Patch may not be applied to an already Adopted or Defeated Proposal. The application of a Patch nullifies all Votes already attached to a Proposal. I did delete my own Vote FOR Prop 26. It would be a good thing to define just what kinds of messages are deletable by their sender. I think that Proposals should be deletable at the very least, and will submit such a Rule-Change presently. -Oloros oloros@b... Get your Free Email at http://www.britannica.com From oloros@b... Tue Jun 27 15:07:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14522 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 22:07:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 22:07:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 22:07:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.67] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Jun 2000 22:07:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:07:44 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: patchwork Message-ID: <8jb8jg+rsgv@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062710142300.22051@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3111 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > > As for patches, we don't need them. We have no limits on the > number of proposals submitted, and there is no reason why a > flawed proposal cannot be removed and re-submitted with fixes. > If the proposer doesn't do it, and others feel that it needs > patching, it can be modified after it becomes a rule or else > defeated and re-submitted with the changes. > This, I think is the final argument. However, not having thought of it, I worked on the following just after lunch today: A Patch is a proposed change to a proposed Rule-Change that is Open for Voting at the time the Patch is proposed. Any Player may post a Patch to the VML with the subject line "Proposal [n] Patch [x]" where [n] is the integer of the Proposal that is targeted by the Patch, and [x] is an integer one greater than the most recently posted Patch to that Proposal. Following the post to the VML, a message must be posted to the AML with the subject line "Patch [x] to Proposal [n] Open for Voting". The body of this message should be identical to that posted to the VML. An example of a proper Vote for a Patch with subject line "Proposal [n] Patch [x]" would be "Re: Proposal [n] Patch [x] - VOTE", where VOTE is a permissible Vote as described in Rule 5. When a Patch can be Adopted, any Player (known as the Adopter) may adopt the Patch by taking the following steps: 1) Post a Reply to each of the original Patch and the targeted Rule- change in the VML, adding the phrase "- ADOPTED" to the subject line. The body of the message should be empty. 2) Post a message to the AML with the subject line "Patch [x] to Proposal [n] ADOPTED" where [n] is the number assigned to the targeted Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. The body of this message must list the Total Points of all Players. 3) Post a message to the VML with the subject line "Proposal [n].[x]" where [n] is the number assigned to the targeted Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. The body of this message must be the text of the proposed Rule-Change, as specified by the Patch. 4) Post a message to the AML with the subject line "Proposal [n].[x] Open for Voting" where [n] is the number assigned to the targeted Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. The body of this message must be identical to that posted to the VML. When a Patch can be Defeated, any Player may declare it Defeated by taking the following steps: 1) Post a Reply to the original Patch in the VML adding the phrase "- DEFEATED" to the subject line. The body of the message should be empty. 2) Post a message to the AML with the subject line "Patch [n] to Proposal [x] Defeated" where [n] is the number assigned to the targeted Rule-Change, and [x] is the number assigned to the Patch. The body of this message must be identical to that posted to the VML. A Patched Rule-Change retains no Votes from its prior version(s). The Adoption or Defeat of a Patched Rule-Change awards no Points to the Player who originally Proposed it. From topheavy@s... Tue Jun 27 17:28:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30963 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2000 00:28:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Jun 2000 00:28:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jun 2000 00:28:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Jun 2000 00:28:54 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:28:51 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Accusation - Proposal 17 has in fact been DEFEATED Message-ID: <8jbgs3+atv3@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062711110001.22051@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 961 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... > > It seems to be a gamble on Top Heavys part. He can do nothing further > and hope that Tripper doesn't make a full Accusation. Then he does not > need to lose any points at all. However, if Tripper does make the > Accusation, and it is passed, then Top Heavy would lose 25 points. > Considering the removal of the post to the VML about proposal 17 > passing, this would be indicate that he feels that he would lose the > Accusation. > Actually it is because i am swamped with the horrid thing Work... I took the messages down so as to not cause confusion, but I didn't have time to retroactively figure out everyone's points, and Tripper had requested that i do so if i pleaded guilty. Since it wasn't just a quick message, i didn't have the time to do it. Since i figure we are all willing to go by your point calculation, i will go post my admission of guilt now.. but i can't do the retroactive point calc myself at this point. -topheavy From mctupper@h... Wed Jun 28 01:37:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20050 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2000 08:37:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Jun 2000 08:37:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jun 2000 08:37:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mctupper@h... Received: from [10.1.10.65] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Jun 2000 08:36:48 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:36:40 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Accusation Message-ID: <8jcdeo+p2qj@e...> In-Reply-To: <00062711110001.22051@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 884 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Xylen " I'm surprised that Moderators don't have grey hair. Keeping track of something simple like points is hard enough in this game. I was tracking them in messages, but I gave up. Now there are 4 database tables in the AML list. They are set up to track points, coins and Social Staning. I got as many points in as I could figure out, but my numbers don't match anyone elses. (Well, my data and Trippers data). The databases are set up for anyone who is a subsciber to modify the data, so feel free to correct the points. Just a couple reminders---The item Number column is needed to track things in something resembling date-time order. If you need to add something in the middle, just use decimal numbers (ie, 2.5 is between 2 and 3). Please add comments so it is easy to see what was done for what reason. Xylen, who will now write up a few proposals so we can muck things up again. From oloros@b... Wed Jun 28 08:52:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9786 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2000 15:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Jun 2000 15:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jun 2000 15:52:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Jun 2000 15:51:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:51:57 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: wednesday Message-ID: <8jd6ut+aof4@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 516 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" I am of the opinion that Prop 23 should be withdrwn and reposted, rather than voted through and then followed by Prop 26. I apologize for appearing to be a points-monger at this stage of the game. I am currently working on a menu listing for the society parties of summer, please have your seersucker suit pressed, and your white dinner jacket sized in anticipation, what shall be a marvelous summer of recreation. Also formalizing my plans for a tower-run, to start once we acheive 20 Rules or so. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Wed Jun 28 19:13:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18730 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 02:13:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jun 2000 02:13:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 02:13:40 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23501 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:13:36 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8jcdeo+p2qj@e...> References: <00062711110001.22051@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:19:05 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Accusation From: Gallivanting Tripper Hmm - I'm against, in principle, keeping data off the mailing lists, simply because it's not explicitly catered for in the Rules, and everything else is. For points and coins, there is a quite simple mechanism for keeping track of them on the AML itself - I'm not sure about social standing though - perhaps this should be fixed before the SS mechanics finally come through. Lastly, we can always delete some of the excess scoring systems if they're too much trouble (the Taxman is an excellent idea, btw) >I'm surprised that Moderators don't have grey hair. Keeping track of >something simple like points is hard enough in this game. I was >tracking them in messages, but I gave up. Now there are 4 database >tables in the AML list. They are set up to track points, coins and >Social Staning. I got as many points in as I could figure out, but my >numbers don't match anyone elses. (Well, my data and Trippers data). >The databases are set up for anyone who is a subsciber to modify the >data, so feel free to correct the points. > >Just a couple reminders---The item Number column is needed to track >things in something resembling date-time order. If you need to add >something in the middle, just use decimal numbers (ie, 2.5 is between >2 and 3). Please add comments so it is easy to see what was done for >what reason. > >Xylen, >who will now write up a few proposals so we can muck things up again. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere! >Visit Firetalk.com - click below. >http://click.egroups.com/1/5479/10/_/_/_/962181421/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >Socialnomic-DML-unsubscribe@egroups.com From s3036845@s... Wed Jun 28 19:18:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8256 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 02:18:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jun 2000 02:18:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 02:18:41 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24117 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:18:36 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8jd6ut+aof4@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:24:10 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] wednesday From: Gallivanting Tripper >I am of the opinion that Prop 23 should be withdrwn and reposted, >rather than voted through and then followed by Prop 26. I apologize >for appearing to be a points-monger at this stage of the game. [Death or Glory] - I'd rather see P23 and P26 fail (along with P29). I'm heartily against the concept of archive-deletion. (so I voted against 2nd thoughts) (BUT I'm working on a modification of Rule 12 that will make it more explicit regarding legals postings and deletions) From s3036845@s... Wed Jun 28 22:55:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15115 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 05:55:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jun 2000 05:55:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 05:54:59 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15401 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:54:54 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:00:23 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Surreal Society From: Gallivanting Tripper In a surreal twist, Dan (the Governor) is now the Alpha Trendsetter, but since he's not a Player, all he has to do is submit an In Word to the AML every 2 weeks or so and he can't be knocked off his perch (Parties Pending of course...) And note, even though Dan's not a Player, the game is keeping stats on him, and will change its attitude to him as those stats change. Perhaps time to stop being an Observer? (G)T From s3036845@s... Thu Jun 29 22:04:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27439 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2000 05:04:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Jun 2000 05:04:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2000 05:04:28 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22172 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:04:21 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:09:59 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Dill From: Gallivanting Tripper I appear to have posted two "Proposal 35"s - the second one I have reposted as Proposal 36 and will delete the offending 35 asap (G)T From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 30 00:46:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23910 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2000 07:46:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Jun 2000 07:46:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2000 07:46:05 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA42302 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:46:04 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA38312 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:46:04 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Proposal 30??? Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:21:54 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00063001445701.27894@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Well, with no votes besides my own, I am assuming that people are waiting to see how it will work. Since no one has voted against it, there can't be that much wrong with it. So to ease every ones cursiosity, here is the sort of thing that I am thinking about. If there are any concerns or comments, feel free to blast away. ===================================================== Subject: Game of Logic Begins Performing Points of Light Torrance and four of his neighbors are single or widowed men who have recently retired. All of them investigated different activities for their retirement, including travel, starting their own business, or going back to school. Eventually, however, each of them volunteered to work in some program that would benefit the community or world at large. From the following clues, match each person with the activity he has accepted (one chose to be a consultant on manufacturing processes), in which organization, and who sponsors the organization (other than the Peace Corps and National Executive Service Corps (NESC) who are both organization and sponsor in this puzzle, so match themselves). There are seven clues to help you solve this puzzle. Any Player may transfers 1 Triangle to Xylen for a clue. The clue will be posted as a reply to this message, and will be available for all Persons to see. Only those Players who have paid for a clue are eligible to win the Lewis Carroll Memorial Logic Cup. To win the Cup, you must be the first Player to post the correct solution to this puzzle. In addition to this finely crafted (and very gaudy) silver Cup, the winner will recieve a shiny new Hexagon. In addition, a Pentagon will be transferred to a Person of the winners choosing (Good chance to suck up to the losers who may have a Party planned that the winner wishes to attended) ========================================================== Xylen -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one,but the program has to really, really want to change. From oloros@b... Fri Jun 30 08:20:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9415 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2000 15:19:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Jun 2000 15:19:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2000 15:19:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.33] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Jun 2000 16:19:44 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:19:37 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 30 Message-ID: <8jidq9+cjeu@e...> In-Reply-To: <00063001445701.27894@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 729 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Xylen has written a proposal that promises much oomny good fun. I have a single caveat, however; I do not like the idea of an admission price into the game. I would not mind if the Wink of the puzzle were to be awarded a flat fee, upon successful completion of the puzzle by a player, and I think that players should be charged for clues; I do not think that the Wink should gather money from the Players. A seperate fund, perhaps a non-person entity, jointly governed, that could store the money, pay out the prizes, and maybe, if all agree, throw a party. Otherwise, a very oomny proposal. I should do something similar with the parties, give the updated party types. It may be wednesday before I can do so. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Fri Jun 30 11:49:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7956 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2000 18:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Jun 2000 18:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2000 18:49:46 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA67072 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:49:46 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA61190 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:49:45 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Proposal 30 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:27:19 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8jidq9+cjeu@e...> In-Reply-To: <8jidq9+cjeu@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00063012483801.28912@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Proposal 30 itself is very open ended to allow for various types of games. It is up to each Wink to determine things like admission and prize distribution. Orginally, I had intended for the proceeds from the clues and admissions (if any) would go to a charitable organization. I suppose I should write up a proposal to specify such organizations and their actions. Quick trivia question---What is the significance of the term 'Wink' for the game master? Xylen, yes, I know I didn't use 'that' word. Just one more message, and I will be able to mess up any Party held. -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one,but the program has to really, really want to change. From mctupper@h... Sun Jul 02 14:53:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3380 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 21:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Jul 2000 21:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 21:53:28 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA56678 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:53:27 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA73722 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:53:27 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Institutions Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:44:22 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070215521700.31126@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Just a few random thoughts on possible uses for Institutions Banks, credit agencies, or even insurance.--To provide loans, savings accounts, or monetary protection for events Gambling Comission--To control gambling and other games where currency is transferred Newspaper/magazine--deals with the announcements, publications and publicity Police/Fire--raids on 'bad' parties or protection against theft/fire Churches--Maybe re-create the Genomic type of religion or something similar Depending on how this game proceeds, the proposal will allow a large variety of such institutions that may prove useful in the future. Of course, even if we want to go more with the 'communist' theme, the institution will be different. My examples above are based on a 'society' type theme. Xylen, Pariah of Socialnomic -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one,but the program has to really, really want to change. From s3036845@s... Mon Jul 03 00:07:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32538 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 07:07:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 07:07:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 07:07:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: s3036845@s... Received: from [10.1.10.125] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Jul 2000 07:07:30 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:03:33 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Institutions Message-ID: <8jpds5+pq40@e...> In-Reply-To: <00070215521700.31126@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1938 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Gallivanting Tripper" A most Oomny idea, and one with the flexibility to encompass Winking and other assorted subgames. e.g. set up an Institution known as the Logic Challenge Club, to which Players/Persons can pay money for the chance of the total Prize If this gets through, I have a few ideas for core Institutions that have extra powers (ie require extra Rules) * Charity - an Institution that accepts donations, gives them out to the Poor, and awards Social Standing to the donor * The State - an Institution that collects Tax, and perhaps runs a State Lottery with the proceeds I would also like to see some Institutions approach the status of Persons/Players, i.e. have Voting rights, Social Standing, and the ability to attend Parties. PS I think that this game needs a few more Players to carry on its critical mass. I suggest that as soon as I enact the Naming conventions (shortly) I shall post an publicity stunt to the Nomic Bulletin Board, and Net Nomic Database, as previously discussed. Cheers, GT --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > Just a few random thoughts on possible uses for Institutions > > Banks, credit agencies, or even insurance.--To provide loans, > savings accounts, or monetary protection for events > > Gambling Comission--To control gambling and other games where currency > is transferred > > Newspaper/magazine--deals with the announcements, publications and > publicity > > Police/Fire--raids on 'bad' parties or protection against theft/fire > > Churches--Maybe re-create the Genomic type of religion or > something similar > > Depending on how this game proceeds, the proposal will allow a large > variety of such institutions that may prove useful in the future. Of > course, even if we want to go more with the 'communist' theme, the > institution will be different. My examples above are based on a > 'society' type theme. > > Xylen, > Pariah of Socialnomic From mctupper@h... Mon Jul 03 09:35:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7653 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 16:35:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 16:35:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 16:35:53 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA42390 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:35:52 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA65594 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:35:51 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Institutions Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:30:35 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8jpds5+pq40@e...> In-Reply-To: <8jpds5+pq40@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070310344100.13939@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > PS I think that this game needs a few more Players to carry on its > critical mass. I suggest that as soon as I enact the Naming > conventions (shortly) I shall post an publicity stunt to the Nomic > Bulletin Board, and Net Nomic Database, as previously discussed. I think your right. This past week was rather slow. Even the Govenor has been silent. We seem to be running out of ideas. A few more players could really make things interesting. It is always a bit slow during the summer for nomics, but if we can get a few more people involved in the game now, it will be strong enough to handle the influx of new players that will arrive in the fall. Pariah -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one, but the program has to really, really want to change. From mctupper@h... Thu Jul 06 01:08:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5486 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 08:08:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 08:08:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 08:08:06 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA35828 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:08:05 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA35762 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:08:05 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Watch out for avalnches! Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:04:02 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070602065100.19322@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Since things seemed to be slowing down, and players are running out of new ideas, I have added Socialnomic to the netnomic database and posted an advertisment to the nomic bulletin board. Things seem to be working well with just the four (five counting the Gov), so it seems safe to let the hordes in. Xylen -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one, but the program has to really, really want to change. From oloros@b... Thu Jul 06 09:38:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20580 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 16:38:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 16:38:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 16:38:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.67] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2000 16:38:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:38:03 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 38 Message-ID: <8k2clb+br2g@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1042 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" [from Prop 38] An Action is defined as the posting of a message to, or deletion of a message from, the VML, AML or RML. It is Illegal to post an Illegal message, or to delete a Legal message. I feel that there are two types of message that a Player ought to be allowed to delete. Both of them are posts to the VML. A Proposal that continues to exist in the VML without gaining enough Votes for its Adoption or Defeat is, in effect, a time-bomb that could, wreck havoc by affecting parts of the Ruleset that were not yet imagined at the time the Proposal was originally posted. Or just unwrite a decent change. I think we need some means to eradicate such abandoned proposals, without great penalty to their author. This might not be a simple deletion of them from the VML, but that would be the intended effect. A Vote that is made upon a Proposal that has not yet been closed ought to be changable (deletable) by the Voting Player. This may represent the solution to the abandoned proposal problem outlined above. -Oloros From oloros@b... Thu Jul 06 11:03:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12174 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 18:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 18:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 18:03:24 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.32] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2000 18:03:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:03:21 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: thursday Message-ID: <8k2hl9+qmjd@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1470 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" I have posted a new version of the long-anticipated Social Engagements proposal (prop 40). what I see is that a rule like this most oomny proposal would govern the rules of engagement, while each seasonal period, someone would propose a specific set of parties that are fashionable (prop 41). the Black Tie Affairs (prop 42) are so entrenched as to be nearly immutable. both of these proposals I find quite oomny, as I wrote them. It becomes apparent that a certain player, who shall remain indited, has taken on the baleful office of the Taxman, much to the rejoicing of the people. I would mutter audibly that the aforementioned has been skimming off the top, and state that there should be stricter controls (prop 43) over just how much the Taxman is paid as the agent of our discomfort. I wish there were an appropriate word I could use to describe the antics of the Taxman, however I shall confine myself to stating that I think that the proposal in question is an oomny way to address my concerns. We have bandied about the idea of acknowledging others for our proposal ideas, and, the (non)presence of (non)player Entities. Prop 44 is an oomny way to bring these two ideas together. perhaps it will also accelerate the revision of previously posted proposals, as we will have a way to avoid stepping upon each other's feet so heavily. Kevan, welcome to the splinter party, I hope you join SocialNomic, and have a real oomny time. -Oloros From topheavy@s... Thu Jul 06 11:20:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22272 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 18:20:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 18:20:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 18:20:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2000 18:20:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:20:00 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Prop 45 reasoning plus social standing Message-ID: <8k2ikg+i9o2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1006 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... I noticed that the time limitation on points doesn't really make sense with the tax-man, so i thought we could get rid of it. Also, I notice that the final paragraph in Rule 13 might be a bit heavy handed (must provide reasoning for all changes) and possibly not often enough. I have absolutely no idea what the current social standings are, and I don't want to try and figure it out. Perhaps we need to streamline the process somehow. Unfortunately i don't have any super ideas on that front, Though i did have the idea that perhaps social standing should be voluntary... i.e. social standing is only reduced if a message is posted. So failure to use the proper 'in' word will only reduce your standing if someone sends the message to the AML detailing your loss. And such a message must be within 7 days of the offense (or activity). This would mean that social standing will only change when a person causes it to change.. which seems proper to me. What do y'all think? -TopHeavy From mctupper@h... Thu Jul 06 11:45:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6224 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 18:45:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 18:45:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 18:45:30 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15832 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:45:29 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA56552 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:45:29 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Prop 38 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:24:53 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8k2clb+br2g@e...> In-Reply-To: <8k2clb+br2g@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070612441500.21331@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > A Vote that is made upon a Proposal that has not yet been closed > ought to be changable (deletable) by the Voting Player. This may > represent the solution to the abandoned proposal problem outlined > above. I am strongly opposed to allowing a Player to delete their vote from an unclosed proposal. If the vote message is deleted, then there is no way to know that the player has not voted. In effect, they can vote again. Currently the rules allow for a single vote on each proposal. By allowing a vote to be removed, that player can later change his mind and vote again, possibly differently than the original vote, thus multiple votes. I understand the problem of a 'lost' proposal. I happen to have one that is just sitting around. Since I happen to like it, I am not going to remove it (even if the rules would allow that). My suggestion is to re-word rule 5 to say something like "Each player has a maximum of one vote published for each proposal, where published is a post to the VML" That would allow a player to change their mind, as long as there is only one vote from that player at any given time for the proposal in question. However, they must make a post to the AML stating they have changed or removed their vote. As far as removing a proposal, we need to change rule 2 perhaps. Adding a paragraph something like this: "Any Rule-Change can be removed by the author of the rule-change. the author must post a message to the AML with the subject 'Proposal [n] is Erased' . A similar message must also be posted to the VML. After both of these posts have been made, the author of the proposal may delete thier proposal from the VML." Append to the last sentence of rule 2 a phrase such as "and it has not been Erased". Unfortunetly, I don't have the time to work up such proposals right now. If no one else has the time either, I will make these proposals this weekend. If you do use my ideas, a small donation of points would be appreciated. Xylen (Social Standing of -2) ps. Since changing a vote or erasing a proposal can be confusing to players and observors, perhaps some sort of Social Penalty for making such changes? -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one,but the program has to really, really want to change. From mctupper@h... Thu Jul 06 12:01:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17691 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 19:01:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 19:01:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 19:01:03 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA32920 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:01:02 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA85680 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:01:02 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Prop 45 reasoning plus social standing Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:44:44 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8k2ikg+i9o2@e...> In-Reply-To: <8k2ikg+i9o2@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070612594801.21331@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > I noticed that the time limitation on points doesn't really make > sense with the tax-man, so i thought we could get rid of it. Good idea. The points still dissapear, but with the Tax man we know where they are going. > i.e. social standing is only reduced if a message is posted. So > failure to use the proper 'in' word will only reduce your standing if > someone sends the message to the AML detailing your loss. And such a > message must be within 7 days of the offense (or activity). This > would mean that social standing will only change when a person causes > it to change.. which seems proper to me. Considering that Social Standing in RL is sometimes falsefied, I think we should allow each Player to track and publish their own version of their Social Standing. Any Player could claim to have a Standing of +10, and thus get invited to all the best Parties, but once someone figures out that the Player has falsely claimed a higher SS than they are entitled to, they must suffer the consequences. There are certain things in the Rules that grant gain or loss of SS, so anybody could track the official Standing if they wanted. But if no one wants to do so, a Player can continue to enjoy the benifits of the false SS. A possible recourse would be an article in the Social Pages(post to the AML) stating that so-and-so is not the Earl of Sedwich, but is an imposter, with a full rendering of the evidence. Then the imposter could get un-invited to any parties, and Players could refuse to attend any party held by the false Earl, thus afffecting their SS as well as thier financial standings for a failed party. Fortunetly, these actions do not require any changes to the ruleset. Social Standing is Gamedata, so posting the correct SS is possible. When the assortment of Parties is passed, the un-invite or refusal to attend a party can be accomplished within those rules. btw, any thoughts on titles that go with assorted SS? Xylen, Pariah (SS of -2) -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one,but the program has to really, really want to change. From oloros@b... Thu Jul 06 12:30:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24772 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 19:30:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 19:30:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 19:30:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2000 19:30:56 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:30:52 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 45 reasoning plus social standing Message-ID: <8k2mpc+mbk0@e...> In-Reply-To: <8k2ikg+i9o2@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1568 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > a Player can continue to enjoy the benifits of the false SS. > A possible recourse would be an article in the Social Pages > (post to the AML) stating that so-and-so is not the Earl of > Sedwich, but is an imposter, with a full rendering of the > evidence. > That might be fun. > [Xylen] > any thoughts on titles that go with assorted SS? > I think that once the Parties get running, our Social Standings will constantly increase. Perhaps titles based on relative Social Standing would be best. > [TopHeavy] > Also, I notice that the final paragraph in Rule 13 might be a bit > heavy handed (must provide reasoning for all changes) and possibly > not often enough. I have absolutely no idea what the current social > standings are, and I don't want to try and figure it out. > It's all pretty voluntary, as I see it. If you want to dock someone a few Standing points, post the update after you catch 'em not expressing themselves properly. The 'reason' should probably reference the specific (if not obvious) precedent for your new table "time for a new table", "b/c you didn't use the word 'runny- toadstool' last week in message 554", or whatever. Social Standing is currently: Oloros: 8 The Governor: 5 TopHeavy: 3 Tripper: 2 Xylen: 1 Such a listing is not actually GameData, as it has been posted only to the DML, not to an official organ of SocialNomic. Errors might have been introduced to the benefit or detriment of others. As of 28/06/2000, Social Standing was: The Governor: 5 Oloros: 4 TopHeavy: 3 Tripper: 2 Xylen: 1 -Oloros From s3036845@s... Fri Jul 07 01:04:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22939 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 08:04:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 08:04:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 08:04:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: s3036845@s... Received: from [10.1.10.31] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2000 08:04:48 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:04:48 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 45 reasoning plus social standing Message-ID: <8k42v0+ue4i@e...> In-Reply-To: <8k2mpc+mbk0@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3935 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Gallivanting Tripper" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Oloros the Blue" wrote: > > a Player can continue to enjoy the benifits of the false SS. > > A possible recourse would be an article in the Social Pages > > (post to the AML) stating that so-and-so is not the Earl of > > Sedwich, but is an imposter, with a full rendering of the > > evidence. Aargh! I have a bizarre hallucination that this was the whole point of regulating Game Data posts and Accusations. We had enough trouble digging ourselves out of our one and only previous accusation, so the concept of Players _deliberately_ obfuscating Game Data seems rather suicidal. I'm considering another rather anal proposal based on P38, which would be along the lines of "Game Data is funda-bloody-mentally important information that is stored in the AML. The current state of any set of Game Data is considered to be that given in the last _legal_ post to the AML concerning that Data set." Of course, Players could still attempt to obfuscate Game Data, but the idea is that if a certain post is found to be illegal, then it is possible to backtrack out of the mess. Another thing I'd like to add to Accusations is the power of Injunction, by which any message under Accusation is considered to be Illegal until shown otherwise. I believe the penalty for improper Accusations should be enough to discourage Players doing this for reasons of gamesmanship. And perhaps the Accused could be given the power to call an Accusation vote at any time in order to get the Injunction of their back. > That might be fun. > > > [Xylen] > > any thoughts on titles that go with assorted SS? > > > I think that once the Parties get running, our Social Standings will > constantly increase. Not neccessarily, as the SS rules aren't exactly clear on what happens when several players change SS simultaneously........ >Perhaps titles based on relative Social Standing > would be best. > > > [TopHeavy] > > Also, I notice that the final paragraph in Rule 13 might be a bit > > heavy handed (must provide reasoning for all changes) and possibly > > not often enough. I have absolutely no idea what the current social > > standings are, and I don't want to try and figure it out. > > > It's all pretty voluntary, as I see it. If you want to dock someone a > few Standing points, post the update after you catch 'em not > expressing themselves properly. The 'reason' should probably > reference the specific (if not obvious) precedent for your new > table "time for a new table", "b/c you didn't use the word 'runny- > toadstool' last week in message 554", or whatever. Preeeeee-cisely. And as stated above, the current social standing is the same as last week because no-ones made the calls. Perhaps there should be a time limit on making said calls, to stop people dredging the depths of the archives looking for muck to rake. Or perhaps we _do_ want that! I can also see that there is no requirement for making the calls in the order of the actions they are commenting on. For example, a Player could muckrake several Persons in order such that they are "exchanged" up the Social ladder in quick succession! > Social Standing is currently: > Oloros: 8 > The Governor: 5 > TopHeavy: 3 > Tripper: 2 > Xylen: 1 > > Such a listing is not actually GameData, as it has been posted only > to the DML, not to an official organ of SocialNomic. Errors might > have been introduced to the benefit or detriment of others. Such as, I can't remember how one Gains SS at the moment, (or am I missing something?) Hence the official posts, showing working. > As of 28/06/2000, Social Standing was: > The Governor: 5 > Oloros: 4 > TopHeavy: 3 > Tripper: 2 > Xylen: 1 > And still is. Dan doesn't have long to post his In word, otherwise all manner of hell will break loose! Later GT From mctupper@h... Fri Jul 07 11:20:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8827 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 18:20:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 18:20:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 18:20:13 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA70592 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:20:12 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA26470 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:20:11 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: SNN Today Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:20:01 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070712185500.23196@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen SocialNomic News(SNN) Today brings you all of the important happenings in the Socialnomic world. Stay tuned to this channel for updates on breaking news and other items of interst to the SocialNomic community. But first a word from our sponsor. 'FREE Amazing Widgets. ($4.95 shipping and handling)' In our first story, a recap on the votes for proposals. Proposal 20 sets up a Party system, although Proposal 40 specifies a similar Party system. Proposal 23, which required names for Rules is open for voting, even though Proposal 35 has already passed with similar effects. Proposal 26 specified a Patch for Prop23, however Patches were voted down by the defeat of Prop 29. Proposal 30, setting up foundations for subgames, has no conflicts with existing Rules, however it is languishing in the queue waiting for more votes. There are a number of newer proposals open, several of them dealing with the Party system, as well as a few that are repairing loopholes in the rules. In other news, the Govenor has been reported missing. He was last heard from on June 22 in DML message 98. Foul play is not suspected, however since the Alpha Trendsetter is a postion of great power, investigations are underway to determine the next Alpha TrendSetter. In other Social news, the Almost Trendsetter declared the word 'oomy' to be the IN word. Since that time, a few Players have failed to use the word and have lost Standing because of that. Here is a summary of the events in this story. AML 85, June 28-- Person Social Standing ------------------------------- The Governor: 5 Oloros: 4 TopHeavy: 3 Tripper: 2 Xylen: 1 AML 86, June 29--'Oomy' declared as the Postivie In word. DML 133, June 30--Xylen didn't use the In word. -1 to Social Standing (SS) DML 135, June 30--Again, Xylen didn't use the In word again. -1 SS DML 136, July 2--Xylen continues to flaunt lack of Social Graces. -1 SS DML 140, July 6--The Almost Trendsetter, Oloros, makes a terrible social blunder and fails to use his own word. -1SS With this evidence, SNN is waiting for the new Social Standings to be published. Stay tuned to this channel for further breaking news. Xylen (maybe I should have been a newscaster) -- How many programmers does it take to debug an AI? Just one, but the program has to really, really want to change. From oloros@b... Fri Jul 07 12:52:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1142 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 19:52:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 19:52:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 19:52:12 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2000 19:52:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:52:07 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: SNN Today - Reaction Shot! Message-ID: <8k5cd7+7ujd@e...> In-Reply-To: <00070712185500.23196@X...> 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 From: "Oloros the Blue" The first in a series that allows the Players of SocialNomic to spout off publicly about issues raised by the news media . . . at moment, we have cornered Oloros the Blue -- for a Reaction Shot! Proposal 20 needs to become the first victim of the legal withdrawal of a proposal, as soon as we get such a thing. I defeated Proposal 23, as it's effects were superceded. An oomny analysis, Xylen. Proposal 26 may yet show some usefulness. yet, I would like to be able to retract my Vote for this Proposal, as it has been obviated. On the matter of the Positive In Word, it is currently "oomny". And no, I do not think any of the aforementioned Proposals were or are oomny. From oloros@b... Fri Jul 07 13:07:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10673 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 20:07:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 20:07:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 20:07:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.117] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Jul 2000 20:07:53 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:07:51 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 46 Message-ID: <8k5dan+610n@e...> In-Reply-To: <8k42v0+ue4i@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1898 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [GT] > Not neccessarily, as the SS rules aren't exactly clear on what > happens when several players change SS simultaneously........ > Which, I must say, I do not quite understand the utility of the final paragraph of Proposal 46, which, otherwise, I find rather oomny, but it doesn't rapt my gulliver. > [Prop 46] > Append the following paragraph to Rule 13: > "If, at any time, more than one Person would change Social > Standing simultaneously, the Social Standing changes (and > concomitant Exchanges) are made in decreasing order of initial > Social Standing." > Alright, so something happens to change several Player's Social Standing (like a Party, but we don't have that yet), because the rigarmarole with exchanging the Social Standings of any two Players with the same SS, we need to dole out these changes on a serial ordering of the Players. Ok. I guess I'm fine with that. > [GT] > Perhaps there should be a time limit on making said calls, > to stop people dredging the depths of the archives looking > for muck to rake. Or perhaps we _do_ want that! > I might not devote the time to researching whether or not someone was sporting dress of the wrong color at a party 5 years ago, but I see no reason to disallow that course of action. It's an action perpetrated by the news media all the time, ask any candidate for the presidency. > [GT] > Such as, I can't remember how one Gains SS at the moment, (or am I > missing something?) Hence the official posts, showing working. > I don't think anyone can gain SS at this point, unless a Trendsetter does not post eir In Word on time. > [GT] > Dan doesn't have long to post his In word, otherwise > all manner of hell will break loose! > I should report that I did prompt the Governor wednes-or-thurs-day. And, as Xylen noted, his window for posting the Negative In Word runs out Tuesday 13 July. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Fri Jul 07 22:16:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2328 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2000 05:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Jul 2000 05:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Jul 2000 05:16:18 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA32296 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:16:17 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA41136 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:16:17 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: SNN - Breaking News Flash Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:52:26 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070723150102.23972@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Beep beep beeeep beep beep. . . . . . . We are sorry to interupt your current programming, but this news flash has just crossed the desk of our investigative reporter. As of July 4, 2000, all Proposals must have a name of up to two words desrcibing them, or they are not eligible for voting. At this time, Proposals 39 through 46 are illegal proposals and any votes cast on them are not viable. This includes proposals by Oloros, (G) Tripper and Top Heavy. This is most unusual as (G) Tripper had posted the new Rule 2, and Oloros had posted a compilation of the Rules. To further make matters worse, the defeat of Proposal 39 administered by Xylen and the Adoption of Proposal administrated by Oloros are illegal. Any points gained or loss from these actions are also illegal. A further ramification of this event is the volatility of Points still exist. Points would have become permanent items with the passage of Proposal 45, however Prop 45 was illegal, and thus Points are still subject to dissapearing into thin air. Additionally, the upcoming Social Scene has been rocked by this event. Just when this reporter was preparing to purchase the proper clothing for the upcoming galas, the need for such actions has dissapeared. Caters across the land are preparing to lay off employees with the loss of the Social activities. Tailors also expect to see a decrease in business. It is hoped that the parties responsible for these illegal actions will take apprpriate actions. As the revelant posts are not actual game data, the offending messages can be removed. It is hoped that Players will resubmit the Proposals in the proper fashion as soon as possible. Unfortunely, this reporter has been affected as well, and I will be removing my votes, and removing the notices of Defeat for Proposal 39. We now return you to your regular programming. "Lassie, Go Away" will be seen in it's entirety. Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From s3036845@s... Sat Jul 08 19:41:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5413 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 02:41:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 02:41:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 02:41:47 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16365 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:41:44 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00070723150102.23972@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:47:31 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] SNN - Breaking News Flash From: Gallivanting Tripper >Beep beep beeeep beep beep. . . . . . . >We are sorry to interupt your current programming, but this news flash >has just crossed the desk of our investigative reporter. > >As of July 4, 2000, all Proposals must have a name of up to two words >desrcibing them, or they are not eligible for voting. Ahhrrrmm - this is incorrect. Rule 2 states that a Proposal shall have a name of _up to_ two words, so a name of zero words is still legal. Rule 7 also contains a clause for naming the rules enacted by nameless Proposals. >At this time, >Proposals 39 through 46 are illegal proposals and any votes cast on >them are not viable. This includes proposals by Oloros, (G) Tripper and >Top Heavy. This is most unusual as (G) Tripper had posted the new Rule >2, and Oloros had posted a compilation of the Rules. So? I couldn't think how to summarise "I dislike the use of Private Email" in 2 words! >To further make matters worse, the defeat of Proposal 39 administered by >Xylen and the Adoption of Proposal administrated by Oloros are illegal. >Any points gained or loss from these actions are also illegal. Again, no, the defeat is legal because if I remember correctly, the adoption and defeat do not require the names to be quoted (rules 7 and 8) HOwever, Oloros' posting of Rule 10 was illegal IMHO because it didn't specify the name of the Rule. Delete and repost before Prop 38 is enacted and things get messy! >A further ramification of this event is the volatility of Points still >exist. Points would have become permanent items with the passage of >Proposal 45, however Prop 45 was illegal, and thus Points are still >subject to dissapearing into thin air. As mentioned above, the new rule 10 is illegal so I'd have to agree on this >Additionally, the upcoming Social Scene has been rocked by this >event. Just when this reporter was preparing to purchase the proper >clothing for the upcoming galas, the need for such actions has >dissapeared. Caters across the land are preparing to lay off employees >with the loss of the Social activities. Tailors also expect to see a >decrease in business. > >It is hoped that the parties responsible for these illegal actions will >take apprpriate actions. As the revelant posts are not actual game >data, the offending messages can be removed. It is hoped that Players >will resubmit the Proposals in the proper fashion as soon as possible. > >Unfortunely, this reporter has been affected as well, and I will be >removing my votes, and removing the notices of Defeat for Proposal 39. Dont do that - its legal and I'm enacting P38 RIGHT NOW>>>>> G(Anal)T From mctupper@h... Sat Jul 08 21:35:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26352 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 04:35:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 04:35:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 04:35:12 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA73832 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 22:35:11 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA32480 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 22:35:10 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] SNN - Breaking News Flash Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 22:22:08 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070822335300.27803@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Sat, 08 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > >As of July 4, 2000, all Proposals must have a name of up to two words > >desrcibing them, or they are not eligible for voting. > > Ahhrrrmm - this is incorrect. Rule 2 states that a Proposal shall have a > name of _up to_ two words, so a name of zero words is still legal. Rule 7 > also contains a clause for naming the rules enacted by nameless Proposals. > However, Rule 4 specifies that "...the Subject line unchanged except for the deletion of the Rule- Change's Name..." I maintain that it is not possible to delete zero words. You can't delete something that does not exist, thus there _must_ be at least one word. Rule 6 specifies the conditions for adoption or defeat based upon the number of Votes. Rule 2 further states that "...A Rule-Change shall be Voted upon if and only if it was Proposed in the manner described in this Rule." I maintain that the proposals were not made in the manner described by Rule 2, therefore, they cannot be voted upon as described in Rule 4, and without Votes, they cannot be adopted or defeated under Rule 6 Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From s3036845@s... Sun Jul 09 17:22:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11839 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 00:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 00:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 00:22:38 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04140 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:22:34 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00070822335300.27803@X...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:28:22 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] SNN - Breaking News Flash From: Gallivanting Tripper >On Sat, 08 Jul 2000, you smurfed: >> >As of July 4, 2000, all Proposals must have a name of up to two words >> >desrcibing them, or they are not eligible for voting. The choice of "up to" rather than "one or two" was deliberate here. >> Ahhrrrmm - this is incorrect. Rule 2 states that a Proposal shall have a >> name of _up to_ two words, so a name of zero words is still legal. Rule 7 >> also contains a clause for naming the rules enacted by nameless Proposals. >> >However, Rule 4 specifies that "...the Subject line unchanged except >for the deletion of the Rule- Change's Name..." I maintain that it is >not possible to delete zero words. You can't delete something that does >not exist, thus there _must_ be at least one word. Of course you can ;-) 0 - 0 = 0 n'est-ce pas? >Rule 6 specifies the conditions for adoption or defeat based upon the >number of Votes. Rule 2 further states that "...A Rule-Change shall >be Voted upon if and only if it was Proposed in the manner described in >this Rule." I maintain that the proposals were not made in the manner >described by Rule 2, therefore, they cannot be voted upon as described >in Rule 4, and without Votes, they cannot be adopted or defeated under >Rule 6 Well that's what _you_ think and I guess I respect your stand. But I'm not going to budge neither. Because there's a time and a place for nameless proposals, and I belive they're legal. So I think it's up to you to make a formal Accusation under Rule 12. (Unless you want to keep playing as if all the questionable proposals were illegal, and I'd have to call an Accusation on you) PS - Shall I call an Accusation on Oloros's Rule 10 posting, or will you? We're agreed on that, at least. GT From mctupper@h... Sun Jul 09 19:44:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18571 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 02:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 02:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 02:44:16 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA23288 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:44:15 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA46902 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:44:15 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] SNN - Breaking News Flash Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:36:27 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00070920425602.04841@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > (Unless you want to keep playing as if all the questionable proposals were > illegal, and I'd have to call an Accusation on you) Considering the the rules can be interpeted in either manner, I don't think an Accusation will accomplish much at this point, besides creating some hard feeling among the players. However, I still belief that the proposals in question are illegal. Since I have no official course of action to take, I am will take an unofficial stand, or rather a sit-in. I will not vote on the illegal proposals. This will not serioulsy affect the game. Proposals can pass with just 3 votes and fail with two votes, so my votes are not required. If the proposals are enacted, I will follow their directives. > > PS - Shall I call an Accusation on Oloros's Rule 10 posting, or will you? > We're agreed on that, at least. Well, Oloros may not be in agreement, but the accusation in that manner has been enacted. Xylen, Pariah -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From s3036845@s... Sun Jul 09 21:04:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18218 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 04:04:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 04:04:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 04:04:25 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07431 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:04:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00070920425602.04841@X...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:10:07 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] SNN - Breaking News Flash From: Gallivanting Tripper >Considering the the rules can be interpeted in either manner, I don't >think an Accusation will accomplish much at this point, besides >creating some hard feeling among the players. I don't think that the Accusation process is neccessarily supposed to cause hard feeling, it is simply "the process" required to enforce the rules. With rule 12 in its present state, disputed actions can be dealt with as follows: * Player(s) make an observation to the mailing list, suggesting that the offending action be deleted ('cos its legal to delete an illegal post) * At this point, the post may be deleted or not. Either of these actions could have an accusation called on them. (For example, if you deleted one of your votes for the disputed proposals, I'd call one on you ;-) * So I guess when there is a fundamental dispute, formal accusations are unavoidable, which is a good thing 'cos that's what they're there for! >However, I still belief >that the proposals in question are illegal. Since I have no official >course of action to take, I am will take an unofficial stand, or rather >a sit-in. I will not vote on the illegal proposals. This will not >serioulsy affect the game. Proposals can pass with just 3 votes and >fail with two votes, so my votes are not required. If the proposals are >enacted, I will follow their directives. Hmm, my inbox notes that you have voted for a number of these already. If I find that certain votes are no longer in the archives . . . Cheers GT From mctupper@h... Sun Jul 09 23:17:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9016 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 06:16:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 06:16:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 06:16:59 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA60396 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:16:58 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA70108 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:16:58 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] SNN - Breaking News Flash Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:53:05 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00071000153903.04841@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > Hmm, my inbox notes that you have voted for a number of these already. If > I find that certain votes are no longer in the archives .. . . NOW, it is illegal, but prior to the Adoption of Proposal 38, there was nothing in the rules about deleting posts. Indeed, it was the chaos of late June, with posts appearing and dissapearing only to re-appear again that prompted me to vote for prop 38. I do wish to remind you, that by Rule 9, you cannot accuse me of illegal activites according to Rule 12 resulting from the deletion of my posts when such actions took place prior to the adoption of Proposal 38. Well, you can still accuse me, but my acctions were made in accordance with the rules _at that time_, so the accusation will fail. On the other hand, I may yet decide to make formal accusations against the proposer(s) of the disputed proposals. Xylen, noting that when there is a lack of new ideas coming into a game, the next development in a nomic is usually a war of some sort. With no leadership to fight over, this little war may be fought in the court rooms. -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@b... Mon Jul 10 08:13:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7777 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 15:11:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 15:11:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 15:11:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.117] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 15:11:24 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:11:23 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Accusation against Oloros Message-ID: <8kcp2r+e6f1@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 474 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" [Xylen accused Oloros thusly] The posting of Rule 10 to the RULES mailing list message 77 was improper. The rule was not posted in accordance with the directives of Rule 7, section 3. Specifically, the subject line did not contain the title of the rule. Absolutely true. Please find an acknowledgement of guilt on the AML and that the offending message has been removed and properly reposted. Discussion to follow on Proposals with titles of a null string. -Oloros From oloros@b... Mon Jul 10 08:42:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25003 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 15:42:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 15:42:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 15:42:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 15:42:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:42:37 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Commentary on Breaking News Message-ID: <8kcqtd+j10h@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1357 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" [Xylen] > A further ramification of this event is the volatility of Points still > exist. Points would have become permanent items with the passage of > Proposal 45, however Prop 45 was illegal, and thus Points are still > subject to disappearing into thin air. > However, Points are still subject to disposal by the actions of the Taxman. I find it incorrect to refer to them as "permanent items". And Prop 45 is considered to have passed legally, no? [Xylen] > Since I have no official course of action to take, I am will take > an unofficial stand, or rather a sit-in. I will not vote on the > illegal proposals. This will not seriously affect the game. Proposals > can pass with just 3 votes and fail with two votes, so my votes are > not required. If the proposals are enacted, I will follow their > directives. > (Above relating to Proposals titled with a null string.) A stand-out. Hmm, this bothers me a bit. If it were a filibuster, with substantive ambivalence on each Proposal, I would be in favor. However, given our concerns that the game may stagnate, with just duels to act out, I find this an untenable position to take in a social democracy. Incidentally I see only 4 statements of allegiance on the AML, which would require 3 Votes FOR and no more than 1 Vote AGAINST any Proposal to be Adopted. Respectfully, Oloros From oloros@b... Mon Jul 10 09:27:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28718 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 16:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 16:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 16:27:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.125] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 16:27:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:27:01 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: question after points Message-ID: <8kctgl+alb8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 640 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" recap of points 07/07 08/07 TopHeavy 0 0 Oloros -21 -31 Xylen 2 4 GTripper 16 29 On 07/07 Prop 20 (author Oloros) was Defeated. The -21 Points listed for him represent a decrease of 10 Points from the previously posted Points Standings. On 08/07 Prop 38 (author GT) was Adopted. I should like to request some explanation for the Points changes listed for Oloros and Xylen of the Adopter. And, given the accusatory atmosphere of this weekend's list- discussion, may I request an answer tonight, under threat of formal complaint? -Oloros From mctupper@h... Mon Jul 10 10:55:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16751 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 17:55:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 17:55:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 17:55:50 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA41344 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:55:49 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA23610 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:55:49 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] question after points Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:46:53 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8kctgl+alb8@e...> In-Reply-To: <8kctgl+alb8@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00071011542900.06831@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > recap of points 07/07 08/07 > TopHeavy 0 0 > Oloros -21 -31 > Xylen 2 4 > GTripper 16 29 > > On 07/07 Prop 20 (author Oloros) was Defeated. The -21 Points listed > for him represent a decrease of 10 Points from the previously posted > Points Standings. > > On 08/07 Prop 38 (author GT) was Adopted. I should like to request > some explanation for the Points changes listed for Oloros and Xylen > of the Adopter. Below is the text of message 116 to the AML. If you look in the archives, you will not find it. As part of my belief that this proposal was illegal, I had removed my announcement of it's defeat. I believe Tripper used the copy of that post sent to his email addy as the basis for his points in administration of the adoption of Prop 38. It was my intention, that players would use the most recent post _available_ at the AML archives at egroups as the basis for the calculations. As my post no longer existed, I didn't believe it would be a factor in further point calculations. I was wrong. Please see further messages to the AML for official retribution and explanation. Player Points Triangles Quadrangles Pentagons Hexagons ---------------- TopHeavy 0 0 1 0 1 Oloros -31 3 1 0 0 Xylen 4 2 1 0 0 Tripper 16 4 3 3 3 Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From mctupper@h... Mon Jul 10 11:25:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19631 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 18:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 18:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 18:20:50 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05334 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:20:49 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA77388 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:20:49 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: My apologies Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:14:50 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00071012192904.06831@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen I realize that my actions of the past few days were rather unreasonable. Looking back at my previous messages, I find it hard to belive that I actually wrote them. No matter how hard we try, RL can interfere in nomics. I have been rather distracted the past few days, and not thinking clearly, and that was refelected in my nomic posts. Actually, it was reflected in several other areas of my life as well. Fortunelty, my long awaited vacation is only a week away. I think I will survive until then. I will have limited access while on vacation, but I will try to find a cyber cafe at least once or twice a week. Besides, they usually have really good coffee. :) Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From mctupper@h... Mon Jul 10 12:08:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5055 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 19:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 19:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 19:07:17 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA63130 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:07:17 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA20402 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:07:16 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Why Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:57:38 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00071013055606.06831@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen I wish to explain my reason for voting against prop 54. Although, it would be nice to have everybody vote on every proposal, that is not always possible. Loss of ISP connections, vacations, power outages, and any other reason could prevent a player from voting. It may be sometime before a player can get access to vote on things. The lack of a time limit is the most disturbing part of this proposal. However, even with a time limit, I would vote against it. Time limits would just put us back into a regulated turn-based system. Additionally, players may not vote becasuse they are unwilling to make a definte stand on an issue. That is the reason for allowing PASS votes. At least we would be able to hear the opinion of a player, without forcing them to take stand one way or the other. I think that may help some of the open proposals. If Erasing is adopted, the old proposals can be removed if the author feels there is a lack of interest. Between the Pass and the Erasing proposals, I don't think that we need to punish players for not voting. Xylen, Pariah -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@b... Mon Jul 10 13:03:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4958 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 20:03:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 20:03:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mo.egroups.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 20:03:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@b... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 20:03:18 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:03:08 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Why Message-ID: <8kda5s+29al@e...> In-Reply-To: <00071013055606.06831@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 912 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Xylen] > I wish to explain my reason for voting against prop 54. Although, it > would be nice to have everybody vote on every proposal, that is not > always possible. > True enough. And the allowance of a Vote of PASS (c.f. Prop 49, which is a most oomny suggestion) would make it easier to abstain from voting and not be penalized. I agree that there should be a clause as to when or how the penalty is levied. "At the time of Adoption..." or "The Adopter shall, as his/her civic duty, fine any Player..." poor writing on my part. (And enough to make me feel that it is not so oomny a proposal.) As carrot or stick, the fine is small. Smaller even than the share the Player who defeats a Proposal receives. And Points, positive and negative, are removed by the Taxman on a nearly weekly basis. If I have possibly convinced you, I should like to submit this idea again as a proposal. -Oloros From oloros@l... Mon Jul 10 15:49:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15860 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 22:49:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 22:49:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 22:49:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 22:49:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:49:29 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: new addy Message-ID: <8kdjtp+btqd@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 178 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Please update your address books with my new handle for nomic correspondance: olorosNOSPAMlinuxstart (replacing "NOSPAM" with "@" for that ".com" address). Thank you. -Oloros From oloros@l... Mon Jul 10 16:19:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4337 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 23:19:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 23:19:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 23:19:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 23:19:04 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:18:58 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 39 Message-ID: <8kdll2+tejm@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 From: "Oloros the Blue" I had writen Prop 39 under the impression that we might come to another point at which pointing fingers could not get us out of a problem in which the Ruleset itself might be seen as inadequate, yet unable to jettison the previously built edifice and start again. Is this problem not forseen at this point? Is this an inadequate means to address such a problem? --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, message 80, "Oloros Luin" wrote, under the subject "allegations are against the ruleset", the following: The allegations of Xylen are ones directed against the Ruleset itself, and not the fault of any single Player. At this point, it may be a simple thing to scuttle the ship and launch it again. With a more developed Ruleset, however, it would be difficult to lose the accumulated material. It seems to me that we need a means of resolving such matters that is consistant with the Ruleset, yet not vulnerable to accidental modification, and thorough enough to function under a highly reduced core Ruleset. And also gets the game started again as quickly as possible. And prevents the abuse of itself by Players who might Cry Wolf or have More Sinister Desires. From s3036845@s... Mon Jul 10 17:54:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22080 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 00:54:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 00:54:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 00:54:13 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00457 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:54:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8kdll2+tejm@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:59:59 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Prop 39 From: Gallivanting Tripper >I had writen Prop 39 under the impression that we might come to >another point at which pointing fingers could not get us out of a >problem in which the Ruleset itself might be seen as inadequate, yet >unable to jettison the previously built edifice and start again. > >Is this problem not forseen at this point? >Is this an inadequate means to address such a problem? My problems with the Containment Jacket are as follows: * It duplicates the Escape Hatch, but in a formal way * Should the game grow to great size, it allows only 4 players to spontaneously start a coup and take over the ruleset, rather than the "near-unanimous" required for the Escape Hatch. So that's why I voted Against Cheers GT From oloros@l... Mon Jul 10 18:30:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27343 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 01:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 01:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 01:30:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.126] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2000 01:30:13 -0000 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:28:16 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 39 Message-ID: <8kdt7g+el43@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 607 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper opined and noted: > > My problems with the Containment Jacket are as follows: > > * It duplicates the Escape Hatch, but in a formal way > > * Should the game grow to great size, it allows only 4 players to > spontaneously start a coup and take over the ruleset, rather than > the "near-unanimous" required for the Escape Hatch. > > So that's why I voted Against > Very good reasons. Although, as I straighten my cumberbund, I might ask what's wrong with formality? -Oloros, mostly posting just to see himself and GT logged on concurrently. From mctupper@h... Mon Jul 10 23:55:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6643 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 06:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 06:55:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 06:55:28 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA39142 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:55:27 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA52312 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:55:27 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Prop 39 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:47:58 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00071100540600.07822@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > >I had writen Prop 39 under the impression that we might come to > >another point at which pointing fingers could not get us out of a > >problem in which the Ruleset itself might be seen as inadequate, yet > >unable to jettison the previously built edifice and start again. > > > >Is this problem not forseen at this point? > >Is this an inadequate means to address such a problem? > > My problems with the Containment Jacket are as follows: > > * It duplicates the Escape Hatch, but in a formal way Well, I don't mind the formal nature of it. Considering what it does, it doesn't seem to hurt to have two rules that can solve major problems. > > * Should the game grow to great size, it allows only 4 players to > spontaneously start a coup and take over the ruleset, rather than the > "near-unanimous" required for the Escape Hatch. That was my problem as well. It only took four of us to create this nomic, and in the event of a disaster, four people can really muck this one up too. I dislike the 'near-unanimous' portion of the Escape Hatch, but it allows for more players to be involved. Of course, if a group of players really get upset with this nomic, they can always copy the rules they want, and go find another list to run it on. I'm not sure yet whether I would like prop 39 with something like 'a majority of players' or a 'majority of Active players' or some other formula. ((Total Players - Active Players) /(number of rules + my cats age)) :) Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From mctupper@h... Tue Jul 11 00:00:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30987 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 07:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 07:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 07:00:51 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA23108 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:00:51 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA69802 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:00:50 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Why Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:56:05 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8kda5s+29al@e...> In-Reply-To: <8kda5s+29al@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00071100593001.07822@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, you smurfed: > I agree that there should be a clause as to when or how the penalty > is levied. "At the time of Adoption..." or "The Adopter shall, as > his/her civic duty, fine any Player..." poor writing on my part. (And > enough to make me feel that it is not so oomny a proposal.) We really need that negative In word. 'Not oomy' just doesn't have a good ring to it. Anyway, if you add the clause "At the time of Adoption the Adopter shall fine any player...." Then I would vote for it. Still, it does seem to penalize players who miss a few days, but as you said, the penalty is not that bad. Xylen, A Pariah waiting for a Party so I can crash it. -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From mctupper@h... Tue Jul 11 02:02:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30290 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 09:02:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 09:02:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 09:02:53 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA56620 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:02:52 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA66178 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:02:52 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: SNN for July 11, 2000 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:56:30 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0007110301310B.07822@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen ...but wait! That's not all. If you call in the next ten minutes you get the Turnip Twaddler AND the Miracle Muffin Masher for only $19.95. Call now. Operators are standing by. In news from the Hill, numerous Proposals were adopted today, setting the stage for a wealth of Parties. Although announcements of upcoming Parties are made to the OAML, it is hoped that the AML will also recieve the notifications. Although many Parties require a large attendance to be successful, allowing any Person to attend may make the Parties interesting. There is no telling how many observors or other unknown persons may attend. The Persons will also gain social Advancement, so this will make things interesting in the future Social Standings. SNN spoke with Leonardo Gucci of the House of LG for his thoughts on the upcoming season. --------------------- SNN: Considering that summer is almost half over, do you expect Players to spend a lot of on summer fashions? LG: Spending is not the word to use. The whole idea is wrong. Players are making a statement. If they choose to use my designs, of course, the statement is more important. SNN: At this time, there is no clear idea of the number of males and females. Since men will only be purchasing one suit, where women must purchase a new dress for every party, do you feel you will have more male customers than female? LG: You are missing the entire sense of fashion. It may look like the men are wearing the same suit for different parties, but the smartly dressed man will have several jackets and suits. A well-dressed man will never want to be seen in the same suit at two different parties. Would you want to be seen eating shrimp in the same blue suit that you wore to the Luau? No, no, no. It just won't work. The men, the women, they will all come to me for the finest designs, each time wanting something better. ------------------- In other news from the Hill, Rule 21 now allows Players to acknowledge the hard work of other players in the crafting of proposals. It is unclear at this time, why the rules name refers to hot arid regions, but that may become clear at a later date. And finally, a summary of open proposals. Proposal 11, which is likely to be retracted as soon as that is possible, since it has been superceded with a more robust rule. Proposal 26 is also expect to be retracted, although it would be useful at this time to remove the instance of OAML in Rule 18. Proposal 30 will likely be retracted, but plans are underway for it to be re-written and submit at a later date. Proposal 37, which sets up limits and requirenments for Institutions is also open. There are no plans at this time to retract it or re-write it. Proposal 43, which would cut the salary of the Taxman is currently under fire. It is unclear at this time if additional work by the Taxman from later proposals will justify the higher salary. Especially if Proposal 48 passes. However the passage of that proposal _after_ Proposal 43 would raise the salary back to 5 Points. Proposal 46 is also causing a bit of contention. The rule allows Players to send private emails regarding RSVP. Although, the private email is not required, it is expect that most players would use the private system. Supporters of the private email may be looking forward to the surprise of the events. There is no telling who will attend, and whether the cost of the new suit is warrented. However opponents point out the infringment of the populaces right-to-know. Players deserve to know what is happening, whether it is policy making, or party attendance. Proposal 47 will impose taxes on many transactions, although the Points collected will go partially to new Players. With the approach of a Social Season, new Players will need the initial outlay of Points to purchase the appropriate clothing. It should be noted, that after the new player gains his allotment of points, he will be immediently taxed when he converts them to coins. Additionally, the first player to join after a Tax assement will gain substainly more points that later players. Proposal 48 is an attempt to prevent poverty from affecting Players. It simply would not be acceptable socially for someone to throw a Party if they are destitute. One thing must be considered however. If a player has negative points, then the State will pay Social Security dole to the player. That means that new players may want to carefully consider the timing of thier pledge of allegiance. The timing between the adoption of proposal 47, 48 and the next time taxes are collected, could mean the difference in a large number of points. Proposal 49 would allow players to be non-commital. However, it has been pointed out that Socialnomic functions only if players are commited to maintaining the game. Allowing them to pass a vote is allowing them to shirk thier duties as good citizens of the state. It also allows authors of proposals to be less than through in the work going into thier proposals. Proposal 50 would allow for unwanted or unpopular proposals to be removed from future voting considerations. The proposals would remain in the archives for study, but players would not need to concern themselves with tracking old proposals. Additionally, this proposal would allow a player to retract their own proposal if someone else has a better idea. The final item in todays news is an increase in population. Ther are now 8 persons subscribed to the RULES list. 7 of them are also subscribed to the DML, with 6 of the 8 also subscribed to the AML It is hoped that these new persons will make their presence known. It will certainly make parties more entertaining with new faces. Stay tuned for tonights special movie presentation of "Jaws 23, the Polident Attack" Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@l... Tue Jul 11 10:49:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8291 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 17:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m7.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 17:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mr.egroups.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 17:36:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2000 17:36:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:36:12 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: did someone say par-tay? Message-ID: <8kfluc+t8h6@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1716 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" > [SNN July 11] > Although announcements of upcoming Parties are made > to the OAML, it is hoped that the AML will also > receive the notifications. > No, that's a little bit wrong. announcements are made to the AML, but I screwed up and results are posted to the OAML. If you haven't Voted FOR Prop 26, an oomny bit of forethought on GTripper's part, it is now a good time to do so. [on Prop 48] A very oomny Proposal, as the social security provisions it sets forth charges the Taxman to cause negative points to fade away. However I should have liked to see the State [on Prop 47] I remain unconvinced of Institutions (the most oomninily written Prop 37), however I like that this Prop has been written to avail itself of that one, without contingency. I feel very strongly, though, that The State should balance its books, that any Points collected by The State be doled out as necessary to recipients of social security (rather, even, than giving them to new players, who will accrue points soon enough, probably by anti-voting). Prop 50 has been Adopted, which allows the Erasure of a Proposal by its author, once it has been obsolesced or exceeded a functional expiry. Props 52 and 53 have been Adopted, initiating the Stairmaster racing contest. An initial Directory of Miniburex shall be posted soon. Congratulations to Xylen for opening the late summer social season with a Take-suss-Barr-bie-cue. I hope that it will prove an incitement to some of our observers to peek their heads in. Although they might become the target of stares and gossip, just like any Debutante. I will be re-writing Prop 54 (the so called civic values of voting) and submit this afternoon. -Oloros From oloros@l... Tue Jul 11 11:28:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23406 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 18:16:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 18:16:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 18:16:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.29] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2000 18:16:47 -0000 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:15:26 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Stairmaster initial state Message-ID: <8kfo7u+s9lu@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 823 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" This is what the initial Directory of Miniburex looks like. Floor Number Supervisor Floor 0. Xylen Floor 1. Tripper Floor 2. Xylen Floor 3. [none] Floor 4. Tripper Floor 5. Tripper Floor 6. Xylen Floor 7. Tripper Floor 8. Tripper Floor 9. Tripper Floor 10. TopHeavy Floor 11. Tripper Floor 12. Tripper Floor 13. Tripper Floor 14. Tripper Floor 15. Tripper Floor 16. Tripper Floor 17. Oloros Floor 18. Oloros Floor 19. Oloros Floor 20. Oloros Floor 21. Oloros Floor 22. Oloros Floor 23. Oloros Stairways connect adjacent Floors. Transport Tubes are not represented on the Directory, but rather, in the Ruleset. I'll leave this posted for a day or so before moving my Runner, so we can take a look at this listing, and get names straight. For the record, my Runner shall be named Shadowfax. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Thu Jul 13 00:04:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27834 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2000 07:01:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Jul 2000 07:01:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Jul 2000 07:01:49 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14359 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:01:42 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:08:38 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: By the way From: Gallivanting Tripper Proposal 26 can now be adopted at will, if anyone thinks its worth the effort From s3036845@s... Thu Jul 13 19:01:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12214 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2000 01:34:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Jul 2000 01:34:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jul 2000 01:34:49 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07474 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:34:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:41:43 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: [Socialnomic-RULES] Props 56-59 From: Gallivanting Tripper big whoopsie, this got sent to thd rules by mistake. will delete asap -------------- How very Anti-Social of me, I seem to voting Against Oloros with higher and higher frequency. Here's (I think) why: * 58 - Disinterested Proposals are a) a good way to duck losing points on a no-brainer and b) a good way to gain SS which is otherwise quite difficult. So they're not so Disinterested after all * 59 - It would become Passe to Double someone's Proposal just before Defeating it. Well at least I would. Because I'm just that kind of guy * 56 - Why does Oloros keep on trying to meddle with the Point cap limit? I just don't understand the reasoning!?! * But 57, quite oomny and a definite improvement on P54 Cheers GT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! 1. Fill in the brief application 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR http://click.egroups.com/1/6630/6/_/_/_/963471671/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Socialnomic-RULES-unsubscribe@egroups.com From oloros@l... Mon Jul 17 09:31:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14397 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2000 16:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2000 16:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2000 16:31:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jul 2000 16:31:49 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:31:42 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: monday morning Message-ID: <8kvcde+gk3u@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1251 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" If my alarm hadn't gone off on time, I would be in a bad mood, having been woken from a great dream by the garbage truck. However, as the alarm went off, and I was in the middle of a great dream, and then went chasing after it until the garbage truck went by, I can classify my mood as rather ambivalent. That said: I would like to get the Stairmaster race underway today. It will take a little updating in light of recently passed proposals. I hope to be able to do it this late afternoon,.. Hurray for Xylen and the pending party. If there are any Observers, let me exhort you to join in the fun, by sending a private email to Xylen (click on the name Xylen when reading a message posted by Xylen in this list) with subject line "RSVP for July 19" . Which brings up a point of business concerning Proposal 46, which would modify the Rule "Social Engagements" would leave a non-Player Person who RSVPs a party, vulnerable to an Accusation for doing so. Not very ommny for me to have Voted FOR it. As TopHeavy holds the remaining Vote (currently 2-FOR/1-AGAINST). I suggest that He cast such means to Defeat it, so someone can write a more welcoming set of changes to the "Social Engagements" and "Social Standing" Rules. -Oloros From topheavy@s... Mon Jul 17 11:37:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17074 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2000 18:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2000 18:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2000 18:37:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.118] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jul 2000 18:37:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:37:30 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Notes on my recent voting. Message-ID: <8kvjpa+8sas@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1280 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Well, just thought i would offer a reason for Voting against the PASS vote... I don't think it is necessary, and unfortunately I missed out (being not around last week) on the opportunity to vote against the penalty for not voting on a proposal. I feel that the opportunity to not vote (or hold off on voting) on specific proposals is a key part of this nomic, and i would be sad to see it pass away. My thought is that not voting is a perfectly reasonable way to delay a proposal that a player is unsure about. Often i want to delay my vote to see what other players do, a pass vote is effectively giving up the opportunity to influence the results of a vote. Even worse, a pass vote can result in a permanent stalemate. With our current players, one pass, two FOR, and one against will cause a proposal to never be adopted or defeated. If that PASS vote had not been cast, the three players could call for the recalcitrent voter to decide the issue. An additional rule could place a method to do this. I will try to get around to drafting a proposal which will do this, and also eliminate the penalty for not voting on an proposal. After all, why should you penalize someone for not voting on something that could be decided without them? -topheavy From s3036845@s... Mon Jul 17 17:34:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9035 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2000 00:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Jul 2000 00:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2000 00:34:07 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00012 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:34:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8kvcde+gk3u@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:41:02 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] monday morning From: Gallivanting Tripper >Which brings up a point of business concerning Proposal 46, which >would modify the Rule "Social Engagements" would leave a non-Player >Person who RSVPs a party, vulnerable to an Accusation for doing so. >Not very ommny for me to have Voted FOR it. As TopHeavy holds the >remaining Vote (currently 2-FOR/1-AGAINST). I suggest that He cast >such means to Defeat it, so someone can write a more welcoming set of >changes to the "Social Engagements" and "Social Standing" Rules. Well it's done now, but I couldn't find anything in the Rules or P46 that would make a non-Player post to the AML illegal, given that the post is deliberately required by P46. Ah well. I think we'd better pass something regarding what to do when people change SS simultaneously though, as that has failed with P46 Later when I have more time, GT From oloros@l... Tue Jul 18 16:21:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32518 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2000 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Jul 2000 23:21:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ei.egroups.com) (10.1.2.114) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2000 23:21:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by ei.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jul 2000 23:21:55 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:21:46 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: delay (non)voting Message-ID: <8l2oqa+57e6@e...> In-Reply-To: <8kvjpa+8sas@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 788 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, wrote: > > My thought is that not voting is a perfectly > reasonable way to delay a proposal that a player > is unsure about. Often i want to delay my vote > to see what other players do, a pass vote is > effectively giving up the opportunity to influence > the results of a vote. > > Even worse, a pass vote can result in a permanent stalemate. > Would anyone consider a changable Vote of DELAY, perhaps? I notice that we seem to have a distinct lack of proposal discussion before rulechanges are posted to VML. Some discussion after the Vote, but often requiring a direct call-out. Not sure what this means, but I am certain that there is less ferment on the list than there was when we were drafting out the initial ruleset. -Oloros From oloros@l... Tue Jul 18 16:25:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20593 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2000 23:25:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Jul 2000 23:25:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2000 23:25:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.126] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jul 2000 23:25:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:24:56 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 46 Message-ID: <8l2p08+22g1@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 327 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > I think we'd better pass something regarding what to do > when people change SS simultaneously though, as that has > failed with P46 > I agree, and after my (public) consideration of it, I think that what you had outlined was a good mechanism. -Oloros From topheavy@s... Tue Jul 18 16:37:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4813 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2000 23:37:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Jul 2000 23:37:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2000 23:37:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jul 2000 23:37:40 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:37:37 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: ACK!!! Invoke Escape Hatch Quickly! Message-ID: <8l2po1+drih@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 761 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Um, major oversight kids. Check out Rule 1. Rule 1. The Rules All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect. These rules are found in the archive of messages from the AML with the subject line "Rule [n] [name$]", where n is the assigned number of the rule and name$ is the Name of the rule. If multiple messages exist with identical Subject lines, the most recent posting (based on the Archive Date) is the rule in effect. If a message with the subject line "Rule [n] Repealed" has an archive date which is more recent than a message with the subject line "Rule [n] [name$]", the original Rule is not in effect. I think we should invoke the Escape hatch to replace AML with RML with no effects on the game. Any objections? -topheavy From s3036845@s... Tue Jul 18 18:23:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16724 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2000 01:23:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jul 2000 01:23:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2000 01:23:46 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14315 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:23:41 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8l2po1+drih@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:30:40 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] ACK!!! Invoke Escape Hatch Quickly! From: Gallivanting Tripper >Um, major oversight kids. Check out Rule 1. Hurrah for a critical reading of the rules! You have my support for an Escape Hatch maneouvre You also have my support on the Accusation against illegal (and in some cases incorrect anyway) Ruleset summaries, and indeed on the most oomny proposal for Ruleset updates (I'd had one like that in mind, but with smaller rewards. Wont stop me voting for it though) Cheers GT From s3036845@s... Tue Jul 18 23:09:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16018 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2000 06:09:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jul 2000 06:09:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2000 06:09:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: s3036845@s... Received: from [10.1.10.31] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jul 2000 06:09:25 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:09:20 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: In Word/Social Standing Message-ID: <8l3gmg+a8bq@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 173 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Gallivanting Tripper" Just to let youse all know Tripper has snatched the post of Alpha Trendsetter and "Rooted" is now the negative in word. We now return to your regular programming (G)T From s3036845@s... Wed Jul 19 06:55:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16647 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2000 13:55:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jul 2000 13:55:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2000 13:55:38 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24836 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:55:34 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:02:29 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Top-Heavy's latest bunch From: Gallivanting Tripper And so the pile-up of Proposals continues . . . and I have time to make polite commentary before sending off my votes. P64 - Rock Voting. I had to think backwards and forwards on this one before coming to the conclusion that it was in fact ever-so-slightly Rooted. It's not so much to do with closure, as giving Players a chance to change their vote after a proposal has been aired for a week. And I think that not going back on votes is another of the fundamentals of this Nomic. P65 - Redundancy Issues. Hurrah! Once more common sense cuts through the morass of red tape. Oomny. P66 - Money Laundering. No problems here, seems pretty innocuous, but I can see it leading up to the oomny... P67 - Which wisely chooses to tax the fat rich while leaving the poor on Welfare (well I'm not sure whether this could be interpreted to give the Pauper welfare up to 10 points, but I think I'll let it run) Oomny, as I said. From topheavy@s... Wed Jul 19 10:10:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10941 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2000 17:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Jul 2000 17:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2000 17:10:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.105] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jul 2000 17:10:24 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:10:21 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Membership Questions.. Message-ID: <8l4ndt+qtht@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 162 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... Does anyone know who HrHolmes@m... is? Just wondered if it was another silent observer on all four lists like Zutroi Zatatakowsky or something else. -topheavy From oloros@l... Thu Jul 20 16:50:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5389 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2000 23:50:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jul 2000 23:50:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2000 23:50:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.67] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jul 2000 23:50:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:50:16 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: ACK!!! Invoke Escape Hatch Quickly! Message-ID: <8l837o+bp41@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 571 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" ALSO IN FAVOR. Quickly now. -Oloros --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > >Um, major oversight kids. Check out Rule 1. > > Hurrah for a critical reading of the rules! > > You have my support for an Escape Hatch maneouvre > > You also have my support on the Accusation against illegal (and in some > cases incorrect anyway) Ruleset summaries, and indeed on the most oomny > proposal for Ruleset updates (I'd had one like that in mind, but with > smaller rewards. Wont stop me voting for it though) > > Cheers > > GT From oloros@l... Thu Jul 20 16:54:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15747 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2000 23:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Jul 2000 23:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Jul 2000 23:54:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.98] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jul 2000 23:54:44 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:54:42 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Top-Heavy's latest bunch Message-ID: <8l83g2+5dar@e...> 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: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > And so the pile-up of Proposals continues . . . > and I have time to make polite commentary before > sending off my votes. > tomorrow, tomorrow, I'll vote tomorrow. > > P65 - Redundancy Issues. Hurrah! Once more common > sense cuts through the morass of red tape. Oomny. > Rooted from above, actually. I thought that one of the points of designating certain messages to the AML was so that a Player could subscribe to the AML (having it delivered) and keep appraised of game actions. I am against this rooted proposal and will set the truffling pigs on it. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Fri Jul 21 00:50:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5363 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2000 07:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jul 2000 07:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2000 07:50:12 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21799 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:50:04 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:57:07 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Welcome, From: Gallivanting Tripper Welcome, O 5th Player of this young if intense little Nomic. As a result of your arrival: - Proposals now require 3 votes against to be defeated, but still only 3 votes for to be approved, which makes defeating proposals rather a tough ask at this stage. - You are in the interesting position of being a Player but not a Person. I commend you to make your coming-out Post to the DML, and take up the position of Debutante, with the Social Standing and perks that implies. - As a new Player, you would be in a position to receive a grant from the State, but as it's still new and the Players have been stingy with their Taxes, it doesn't wish to share its solitary Point with you. - You're eligible to vote on Proposals 30, 51, 55, 58, 60, and 62-8 For an early Point Scam, I recommend voting Against proposal 55 and then Adopting it, which will give you 13 brand-new Points which can, of course, be used to buy Hard (if flat) Currency - I hope that you've been able to elucidate the latest version of our Ruleset from the Archives, if not, TopHeavy's Administration proposal should make things a bit more User-friendly. See you at the next Party Cheers (G)T From hrholmes@m... Fri Jul 21 07:58:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32080 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2000 14:58:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jul 2000 14:58:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2000 14:58:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.104] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jul 2000 14:58:10 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:58:08 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Welcome, Message-ID: <8l9oe0+rngu@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1135 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Doctroid " --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > I commend you to make your coming-out Post to the DML, and take up the > position of Debutante, with the Social Standing and perks that implies. I find myself in the rather embarrassing situation of having misplaced the letter of introduction written for me by my Great-Uncle General Sir Walter Hyatt Regency-O'Hare. I remain hopeful that I shall uncover it while unpacking my portmanteau; in the meantime, I can only say I am pleased to make your acquaintance, and can anyone recommend a hotel for my lodgings until I can locate a suitable property for purchase? > - You're eligible to vote on Proposals 30, 51, 55, 58, 60, and 62-8 Rule 58 seems to have been Defeated already. As for rule 60 I find it in the VML but not the AML. This would seem to be a violation of Rule 2. > For an > early Point Scam, I recommend voting Against proposal 55 and then Adopting > it, which will give you 13 brand-new Points which can, of course, be used > to buy Hard (if flat) Currency Perhaps I shall. I have in fact already lodged a vote Against. - D From hrholmes@m... Fri Jul 21 09:06:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28785 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2000 16:06:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jul 2000 16:06:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2000 16:06:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.34] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jul 2000 15:58:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:58:41 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Flawed jewels Message-ID: <8l9rvh+kb12@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1014 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Doctroid " Ordinarily I would not act so precipitously, but as a lover of mathematical beauty, I felt I had to do so. Proposal 62, like many a fine diamond, is rooted by a small flaw, namely, the inclusion of tesseracts in its list of "3D" objects. The proposer acknowledges its inappropriateness but offers no justification for their inclusion. I have therefore submitted a proposal, contingent on the defeat of 62, which limits the jewels to the five Platonic solids that Nature herself has decreed shall be the complete set. No reason other than a desire to avoid complexity exists not to bestow tesseracts upon ourselves, of course, but if we choose to do so, let us recognize them for the 4D objects they are, to be bought for the price of eight Cubes, and let us accompany them with the other Platonic hypersolids. As a bit of lagniappe, this proposal also specifies compact notation for coin and jewel collections, sorely needed if player status lists are not to swell to 150 or more characters in width. - D From oloros@l... Fri Jul 21 12:42:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9633 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2000 19:42:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jul 2000 19:42:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2000 19:42:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.119] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jul 2000 19:42:41 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:42:40 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Flawed jewels Message-ID: <8la93g+t57h@e...> In-Reply-To: <8l9rvh+kb12@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 From: "Oloros the Blue" Welcome, Doctroid. A most ommny proposal on 3-D currencies. Thank you for clearing out that stray 4-D object. But I still am against the rooted section of that proposal that discloses award for the wearing of jewels. I shall take action on that today, I hope. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Sat Jul 22 23:58:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4418 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2000 06:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jul 2000 06:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jul 2000 06:58:11 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09639 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:58:07 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:05:13 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: [Socialnomic-AML] Proposal 55 ADOPTED From: Gallivanting Tripper You mean defeated, don't you? And a post to the VML would complete the picture. But it's early days yet so I think it would be far to harsh to go the full Accusation. Cheers, gT From s3036845@s... Sat Jul 22 23:59:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6107 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2000 06:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jul 2000 06:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jul 2000 06:59:41 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09752 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:59:38 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:06:49 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: [Socialnomic-VML] Re: Proposal 55 - ADOPTED From: Gallivanting Tripper woops of course you are correct brain reset but the bit about the VML is still true i think.... From s3036845@s... Sun Jul 23 00:27:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4188 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2000 07:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Jul 2000 07:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Jul 2000 07:27:07 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11079 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:27:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8la93g+t57h@e...> References: <8l9rvh+kb12@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:34:11 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Flawed jewels From: Gallivanting Tripper >A most ommny proposal on 3-D currencies. Thank you for clearing out >that stray 4-D object. But I still am against the rooted section of >that proposal that discloses award for the wearing of jewels. Well I would ask what's the point of converting large swathes of currency into something without obvious use? I'd thought of using them for "magical" effects but couldn't come up with anything decent, and wearing jewels to black tie functions just seemed to fit. It will also tie in well with the partnering effects described in Proposal 63 - I can imagine Males trying to bribe Females with Jewels in order to accompany them to functions, for example... However after reading the proposed streamlining of coins and jewels, I'm still of the opinion that a simple table would be better. So I shall be Voting against P69 out of rooted pique. GT From hrholmes@m... Sun Jul 23 17:46:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19193 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 00:46:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jul 2000 00:46:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp10.atl.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.246) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 00:46:22 -0000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-209-138-168-143-nwrk.grid.net [209.138.168.143]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA12906 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <397B9194.D77F8B39@m...> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:49:55 -0400 Reply-To: hrholmes@m... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 55 - ADOPTED References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > woops of course you are correct > > brain reset > > but the bit about the VML is still true i think.... Please educate my ignorance: what about the VML? I *did*... Oh. Huh. OK, I *tried* to post to VML. I thought I succeeded. Apparently not. I'll fix. - D From hrholmes@m... Mon Jul 24 12:42:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12438 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 19:42:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Jul 2000 19:42:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 19:42:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2000 19:42:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:42:46 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Welcome, Message-ID: <8li67m+d11h@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2807 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Doctroid " --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > - You're eligible to vote on Proposals 30, 51, 55, 58, 60, and 62-8 Right then. 30: The proposal allows for unregulated (i.e. un-voted-on) subgames with virtually no restrictions. Badly rooted. 51 - Hilbert: The Hilbert's behavior is confusing and not in the least entertaining. Also, the proposal is rooted in its failure to specify what happens to a dead Hilbert's lines. 55: (Voted against and adopted). 58: (Already defeated). 60 - Injunctions: Oomny. A valuable weapon in the unmoderated arsenal. 62 - My Jewels!: Rooted, as previously discussed. 63 - Partners, Please: Very oomny. Lots of potential here for sexual intrigue and scandal. C.f. the well known Nomic "Dangerous Liaisons". 64 - Rock Voting: Mildly rooted. Surely there are better ways to "call the question". 65 - Redundancy Issues: Quite oomnily rooted. Oloros wrote: > I thought that one of the points of > designating certain messages to the AML was so that a Player could > subscribe to the AML (having it delivered) and keep appraised of > game actions. I would argue that, first, one could accomplish the same by subscribing to VML and applying a mail filter. Yes, you'd have to download more messages, but the bandwidth requirement is negligibly larger. In fact, I would argue for the same reason that only one or two lists instead of four is feasible and preferable. The annoyance of juggling posts to and reading from four separate lists is one of the more unfortunate features of this Nomic. But let's leave that aside. Let's assume it's useful to have separate AML and VML. Let's grant that you'd want to get the AML delivered but not the VML, with its boring old votes. What purpose, then, is served by posting proposals -- or accusations -- to the VML? I'd argue the redundancy addressed by Prop. 65 is indeed silly, and ought to be eliminated -- and so should the parallel redundancies regarding Accusations, Adoptions, and Defeats -- but that it should be eliminated by having Proposals and Accusations go to the AML only, not to the VML only. Ditto the Adoptions and Defeats. The VML would then be used only for collecting votes. 66 - Money Laundering: Rooted in a perverse accounting that gives equal weights to coins of all denominations, and a perverse sociology that recognizes only one Pauper, fails to specify how to break ties for CEO and Pauper, and equates Rebelliousness with coinlessness. 67 - Effective Money: Rooted in contingency on a rooted proposal. 68 - Concise Summary: Oomny. I'd welcome an equally oomny addition to the List of Tasks that would provide for periodic posting of a "Socialnomic News" with concise summaries of non-Rule activity -- Proposals, Accusations, etc. - D From s3036845@s... Mon Jul 24 23:55:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12530 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2000 06:55:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Jul 2000 06:55:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Jul 2000 06:55:54 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01844 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:55:50 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:55:50 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8li67m+d11h@e...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Welcome, From: Gallivanting Tripper >30: The proposal allows for unregulated (i.e. un-voted-on) subgames >with virtually no restrictions. Badly rooted. Asieoniezi, so to speak. The effect of this proposal was functionally replaced by the passage of the Laudable Institutions Proposal, but requires you and Oloros to give it the coup de grace. (Or, indeed, Xylen to Erase it) >51 - Hilbert: The Hilbert's behavior is confusing and not in the least >entertaining. Also, the proposal is rooted in its failure to specify >what happens to a dead Hilbert's lines. I'd say that a more asieonezi problem is the fact that lines are not specified in the ruleset. And I also disagree with such wanton destruction of hard-earned coins. >60 - Injunctions: Oomny. A valuable weapon in the unmoderated >arsenal. Since no-one else had commented on this one, I'll give it a plug. Of course I think it's Laudable - I posted it - but it arose after thinking over the revised judgement laws. Although illegal posts are defined to not affect the game, a post can only be finally declared illegal after perhaps a lengthy Accusation process, during which time its status is unclear. An Injunction makes a contested post Illegal until proved legal, with a penalty for improper Injunctions. >62 - My Jewels!: Rooted, as previously discussed. But it goes so well with #63! >63 - Partners, Please: Very oomny. Lots of potential here for sexual >intrigue and scandal. C.f. the well known Nomic "Dangerous Liaisons". >65 - Redundancy Issues: Quite oomnily rooted. >66 - Money Laundering: Rooted in a perverse accounting that gives >equal weights to coins of all denominations, and a perverse sociology >that recognizes only one Pauper, fails to specify how to break ties >for CEO and Pauper, and equates Rebelliousness with coinlessness. Good point about the tie-breaking thing. In fact I thought a few bits were ambiguous, but since I seem to be the taxman by default, I was looking forward to the interpretation..... And the Rebel appears to be an attempt to use a cashless society - since a Rebel isn't taxed, e can laudably accumulate an indefinite number of points. Of course, all the laudable bits are attached in P67, which might be either cautious proposing or a point grab ;-) All for now, ' GT From topheavy@s... Tue Jul 25 14:10:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10664 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2000 21:10:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Jul 2000 21:10:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Jul 2000 21:10:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.102] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2000 21:10:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:10:25 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Thoughts about Mailing List Purposes Message-ID: <8lkvo1+tlsh@e...> In-Reply-To: <8li67m+d11h@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2231 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... > > I would argue that, first, one could accomplish the same by > subscribing to VML and applying a mail filter. Yes, you'd have to > download more messages, but the bandwidth requirement is negligibly > larger. In fact, I would argue for the same reason that only one or > two lists instead of four is feasible and preferable. The annoyance > of juggling posts to and reading from four separate lists is one of > the more unfortunate features of this Nomic. > True, reading 4 lists can be annoying, but i think that the real reason for separating them is clarity of purpose. The VML tracks anything that requires a vote, the RML shows all the effective rules, and the AML tracks all game information that isn't related to voting. The DML is just a place to discuss the effects of the other three lists. I think originally the notification to the AML was added because it wasn't certain how the game would play, and i think that at this phase the duplication is unneccesary. Everyone (all five of us now) seem to know when a proposal hits because we read/recieve the VML, not because of the notification email sent to the AML. Is this true? I also think that we know when something is Adopted/Defeated by the message posted to the VML (or the addition/revision of a Rule on the RML), which would mean that the AML message is redundant.. EXCEPT for the listing of points. I see the Adoption/Defeat messages not as notifications, but rather as a Point/Coin/Status update. I wouldn't want to comb through both the AML and the VML to get the most recent point totals. On another note entirely, How do we feel about adding more 'stuff' to the game? I am interested in drafting a proposal that would create more people (non-player people) which could tied to the players as vassals/etc. We could then use these people to populate parties, protest institutions, wage war, etc. etc. However, this would add another level of bookeeping to the game, and we all know that bookkeeping is the bane of an unmoderated nomic... are other players intrigued by my idea? should i draft a proposal? does anyone have suggestions on how to implement effective tracking/bookkeeping in our game? -topheavy From oloros@l... Wed Jul 26 08:08:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24575 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2000 15:08:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jul 2000 15:08:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2000 15:08:00 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.109] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2000 15:08:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:07:55 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: bookkeeping Message-ID: <8lmusb+der7@e...> In-Reply-To: <8lkvo1+tlsh@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 945 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" Aside: hey, it's one of the few english words with three consecutive doubled letters! > [TopHeavy] > On another note entirely, How do we feel about adding more 'stuff' > to the game? I am interested in drafting a proposal that would > create more people (non-player people) which could tied to the > players as vassals/etc. We could then use these people to populate > parties, protest institutions, wage war, etc. etc. However, this > would add another level of bookeeping to the game, and we all know > that bookkeeping is the bane of an unmoderated nomic... > are other players intrigued by my idea? should i draft a proposal? > > does anyone have suggestions on how to implement effective > tracking/bookkeeping in our game? > Bookkeeping is a problem. However, I would welcome a general rule on the provenance of Entities. Although examination may find it only marginally different from Rule 26 (Institutions). -Oloros From oloros@l... Wed Jul 26 08:18:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8573 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2000 15:18:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jul 2000 15:18:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2000 15:18:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.33] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2000 15:18:15 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:18:08 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: stairmaster Message-ID: <8lmvfg+mt1a@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 956 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Oloros the Blue" This is a copy of the initial state of the Stairmaster subgame. I have made my first move to the AML (Shadowfax to Floor 1). -Oloros Floor Number Supervisor Occupants Floor 0. Xylen Shadowfax; Doctroid's, TopHeavy's, Tripper's, and Xylen's Runners Floor 1. Tripper Floor 2. Oloros Floor 3. [none] Floor 4. Tripper Floor 5. Tripper Floor 6. Xylen Floor 7. Tripper Floor 8. Tripper Floor 9. Tripper Floor 10. Oloros Floor 11. Tripper Floor 12. Tripper Floor 13. Tripper Floor 14. Tripper Floor 15. Tripper Floor 16. Tripper Floor 17. Oloros Floor 18. Tripper Floor 19. Oloros Floor 20. Tripper Floor 21. Oloros Floor 22. Oloros Floor 23. Oloros Floor 24. Xylen Floor 25. Tripper Floor 26. Doctroid Player Runner Floor Doctroid Doctroid's Runner 0 Oloros Shadowfax 1 TopHeavy TopHeavy's Runner 0 Tripper Tripper's Runner 0 Xylen Xylen's Runner 0 From s3036845@s... Wed Jul 26 20:17:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6304 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2000 03:17:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jul 2000 03:17:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2000 03:17:50 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27254 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:17:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:25:00 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Proposals 71-6 - Commentary From: Gallivanting Tripper Firstly, I regard the reworking of punishments by P71 quite laudable - in today's tax and welfare economy, points are less and less important, its what you can buy with them that counts. And since a negative amount of points is wiped out once per week, it seems much fairer to punish rulebreaking by the loss of hard currency. Presumably the defeat of proposals is now the only way to lose points. I"m a little suspicious of P72 - Picky Picky - I'm sure that the rules are perfectly legible and workable in their current state, and I suspect that this proposal is not so much a points grab but an attempt be oloros to gain control of floors 24-26 of stairmaster. So I'll hold off on this one for the moment. P73 - Social Diseases is a suitably involved mechanic for resolving extra-Social affairs, in fact I'm worried that it might be _too_ involved. Not quite asieoniezi, but I'll also hold off and see what the populace thinks. P74 - Acting Out is certainly a laudable idea, but you know my opinions on private email vs the AML. Of course this leaves scope open for the scurrilous Host to embellish stories of an Attendee's behaviour . . . . P75 and P76 are couched in such terms that TopHeavy can only lose points - if one is adopted, the other must be defeated! (or retracted of course) Most charitable, anyway. I laud the second flavour (P76) because it allows more scope for creativity, even if it requires potential VML clutter. The Consequences list in P75 is extremely limited, and is much less flexible than the options of P76. I'll also put in a plug for the most laudable P77, which is designed to provide the automatic nature of TopHeavy's first option to the flexibility of the second. Cheers GT From hrholmes@m... Thu Jul 27 09:16:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23360 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2000 16:16:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jul 2000 16:16:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2000 16:16:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.63] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2000 16:15:58 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:15:54 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Proposals 75 and 76 -- Yipes! Message-ID: <8lpn7q+puio@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1376 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "Doctroid " These two proposals have their good points, BUT are asieoniezi flawed in one respect: If I am interpreting them correctly, they impose consequences for actions FOR WHICH THERE IS NO UNIMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE. That is, given that players describe their actions in *private email* to the party's host, we have only the host's word for it that those players in fact committed those actions. There's some recourse in P. 76, in that Players could vote against the consequence if they have any doubts about the action taking place, but that warps the intent of P. 76, where the vote is supposed to determine the validity of the consequence, not the accuracy of the report of the action. It gets worse with P. 77, where such a vote does not take place once a precedent has been set. Of course the affected Player(s) could make an Accusation against the Host, but what evidence could be presented in support of such an Accusation? To answer my own question (I'm trying to think and write at the same time here, don't try this at home) I suppose the testimony of other party attendees could be presented -- for both sides. They'd be testifying as to what happened at an imaginary event, which could get hairy. Still, it might work. I'd prefer a mechanism be codified in the Consequences process (c.f. P. 73's Vouches), but maybe the Accusation process is suitable after all? - D From topheavy@s... Thu Jul 27 09:56:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12071 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2000 16:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jul 2000 16:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2000 16:56:11 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.102] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2000 16:56:11 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:56:01 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposals 75 and 76 -- Yipes! Message-ID: <8lppj1+1df3@e...> In-Reply-To: <8lpn7q+puio@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2692 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... > That is, given that players describe their actions in *private email* > to the party's host, we have only the host's word for it that those > players in fact committed those actions. There's some recourse in P. > 76, in that Players could vote against the consequence if they have > any doubts about the action taking place, but that warps the intent of > P. 76, where the vote is supposed to determine the validity of the > consequence, not the accuracy of the report of the action. It gets > worse with P. 77, where such a vote does not take place once a > precedent has been set. With regards to private email... The reason for Private email in this case (over direct Posts to the AML) is that it means that nobody will be creating actions based on what someone else wrote. I think it will set up a nice dynamic of interactions.. similar to going to a party and not knowing what to expect. If this could be accomplished somehow outside of private email, i would welcome the suggestion.. i have another discussion regarding this.. that message will follow. I did notice a flaw today, where the Host emself would actually be required to send themselves an email to announce eir actions. something to fix if the proposal passes i believe. With regards to enforcement... The rule plainly states that a host must include the behavior email verbatim. If this is not done, theoretically the player who wrote said email will notice and accuse the Host of illegality, backed up probably by the original email. Which brings us to the question, Why would a Host want to modify the behavior of their guest? If consequences are set in stone (such as prop 75 and 77) then a host could modify behavior to match a consequence. If consequences are voted on, then there is no direct result of cheating, which would discourage the practice, why risk cheating if you don't definitely gain anything? and the last control would simply be that 1) you are never required to go to a party 2) you are never required to submit behavior 3) anyone can be a host. Been cheated by a player and lost your accusation? don't go to their parties. or only host parties. And of course, the last one would be that i don't think any of us really want to succeed in Social nomic by cheating. Exploiting loopholes perhaps. But not by illegal actions. So, i am not too worried about enforcement, though i do think that precedent (prop 77) should not be final. Perhaps precedent would give the poster of the consequence an extra FOR/AGAINST vote? This would keep the process mutable and still provide a reason for inflicting the same consequence on a particular action. -topheavy From topheavy@s... Thu Jul 27 10:04:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3490 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2000 17:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jul 2000 17:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jul 2000 17:04:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.112] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Jul 2000 17:04:25 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:04:23 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: An alternative to private email. Message-ID: <8lpq2n+sq32@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1037 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: topheavy@s... The other alternative to private email i considered for prop 74 was the posting of Behavior to the AML on the exact date of the party only. This would still provide some of the narrative feel that i was aiming for, but... I rejected it because 1) Ppl might be unable to post behavior simply because they couldn't check email/log in on the date of the party 2) Ppl could wait until the end of the day and read everyone else's behavior before posting their own (though this might be okay.. but what would happen if everyone did it?) 3) The results of the party would be spread out over multiple emails. instead of concentrated in the "Society Pages" email, which is a factor that i think is neat.. it might read like actual society pages.. So, I just wanted to put my other idea for this out there for responses. BTW, i am quite anamored of the idea of narrative parties.. i think it lends a subtle role-playing feel to the Nomic... without a gamemaster! results decided by voting! how... odd... yet neat. -topheavy From hrholmes@m... Thu Jul 27 18:12:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8771 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2000 01:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Jul 2000 01:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 01:12:03 -0000 Received: from mindspring.com ([209.138.246.169]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA28341 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3980DE2F.A4AF282D@m...> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:13:31 -0400 Reply-To: hrholmes@m... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid References: <8lqi0b+4ua5@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" topheavy@s... wrote: > > I accuse Doctroid of Adopting a Proposal when it was not legal to > Adopt, Damn! I keep getting bitten by the funky posting procedure on eGroups, where you have to tell it to post it twice before it actually posts it. Of course that same funky mechanism has saved my ass several times, when I caught a screwup after the first "post this" and before the second. Sigh. Anyway, I *tried* to vote for Proposal 65. I'll go do it again. I don't suppose we can keep my earlier Adoption messages and reuse them, can we? Didn't think so. - D From hrholmes@m... Thu Jul 27 18:13:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12299 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2000 01:13:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Jul 2000 01:13:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 01:13:08 -0000 Received: from mindspring.com ([209.138.246.169]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA16950 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3980DE70.19446C4@m...> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:14:37 -0400 Reply-To: hrholmes@m... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid References: <8lqi0b+4ua5@e...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" Um, am I supposed to delete the messages in question? - D From hrholmes@m... Mon Jul 31 09:54:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7690 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2000 16:54:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Jul 2000 16:54:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mo.egroups.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2000 16:54:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.108] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Jul 2000 16:54:54 -0000 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:54:44 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Huh? Message-ID: <8m4b0k+pvcp@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 514 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " Rule 22 states: > If the Player is the Supervisor of a Floor occupied by a Runner, > they may move that Runner by Transport Tube to a connected Floor. And then: > If the > Player is the Supervisor of the Floor occupied by their Runner, they > may move their Runner by Transport Tube to any Floor that connects > to their Runner's current Floor (which they own). Eh? Does the second of these provisions allow for any move that isn't already allowed for by the first? Clarification would be welcome. - D From oloros@l... Mon Jul 31 10:51:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20181 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2000 17:51:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Jul 2000 17:51:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2000 17:51:38 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.67] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Jul 2000 17:51:37 -0000 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:51:35 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Stairmaster - Huh? Message-ID: <8m4eb7+3qho@e...> In-Reply-To: <8m4b0k+pvcp@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 995 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.113 From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Doctroid " wrote: > Rule 22 states: > > > If the Player is the Supervisor of a Floor occupied by a Runner, > > they may move that Runner by Transport Tube to a connected Floor. > > And then: > > > If the Player is the Supervisor of the Floor occupied by > > their Runner, they may move their Runner by Transport Tube > > to any Floor that connects to their Runner's current Floor > > (which they own). > > Eh? > > Does the second of these provisions allow for any move that isn't > already allowed for by the first? > > Clarification would be welcome. > It does. >From Rule 22 (Stairmaster) paragraph one: > Transport Tubes connect a FLoor to any other Floor explicitly > mentioned by Number or Name in the text of the corresponding Rule. Transport Tubes have a single direction, that of the reference in the (home) Rule. However, the Supervisor of a Floor can use a Transport Tube in any direction for the Supervisor's Own Runner. -Oloros From hrholmes@m... Mon Jul 31 13:27:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12481 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2000 20:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Jul 2000 20:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO maynard.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.243) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2000 20:27:27 -0000 Received: from smui2.atl.mindspring.net (smui2.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.123]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA16979 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smui2.atl.mindspring.net id QAA0000019807; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:27:26 -0400 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Stairmaster - Huh? Sender: hrholmes@m... Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: hrholmes@m... Last Wednesday Tripper moved Shadowfax (Oloros's runner) from Floor 1 to Floor 13. That appears to be an instance of the following: > > If the Player is the Supervisor of a Floor occupied by a Runner,> > > they may move that Runner by Transport Tube to a connected Floor. However, I'm baffled as to how Floor 1 is connected to Floor 13. I find no mention of Rule 13, by number or by name, in Rule 1. No Accusations here; I'm sure it's just my own befuddlement. Enlightenment welcome. - D From topheavy@s... Mon Jul 31 17:04:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27392 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 00:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000 00:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 00:04:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2000 00:04:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:04:25 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Oloros is dressed improperly... Message-ID: <8m5469+nkqk@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: 209.10.58.2 From: topheavy@s... I just noted that Oloros purchased a tuxedo. What a social fo-pah for the summer season. All properly dress men wear a white dinner jacket during the summer! -TopHeavy From s3036845@s... Mon Jul 31 22:02:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21069 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 05:02:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000 05:02:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 05:02:32 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26005 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:02:28 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:02:28 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Stairmaster - Huh? From: Gallivanting Tripper >Last Wednesday Tripper moved Shadowfax (Oloros's runner) from Floor 1 to >Floor 13. > >That appears to be an instance of the following: > >> > If the Player is the Supervisor of a Floor occupied by a Runner,> >> > they may move that Runner by Transport Tube to a connected Floor. > >However, I'm baffled as to how Floor 1 is connected to Floor 13. I find >no mention of Rule 13, by number or by name, in Rule 1. Oops - I was labouring under the impression that a Supervisor could move a runner from one of their floors to another of their floors. So my move was manifestly illegal, and I'll delete it hopefully before anyone makes a formal accusation. I think now, though, that there are not very many explicit references between rules, which makes this not so entertaining a game as I thought.... GT From oloros@l... Tue Aug 01 08:12:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24015 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 15:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000 15:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 15:12:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.93] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2000 15:12:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:12:22 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Stairmaster - Huh? Message-ID: <8m6pcm+jm25@e...> In-Reply-To: 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: 12.2.49.123 From: "Oloros the Blue" [Gallivanting Tripper] > > I think now, though, that there are not very many > explicit references between rules, which makes this > not so entertaining a game as I thought.... > Rules can be changed . . . . From s3036845@s... Tue Aug 01 15:11:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19358 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 22:11:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000 22:11:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 22:11:48 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22341 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:11:44 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:19:05 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Active Players From: Gallivanting Tripper You might want to all verify this for yourselves, but the last record I have of Xylen being active is July 16, which is over two weeks ago. As a consequence, we appear to have only 4 active players, and I've been going around defeating old proposals that have been lying around with 2 votes AGAINST Always happy to do the dirty work! GT From hrholmes@m... Tue Aug 01 19:53:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32611 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2000 02:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Aug 2000 02:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp6.mindspring.com) (207.69.200.110) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 02:53:30 -0000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-209-138-168-209-nwrk.grid.net [209.138.168.209]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA09862 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39878D57.65B30C16@m...> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:54:21 -0400 Reply-To: hrholmes@m... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Non-voting fine - Escape Hatch? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" As far as I can determine, the following sentence is in the current version of Rule 10: > When a proposed RuleChange is Adopted or Defeated, any Player who has > not Voted on it shall be fined one Point by the Adopter or Rejecter. I'd Accuse Tripper of violating this provision, repeatedly, except for the fact that I've done the same -- repeatedly! I didn't notice this provision until tonight when I acted as Rejecter for Proposal 64 (which Xylen didn't vote on, so did indeed lose a point). Is this an Escape Hatch situation? - D From s3036845@s... Wed Aug 02 00:15:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18880 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2000 07:15:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Aug 2000 07:15:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 07:14:59 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16418 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:14:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39878D57.65B30C16@m...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:22:16 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Non-voting fine - Escape Hatch? From: Gallivanting Tripper >As far as I can determine, the following sentence is in the current >version of Rule 10: > >> When a proposed RuleChange is Adopted or Defeated, any Player who has >> not Voted on it shall be fined one Point by the Adopter or Rejecter. Would you belive that I completely forgot it's existence? It appears to me to be both annoyingly small and unfair to Stasis Players, who lose 1 point for every Proposal made in their absence (Xylen in this case, who I certainly hope will return) >I'd Accuse Tripper of violating this provision, repeatedly, except for >the fact that I've done the same -- repeatedly! I didn't notice this >provision until tonight when I acted as Rejecter for Proposal 64 (which >Xylen didn't vote on, so did indeed lose a point). > >Is this an Escape Hatch situation? I'd say no the the escape hatch, which is only designed to allow changes to the Rules, not game data (btw, there's a standing Escape Hatch offer about fixing Rule 1, which you should agree to before TopHeavy or I fix it) So I would suggest 1 of 3 courses of action: 1) Make formal Accusations against all Adopters and Rejecters, delete all the offending AML messages and repost them (_very_ messy and antisocial) 2) Go through the VML to determine who hasn't voted on proposals Adopted or Rejected since the amendment was Adopted, calculate the number of points each Player should be docked, and post an update to the AML (labour intensive but fair) 3) Ignore it, as all AML posts are legal unless formally challenged. And we'll all try to do it right from now on. I recommend 3), although you might like to try 2) if you have far too much time on you hands. Cheers GT From hrholmes@m... Wed Aug 02 07:31:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9337 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2000 14:31:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Aug 2000 14:31:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 14:31:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.105] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Aug 2000 14:31:12 -0000 Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 14:20:26 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: ACK!!! Invoke Escape Hatch Quickly! Message-ID: <8m9ana+5jil@e...> In-Reply-To: <8l2po1+drih@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 254 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, topheavy@s... wrote: > Um, major oversight kids. Check out Rule 1. ... > I think we should invoke the Escape hatch to replace AML with RML > with no effects on the game. Any objections? More than OK with me. - D From s3036845@s... Wed Aug 02 17:38:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30878 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 00:38:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2000 00:38:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2000 00:38:31 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11446 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:38:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:38:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8m9ana+5jil@e...> References: <8l2po1+drih@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: ACK!!! Invoke Escape Hatch Quickly! From: Gallivanting Tripper Since all 4 Active Players have agreed, I'm making the fix now GT From oloros@l... Thu Aug 03 14:49:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3534 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 21:49:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2000 21:49:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2000 21:49:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2000 21:49:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:48:58 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: begin timer Message-ID: <8mcpca+irp7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 206 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.160 From: "Oloros the Blue" Last posting to DML, not for purposes of discussion, but rather, in an obscenely wordy manner, without much else to recommend, in order to submit a most late bit of verbiage prior to vacationing. -Oloros From hrholmes@m... Fri Aug 04 07:56:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10600 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2000 14:56:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Aug 2000 14:56:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c9.egroups.com) (10.1.2.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2000 14:56:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by c9.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Aug 2000 14:56:56 -0000 Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:56:55 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: On the stairs Message-ID: <8meljn+i2hp@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 36 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " My runner's name is Doctrova. - D From mctupper@h... Mon Aug 07 08:48:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5527 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2000 15:48:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Aug 2000 15:48:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2000 15:48:03 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14492 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:48:02 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA178730 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:48:02 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: The return of a Pariah Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:41:28 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00080709461300.01862@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen Hi all, sorry to dissapoint those of you planning spiffy parties, but I am back. A lot has happened while I was away, and it will take some time for me to sort it all out. Hopefully I can get through all of the messages in the next day or so, and post responses as needed. btw, when a friend says "I have internet access", be sure to ask them if they also have a working modem. 17 days without net access, no email, no newsgroups, and no nomic all adds up to severe internet withdrawal. Xylen - Paraiah (and active player again) Happy to be back -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From hrholmes@m... Mon Aug 07 20:47:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12233 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2000 03:47:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Aug 2000 03:47:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2000 03:47:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.98] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Aug 2000 03:47:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 03:47:17 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: The return of a Pariah Message-ID: <8mnvs5+qjr7@e...> In-Reply-To: <00080709461300.01862@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 236 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 166.62.192.118 From: "Doctroid " Hi Xylen. I'm the new guy. Technically we're back to 5 Active Players now, although apparently Oloros is on vacation for some unspecified time (I infer it'll be 14 days or more though.) Three votes needed to Adopt or Defeat. - D From s3036845@s... Tue Aug 08 22:43:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31551 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2000 05:43:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Aug 2000 05:43:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2000 05:43:13 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10051; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:43:00 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:50:31 +1000 To: SocialNomic Actions list Subject: Accusation against Doctroid Cc: SocialNomic Discussion List From: Gallivanting Tripper In his recent Tax Assessment, Doctroid doled out 29 of the State's valuable points to the Welfare cheats TopHeavy and Xylen. I do not argue those Players' current scores, but I maintain that those Points should not have been transferred from the State, but granted ex vacuo, as per points gained and lost through proposals and admin. Rule 25 specifies that taxes of all forms are transferred to the State, but neither rule 15 nor 25 specify that Social Security is transferred from the state. So I claim that the State should still have 59 Points, not 30. This Action would otherwise set a precedent for players who lose points for proposals failing to be reimbursed at the expense of future Players (after all, the State represents their nest egg). I request that Doctroid plead guilty, lest I Adopt Proposal 60 and slap on an Injunction. PS, Oloros is also listed as having 0 Points where he should have -10. A typo I think, but might as well fix it at the same time. Cheers Tripper From hrholmes@m... Wed Aug 09 06:59:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12388 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2000 13:59:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Aug 2000 13:59:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hm.egroups.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2000 13:59:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.43] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2000 13:59:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:58:50 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Statement to the Court Message-ID: <8mro2q+hc8e@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2591 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " >From the offices of Esquiroid, Attorney at Law: Recently my client, Doctroid, acted as Assessor to impose the taxes and distribute the Social Security mandated under Rule 15. He did so in good faith and at no personal gain whatsoever, having chosen the status of Rebel which by Rule 29 is forbidden the Assessor's Fee. In response, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > In his recent Tax Assessment, Doctroid doled out 29 of the State's valuable > points to the Welfare cheats TopHeavy and Xylen. I do not argue those > Players' current scores, but I maintain that those Points should not have > been transferred from the State, but granted ex vacuo, as per points gained > and lost through proposals and admin. It strikes me as shameful to ask that my client be punished for the vagueness of the wording of a rule. Examination of Rule 15 reveals that the provisions for levying of Taxes and doling of Social Security are worded in an exactly parallel manner. The strong implication is that the source of Social Security and the sink of Taxes are one and the same, viz., the State's coffers. Had the symmetry been intended to be broken, a well-written rule would have stipulated such a breaking. As a separate point, not directly relevant to the present case, I caution against the assumption that Points are an infinitely renewable resource, created ab vacuo. The nature of Points is a mystery to present-day science: What are they made of? How are they produced? What entity makes them available, and why does that Entity not make them available to bestow on new Players? Can they be synthesized? Much ongoing research is being devoted to these questions, and perhaps we shall have answers in the not too distant future -- answers that could have a profound effect on our Society. > PS, Oloros is also listed as having 0 Points where he should have -10. Again, the vague wording of the rules is responsible. Rule 29 can be taken to mean "The Taxes taken from the CEO are equal to what they would have been had the CEO had 10 more points at the time of assessment", *or* "The Taxes taken from the CEO are enough to leave him with as many points as he would have had if he had had 10 more points at the time of assessment". The second interpretation is the one that was followed. In both cases my client interpreted the Rules in an entirely reasonable manner. I am willing to stipulate, however, that more reasonable interpretations exist (especially in regard to the taxation of the CEO). Therefore, I reluctantly enter a guilty plea on my client's behalf. From hrholmes@m... Wed Aug 09 07:43:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26508 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2000 14:43:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Aug 2000 14:43:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2000 14:43:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2000 14:43:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:43:31 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Query and prod Message-ID: <8mrqmj+4vrl@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1475 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " Query: When an Accused posts a Guilty plea, he loses 10 points. Is there anything in the rules that stipulates how this 10 point deduction is to be brought to the attention of the other players? Should an updated point score be included with the Guilty plea? Even if there are adjustments to be made to the point scores in a later message from the Accuser under the subject of "Consequences of Accusation"? The Rules don't seem to be clear on this subject. In the particular case at hand, I included the 10 point deduction in the corrected "Population rejoices" message. Another point: the Accusation invalidated the message describing the tax levy but not the Assessment. As I interpret the rules, what is then needed is a new tax levy -- but one based on the existing and valid Assessment. That is (had I not been a Rebel) the loss of 10 points would not have affected the amount of tax I had to pay. My Rebel status makes this a moot point, however. Prod: I don't feel inclined to give my lawyer any more work than I already have, so I won't go to Accusation just yet, but I do wish to point out that Rule 18 says: On the Date of the Party, the Host must post a message to the OAML with the Subject Line "Society Pages", and the text to include the type of Party thrown, the names of all Attendees (including the Host emself), and their updated Social Standing. Tripper's party was to be held yesterday... the Society Pages seem to be overdue. From mctupper@h... Wed Aug 09 08:37:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14476 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2000 15:37:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Aug 2000 15:37:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2000 15:37:07 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA66886 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:37:06 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA145824 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:37:06 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Statement to the Court Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:20:21 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8mro2q+hc8e@e...> In-Reply-To: <8mro2q+hc8e@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00080909351401.05841@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > Again, the vague wording of the rules is responsible. Rule 29 can be > taken to mean "The Taxes taken from the CEO are equal to what they > would have been had the CEO had 10 more points at the time of > assessment", *or* "The Taxes taken from the CEO are enough to leave > him with as many points as he would have had if he had had 10 more > points at the time of assessment". The second interpretation is the > one that was followed. I believe the intention of this Rule is found in your first interpation. That is, the CEO is assumed to have a greater overall worth than that represented by Points. Thus, the CEO is taxed as if they had 10 Points more than the balance sheet indicates. Similarily, the Pauper is allowed a deduction to their worth prior to the assessement of taxes. After considering Rule 29 a bit longer, I noticed a small problem. The Pauper has the lowest wealth, and the Rebel has zero wealth. Currently, that means that the Pauper is a Rebel named Doctroid. As the Pauper, Doctroid is subject to taxation effects, but by the status of Rebel, Doctroid is not affected by taxation. As the definition and consequences of Rebelness is _after_ the definition and consequences of Rebel, it appears that in the case where a single player is both Pauper and Rebel, they shall be considered only as a Rebel. Xylen, Pariah From hrholmes@m... Wed Aug 09 09:58:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13606 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2000 16:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Aug 2000 16:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2000 16:58:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.65] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2000 16:58:53 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:58:53 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Statement to the Court Message-ID: <8ms2kd+gevg@e...> In-Reply-To: <00080909351401.05841@X...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2029 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Xylen wrote: > After considering Rule 29 a bit longer, I noticed a small problem. The > Pauper has the lowest wealth, and the Rebel has zero wealth. Currently, > that means that the Pauper is a Rebel named Doctroid. As the Pauper, > Doctroid is subject to taxation effects, but by the status of Rebel, > Doctroid is not affected by taxation. As the definition and > consequences of Rebelness is _after_ the definition and consequences of > Rebel, it appears that in the case where a single player is both Pauper > and Rebel, they shall be considered only as a Rebel. Right, I was thinking of raising that question too, but forgot to. A Rebel *must* be a Pauper, in fact (unless one can have negative coins, and I don't think one can -- there's also the unresolved question of what to do if there are two or more Players with zero Wealth; the Rules imply there can be only one Pauper (and one CEO)). So I don't think any interpretation in which Paupership overrides Rebelship makes sense. Anyway, as I see it, the two don't conflict. Paupers are considered to have 10 points less than they do for tax purposes, but they are not specially required to pay tax or collect SS any more than any other player is -- so Rebel status doesn't conflict with Pauper status any more than it would with Middle Class or CEO status (if such a thing were possible). In other words, I was considered to have 10 fewer points because I'm the Pauper -- points which didn't matter because I'm a Rebel. Anyway, as far as taxation/Social Security is concerned, it's moot in this case, I think -- a Pauper with 10<=n<=20 points would neither pay tax nor get Social Security. A non-Rebel Pauper who acts as Assessor would get the 5 point fee a Rebel is prohibited from collecting, though. Rule 11 specifies what happens when two rules conflict, but if there's a conflict here (and I don't think there is) I think it's between a rule and itself, for which there's no specified remedy. - D From s3036845@s... Wed Aug 09 18:11:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1937 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2000 01:11:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Aug 2000 01:11:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 01:11:46 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15683 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:11:41 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8mrqmj+4vrl@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:19:15 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Query and prod From: Gallivanting Tripper >Prod: I don't feel inclined to give my lawyer any more work than I >already have, so I won't go to Accusation just yet, but I do wish to >point out that Rule 18 says: > > On the Date of the Party, the Host must > post a message to the OAML with the Subject Line "Society Pages", > and the text to include the type of Party thrown, the names of all > Attendees (including the Host emself), and their updated Social > Standing. > >Tripper's party was to be held yesterday... the Society Pages seem to >be overdue. Nyah! In fact, I have had a Society Pages ready for some days, but have waited until today (the 10th in Australia but the 9th in the US) to post them because: * It hardly seems reasonable to post Society Pages on any day excpet the day after the party! * The Rules didn't specify timezones * And to give those people who hadn't RSVPed a chance to (like Xylen, wading through 17 days worth of business) And you might ask Xylen what the outcome of the ill-fated Texas BBQ of 19/7 was.... Cheers GT From mctupper@h... Thu Aug 10 12:21:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4349 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2000 19:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Aug 2000 19:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 19:21:40 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA30270 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:21:39 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA170962 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:21:39 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Institutional discussion Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:54:06 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00081013194600.08550@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen After wading thru a lot of action while I was away, I noticed that my proposal for insititutions passed. Before I start creating all of the things I was thinking about, I wanted to toss a few ideas out for discussion. (Gasp-talking about a prop before it's made!). Below are a few ideas I have for institutions and brief notes on each of them. Feel free to comment on them individually or in groups. Hospitals--no other nomic has a hospital that I know of, but a society needs one. If you are rich or influential, you go there to get better. If you are poor or unimportant, you go there to die. It can be assumed that the wealthy have enough money for health care, so they don't really need a public hospital, but for the poor and destitute there may be a need. Imagine a player who for whatever reason(s) finds them self poor and/or unappreciated. This leads to depression and they may attempt to inflict self injury. A hospital could be used as a mechanism for an unhealthy/unhappy player to commit suicide and be 'born' again as a new player with a clean slate. Banks--Very useful for players to save their money in a tax shelter before the Tax Man comes. This would allow players to save up enough points over several weeks to purchase Jewels which are non-taxable. A player would only be taxed upon the points actually in their possession. Interest could possibly be paid on savings accounts, and the interest may be subject to taxation of some form. Insurance--For some paltry sum (say 10 points) paid every week, a player would be protected against losing too many points from potentially unpopular proposals. If a Player would lose a lot of points the insurance would pay out the damages and the player would not lose any points. This idea still needs some work, but it may be useful. Lending--Have a party you want to go to, but no jewels to buy the white jacket, or maybe you want to host the party of the century but can't afford it? Take out a loan. Any points gained from proposals would go to paying of the loan. Social Standing may be affected in a negative way if you take out a loan, but gains in standing would not be totally lost. Military--Nice place to go if you are poor. You can vote and you get a tax free income while in the military, but you cannot make any proposals. Good way to pay off loans or save up enough to that Tetrahedron you have always wanted. The rich, but not influential can buy a commission, receive no salary, make proposals, vote, but most importantly gain social standing depending on how long they are in the military. Xylen, Male(?) Pariah -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From s3036845@s... Thu Aug 10 18:12:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26711 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2000 01:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Aug 2000 01:11:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Aug 2000 01:11:58 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11403 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:11:54 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00081013194600.08550@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:19:27 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Institutional discussion From: Gallivanting Tripper Nice ideas for a whole whack of institutions, however, all of them (with the possible excpetion of the Bank) could only be instituted by a proposal, as their special effects change game data in ways not provided for by rule 24. My only idea for a player-created Institution is a Tote for Stairmaster. As I envisage it, the Tote would accept point transfers from Players, along with the name of a Runner. When any Runner reaches the specified floor, the Tote will transfer all of its Points to the Players who nominated that Runner, in the ratio of the Points wagered (how the original Tote worked) This strikes me as fairer than the Bets previously legislated - any comments before I create it? Another idea for an Institution would be to host a game of Numfield, as once discussed in Genomic. When I have time, gT From oloros@l... Fri Aug 11 02:55:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17458 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2000 09:55:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Aug 2000 09:55:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tbird.iworld.com) (63.236.72.237) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Aug 2000 09:55:14 -0000 Received: (from nobody@l...) by tbird.iworld.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B9tFx12396; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 05:55:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 05:55:15 -0400 Message-Id: <200008110955.e7B9tFx12396@t...> X-Authentication-Warning: tbird.iworld.com: nobody set sender to oloros@l... using -f Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.103 (Entity 4.115) To: socialnomic-dml@egroups.com Subject: anticipations From: oloros Looking forward to reading the Society Pages for news of the beautiful people and their recent gatherings. -Oloros -Oloros Luin ---------------------- Do you do Linux? :) Get your FREE @linuxstart.com email address at: http://www.linuxstart.com From topheavy@s... Tue Aug 15 09:48:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8383 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2000 16:48:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Aug 2000 16:48:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2000 16:48:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Aug 2000 16:48:44 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:48:44 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: howdy folks... Message-ID: <8nbs9c+5lke@e...> 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: 209.10.58.2 From: topheavy@s... Yerg. Just returned from my own no-internet access trip to milwaukee (hurm, not that i lacked for games there...) i will be trying to catch up later... mostly just making sure i am still active.. -topheavy From hrholmes@m... Tue Aug 15 22:30:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 333 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2000 05:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Aug 2000 05:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2000 05:30:28 -0000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-209-138-169-8-nwrk.grid.net [209.138.169.8]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA15880 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 01:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <399A2717.321C44AB@m...> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 01:31:04 -0400 Reply-To: hrholmes@m... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Institutional discussion References: <00081013194600.08550@X...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" Xylen wrote: > > A hospital could be used as a > mechanism > for an unhealthy/unhappy player to commit suicide and be 'born' again > as > a new player with a clean slate. Hmm, stretching a point a bit here, I think. It might be interesting to have a "suicide" option, but it doesn't seem to me to require an institution for it... and linking this to the concept of a hospital is a bit strained. A hospital might be a useful institution, though, if there were such things as disease and injury... > Banks--Very useful for players to save their money in a tax > shelter before the Tax Man comes. This would allow players to save up > enough points over several weeks to purchase Jewels which are > non-taxable. A player would only be taxed upon the points actually in > their possession. Interest could possibly be paid on savings > accounts, > and the interest may be subject to taxation of some form. Well, MY real life bank account doesn't shelter me from taxation! But paying interest to savers is an interesting idea... and so would charging interest to borrowers... Xylen suggested "Lending" separately, but it'd make more sense for one institution to do both, using the savings money for lending and using the interest payments on loans to cover interest on savings. > Insurance--For some paltry sum (say 10 points) paid every week, a > player would be protected against losing too many points from > potentially unpopular proposals. If a Player would lose a lot of > points the insurance would pay out the damages and the player would > not > lose any points. This idea still needs some work, but it may be > useful. Yep, this one's worth thinking about... > Military--Nice place to go if you are poor. You can vote and you get a > tax free income while in the military, but you cannot make any > proposals. Good way to pay off loans or save up enough to that > Tetrahedron you have always wanted. The rich, but not influential can > buy a commission, receive no salary, make proposals, vote, but most > importantly gain social standing depending on how long they are in the > military. Hmm, I'm not sure why inability to make proposals would be the price of military service. And I don't think I like it... Nomics are built around proposal-making and I'd be leery of messing with that. - Doctroid From s3036845@s... Wed Aug 16 00:33:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25772 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2000 07:33:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Aug 2000 07:33:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2000 07:33:57 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19256 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:33:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <399A2717.321C44AB@m...> References: <00081013194600.08550@X...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:42:26 +1000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Institutional discussion From: Gallivanting Tripper >Xylen wrote: >> >> A hospital could be used as a >> mechanism >> for an unhealthy/unhappy player to commit suicide and be 'born' again >> as >> a new player with a clean slate. > >Hmm, stretching a point a bit here, I think. It might be interesting to >have a "suicide" option, but it doesn't seem to me to require an >institution for it... and linking this to the concept of a hospital is a >bit strained. The option to suicide/rebirth is available now - by a Player declaring they are leaving and then signing up again as a Debutante. Not very sportsmanlike though, and I believe its a criminal offence in GNomic! >> Insurance--For some paltry sum (say 10 points) paid every week, a >> player would be protected against losing too many points from >> potentially unpopular proposals. If a Player would lose a lot of >> points the insurance would pay out the damages and the player would >> not >> lose any points. This idea still needs some work, but it may be >> useful. This is actually extremely straightforward - perhaps a Player could sponsor an Insurance Institution which would act in this way. The problem is then Insurance Fraud - Insured Players churning out bad proposals to bankrupt the Institution. Perhaps an Excess is in order, or even a No-Claim Bonus! GT From hrholmes@m... Thu Aug 17 05:25:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7699 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2000 12:25:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Aug 2000 12:25:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2000 12:25:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.109] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2000 12:25:35 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:25:33 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Institutions, trades, and taxes Message-ID: <8ngljt+7917@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2017 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 166.62.192.26 From: "Doctroid " Proposal 81, stating "Trades to, from and between Institutions are exempt from Trade Tax", leads me to raise some questions about Institutions and economics in general. Rule 16 states Any Player (the Merchant) may Offer a Trade to other Players... Nothing is said about Trades to, from, or between Institutions. So right off the bat I'd say P81 is risible in that as of now, there is no such thing as a Trade Tax on Institutional Trades. What's less clear is whether there's such a thing as Institutional Trades. Rule 24 states All Institutions automatically accept any transference of currency or other holdings to them. The description of each Institution must specify the conditions for any transference of currency or other holdings to Players or to other Institutions. This is where Institutions are permitted to receive or dispense points. However, this still is not a Trade in the Rule 16 sense. The rule fails to specify how "currency or other holdings" are to be transferred to an Institution and it leaves it up to the Institution's charter to specify how "currency or other holdings" are to be dispensed. Perhaps the neatest interpretation is that the charter should specify the mechanisms for transactions in both directions, although it's not at all clear that was the intent of Rule 24. My tentative conclusions are that (1) transferrals to and from Institutions are not Rule 16 Trades (2) therefore such transferrals are not subject to Rule 16 taxes (3) no other Rule seems to require taxes on Institutional transferrals (4) the mechanisms for Institutional transferrals are not specified by the Rules. Then the next question is, is the SPLA(T) charter legal? It refers to a transferral to SPLA(T) as a Trade, which I claim it is not, but aside from that bit of nomenclature I don't see any illegalities. So go to it, Frontier Actuary! May you have much return on your investment (although I confess I don't see that you've invested anything...) - D From hrholmes@m... Thu Aug 17 05:46:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1377 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2000 12:46:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Aug 2000 12:46:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2000 12:46:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hrholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.132] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2000 12:46:51 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:46:48 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Negative In Word Message-ID: <8ngmro+b726@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 177 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 166.62.192.26 From: "Doctroid " --- In Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com, "Doctroid " wrote: > The NIW hasn't been changed since July 19, Correction: July 24. Still ancient history, though. - D From s3036845@s... Thu Aug 17 18:27:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3437 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2000 01:27:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Aug 2000 01:27:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Aug 2000 01:27:22 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19322 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:27:18 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:27:18 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8ngljt+7917@e...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Institutions, trades, and taxes From: Gallivanting Tripper >Proposal 81, stating "Trades to, from and between Institutions are >exempt from Trade Tax", leads me to raise some questions about >Institutions and economics in general. And well raised... >Rule 16 states > > Any Player (the Merchant) may Offer a Trade to other Players... > >Nothing is said about Trades to, from, or between Institutions. So >right off the bat I'd say P81 is risible in that as of now, there is >no >such thing as a Trade Tax on Institutional Trades. What's less clear >is whether there's such a thing as Institutional Trades. Yes indeed, an Institution certainly doesn't fit the definition of a Player from Rule 0. Although the Definition of the State suggests that it be treated as a Player for some purposes. >Rule 24 states > > All Institutions automatically accept any transference of currency >or >other > holdings to them. The description of each Institution must specify >the > conditions for any transference of currency or other holdings to >Players or to > other Institutions. > >This is where Institutions are permitted to receive or dispense >points. >However, this still is not a Trade in the Rule 16 sense. The rule >fails to specify how "currency or other holdings" are to be >transferred >to an Institution and it leaves it up to the Institution's charter to >specify how "currency or other holdings" are to be dispensed. There are two problems here: the first is that there is no rule to specifically cover Currency Transfers - rather they are a subset of Trades. A transfer is a one-way Trade. So that leaves us with the problem of how does an Institution move currency around. Since the Institutional Charter is not a Rule as such, the institution's actions have to be subject to the Rules. But since the Institution is certainly not capable of sending Trade Offers or replies to the AML, Rule 24 states that they will automatically accept all transfers (one-way Trades) directed to them. This seems to imply that this is possible, even though not explicitly stated in Rule 16. Regarding dispensation of Points, Rule 24 should probably be interpreted that Institutions can perform Instantaneous transfers, rather than Players having to accept nonexistent Trade Offers. However I would infer that those transfers would still fall under the limitations of Rule 16 e.g. they can't put the institution into debt (as mentioned in the SPLA(T) charter). Otherwise a Player could set up a temporary institution which would transfer him 100 points it didn't have and then be disbanded, taking its debt into a black hole with it. So the concept of taxes from or between institutions doesn't seem completely risible. The only thing not legislated for is a Player requesting Points from an Institution, but the SPLA(T) charter seems to deal with that contingency OK (i.e. a Institution won't respond to requests -effectively transfers- without authorisation from its charter) >Perhaps >the neatest interpretation is that the charter should specify the >mechanisms for transactions in both directions, although it's not at >all clear that was the intent of Rule 24. > >My tentative conclusions are that (1) transferrals to and from >Institutions are not Rule 16 Trades Not exactly, but still subject to the same red tape. >(2) therefore such transferrals >are >not subject to Rule 16 taxes I would argue they are, from the red tape argument (3) no other Rule seems to require taxes >on Institutional transferrals 'cos the concept of Institutions didn't exist when the tax laws went in...... (4) the mechanisms for Institutional >transferrals are not specified by the Rules. Well, umm, they sort of are, Rule 24 says you can specify the transfer in the charter, presumably subject to the checks and balances of Rule 16 >Then the next question is, is the SPLA(T) charter legal? It refers >to >a transferral to SPLA(T) as a Trade, which I claim it is not, but >aside >from that bit of nomenclature I don't see any illegalities. Perhaps the best solution would be to rewrite the definition of Institutions and Transfers in Rule 24 so it's clear-cut in one way or another...... >So go to it, Frontier Actuary! May you have much return on your >investment (although I confess I don't see that you've invested >anything...) Well my first investment seems to have been taken out as tax ;-( GT From s3036845@s... Thu Aug 17 18:48:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9464 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2000 01:48:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Aug 2000 01:48:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Aug 2000 01:48:40 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25100 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:48:36 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:48:36 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Easily Bored (offtopic) From: Gallivanting Tripper This comes as a result of long-term contemplation of Inter-Nomic interactions, and from from an acute overdose of reality/challenge/game/docos - Survivor, House of Hell and the like. So I thought- why not set up one of these for Nomics? The basic idea is to have a central Nomic ("Nomic Survivor") created to administer the game, and other Nomics join the game, effectively as Players. Human Players of the Player Nomics automatically join the admin Nomic as well. Furthermore, yet another Nomic is created (I will call it Machiavelli), also administered by Nomic Survivor, but Players only become eligible to join Machiavelli under circumstances prescribed by the admin. The game(s) will have clear-cut goals: A Nomic will win the game of Nomic Survivor (NS) if it is the last Nomic Player left. A human will win the game of Machiavelli if they are the last Player left. i.e. win by elimination. Although the above guidelines would be sufficient to start the game, I had a few central ideas in mind=8A In order to eliminate Player Nomics, NS should make life difficult for them. In the tradition of Survivor, I would recommend organising subgames between Nomics, or setting Challenges to the Nomics. The losers would be subject to Selection - having to reduce their player number by 1, or be expelled from NS. If a Player Nomic is ever reduced to two players, that Nomic is expelled but the surviving players are able to join Machiavelli! And all members of the winning Nomic Player are eligible to join Machiavelli too. Other rules are,of course, up to the Admin, this is a Nomic after all. I also think it's important that players who are culled by Selection are still retained as human players of NS - this would reduce branch-stacking, as it were. Thoughts, comments, suggestions? From s3036845@s... Sat Aug 19 01:44:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5304 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2000 08:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2000 08:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2000 08:44:20 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07227 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:44:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:52:56 +1000 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Aha! - The Populace Rejoices (fwd) From: Gallivanting Tripper >Current Social Standings: > >Person Social Standing >------------------------------- >Tripper: 49 >Oloros: 33 >Doctroid: 25 >TopHeavy: 3 >The Governor: 3 >Xylen: -6 Should actually be: Current Social Standings: Person Social Standing ------------------------------- Tripper: 49 Oloros: 33 Doctroid: 25 The Governor: 4 TopHeavy: 3 Xylen: -6 Because of that pesky bit about no two Persons having the same social standings. I'll also comment on a problem with the Guillotine: for the same reason, if the guillotine was applied now, oloros and the governor would be tied on 4 SS and doctroid and topheavy tied on 3 SS. The rules specify that in this situation, the respective social standings of the players are _exchanged_, which would result in the following standings (after taking the other bits of the guillotine into account): The Governor: 33 TopHeavy: 25 Tripper: 7 Oloros: 5 Doctroid: 3 Xylen: 0 Which strikes me as slightly risible. But that may be the intent after all. GT From mctupper@h... Sat Aug 19 09:10:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10237 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2000 16:10:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2000 16:10:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2000 16:10:36 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA37178 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:10:35 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA38096 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:10:35 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Aha! - The Populace Rejoices (fwd) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:44:16 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00081910083000.03333@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > Person Social Standing > ------------------------------- > The Governor: 33 > TopHeavy: 25 > Tripper: 7 > Oloros: 5 > Doctroid: 3 > Xylen: 0 A revolution in society can have unexpected results. Admittedly, it was my intention that _all_ players be reduced to 10 points or less of Social Standing, but the glory of chaos would make things a bit more interesting. The potential Executioner has 30 days or more to contemplate the effects of the guillotine. This may lead to some interesting attempts to gain just enough points, but not too many, and then talk the Pariah into calling for the Executioner. For example if Top Heavy gains just 1 point, he would become the Alpha Trendsetter, but if he gains 3 points, then he is just one more of the rabble. Xylen, Pariah waiting for another Party. -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@l... Wed Aug 23 15:20:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2609 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2000 22:20:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Aug 2000 22:20:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cj.egroups.com) (10.1.2.82) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2000 22:20:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.117] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Aug 2000 22:20:45 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:20:37 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Viva la revolution!!! Message-ID: <8o1inl+71rh@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 958 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.165 From: "Oloros the Blue" Hmm. I find the Proposal in question to be quite expeditious, inspite and despite the possible convoluted nature of its effects. It may be just as expeditious to clarify such effects with an amendment, but I shall leave that to other hunters of minotaurs. -Oloros, back from the dead --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > Because of that pesky bit about no two Persons having the same social > standings. I'll also comment on a problem with the Guillotine: for the > same reason, if the guillotine was applied now, oloros and the governor > would be tied on 4 SS and doctroid and topheavy tied on 3 SS. The rules > specify that in this situation, the respective social standings of the > players are _exchanged_, which would result in the following standings > (after taking the other bits of the guillotine into account): > > The Governor: 33 > TopHeavy: 25 > Tripper: 7 > Oloros: 5 > Doctroid: 3 > Xylen: 0 > From oloros@l... Wed Aug 23 18:12:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28657 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 01:12:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 01:12:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 01:12:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.134] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2000 01:12:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:11:52 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: point taken Message-ID: <8o1soo+a26g@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 950 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.165 From: "Oloros the Blue" In a previous episode, Doctroid wrote: As a separate point, not directly relevant to the present case, I caution against the assumption that Points are an infinitely renewable resource, created ab vacuo. The nature of Points is a mystery to present-day science: What are they made of? How are they produced? What entity makes them available, and why does that Entity not make them available to bestow on new Players? Can they be synthesized? Much ongoing research is being devoted to these questions, and perhaps we shall have answers in the not too distant future -- answers that could have a profound effect on our Society. [end recapitualation] It would be a rather interesting game if there were only a limited number of Points availble, perhaps the State might regulate them. However I think that the reward system, or, if you will, economy, works quite well with Points created ex nihilo, and then absorbed by by the State. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Wed Aug 23 18:55:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7763 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 01:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 01:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 01:55:56 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14088 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:55:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:55:48 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8o1soo+a26g@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] point taken From: Gallivanting Tripper >It would be a rather interesting game if there were only a limited >number of Points availble, perhaps the State might regulate them. >However I think that the reward system, or, if you will, economy, >works quite well with Points created ex nihilo, and then absorbed by >by the State. Much more complicated than that, I'm afraid - we also have a points destruction facility (failed proposals, and punishments) which is countered by a debt cancellation program that is fortunately not linked to the State (but is linked to SS) Furthermore there exists a Points Sink in the form of Jewels,which are currently out of the State's purview and which themselves form a potentially infinite source of Social Standing when worn at Black Tie Affairs. Hexagons, which cannot be converted into Jewels, are nevertheless disposable currency which vanish when converted into also-temporary Formal Wear. And then there is the matter of Institutions, which give each player a chance to create thier own zero-sum game (I'm drafting a Numfield as we speak) but if the most expiditious Proposal 86 is enacted, the institutions will be able to be subsidised by the state, presumably funneling the wealth ultimately back to the Players who payed the taxes in the first place. So here's what I think.... Formal Wear, and Party Catering should be services provided by Institutions. Jewels should be subject to Luxury Tax. A Natural Resources institution could supply the points for passed proposals and admin. The State (or perhaps the Judiciary) could collect punishments and failed proposal fees, but become responsible for welfare. Finally, in order for the economy to become closed, there should be some way of renewing the Natural Resources, perhaps through Charity or State work. Any thoughts on how to tie all this in??? GT From oloros@l... Thu Aug 24 10:21:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14920 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 17:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 17:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 17:21:01 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.59] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2000 17:21:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:20:58 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Easily Bored (offtopic) Message-ID: <8o3lhq+s5s@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 108 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.181 From: "Oloros the Blue" Original message forwarded to UnmoderatedNomic@egroups.com for further discussion with response by Oloros. From oloros@l... Thu Aug 24 11:14:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15796 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 18:14:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 18:14:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 18:14:33 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2000 18:14:30 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:14:24 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Autumnal Events Message-ID: <8o3om0+4b4d@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 251 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.181 From: "Oloros the Blue" The end of Summer is approaching, and it is high time to begin to consider what sort of Social Engagements might be particularly trendy this Fall. Brainstorm a bit? Three Alaram Kegger Catfish Fry Tailgate Party Wild Turkey Feast Harvest Banquet From hrholmes@m... Thu Aug 24 14:51:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17859 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 21:51:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 21:51:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 21:51:27 -0000 Received: from mindspring.com ([209.138.244.163]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA07245 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39A4A289.32579A8E@m...> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:20:26 -0400 Reply-To: hrholmes@m... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Listening to a wall References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Richard S. Holmes" I'm getting a little annoyed here. Not all the Socialnomic posts are getting delivered to me. My AML post announcing adoption of P85, for instance, and Oloros's "Point Taken" message on DML. Of course I can, and have, read the latter on the eGroups archive... but I might have missed it completely had I not gotten Tripper's reply to a message I hadn't seen. As far as I know it's only eGroups email that's not arriving 100% of the time (actually only Socialnomic email, as far as I've noticed, but the traffic on the few other eGroups I subscribe to is too low to make lost messages apparent), not email in general, although the latter is possible, I suppose. Anyone else have any gaps in their Socialnomic inboxes? Is the list owner getting any bounce messages? Who the heck IS the list owner, anyway? - Doctroid From oloros@l... Thu Aug 24 15:55:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26808 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 22:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 22:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 22:55:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.107] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2000 22:55:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 22:55:07 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Pyramus and Thisbe Message-ID: <8o494b+3i06@e...> In-Reply-To: <39A4A289.32579A8E@m...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 564 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.181 From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Doctroid" wrote: > > Anyone else have any gaps in their Socialnomic inboxes? Is the list > owner getting any bounce messages? Who the heck IS the list owner, anyway? > Actually, I am set for web-read only. I expect most of the rest of us are as well. We had agreed to share the list-owner account with players, but we all must have forgotten to do so. May I request that the second founding player to read this message acknowledge it and send to Doctroid the appropriate account information and passwords? -Oloros From mctupper@h... Thu Aug 24 16:37:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17931 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2000 23:37:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Aug 2000 23:37:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2000 23:37:14 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA56502 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:13:57 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA106308 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:13:57 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Pyramus and Thisbe Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:08:31 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8o494b+3i06@e...> In-Reply-To: <8o494b+3i06@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00082417114603.19203@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, you smurfed: > --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, "Doctroid" wrote: > > > > Anyone else have any gaps in their Socialnomic inboxes? Is the list > > owner getting any bounce messages? Who the heck IS the list owner, > anyway? > > > Actually, I am set for web-read only. I expect most of the rest of us > are as well. We had agreed to share the list-owner account with > players, but we all must have forgotten to do so. May I request that > the second founding player to read this message acknowledge it and > send to Doctroid the appropriate account information and passwords? > I have sent the relevant info to Doctroid in a private email. If he does not recieve it, let us know, and the information can be sent again. For the record, there has been no notice of problems sent to the list owner. I have had a few delays myself, but I know my problems are with an upstream server that tends to bundle messages from some sources and hold them until traffic lightens up. Peerhaps that is happening to Doctroid as well. Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@l... Fri Aug 25 08:15:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11133 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2000 15:15:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Aug 2000 15:15:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2000 15:15:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.125] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Aug 2000 15:15:18 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:15:09 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: [offtopic] Message-ID: <8o62ht+62jh@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 127 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.123 From: "Oloros the Blue" Amusing link, relavence to be demonstrated later, maybe. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tueller/sunday/arch/2000/l08.html From rsholmes@m... Fri Aug 25 11:46:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5828 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2000 18:46:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Aug 2000 18:46:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Aug 2000 18:46:18 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.105] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Aug 2000 18:46:18 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:46:01 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: The Doctroid is In Message-ID: <8o6et9+rfb8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 78 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " Just to let you know, I'm switching my Socialnomic address to this one. - D From s3036845@s... Sun Aug 27 21:24:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27978 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2000 04:24:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Aug 2000 04:24:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2000 04:24:21 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21440 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:24:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:24:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Commentary on Active Proposals (77 and 86-92) From: Gallivanting Tripper Proposal 77 - Consequence Precedents - Expeditious This one is a bit Problematic, because it is contingent on an illegal proposal (P76) However the re-posted proposal (P78) was adopted so I'd argue that common sense should prevail and this should be available for Adoption. Anyway,by setting the idea of precedent for Behaviour Consequences, it would make the whole Behaviour thang playable, instead of having to Vote on every single occasion. And it only needs one more FOR vote to pass....! Proposal 86 - Operating Grants - Expeditious, but not without Proposal 87! I have a working draft for a Gaming House that would be completely non-profit and, dare I say, feed Tax money back into our community. It's ready to go as soon as this Proposal Passes.... Proposal 87 - No Scamming - Most Expeditious, because without it unscrupulous Operators could siphon unlimited amounts of Points from the State. How remiss of me to not check that in the first place.... Proposal 88 - Thumbprint- Highly Expeditious to enable the Guillotine to actually work Proposal 89 - Snarfing I'm not completely sold on the whole Stairmaster idea, so I suspect I'll be voting AGAINST this, but I can't say that its particularly recalcitrant though. Proposal 90 -Incense Although this will probably speed up the Admin thing, I'll go off on a tangent to say that the best place for ruleset compilations is probably in the Files section of the egroups interface, to reduce congestion of the archive itself. I'm not sure how to legislate this though... Proposal 91 - Simple Proposition Good to see the first self-deleting Rule of Socialnomic, but as it's just a points grab for ruleset complilations which I've already cryptically criticised, I'll say "recalcitrant".In any case, I'd like to see some proposals defeated so that you guys will start taking out Insurance! Proposal 92 - The Dispossessed Hear hear! Expeditious. Proposal 93 - B Coli Cute, but gratuitous. Since I always picture Socialnomic as a refined and cerebral nomic, I'll censure such silliness as Recalcitrant From rsholmes@m... Mon Aug 28 07:05:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21496 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2000 14:05:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Aug 2000 14:05:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2000 14:05:25 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.005675F4@m...>; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:05:24 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20893; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:05:23 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Commentary on Active Proposals (77 and 86-92) References: Date: 28 Aug 2000 10:05:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:24:17 +1000 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 59 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Proposal 86 - Operating Grants - Expeditious, but not without Proposal 87! > > I have a working draft for a Gaming House that would be completely > non-profit and, dare I say, feed Tax money back into our community. It's > ready to go as soon as this Proposal Passes.... It seems to me that there would be nothing to prevent any player from setting up N Temporary Institutions (with a dissolution date of, say, 1 Jan 3001) whose sole purposes would be to funnel their Startup Grants to their owner; to do the same with Operating Grants after every Tax Man visit; and to launder any trade requests that player wants to make or accept, thereby evading taxes. [N is the number of players minus the number of temporary institutions then in existence (and right now, there are none.)] Having done so, no other player could ever again establish a temporary institution (until a new player joins, and/or the Rules are changed.) This strikes me as recalcitrant. Comments? > Proposal 87 - No Scamming - Most Expeditious, because without it > unscrupulous Operators could siphon unlimited amounts of Points from the > State. How remiss of me to not check that in the first place.... They still can, just more slowly. I voted for this, because P86 is completely recalcitrant without it, but I still sniff recalcitrance. > Proposal 89 - Snarfing > I'm not completely sold on the whole Stairmaster idea, so I suspect I'll be > voting AGAINST this, but I can't say that its particularly recalcitrant > though. I think Stairmaster needs a rehab if it's to be viable myself (hence P80, but that evidently wasn't what was wanted...). Still, as long as it's on the books, I see no reason to oppose improving its language, making this an expeditious revision. > Proposal 92 - The Dispossessed > Hear hear! Expeditious. > > Proposal 93 - B Coli > Cute, but gratuitous. Since I always picture Socialnomic as a refined and > cerebral nomic, I'll censure such silliness as Recalcitrant Um, which VML archive are you reading?? I see Proposal 92 - B Coli, and no Proposal 93. I do, however, see what appears to be an illegal [*] vote for Proposal 93 from a G. Tripper. - Doctroid [*] "A Rule-Change shall be Voted upon if and only if it was Proposed in the manner described in this Rule and it has not been Retracted." Rats. I was hoping it was legal to vote on a Proposal before it was Proposed, so I could submit a Proposal 93 with assurance that Tripper had already voted for it... From oloros@l... Mon Aug 28 10:44:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10380 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2000 17:44:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Aug 2000 17:44:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2000 17:44:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Aug 2000 17:44:22 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:44:14 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Commentary on Active Proposals (86 Indeed) Message-ID: <8oe8de+44fe@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1405 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.162 From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Doctroid wrote: > > > Proposal 86 - Operating Grants - Expeditious, but not without Proposal 87! > > It seems to me that there would be nothing to prevent any player from > setting up N Temporary Institutions (with a dissolution date of, say, > 1 Jan 3001) whose sole purposes would be to funnel their Startup > Grants to their owner; to do the same with Operating Grants after > every Tax Man visit; and to launder any trade requests that player > wants to make or accept, thereby evading taxes. [N is the number of > players minus the number of temporary institutions then in existence > (and right now, there are none.)] Having done so, no other player > could ever again establish a temporary institution (until a new player > joins, and/or the Rules are changed.) This strikes me as > recalcitrant. > > Comments? > A most oomny analysis. On which note I should like to call into question the charter of our single Institution, SPLA(T), and also look askance at Rule 24 itself. What we have here is the ability to create personal or local Rules .. and not just ones that might have small effects, but ones that could wreack changes in the, for want of a better term, economic, fabric of SocialNomic. And these Institutions are chartered without approval of the Players of SocialNomic. -Oloros, pondering the etymology of the term 'to eighty-six' From s3036845@s... Mon Aug 28 16:40:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12936 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2000 23:40:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Aug 2000 23:40:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2000 23:40:33 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00734 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:40:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:24:17 +1000 (EST)" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:49:24 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Commentary on Active Proposals (77 and 86-92) From: Gallivanting Tripper Dudes! What we have here is cumulative failure to read fine print..... > >> Proposal 86 - Operating Grants - Expeditious, but not without Proposal 87! >> >> I have a working draft for a Gaming House that would be completely >> non-profit and, dare I say, feed Tax money back into our community. It's >> ready to go as soon as this Proposal Passes.... [Doctroid] >It seems to me that there would be nothing to prevent any player from >setting up N Temporary Institutions (with a dissolution date of, say, >1 Jan 3001) whose sole purposes would be to funnel their Startup >Grants to their owner; to do the same with Operating Grants after >every Tax Man visit; and to launder any trade requests that player >wants to make or accept, thereby evading taxes. [N is the number of >players minus the number of temporary institutions then in existence >(and right now, there are none.)] Having done so, no other player >could ever again establish a temporary institution (until a new player >joins, and/or the Rules are changed.) This strikes me as >recalcitrant. > >Comments? This would be an excellent scam if it were possible. In fact it is not, as P86 only allows Startup Grants to be made to Permanent Institutions, of which each Player can create only One (ever). Furthermore, to stop Point Funneling, P86 legislates that should a Permanent Institution be Abandoned by a Vote of Abandonment, the founding player will lose the amount of the Operating Grant. That pretty much wraps it up. >> Proposal 87 - No Scamming - Most Expeditious, because without it >> unscrupulous Operators could siphon unlimited amounts of Points from the >> State. How remiss of me to not check that in the first place.... > >They still can, just more slowly. I voted for this, because P86 is >completely recalcitrant without it, but I still sniff recalcitrance. Quite slowly, indeed. Seeing that Players can gain points quite regularly, it seemed like a good idea to give those most hallowed Permanent Institions an income as well. But it's hardly likely to be more than 3 points/insitition/week... [oloros] What we have here is the ability to create personal or local Rules .. and not just ones that might have small effects, but ones that could wreak changes in the, for want of a better term, economic, fabric of SocialNomic. And these Institutions are chartered without approval of the Players of SocialNomic. [end] Yes, the provenance of Rule 24 is quite open to interpretation, as discussed previously. Nevertheless I would argue that it doesn't allow changes in the Economic Fabric as such, because it does not allow currency to be created or destroyed. What it does allow is for Players to create "front companies" that will perform transactions automatically without the need for direct authorisation from that Player. Simple as that - streamlining of commerce. For example, SPLA(T) will only pay out insurance if it has enough in the bank, otherwise it will bankrupt and disappear. Similarly, no-one can buy Triangles off KNPS if no-one has sold it Triangles in the first place (which is why Doctroid invested 30 points to enable KNPS to do a bit of business in the first place) Of course, Permanent Institutions may qualify for Operating Grants, but these come from the State, and ultimately from out Taxes. So I don't see any economic short-circuiting. >> Proposal 92 - The Dispossessed >> Hear hear! Expeditious. >> >> Proposal 93 - B Coli >> Cute, but gratuitous. Since I always picture Socialnomic as a refined and >> cerebral nomic, I'll censure such silliness as Recalcitrant > >Um, which VML archive are you reading?? I see Proposal 92 - B Coli, >and no Proposal 93. > >I do, however, see what appears to be an illegal [*] vote for Proposal >93 from a G. Tripper. I saw a Proposal 92 B-Coli, a Proposal 92 - The Disposessed and a Proposal 93- B-Coli in my inbox, from which I inferred that Oloros had posted two P92s by mistake and reposted B-Coli as 93. But I haven't checked the archive so I could be completely wrong. >- Doctroid > >[*] "A Rule-Change shall be Voted upon if and only if it was Proposed >in the manner described in this Rule and it has not been Retracted." >Rats. I was hoping it was legal to vote on a Proposal before it was >Proposed, so I could submit a Proposal 93 with assurance that Tripper >had already voted for it... > Like I said, I believe that 93 has been submitted already! From s3036845@s... Mon Aug 28 21:58:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10780 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 04:58:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 04:58:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 04:58:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: s3036845@s... Received: from [10.1.10.124] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Aug 2000 04:58:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:58:50 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Missing Proposals Message-ID: <8offua+pb0r@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1026 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 150.203.245.2 From: "Gallivanting Tripper" I would like to report a Travesty! Checking the Archive, Oloros would seem to have made, and then deleted, Proposal 92 "The Disposessed" (message 500) and Proposal 93 - B Coli (message 501). I received these by email, voted and the votes suddenly ended up as replies to Proposal 91 - irregular in itself. What's worse was that I meant to vote FOR The Dispossessed and AGAINST B Coli but because of the deletions and the repost of B Coli as Proposal 92, I have unwittingly allowed the Gratuitous Broccoli to be enacted. Short of making a formal Accusation, here's what I think.... The deletion of messages 500 and 501 was illegal, because they were both legal Proposals The reposting of B Coli as Proposal 92 I would also say is illegal because a legal, but nonexistent, proposal with that number should have existed. The vote for Proposal 93 I would even say is legal, again because of the illegal deletion. Would Oloros like to explain what the #$^$# was going on ?!?! }:-) (furrowed brow, not horns) GT From rsholmes@m... Tue Aug 29 09:04:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19243 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 16:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 16:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 16:04:45 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00571A17@m...>; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:04:45 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28497; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:04:44 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Commentary on Active Proposals (77 and 86-92) References: Date: 29 Aug 2000 12:04:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:49:24 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 56 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Dudes! What we have here is cumulative failure to read fine print..... Indeed. My bad. I'd overlooked the word "permanent" in the Operating Grants proposal, and that greatly reduces the scam potential: ironically, a temporary institution that did that, if it could, would survive much longer than a permanent institution that tried it... > Yes, the provenance of Rule 24 is quite open to interpretation, as > discussed previously. Nevertheless I would argue that it doesn't allow > changes in the Economic Fabric as such, because it does not allow currency > to be created or destroyed. What it does allow is for Players to create > "front companies" that will perform transactions automatically without the > need for direct authorisation from that Player. Simple as that - > streamlining of commerce. For example, SPLA(T) will only pay out insurance > if it has enough in the bank, otherwise it will bankrupt and disappear. > Similarly, no-one can buy Triangles off KNPS if no-one has sold it > Triangles in the first place (which is why Doctroid invested 30 points to > enable KNPS to do a bit of business in the first place) Of course, > Permanent Institutions may qualify for Operating Grants, but these come > from the State, and ultimately from out Taxes. So I don't see any economic > short-circuiting. It should be noted, though, that the KNPS charter does *not* describe its usual transactions as automatic; in theory (as I read the Rules and charter) I need to approve and accept them. Or don't I? (My point transfer for startup *was* automatic, because the Rules provide for that.) The one thing that bothers me about these automatic transactions is that aside from point transfers to institutions, the Rules don't seem to acknowledge or regulate them... and thus it's not clear whether, for example, a transaction with KNPS whose points are calculated incorrectly can be prosecuted as Illegal. In fact, as I said earlier, since Rule 16 describes Trades as being Player-to-Player transactions, I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of that mechanism for Institution transactions -- I'm not at all sure I could defend such a transaction (with or without correctly calculated points) as Legal if Accused. There's also the fact that SPLA(T) and KNPS can be dissolved with a message to the DML. That bugs me, because the DML is supposed to be strictly for discussion and until now, posting to the DML has had no legal repercussions. And it still doesn't, in the sense that the Rules don't govern such posts. On the other hand, there's nowhere else to post dissolution messages -- such a message to any of the other groups would be illegal. But the "legality" of a post to DML cannot be challenged, because there's no such thing as an illegal post to DML. Thus the whole Accusations mechanism is at least slightly crippled with regard to prosecuting anything arising from shutting down a semi-permanent Institution. Our whole e-commerce policy needs updating, in other words... - Doctroid From oloros@l... Tue Aug 29 09:44:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26424 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 16:44:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 16:44:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 16:44:46 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.51] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Aug 2000 16:44:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:44:41 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Missing Proposals Message-ID: <8ogp9p+a58e@e...> In-Reply-To: <8offua+pb0r@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1695 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.158 From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Gallivanting Tripper] > I would like to report a Travesty! > > Would Oloros like to explain what the #$^$# was going on ?!?! > > Checking the Archive, Oloros would seem to have made, and > then deleted, Proposal 92 "The Disposessed" (message 500) > and Proposal 93 "B Coli" (message 501). > I received these by email, > Quite true. I made a slew of Proposals, including Prop 92 "The Disposessed" and Prop 93 "B Coli". I had second thoughts about the use of "The Disposessed" and felt that I would submit it at a later date, and so, assuming that none of us were receiving the board as email, deleted it. This ties in with Doctroid's posting on his subscription status with the SocialNomic lists and eGroups. I left the issue alone when it was first brought up by GT, because I felt that he had gotten a glance at the VML at the precise moment between my posting/deleting/reposting the two Proposals. The present state is that Gallavanting Tipper has accidentally been the deciding Vote on a Proposal he finds recalcitrant. This is the issue that needs attention to be fixed. Here is a long way to do it: 1) GT proposes to delete the Rule "Eat Your Vegetables", a proposal I promise to Vote for under threat of Accusation, other Players Vote upon it normally; 2) Anyone submits a Proposal 93, then Retracts it; 3) GT submits the text of the Proposal "The Disposessed", as an Acknowledged Proposal with myself, all Players Vote on it normally. or, we could look to the Archive and attempt to delete messages and restore them in their appropriate places. Terribly sorry this has occured. I will be more careful with the timing of my decisions in the future. -Oloros From rsholmes@m... Tue Aug 29 11:53:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10185 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 18:53:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 18:53:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mw.egroups.com) (10.1.2.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 18:53:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Aug 2000 18:53:28 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:53:28 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Accusations cleanup Message-ID: <8oh0r8+m2e4@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2027 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " I've submitted a proposal to take care of some ugliness in the present Rule regarding accusations; here's my annotation: * Rule 12 at present does not allow for accusations against non-Player Persons. While it seems unlikely that such a Person will ever commit an Action that requires an Accusation to correct, it's a logical possibility and we might as well address it. (I see no need to allow non-Player Persons to *make* accusations, though.) * Rule 12 muddies the waters by referring to Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) without specifying whether penalties apply to each or to all, although in fact an Action can be committed by only one person and an Accusation can be made by only one. I've cleaned that up. * Rule 12 doesn't make clear exactly who has to do what to clean up after an Accusation. I've solved that by a mechanism parallel to Rule Changes, where an Adopter or Rejecter does the job and collects a reward for doing so. (The Defendant still is supposed to take care of actually undoing the illegal event.) The process of "unwinding" changes to Gamedata resulting from the illegal Action and applying penalties/rewards is spelled out. * I considered adding a clause forbidding double jeopardy ("No Action may be the subject of more than one Accusation"), but realized this has scam potential: if I thought a given action of mine might lead to an Accusation, I could preemptively Accuse myself, then retract the Accusation, pay a minimal penalty, and have the action stand immune to further accusation. I did put in a clause prohibiting a Player from Accusing emself, but the scam still works if two Players work it together, so I think double jeopardy needs to remain legal for now. * I've added language making it legal for an innocent mistake to be rectified promptly without penalty. By the way, this is Proposal 93. If we decide to clean up by some procedure similar to what Oloros proposed, I'm willing to Retract it and resubmit it. - Doctroid From oloros@l... Tue Aug 29 13:22:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2465 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 20:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 20:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 20:22:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Aug 2000 20:22:45 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:22:43 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: multiple proposal cleanup Message-ID: <8oh62j+ram8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 189 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.158 From: "Oloros the Blue" At the very least, VML#509 (GT's vote for then-Prop 93 "B Coli"), ought to be deleted before we consider the new Prop 93 "Accusation Cleanup", which is more expeditious, indeed. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Tue Aug 29 16:07:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4430 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 23:07:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 23:07:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 23:07:50 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29342 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:07:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:49:24 +1100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:16:39 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Commentary on Active Proposals (77 and 86-92) From: Gallivanting Tripper A quick reply to a minor point..... >There's also the fact that SPLA(T) and KNPS can be dissolved with a >message to the DML. That bugs me, because the DML is supposed to be >strictly for discussion and until now, posting to the DML has had no >legal repercussions. And it still doesn't, in the sense that the >Rules don't govern such posts. On the other hand, there's nowhere >else to post dissolution messages -- such a message to any of the >other groups would be illegal. But the "legality" of a post to DML >cannot be challenged, because there's no such thing as an illegal post >to DML. Thus the whole Accusations mechanism is at least slightly >crippled with regard to prosecuting anything arising from shutting >down a semi-permanent Institution. Although the DML is described as saying that nothing posted to it will affect the game, that description is woefully incorrect. Here are some game data that are affected and regulated through the DML * Player Activity/Inactivity * The recognition of Debutantes * Changes in Social Standing through the use of In Words So I find no problem with Institutions reacting to events in the DML. And indeed there is no way to shut down an institution through the AML, because the AML, like the VML and Rules, is tightly constrained about what kinds of messages can be sent. Cheers gT From s3036845@s... Tue Aug 29 16:13:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27296 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2000 23:13:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2000 23:13:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2000 23:13:14 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00175 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:13:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8oh62j+ram8@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:22:03 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] multiple proposal cleanup From: Gallivanting Tripper >At the very least, VML#509 (GT's vote for then-Prop 93 "B Coli"), >ought to be deleted before we consider the new Prop 93 "Accusation >Cleanup", which is more expeditious, indeed. Good Point. Shall do. And here's my compromise. I'll delete both my votes on P92 and P93 (since their legality is certainly questionable) if Doctroid will delete the posts relating to the Adoption of Eat You Vegetables (whose legality are equally questionable) Tripper (who's freaked out at the prospect of Accusations, let alone injunctions, for this mess) (and who belives that there is always a way to sort things out like reasonalbe Players without neccessarily resorting to red tape) From rsholmes@m... Wed Aug 30 05:42:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7335 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 12:42:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Aug 2000 12:42:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 12:42:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2000 12:42:52 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:42:42 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: multiple proposal cleanup Message-ID: <8oivg2+r29j@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 545 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 166.62.79.134 From: "Doctroid " --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Gallivanting Tripper < s3036845@s...> wrote: > Good Point. Shall do. And here's my compromise. I'll delete both my > votes on P92 and P93 (since their legality is certainly questionable) if > Doctroid will delete the posts relating to the Adoption of Eat You > Vegetables (whose legality are equally questionable) Will do (a bit later, not right this instant). Also will retract my P93, if for no other reason than that I've noticed some badly recalcitrant features. Will re-propose when ready. - D From rsholmes@m... Wed Aug 30 06:53:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10857 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 13:53:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Aug 2000 13:53:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 13:53:42 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00578C20@m...>; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 9:53:41 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA18631; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:53:40 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid References: <8oedmu+gbnl@e...> Date: 30 Aug 2000 09:53:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Oloros the Blue"'s message of "Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:14:38 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Oh, for Christ's sake, Oloros. You go and illegally delete two legal posts, it's called to your attention informally, and everyone says, OK, let's just clean it up and move on. And then I overlook a line causing points to be computed incorrectly and you sic the Inquisition on me. Let's save the Accusations for really intractible disputes and just fix the small mistakes as they occur, shall we? I'm willing to fix up the accounting if you're willing to withdraw the Accusation and if the rest are willing to overlook any penalties for either of us. If not, well, I'll just say the tone of this game is getting a touch hostile. - D [And yes, I've made an Accusation for even less cause. And I regret doing it that way. Did so even before this morning.] From rsholmes@m... Wed Aug 30 07:01:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 353 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 14:01:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Aug 2000 14:01:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 14:01:20 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00578D53@m...>; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:01:19 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20432; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: multiple proposal cleanup References: <8oivg2+r29j@e...> Date: 30 Aug 2000 10:01:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Doctroid "'s message of "Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:42:42 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 4 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: "Doctroid " Before I go ahead and delete posts relating to the adoption of "Eat Your Vegetables", are there any objections to my doing so? - D From rsholmes@m... Wed Aug 30 08:10:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2558 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 15:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Aug 2000 15:09:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 15:09:48 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.97] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2000 15:09:46 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:09:41 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: P93 -> P94 Message-ID: <8oj83l+1koe@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 384 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " I have retracted the recalcitrant P93 and resubmitted it as the expeditious P94 with the following modifications: * Language leaving Rule 12 in place until any outstanding accusations are resolved * Stray word "deducting" removed * Revisions to subject line specifications, etc., to enable the specified unwinding procedure to work in the cases of guilty plea or retraction From rsholmes@m... Wed Aug 30 08:10:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7763 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 15:08:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Aug 2000 15:08:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 15:08:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.106] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2000 15:08:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:08:46 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: P93 -> P94 Message-ID: <8oj81u+qqss@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 384 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " I have retracted the recalcitrant P93 and resubmitted it as the expeditious P94 with the following modifications: * Language leaving Rule 12 in place until any outstanding accusations are resolved * Stray word "deducting" removed * Revisions to subject line specifications, etc., to enable the specified unwinding procedure to work in the cases of guilty plea or retraction From rsholmes@m... Wed Aug 30 08:24:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29842 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 15:24:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Aug 2000 15:24:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 15:24:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.103] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2000 15:24:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:24:55 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid Message-ID: <8oj907+nihi@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: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " On closer examination I see Oloros's Accusation was posted on Monday. A side effect of the change in email address was that I didn't see it until today. So the sequence of events implied in my previous message was incorrect, and the tone of that message for that reason was inappropriate. Nevertheless, I still feel an Accusation is best saved for more serious situations, and that it would be best for all involved to agree to fix this and any similar mistakes informally. - D From s3036845@s... Wed Aug 30 17:41:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7323 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2000 00:41:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Aug 2000 00:41:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2000 00:41:24 -0000 Received: from [150.203.188.236] (apimac.anu.edu.au [150.203.188.236]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20587 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:41:20 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8oj907+nihi@e...> References: <8oj907+nihi@e...> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:30:47 +0800 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: Gallivanting Tripper >Nevertheless, I still feel an Accusation is best saved for more >serious situations, and that it would be best for all involved to >agree to fix this and any similar mistakes informally. Yes, like my double-take on points deductions in the last two Adoptions. But seriously, folks, TopHeavy's Admin Rewarded didn't take into account the creation of The House on TriField Hill which, by the way, I recommend that all who can afford Triangles take advantage of. I'll even make the first bet to show you all how it's done! GT From mctupper@h... Wed Aug 30 20:48:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2046 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2000 03:48:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Aug 2000 03:48:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2000 03:48:22 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA67202 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:48:21 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA94072 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:48:20 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Rambling notes Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:17:57 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00083021460100.07207@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen There has been a lot of activity lately, on various matters in Socialnomic, so I figured I would post all of my comments at once. Regarding Accusations, they should be regarded as serious matters. The fear of being accused of wrong doing makes us think twice about our actions. But some players seem to be a bit more upset than is needed. Remember, an Accusation is merely notice that a vote _may_ be called for. The Accusation serves as a wake-up call to something that needs immediate attention. As far as I can remember, out of all of the Accusations made, none have been called to a vote. Players see the problem, fix it, and then there is no need for a vote. Now if the matter remains unsolved and a vote is called for, then players need to consider matters carefully before voting, but unless someone is being really stubborn, I don't see a need for the vote. We are all reasonable people. Considering that the latest Accusation was on deleting of posts, here is my opinion. With the ability to Retract proposals, we can remove them from vote consideration. So if I make a proposal or two, then suddenly realize that one of them was flawed, I simply Retract that one, make the changes to it, and submit it as a new proposal. The flawed proposal still is in the archives, and any votes for it are ignored, while the actual proposal is also posted and waiting for votes. As people have noticed, when a message is deleted, any replies to it are threaded onto the previous message. That gets icky, so it seems to be better to Retract and re-propose than delete. Now for Ruleset compilations. Until Rule 28, there was no specification on the compendium. Having a compendium is very useful, so I'm glad that something official has been done about it. Personally, I fell the compendium should be in the RULES list. The definition for the RML (Rule 0) talks about enacted and amended rules, but does not specify that they must be post individually. I interpret the definition to mean that only Rules can be posted, and since the Compendium is composed of only Rules, thus there shouldn't be a problem with posting it to the RML. By Rule 1, Rules can be found in the RML, but that rule doesn't specify what else may also be found in the RML. Furthermore, for a new player or an old one, it simply makes more sense to find the Rules in the RML archive, irregardless of the format that the Rules are in. Okay, enough ranting for now. Hopefully I will be able to participate more fully in the near future. I still control the Guillotine, and I have a few ideas on Institutions, as well as possible resurrecting the Social Scene. Xylen, Pariah, Controller of the Guillotine, and Seeker of even more titles that make no difference at all. :) -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@l... Thu Aug 31 13:37:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7108 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2000 20:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Aug 2000 20:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2000 20:37:34 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.105] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Aug 2000 20:37:34 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:37:27 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid Message-ID: <8omfm7+gtvg@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 971 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.141 From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: > Oh, for Christ's sake, Oloros. You go and illegally delete two > legal posts, it's called to your attention informally, and everyone > says, OK, let's just clean it up and move on. And then I overlook a > line causing points to be computed incorrectly and you sic the > Inquisition on me. > > Let's save the Accusations for really intractible disputes and just > fix the small mistakes as they occur, shall we? > Sorry, I've been caught in the work grind for a couple of days, so am just now getting a chance to respond to this . . . Um, yeah. From my point of view the two are very different problems. And the history of Accusations has been more towards points-mongering than fixing real problems. I don't see much wrong with that, in some ways it should let us all take the Accusations a little less seriously, so when a problem really crops up, we can address it calmly, even if Accused. -Oloros From s3036845@s... Thu Aug 31 17:18:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6818 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2000 00:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2000 00:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 00:18:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: s3036845@s... Received: from [10.1.2.230] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Sep 2000 00:18:32 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:18:28 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Email vs Archive debate continues Message-ID: <8omskk+5u8b@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 625 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 150.203.245.2 From: "Gallivanting Tripper" Another take on ruleset compendia..... If there is one mailing list one should subscribe to by emails, it is the Rules list. Consider: * A Mail Filter applied to transfer all Rules messages into their own mailbox * That mailbox sorted by title and then date * Old rules deleted (manually) when new ones arrive. The Mailbox then becomes the table of contents for the ruleset, a lot easier to use than the current Rules archive and less unwieldy than having to post a compendium every now and then. Well that's what I'm doing! Unfortunately my mailer doesn't do threads so the VML archive is still useful . . . . gT From rsholmes@m... Fri Sep 01 07:17:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17454 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2000 14:17:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2000 14:17:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 14:17:44 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00587D86@m...>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:17:44 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA16023; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid References: <8omfm7+gtvg@e...> Date: 01 Sep 2000 10:17:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Oloros the Blue"'s message of "Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:37:27 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 54 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: "Doctroid" As Oloros insists on doing it by the book, I've posted a guilty plea. Rule 12 states: The Defendant()s may post a message to the AML with the subject line "Guilty as Charged". The Defendant(s) immediately lose 10 points and the disputed action is revoked. ... When an Action is Revoked, the following events occur: * If the Action was a deletion, the deleted message must be reposted * If the Action was a posting, the message must be deleted * If Gamedata has changed since the Accusation was made, the Player who made the Accusation must post a message to the AML with the subject line "Consequences of Accusation" and with its text describing the Gamedata as if the Revoked action had not occurred. This message then becomes the current state of the Gamedata. Part of the reason for P94 is that this last bit is so recalcitrant. Much of it is in the passive voice, so it doesn't say WHO is supposed to do this stuff. But the only sensible reading of the first two asterisked points is that I'm supposed to delete the message relating to the points changes as a result of the adoption of P88. Now, what are the point totals at this moment? I've lost 10 points. The points assigned/deducted for P88 are unassigned/undeducted; to complete the legal adoption of P88 presumably I need to post a new message with the new point assignments/deductions. But before or after my 10 points? And before or after Oloros posts his "Consequences of Accusation"? Should Oloros's post reflect my penalty? (It's supposed to describe the Gamedata "as if the Revoked action had not occurred" -- well, if it hadn't occurred, there would have been no Accusation, hence no penalty for me, so he's not supposed to post my penalty! Yet Rule 12 implies my penalty is imposed before the revokation... as I read it, Oloros's "Consequences" message should therefore nullify my penalty!) Note that Oloros should *not* post a correction of the point assignments for P88. Sheesh. One thing I'm pretty sure of: I see nothing here that says I'm required to post point totals at this moment. I will have to in order to complete the Adoption of P88, but there's no deadline for that, so I can wait until revokation is complete. I was thinking of posting three Accusations against Oloros (for deletion of legal P92, deletion of legal P93, and posting of a second P92) but on second thought, given that unwinding those will be even harder than unwinding this one, I'll let someone else play Plaintiff if they like... - D From rsholmes@m... Fri Sep 01 07:20:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27134 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2000 14:20:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2000 14:20:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 14:20:58 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Sep 2000 14:20:56 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:20:52 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Accusation against Oloros Message-ID: <8ooe04+48o7@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1886 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " (Originally posted, illegally, to AML; deleted and reposted here.) --- In Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com, rsholmes@m... wrote: "Gallivanting Tripper" writes: > Regardless of the rest of the Controversy surrounding Proposal 92 - B > Coli, I claim that it is illegal as the rule that it Proposes to > Enact > - "Eat Your Vegetables" has a 3-word Title. > > Nyah I was tempted to call him on that one, too -- even before the deleted proposals came to light. However... Rule 1 states: All players may post a Rule-Change to the VML with the subject line 'Proposal [n] - [name$]' where [n] is an integer one greater than the most recently posted Rule-Change on the VML, and [name$] is a Name of up to two words describing the Rule-Change. No violation here, since the *Rule-Change* name is two words (B Coli). And Rule 6 states 3) For each Rule Enacted by the Rule-Change, the Adopter must post a message to the RML with the subject "Rule [n] - [name$]", where [n] is an integer one greater than the most recently posted Rule on the RML and [name$] is the Name of the Rule-Change; unless the Rule-Change had no Name, in which case the Adopter may choose a one or two word Name for the Rule; or unless the Rulechange specified a Name for the rule in its text, in which case that Name takes precedence. The body of this message must be the text of the rule as specified by the Rule-Change posted to the VML. No violation here either. If Oloros hadn't specified a name for his rule, the Adoptor would not have been permitted to call it "Eat Your Vegetables". However, there is no restriction here on the number of words in a rule name if it is specified in the Rule-Change. And I see no restrictions anywhere else, either. Sorry, GT, but I think you're going to have to eat this particular vegetable! - D --- End forwarded message --- From rsholmes@m... Fri Sep 01 07:33:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23691 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2000 14:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2000 14:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 14:33:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00587F9C@m...>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:33:57 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19012; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-VML] Proposal 96 - New Style References: <8omrn7+e9io@e...> Date: 01 Sep 2000 10:33:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: "TopHeavy's message of "Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:02:47 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: "Doctroid" "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" writes: > A Rule-change can be Adopted if it satisfies one of the following > conditions: > > The number of Votes FOR plus the number of Votes PASSIVE for the rule- > change is greater than the number of Active Players divided by Two > and the rule-change has not been Retracted. > > A Rule change can be Defeated if it satisfies one of the following > conditions: > > The number of Votes AGAINST plus the number of Votes PASSIVE for the > rule change is greater than or equal to the number of Active Players > divided by Two. Oy, how recalcitrant. By this rule, if I vote FOR a proposal, you and Xylen vote AGAINST, and Oloros and GT vote PASSIVE (for instance), then the rule can be Adopted! (or Defeated, either way, depending on who gets to it first and which they'd rather do). Twice as many AGAINST as FOR, but it can pass anyway! That may be what you intended but I dislike it greatly. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY From oloros@l... Fri Sep 01 08:33:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7480 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2000 15:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2000 15:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 15:33:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.115] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Sep 2000 15:33:02 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:33:01 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Accusation against Doctroid Message-ID: <8ooi7d+bsef@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 525 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.108 From: "Oloros the Blue" > [Doctroid] > As Oloros insists on doing it by the book, > I've posted a guilty plea. > Perhaps I was operating under an earlier precedent that used these Accusations for annoyingly trivial corrections. Then again, the lead paragraph of the expeditious Proposal in question made reference to what may be an annoying trivial Rule. There is a good amount of points change to run through before I can post the Consequences of the Accusation. And I am certain that doing so will knot my own knickers as well. -Oloros From oloros@l... Fri Sep 01 09:59:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25387 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2000 16:59:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2000 16:59:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ml.egroups.com) (10.1.1.31) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2000 16:59:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.126] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Sep 2000 16:59:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:59:15 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: un-Missing Proposals Message-ID: <8oon94+c92l@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ogp9p+a58e@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1035 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.108 From: "Oloros the Blue" I proposed the much bally-hooed and perhaps expeditious text of the Proposal "The Disposessed" as "Truly Dispossessed", and a quite expeditious proposal to clear the table of abused vegetables. -Oloros > [Oloros] > The present state is that Gallavanting Tipper has accidentally been > the deciding Vote on a Proposal he finds recalcitrant. This is the > issue that needs attention to be fixed. > > Here is a long way to do it: > 1) GT proposes to delete the Rule "Eat Your Vegetables", a proposal I > promise to Vote for under threat of Accusation, other Players Vote > upon it normally; > 2) Anyone submits a Proposal 93, then Retracts it; > 3) GT submits the text of the Proposal "The Disposessed", as an > Acknowledged Proposal with myself, all Players Vote on it normally. > > or, we could look to the Archive and attempt to delete messages and > restore them in their appropriate places. > > > Terribly sorry this has occured. I will be more careful with the > timing of my decisions in the future. > > -Oloros From s3036845@s... Fri Sep 01 18:19:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12327 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2000 01:19:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Sep 2000 01:19:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2000 01:19:55 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24151 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:19:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: "TopHeavy's message of "Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:02:47 -0000" <8omrn7+e9io@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:29:27 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-VML] Proposal 96 - New Style From: Gallivanting Tripper >Oy, how recalcitrant. By this rule, if I vote FOR a proposal, you and >Xylen vote AGAINST, and Oloros and GT vote PASSIVE (for instance), >then the rule can be Adopted! (or Defeated, either way, depending on >who gets to it first and which they'd rather do). Twice as many >AGAINST as FOR, but it can pass anyway! > >That may be what you intended but I dislike it greatly. Its actually the best option for "don't care" votes that's been submitted so far. The problem with our past-the-post system is that a Pass vote would possibly put a Proposal into Stasis, unable to be passed or failed. In the scenario above, two Players express that they don't really mind whether the proposal passes or not, but are happy to give it enough votes to be adopted or defeated. Upon the first PASSIVE vote, the proposal is able to be defeated, upon the second PASSIVE vote, it can be adopted or defeated, although presumably there will be two Players lining up to defeat it but only one wanting to adopt it. If it is adopted, three players were happy (or at least not unhappy) for it to do so. Personally, I would only vote PASSIVE to minor administrative proposals that don't do much harm or good - because - to vote FOR such proposals is to encourage more of them (clutter) - to vote AGAINST such proposals is to discourage them unreasonably - and to not vote at all just leaves them latent. SO that's what I think, I might even call it Expeditious GT From oloros@l... Sat Sep 02 10:32:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29469 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2000 17:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Sep 2000 17:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.48) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2000 17:32:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.208] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Sep 2000 17:32:03 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:31:58 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Socialnomic-VML Message 533ff Message-ID: <8ordie+1f8l@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 432 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.147 From: "Oloros the Blue" The following seems to be an accidental double Voting. May I suggest that none of the other Players Accuse Doctroid for taking such actions as necessary to clean it up. from Socialnomic-VML Message 533, "Proposal 96 - New Style" 535 Re: Proposal 96 - AGAINST Doctroid Fri 9/1/2000 547 Re: Proposal 96 - FOR Gallivanting Tripper Fri 9/1/2000 551 Re: Proposal 96 - AGAINST Doctroid Fri 9/1/2000 -Oloros From oloros@l... Sat Sep 02 11:27:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16423 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2000 18:27:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Sep 2000 18:27:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2000 18:27:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.51] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Sep 2000 18:27:56 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:27:51 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: End of Summer Message-ID: <8orgr7+m8vk@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 213 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.147 From: "Oloros the Blue" It's the end of the summer season and the accounts of the Players of SocialNomic are ripe for taxation. Some trepedation exists as to what form interactions of society will take in the coming season. -Oloros From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 04:35:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21530 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 11:35:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 11:35:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 11:35:12 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.163] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 11:35:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:35:09 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Socialnomic-VML Message 533ff Message-ID: <8p2lpd+c7dr@e...> In-Reply-To: <8ordie+1f8l@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 283 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 166.62.78.39 From: "Doctroid " I believe my confusion was due to a glitch on egroups' part. Anyway, the extra vote has been deleted. I am exceedingly disappointed that this repugnant and recalcitrant proposal has received so much support, by the way. It's going to be to the great detriment of this game. - D From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 04:39:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13915 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 11:39:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 11:39:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 11:39:39 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.119] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 11:39:38 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:39:29 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Accusations fix Message-ID: <8p2m1h+td4c@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 171 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 166.62.78.39 From: "Doctroid " May I request some comments on P94? I am perplexed to find GT and Xylen voting against it, especially since they voted for the nearly- identical, retracted P93. - D From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 07:40:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24420 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 14:40:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 14:40:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 14:40:45 -0000 Received: from gamera.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00599EC2@m...>; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:40:45 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by gamera.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA20557; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Socialnomic-VML Message 533ff References: <8ordie+1f8l@e...> Date: 05 Sep 2000 10:40:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Oloros the Blue"'s message of "Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:31:58 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 4 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: Doctroid There also appear to be two votes for P99 from Oloros, VML messages 558 and 567. - D From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 07:58:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24261 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 14:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 14:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mo.egroups.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 14:58:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.101] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 14:58:36 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:58:28 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Some recent proposals Message-ID: <8p31mk+jk54@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1129 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " P101: It's good to see someone besides me is interested in improving the Accusations rule. While I still believe minor errors should be dealt with informally (and perhaps that principle should be codified in some way, although I'm not sure how), the structure of Socialnomic is such that the existence of a process such as this is essential to the correct decentralized administration of the game. As such, the process should be well-defined, effective, and efficient. P101 takes an expedicious step in that direction. However, it has the recalcitrant feature that it fails to make clear whether the defendant, when pleading guilty, is to post an update of gamedata as affected by the revocation of the illegal act, or whether the defendant merely need deduct 10 points from his total and leave the unwinding to someone else. P102: I think this proposal deserves some explanation. What's the intended function of the DoJ? So far it's nothing but a point sink... and I'm a little uneasy over the existence of an institution whose sole source of funding is accusations. It smells slightly of a small-town speed trap. - D From oloros@l... Tue Sep 05 08:19:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22100 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 15:19:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 15:19:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mk.egroups.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 15:19:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.122] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 15:19:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:19:49 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Socialnomic-VML Message 533ff Message-ID: <8p32ul+72o8@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 245 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.123 From: "Oloros the Blue" How interesting. and rather embarrassing as well. I deleted one of them. -Oloros --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Doctroid wrote: > There also appear to be two votes for P99 from Oloros, VML messages > 558 and 567. > > - D From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 08:20:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8749 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 15:20:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 15:20:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 15:20:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.109] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 15:20:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:19:57 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: P104 and P105 Message-ID: <8p32ut+4bab@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 266 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " I'm having trouble with itchy post finger this morning. P103 was withdrawn and reposted as P104 because of a typo in its contingency. (P99 should have been P96.) P105 was posted illegally with no name, then deleted and reposted with a valid name. Sorry... - D From oloros@l... Tue Sep 05 09:33:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18466 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 16:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 16:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 16:33:16 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 16:33:16 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:33:14 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Accusations and Relativism Message-ID: <8p378a+h79q@e...> In-Reply-To: <8p31mk+jk54@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2145 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.123 From: "Oloros the Blue" (Re: Some recent proposals) (an opinion on the the justice system foolowed by a response to Doctroids comments on P101) > [Doctroid] > While I still believe minor errors should be dealt with > informally (and perhaps that principle should be codified > in some way, although I'm not sure how), > The Accusations process is composed of two phases. The initial Accusation is a sort of warning shot. The cost of pleading guilty at this phase was carefully set to be equal to the award for having a proposal pass. I think that we can reasonably expect that any given player will have at least one proposal pass each week, so this penalty is a bit of a slap on the hand. If an Accusation should move into the second phase (which I'd like to see renamed), it is a more serious matter. As it is if the Accusation should be wagered upon with an Injunction. It might be interesting to track the number of times any particular player has (1) been accused, (2) pleaded guilty, (3) been fully accused. I'm not so sure what we might do with this data, maybe just affect Social Standing and dole out a nice title. Actually, I might make propose such an expeditious proposal. The data would only need be updated when making Accusations/Guilty Pleads/Etc. There is a decent level of balance operating in the background of this process: The institution of the State, its ability to tax and provide, allows one to play with a small amount of abandon. > [Doctroid] > P101 takes an expedicious step in that direction. However, it > has the recalcitrant feature that it fails to make clear whether the > defendant, when pleading guilty, is to post an update of gamedata as > affected by the revocation of the illegal act, or whether the > defendant merely need deduct 10 points from his total and leave the > unwinding to someone else. > I expect of an Accusing Player that said Player has a good idea of what should happen to correct an error in gamedata. This does place the game data in a mutable state for a little while, but we have been careful, so far, not to call a major change in the game data while it hangs so precariously. From oloros@l... Tue Sep 05 09:44:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4257 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 16:44:04 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.111] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 16:44:02 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:43:58 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: on Prop 102 Message-ID: <8p37se+95bc@e...> In-Reply-To: <8p31mk+jk54@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 772 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.123 From: "Oloros the Blue" (Re: Some recent proposals) > [Doctroid] > P102: I think this proposal deserves some explanation. What's > the intended function of the DoJ? So far it's nothing but a > point sink... > and I'm a little uneasy over the existence of an institution > whose sole source of funding is accusations. > The whole of my intent in this Proposal was to begin to wind up the economic loop, at least the level that deals with Points. I really do not know just what it is that the DoJ is to fund with its ill-begotten capital, partly because I do not see anything immediately appropriate. I do not see it as a point sink, though, just a holding pen, a hedge fund. I am just as undecided as Doctroid as to whether I find this Proposal expeditious or recalcitrant. -Oloros From topheavy@s... Tue Sep 05 10:13:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9166 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 17:13:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 17:13:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 17:13:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.2.225] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 17:13:40 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:13:35 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Discussion of Prop 96 Message-ID: <8p39jv+lna0@e...> In-Reply-To: <8p2lpd+c7dr@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1715 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.10.58.2 From: "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" in response to... > > Oy, how recalcitrant. By this rule, if I vote FOR a proposal, you > and Xylen vote AGAINST, and Oloros and GT vote PASSIVE (for > instance), then the rule can be Adopted! (or Defeated, either way, > depending on who gets to it first and which they'd rather do). > Twice as many AGAINST as FOR, but it can pass anyway! second message > I am exceedingly disappointed that this repugnant and recalcitrant > proposal has received so much support, by the way. It's going to be > to the great detriment of this game. > I actually don't see how this prop can possibly harm the game. What this does is add an option for players to place a 'I will support either side, but let's not delay things' vote. The PASSIVE vote benefits both those who wish to Adopt and those who wish to Defeat. I defend that one of the most interesting bit of our method of voting is that a proposal can be eligible for Adoption (or Defeat) but not actually effect the game until someone takes the time to adopt it. The addition of the PASSIVE vote does add the possibility for a proposal to be eligible for Defeat or Adoption at the same time. But how does this negatively impact the game? In the above case, if Oloros and GT had abstained from voting (the only other choice at the moment) the proposal could not have been Adopted or Defeated. I see that situation as much more detrimental than the possibility that a proposal could be both Adopted or Defeated. And remember that a PASSIVE vote basically counts as BOTH a FOR and an AGAINST vote, not as abstaining from voting. We can currently abstain from voting rather easily (though with a penalty, which i heartily dislike). -topheavy From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 10:32:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19164 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 17:32:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 17:32:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 17:32:30 -0000 Received: from gamera.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0059B67E@m...>; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:32:30 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by gamera.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28005; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Discussion of Prop 96 References: <8p39jv+lna0@e...> Date: 05 Sep 2000 13:32:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: "TopHeavy's message of "Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:13:35 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: Doctroid "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" writes: > But how does this negatively impact the game? Negativity is of course in the eye of the beholder. I feel negatively about the prospect of proposals being Adopted despite having more votes AGAINST than FOR (or Defeated despite having more votes FOR than AGAINST). You may, of course, be entirely happy about such situations. I'm not. - D From topheavy@s... Tue Sep 05 10:35:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4708 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 17:35:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 17:35:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 17:35:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.1.35] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Sep 2000 17:35:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:35:50 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Prop 105 Message-ID: <8p3atm+h7ls@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 322 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.10.58.2 From: "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" I am just letting y'all know my reasoning for quickly voting against prop 105. My immediate issue with this proposal is that it weights the PASSIVE vote as an AGAINST vote, since in tied situations the PASSIVE votes only allow for DEFEAT. If this was changed, i would give the proposal more consideration. -topheavy From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 10:53:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23558 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 17:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 17:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 17:53:50 -0000 Received: from gamera.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0059B871@m...>; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:53:49 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by gamera.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA05803; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Discussion of Prop 96 References: <8p39jv+lna0@e...> Date: 05 Sep 2000 13:53:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: "TopHeavy's message of "Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:13:35 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 47 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: Doctroid "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" writes: > In the above case, if Oloros and GT had abstained from voting (the > only other choice at the moment) the proposal could not have been > Adopted or Defeated. I see that situation as much more detrimental > than the possibility that a proposal could be both Adopted or > Defeated. As one who voted for P77 I wholeheartedly agree that having Proposals in indefinite limbo due to abstentions is a recalcitrant thing. But that doesn't mean any alternative is better, and I think P96 by itself is worse. Partly because of the defect I've noted before and partly because proposals can *still* rot in limbo if players don't vote on them -- admittedly a lesser problem. P104 is meant to address the latter problem, and P105 the former. > And remember that a PASSIVE vote basically counts as BOTH a FOR and > an AGAINST vote, No it doesn't; it counts as *either* a FOR or an AGAINST vote, depending on the prejudices of the Adopter. For it to count as *both* a FOR and an AGAINST vote you'd need language like A Rule-change can be Adopted if it satisfies one of the following conditions: The number of Votes FOR plus half the number of Votes PASSIVE for the rule-change is greater than the number of Active Players divided by Two and the rule-change has not been Retracted. which is, I believe, operationally equivalent to P105's The number of Votes FOR plus the number of Votes PASSIVE for the rule-change is greater than the number of Active Players divided by Two; the number of Votes FOR is greater than the number of Votes AGAINST; and the rule-change has not been Retracted. which you voted against. > not as abstaining from voting. We can currently > abstain from voting rather easily With, as you have noted, detrimental consequences, with or without P96. - D From rsholmes@m... Tue Sep 05 11:00:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12987 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2000 18:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Sep 2000 18:00:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2000 18:00:52 -0000 Received: from gamera.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0059B940@m...>; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:00:50 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by gamera.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08227; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Prop 105 References: <8p3atm+h7ls@e...> Date: 05 Sep 2000 14:00:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: "TopHeavy's message of "Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:35:50 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: Doctroid "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" writes: > My immediate issue with this proposal is that it weights the PASSIVE > vote as an AGAINST vote, since in tied situations the PASSIVE votes > only allow for DEFEAT. No, PASSIVE votes are neutral. It's always been the case (at least since I joined) that equal numbers of FOR and AGAINST votes lead to Defeat of the proposal; for Adoption to happen there has to be a clear majority in favor. P105 merely extends the same idea. With or without PASSIVE votes, if the FORs and AGAINSTs are tied, the proposal is Defeated -- as always. If you want ties broken in favor of Adoption, or if you want ties to be ambiguous and to be decided by the Adopter/Rejecter, go ahead and propose it -- but that issue exists with or without PASSIVE votes. - D From topheavy@s... Tue Sep 05 17:57:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18302 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 00:57:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 00:57:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hl.egroups.com) (10.1.10.44) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 00:57:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.2.27] by hl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Sep 2000 00:57:37 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:57:29 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Prop 105 Message-ID: <8p44pp+a49g@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2262 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.10.58.2 From: "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" > > No, PASSIVE votes are neutral. It's always been the case (at least > since I joined) that equal numbers of FOR and AGAINST votes lead to > Defeat of the proposal; for Adoption to happen there has to be a clear > majority in favor. > You are correct, My mistake there, chalk it up to early morning, or just my usual tendancy towards oversight. However, what it does is make a single PASSIVE vote automatically support the AGAINST side. In an even split of votes, a PASSIVE vote is forced to become an AGAINST vote.. making the potential of a PASSIVE vote favor the AGAINST side. >> And remember that a PASSIVE vote basically counts as BOTH a FOR >>and an AGAINST vote, > No it doesn't; it counts as *either* a FOR or an AGAINST vote, > depending on the prejudices of the Adopter. For it to count as > *both* a FOR and an AGAINST vote you'd need language like By stating that it count as both, i mean that a PASSIVE vote can be used as either a FOR or AGAINST.. it has the potential to be either one, therefore i think of it as being both until the prop is ADOPTED or DEFEATED, at which point that potential is used by the Adopter. In effect, a PASSIVE vote allows your vote to back up any other player's opinion. And yes, when it all shakes out, this will often be the opinion of the Adopter, which i don't have a problem with. Your addendum would make it so that a PASSIVE vote sides with the majority, which would address your concerns... However, given a bit of end-of-day not rushed thought, i think that i still disagree with the addendum. This is probably because i read the PASSIVE vote as an actual FOR/or/AGAINST vote, therefore when i see a situation with two AGAINST, one FOR, and two PASSIVE, i don't see a prop being ADOPTED against the Majority. Those two PASSIVE voters were willing to see the prop ADOPTED or DEFEATED, so therefore there are 3 players who are amicable to the change, which satisfies the requirements. so, anywho, just thought i would say a bit more instead of leaving the discussion hanging. I wouldn't implement the addendum, but i can see the arguement for it, so whatever the votes on 105 decide is fine by me. (like i could do anything about it anyway -smirk-) -topheavy From s3036845@s... Tue Sep 05 18:16:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17942 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 01:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 01:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 01:16:19 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15879 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:16:15 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8p2m1h+td4c@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:26:02 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Accusations fix From: Gallivanting Tripper >May I request some comments on P94? I am perplexed to find GT and >Xylen voting against it, especially since they voted for the nearly- >identical, retracted P93. Oops, that's right. Although I heartily agree with the Accusations Cleanup, the first paragraph looked sufficiently recalcitrantly confusing for me to vote AGAINST as a precaution... [P94] >Add a Rule, "Accusations 2.0", reading as follows: > >As soon as any outstanding Accusations (if any) at the time of this >rule's Adoption are resolved, Rule 12 shall be repealed and the >following Rule shall take effect. Does that mean that a new Rule is enacted which does nothing but wait until Accusations are completed, then delete rule 12 and enact yet another rule??? More importantly, does the Rule do it all by itself??? For this Nomic, every game action has to be explicitly done by some Player or other - this is the whole point of the accusation cleanup. So I was rather perplexed to see slef-modifying rules as part of the fix. Perhaps I should re-propose to be polite..... GT From mctupper@h... Tue Sep 05 18:56:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5085 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 01:56:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 01:56:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 01:56:23 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA68852 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:56:22 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA117196 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:56:21 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Accusations fix Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:51:31 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00090519535506.00879@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen >May I request some comments on P94? I am perplexed to find GT and >Xylen voting against it, especially since they voted for the nearly- >identical, retracted P93. Actually I do support P94, and I am assuming that other Players will as well. I'm going for Points on this one. Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From s3036845@s... Tue Sep 05 21:11:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9968 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 04:11:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 04:11:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 04:11:49 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.240] (scanner-g4.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.240]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27743 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:11:44 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:21:43 -0700 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Re: Accusation against Oloros and Tripper From: Gallivanting Tripper Well this is a curly one. The current definition of an illegal action is one that is not posted as exlicitly specified in the ruleset. What oloros has done is _not_ posted an action as specified by rule 7 But there's nothing in rule 7 to say that all the posts have to be made _in order_ Furthermore, since oloros' posting of the new rule was done as specified by rule 7, the rule itself is also legal.. Does this set a precedent for not needing to post notices to the AML or VML???? Interestingly enough, there's nothing to say that a rule-change can't be adopted several times, so Xylen hasn't done anything illegal either....... Seems like a big fix is in order As for my Taxing based on Oloros's posting of game data, the fact that the data may have been illegal doesn't make the taxation illegal, rather it is the job of the Adopter of the accusation to unravel the effects of the illegal action on game data. So you can't pin that rap on me. GT From rsholmes@m... Wed Sep 06 08:14:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25554 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 15:14:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 15:14:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 15:14:37 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.005A27A2@m...>; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:14:36 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA19540; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Sender: rsholmes@M... To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Accusations fix References: Date: 06 Sep 2000 11:14:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:26:02 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 53 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 From: Doctroid Gallivanting Tripper writes: > [P94] > >Add a Rule, "Accusations 2.0", reading as follows: > > > >As soon as any outstanding Accusations (if any) at the time of this > >rule's Adoption are resolved, Rule 12 shall be repealed and the > >following Rule shall take effect. > > > > Does that mean that a new Rule is enacted which does nothing but wait until > Accusations are completed, then delete rule 12 and enact yet another rule??? More or less, although there would be only one new Rule -- not a Rule that enacts another Rule. It's just that it doesn't go into effect until all Accusations outstanding at the time of Adoption are resolved. There was, after all, an Accusation in effect at the time I posted P94, and at the rate things are going, there's a pretty good chance some Accusation or another will be in effect when and if P94 is Adopted (of course, if enough people continue to place higher priority on point-grabbing than on supporting an exepedicious proposal, we won't have to worry about that, will we? ;-) ). And if the new Accusations procedure went into effect while an Accusation was outstanding, it'd create a mess because the new mechanism for resolving an Accusation depends in some ways on its having been initiated with the new mechanism; resolving an old-style Accusation with strict adherence to the new-style procedure would not be possible. Of course, a gentlepersonly agreement to overlook such technicalities would be possible... but gentlepersonliness is not always easy in the midst of an Accusation. > More importantly, does the Rule do it all by itself??? Um, well, perhaps it should have stated that any player could at that point issue a repeal of Rule 12 and collect 3 points, or something. Or perhaps it should simply have said that until that point Rule 12 takes precedence and after that point the new Rule takes precedence. Rule 12 could then be repealed by a separate Proposal as usual. You have a good point: I was thinking Rule 12 would be considered to automatically disappear, but of course that would run counter to the idea that all new rules and repeals be reflected by messages to RULES. So, yes, in that respect it's recalcitrant. An auxiliary, conditional Proposal could fix up this problem... but with two votes AGAINST, things don't look promising. - D From oloros@l... Wed Sep 06 16:55:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12885 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Sep 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mv.egroups.com) (10.1.1.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2000 23:55:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.123] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Sep 2000 23:55:51 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:55:49 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Accusation against Oloros and Tripper Message-ID: <8p6li5+stcj@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 670 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.137 From: "Oloros the Blue" What a mess. I begin to think that the line in Rule 12 "Accusations" that allows more than ne Player to be the target of an Accusation ought to be removed, so as to allow only a single Player's action to be targeted by an Accusation. In this case, it would be along the lines of: Accusation One: Oloros is charged of wrongfully Adopting a Proposal; Accusation Two: GT is charged in initiating Taxation based on incorrect GameData. It makes it clear that GT himself has not anything terrible, just neglected to check the veracity of the data supplied. Again, as I stated earlier, I believe that the Accuser holds the onus of correction of GameData. -Oloros From rsholmes@m... Thu Sep 07 07:01:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14852 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2000 14:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Sep 2000 14:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2000 14:01:15 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.005A981D@m...>; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:00:59 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02012; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 10:00:58 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Accusation against Oloros and Tripper References: <8p6li5+stcj@e...> Date: 07 Sep 2000 10:00:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Oloros the Blue"'s message of "Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:55:49 -0000" Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... "Oloros the Blue" writes: > What a mess. > > I begin to think that the line in Rule 12 "Accusations" that allows > more than ne Player to be the target of an Accusation ought to be > removed, so as to allow only a single Player's action to be targeted > by an Accusation. Actually, by my reading only a single player can actually be Accused anyway -- and only a single player can Accuse. Rule 12 says: An Action is defined as the posting of a message to, or deletion of a message from, the VML, AML or RML. Which means only one Player can commit an illegal Action, since an Action is the posting or deletion of a single message. If players disagree about the legality of an Action, then any player may make an Accusation by posting a message to the AML with the subject line beginning with "Accusation". The body of this message must specify the accused player(s) and the action under dispute. Again, since an Accusation is made by posting a message, only a single Player can make an Accusation. Furthermore, here and elsewhere Rule 12 refers to "the Action" implying only one Action may be challenged per Accusation. So despite the above reference to "player(s)" and later references in the rule to the "Plaintiff(s)" and "Defendant(s)", really for any Accusation there may be only one Plaintiff, one Defendant, and one Action. That mostly expeditious P94 does away with the "(s)"s, though. -- Doctroid From oloros@l... Wed Sep 13 16:54:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3297 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2000 23:54:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m7.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Sep 2000 23:54:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mq.egroups.com) (10.1.1.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2000 23:54:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.102] by mq.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Sep 2000 23:54:54 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:54:45 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: tax shelter Message-ID: <8pp445+aos8@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 142 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.159 From: "Oloros the Blue" Just a question, a stupid question actually: How is it the Daoctroid has avoided Taxation all this time? -Oloros, feeling a little confused. From s3036845@s... Wed Sep 13 18:29:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25318 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2000 01:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Sep 2000 01:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2000 01:29:51 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.240] (scanner-g4.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.240]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08473 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:29:48 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8pp445+aos8@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:40:12 -0700 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] tax shelter From: Gallivanting Tripper >Just a question, a stupid question actually: >How is it the Daoctroid has avoided Taxation all this time? > >-Oloros, feeling a little confused. Because, having no assets besides Points, he qualifies as a Rebel and is entirely immune to all aspects of Taxation (including social security, social standing chages and the tax assessor's fee) Presumably once he wants to start attending social events or playing Trifield, he'll have to buy some Coins and then start attracting Tax GT From rsholmes@m... Thu Sep 14 08:42:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31748 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2000 15:40:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m5.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Sep 2000 15:40:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2000 15:40:42 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.005DBD50@m...>; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:40:41 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07588; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:40:40 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] tax shelter References: Date: 14 Sep 2000 11:40:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:40:12 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Presumably once he wants to start attending social events or playing > Trifield, he'll have to buy some Coins and then start attracting Tax Only if I'm stupid enough to hang onto those coins long enough for the tax collector to catch up with me, of course. If all else fails I can hock any coins for points at the KNPS until the taxman goeth. As for social events, I *have* attended one -- you should know, it was yours. Of course we're now in the winter season and I'll need a tux for any black tie events that come up. Am I overlooking something, by the way, or do the Rules not yet specify any non black tie parties allowable for the winter season? -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Thu Sep 14 16:42:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20184 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2000 23:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Sep 2000 23:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2000 23:40:46 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03128 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:40:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:40:12 -0700" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:51:02 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] tax shelter From: Gallivanting Tripper >Gallivanting Tripper writes: > >> Presumably once he wants to start attending social events or playing >> Trifield, he'll have to buy some Coins and then start attracting Tax > >Only if I'm stupid enough to hang onto those coins long enough for the >tax collector to catch up with me, of course. Of course, such a commendable strategy is hard to fault - only buy as many coins as you need, and then use them straight away. Thinks - if this is such a good way of avoiding tax, why isn't everyone else doing it? Answer - because when Tax was originally introduced, the only way to preserve one's assets was to buy coins. The concept of Wealth and the Rebel was only introduced later, coincidentally about the same time Doctroid joined the game. Whereas he started the game as a Rebel and finds it quite easy to maintain this status, the other players already had coins and couldn't seem to get rid of them. Perhaps Xylen, with 30 points worth of coins, could sell them to KNPS but the rest of us are far too rich for our own good! >Am I overlooking something, by the way, or do the Rules not yet >specify any non black tie parties allowable for the winter season? That seems to be the case for autumn, winter, and spring. But I'm holding off springing my next Black Tie Affair until the guillotine falls GT From rsholmes@m... Fri Sep 15 07:17:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31515 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2000 14:17:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Sep 2000 14:17:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2000 14:17:56 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.005E2BE2@m...>; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:17:54 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05106; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:17:51 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] tax shelter References: Date: 15 Sep 2000 10:17:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:51:02 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Answer - because when Tax was originally introduced, the only way to > preserve one's assets was to buy coins. The concept of Wealth and the > Rebel was only introduced later, coincidentally about the same time > Doctroid joined the game. Whereas he started the game as a Rebel and finds > it quite easy to maintain this status, the other players already had coins > and couldn't seem to get rid of them. Perhaps Xylen, with 30 points worth > of coins, could sell them to KNPS but the rest of us are far too rich for > our own good! Too much money and not enough goods to buy with it. Sounds like a recipe for hyperinflation. Quick, somebody come up with the Socialnomic answer to Beanie Babies, or something, so folks will have somewhere to spend their coins! -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Wed Sep 20 16:34:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_1); 20 Sep 2000 23:34:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 4641 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2000 23:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Sep 2000 23:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2000 23:34:37 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13584; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:34:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:45:17 +0100 To: Socialnomic Voting list Subject: Proposal 109 - Sleepers, Wake! Cc: SocialNomic Discussion List From: Gallivanting Tripper Enact a new Rule, entitled "Judgement Day" A great Cataclysm approaches, when all Players and their Worldly Goods are held to reckoning. During the Apocalypse, the following events will occor, in order. * All Institutions that were created by a Player transfers all their Points and Coins to the Player that created them * All Jewels possessed by Players melt down into their component 2-D coins, in the opposite manner to that described in Rule 26 * All 2-D coins possessed by Players melt down into their component Points, in the opposite manner to that described in Rule 14 * The State and the DoJ transfer their Points to Players in the following manner: -> 1/2 of their Points to the Player with the least Points -> 1/2 of the remainder to the Player with the second-lowest Points -> and so on. * At the end of the Judgement, the Player with the highest Points is known as the Alpha, and the Player with the lowest Points is known as the Omega. If two or more Players are tied for either Title, the Player with the most ADOPTED Proposals takes the title. If the tie is not broken, the Player with the longest membership of SocialNomic takes the title. Judgement Day is the 5th of October 2000. At any time after 1200 GMT on that date, one Player may make a post the to AML with the subject line "Judgement Day" and the text describing the effects of the Judgement. * The duties of the Alpha are as follows: -> To compile a History of SocialNomic, and distribute it to as many active Nomics as possible, and the Nomic Bulletin Board -> To interview existing Players of SocialNomic about the pros and cons of this style of Nomic -> To interview Players of other Nomic about the pros and cons of this style of Nomic, and -> Submit a conclusion to the Omega * The priveliges of the Omega are to restart the game as follows: -> After reading the conclusions of the Alpha, to repeal and/or amend as many Rules of SocialNomic as they see fit by making the appropiate posts to the RML -> To amend Game Data as they see fit by making a post to the AML Enact a new Rule, entitled "The last days" In order to prevent Corruption, the following restriction comes into force during the last days. Players may not make transfers of Points or coins to Institutions that are not specifically authorised by the Charter of the Institution, or the Rules if the Institution was created by a Rule. From oloros@l... Mon Sep 25 08:43:12 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: oloros@l... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 25 Sep 2000 15:43:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 31802 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2000 15:43:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Sep 2000 15:43:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 15:43:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.55] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Sep 2000 15:43:10 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:43:02 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: winter socials Message-ID: <8qnrq7+2adu@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 564 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.140 From: "Oloros the Blue" --- In Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com, Doctroid wrote: > > Am I overlooking something, by the way, or do the Rules not yet > specify any non black tie parties allowable for the winter season? > Nope, I had thought that the social events subgame might die off do to lack of interest. Or, perhaps the solution is to invite members of other Nomics to social events, without looking to recruit them outright. My own playing situation is changing right now, and I am not quite sure as to my availibility to this (indeed any online) game from October on. -Oloros From topheavy@s... Mon Sep 25 10:23:27 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: topheavy@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 25 Sep 2000 17:23:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 20882 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2000 17:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Sep 2000 17:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 17:21:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: topheavy@s... Received: from [10.1.10.114] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Sep 2000 17:21:40 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:21:36 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: Proposal 109 - Sleepers, Wake! Message-ID: <8qo1j0+ou9c@e...> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1853 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.10.58.2 From: "TopHeavy (A. Lawn)" Well, it does look like it has come to this... with oloros's vote for, as well as mine, and the fact that GT wrote the proposal, it looks like we will be closing up shop for a little while at least. Though i do believe that since Prop 109 has the potential to modify Rule 0, that it requires unanimous approval to be adopted... argue with me if you like. Oloros's imminent departure, as well as an upcoming lessening of my own online access (you can thank the great gods of "RightSizing" for that) seem to require some sort of evolution. Of course we could always celebrate the fact that our first game managed to outlast unanomic (http://www.ravenblack.net/~unanomic/) and they stopped because the moderater decided he was sick of it. tee hee. I do think that we should attempt some sort of analysis of our rules though.. and i will start off.. I really like the social pages idea. Unfortunately, i don't think we achieved critical mass for a successful implementation of the idea. I think far too many of our rules were made with the hopes that we would have about 10 players. Which results in good rules becoming bad rules (good and bad being purely opinions of course) because they cannot reach the potential that we see. I also believe that while the "Runner" subgame was interesting in theory, the lack of a maintained ruleset made implementation of the game itself hard... basically players were required to make their own maps of the ruleset. Although i kept a personal ruleset compendium, i never did get around to mapping the various owners or potential transport tubes.. the result being that i never moved my runner... Perhaps if their had been a duty/reward for posting the "map" of the ruleset? i guess i have more thoughts, but i just want to see if anyone is interested in a discussion... -topheavy From oloros@l... Thu Sep 28 08:43:39 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: oloros@l... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 28 Sep 2000 15:43:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 9867 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2000 15:41:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Sep 2000 15:41:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fg.egroups.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2000 15:41:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.124] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2000 15:41:35 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:41:26 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: post-mortem analysis Message-ID: <8qvor6+b95t@e...> In-Reply-To: <8qo1j0+ou9c@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 827 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.189 From: "Oloros the Blue" > [TopHeavy] > I do think that we should attempt some sort of analysis of > our rules though.. > I agree with TopHeavy that the upkeep of the gameboard of the Runner subgame should have been incentivized along the line of the Ruleset Compendium. I have noticed that othernomics stamp rules with the date and player who is responsible for the last change. That sort of record would have made the Runner subgame easier to manage as well. I also agree with the analysis that we did not achieve a critical mass for the game. It would seem that a healthy nomic needs some 7 players. Perhaps the recruitment bonuses should have been implemented earlier in the game. The Social Engagements subgame did require a larger player base than we had. And Trifield would have been more fun with more gamblers as well. -Oloros From mctupper@h... Thu Sep 28 20:53:31 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: mctupper@h... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 29 Sep 2000 03:53:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 19200 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2000 03:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Sep 2000 03:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns) (129.82.100.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Sep 2000 03:53:30 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA47046 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:53:29 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA54348 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:53:29 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: Proposal 109 - Sleepers, Wake! Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:03:34 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8qo1j0+ou9c@e...> In-Reply-To: <8qo1j0+ou9c@e...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00092821504401.09642@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, TopHeavy (A. Lawn) smurfed: > Well, it does look like it has come to this... > > with oloros's vote for, as well as mine, and the fact that GT wrote > the proposal, it looks like we will be closing up shop for a little > while at least. Though i do believe that since Prop 109 has the > potential to modify Rule 0, that it requires unanimous approval to be > adopted... argue with me if you like. Not much reason to argue. Of course if nobody is playing the game, it doesn't really matter, I guess. For myself, I have plenty of time on the computer, but little of it is internet. A few more months, and I'll be looking forward to no more homework. > Of course we could always celebrate the fact that our first game > managed to outlast unanomic (http://www.ravenblack.net/~unanomic/) > and they stopped because the moderater decided he was sick of it. > tee hee. That brings up a point. People like playing nomics with all of the bells and whistles, as long as they don't have to do the work, Unfortunetly they are missing the best part. I really enjoyed this game because I had a real role in it. Not just playing it, but an actual part of it. That is something that can't be found in most moderated Imperial nomics. > > I do think that we should attempt some sort of analysis of our rules > though.. and i will start off.. > For the most part, our rules follwed the usual development cycle. Everybody tries to come up with some real spiffy sub-game, then the players decided which one (or more) will become part of the game. If nothing shows up that can catch eveeryones attention, the players lose interest and the game dies out. Even when a sub-game is found, if it is too hard to operate, or too difficult to undedrstand, or turns out to not be so engaging, the nomic dies. We had the social pages, which would have worked better with more players. Simply to work with, but lacking in interest without enough people to make it worthwhile. The various wagering games were interesting, but again lack of players prevented them from really become entertaining. I will admit, that the Stairmaster was a bit complicated to track, so I never bothered with it. Trifeld sound liked fun, but I lacked the resources to participate. I think the best thing we had going for us was the involvement of every player. The game was "ours", We started it, we maintained it and we played it. No one to tell us that it was too hard to implement somthing, or waiting for voting results until someone gets around to figuring it all out. We should all give ourselves a big pat on the back. We did it, _and_ we outlasted the other games. As far as the future, perhaps the next few months will be a bit slow, but perhaps we can restart the game later, probaly after the first of the year, judging from everyones current plans. Maybe we can even come up with ideas that will work with fewer players, or else have a big membership drive before we start. Xylen -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From mctupper@h... Sun Oct 08 22:18:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: mctupper@h... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 9 Oct 2000 05:18:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 5011 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2000 05:18:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Oct 2000 05:18:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Oct 2000 05:18:47 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA28956; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:18:44 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA18400; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:18:44 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:10:29 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: Cc: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00100823155200.13677@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen > Currencies are now melted down in the heat of the Fire at the End of the > Game... > > Player Points > TopHeavy 94 > Oloros 129 > Xylen 40 > Tripper 312 > Doctroid 101 > > And finally, the State redistributes its wealth: 40 points to Xylen, 20 to > TopHeavy, 10 to Doctroid, 5 to Xylen and 2 to Tripper Umm, I think that should be 5 to Oloros instead of an additional 5 to me, although the tally below reflects the correct totals. > > Player Points > TopHeavy 114 > Oloros 134 > Xylen 80 > Tripper 314 > Doctroid 111 > > Tripper is the Alpha and Xylen is the Omega. We've already had a bit of a > prelimiary discussion on this newsgroup and Genomics, but I'll do some > stuff on the NND and get back to Xylen on any further improvements for > Socialnomic II > As much fun as playing a nomic is, I actually look forward to creating and starting a new nomic more. Over the next few months I hope we can all come up with some ideas for the next cycle. Xylen, Pariah, Champion of the Guilotine, and Omega of SocialNomic I. -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From s3036845@s... Mon Oct 09 19:50:18 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 10 Oct 2000 02:50:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 12027 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2000 02:50:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Oct 2000 02:50:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 02:50:17 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07812 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:50:13 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00100823155200.13677@X...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:52:47 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day From: Gallivanting Tripper >> And finally, the State redistributes its wealth: 40 points to Xylen, 20 to >> TopHeavy, 10 to Doctroid, 5 to Xylen and 2 to Tripper > >Umm, I think that should be 5 to Oloros instead of an additional 5 to >me, although the tally below reflects the correct totals. d'Oh! Accuse me, why don'cha! > > > Player Points >> TopHeavy 114 >> Oloros 134 >> Xylen 80 >> Tripper 314 >> Doctroid 111 >> >> Tripper is the Alpha and Xylen is the Omega. We've already had a bit of a >> prelimiary discussion on this newsgroup and Genomics, but I'll do some >> stuff on the NND and get back to Xylen on any further improvements for >> Socialnomic II >> >As much fun as playing a nomic is, I actually look forward to creating >and starting a new nomic more. Over the next few months I hope we can >all come up with some ideas for the next cycle. My main recommendation, for what it's worth, is to sort out the RML a little better, whether by threading or deleting old rules I'm not sure. An accessible FAQ page might also be a good idea as newcomers might get freaked out by our rather precise red tape. Revolutionary idea for next cycle - host a game of Last Nomic Standing. Or enter a game of Last Nomic Standing. The ruleset kernel I have at the moment won't really fit in SocialNomic, so I might air it on unmoderatednomic first when I get it together Later GT From rsholmes@m... Tue Oct 10 08:27:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 10 Oct 2000 15:27:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 2125 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2000 15:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Oct 2000 15:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Oct 2000 15:27:59 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.006877DC@m...>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:27:59 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07816; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:27:57 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day References: Date: 10 Oct 2000 11:27:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:52:47 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 137 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... My 2 triangles: * Number of players certainly was a problem. Partly because, as has been observed, some of the "frills" of Socialnomic (parties, THoTH, etc.) pretty much don't work with as few players as we had. Partly, though, it was more structural. The idea of Socialnomic (as this latecomer sees it) was to avoid the problem of administrator burnout by having everybody be an administrator. But what if everybody burns out? With N players each person only has 1/N of an administrator's job -- except that there's overhead due to the unmoderated administration so the numerator becomes 1+epsilon and the denominator is really some N' = the effective number of players who participate in administration, which can be less than N. In our case N was small enough that (1+epsilon)/N' was probably a little too close to 1. * In light of that, any future Socialnomic should try to: - Decrease epsilon - Increase N' But in fact, part of increasing N' is increasing N, and part of increasing both N' and N is decreasing epsilon. The less overhead there is in administration, the more attractive the game is to newcomers and the more players will actually take on administrative tasks rather than wait for someone else to do them. (I know I refrained from posting at least one accusation in part because I didn't want to be saddled with the job of rewinding the gamedata.) * Decreasing epsilon: Running Socialnomic on four separate mailing lists was, I think, a mistake. I understand the arguments -- but I don't find them compelling. In fact, I had email subscriptions to all four, because it was the easiest way for me to keep abreast of action on all four. Thus the redundancies of e.g. posting an adoption message to the VML, an adoption message with point totals to the AML, and the new rules to RULES didn't bring me any benefits. Indeed, I'd argue most of the benefits of having four mailing lists could have been gained by having a single mailing list and using filters to separate different types of messages. Or maybe two lists, a discussion list and an action list. Following is a list of actions that (by the latest version of the ruleset, ignoring the Last Judgement) require posting of multiple messages. I urge Xylen to consider more efficient ways to accomplish the same. Action Message to ---------------------------------------- Adoption VML, AML, RULES Defeat VML, AML Retraction VML, AML Injunction AML, * TaSSA AML (twice) * Reply posted to contested message in whichever list that message was posted to. For reference, here are all the other actions I could find, requiring only one post each: Action Message to ---------------------------------------- Proposal AML Vote VML Join Socialnomic DML Accusation (1st stage) AML Accusation testimony DML Guilty as charged AML Accusation retracted AML Accusation (2nd stage) VML Consequences AML Social standing AML Conversion to 2-D, 3-D AML Trade offer AML Trade accept AML Party invitation AML RSVP private Withdraw RSVP private Spurning host DML Behavior private Society pages AML Declaring gender AML Purchasing formal wear AML Move runner AML Stairmaster wagers AML Create institution AML Abandonment VML Operating grant AML Admin rewarded AML Compilation of rules AML Guillotine AML In words AML Contacts list AML Behavior consequence VML * Tripper's delight in being able to keep a database of the current ruleset going just by threading the RULES messages overlooks one thing: that it doesn't work quite so easily for anyone joining the game after it starts. I made it work by manually going through the RULES archive upon joining and emailing myself the latest version of each rule, and from there maintaining my ruleset much the way Tripper did, but getting that initial ruleset was a pain. (And that tends to impede the growth of N.) I don't know why we didn't require Adopters to post a message containing the updated ruleset, instead of messages containing the new or updated rules. Perhaps because of the mutation potential for rules not changed by the proposal? That'd be a valid concern, but surely such mutations could be spotted easily and remedied via Accusation. Arguably, though, one would then want not to post the ruleset to a mailing list but to post it to e.g. a file downloadable from egroups. Of course, one then loses the "paper trail" that provides auditability -- a big loss. Perhaps there's a way to maintain auditability while still keeping the ruleset in a central repository instead of in an email archive. I don't have any ideas at the moment, but it seems worth thinking about. In addition, an easier way to keep track of gamedata would be nice. To post an updated list of points, for instance, one first must find the previous list of points in some previous message. Cut that and paste to the new message. Then manually adjust the numbers. At the very least, I think I'd prefer having gamedata in a file that could be edited, so the latest gamedata could always be found in that place. Here the benefit is even greater than with rules, since rulesets are easy to find (either by looking in the RULES mailing list, if it's kept separate, or by looking for the ruleset subject line, if it's not.) Gamedata, on the other hand, may be "hidden" in posts with various subject lines, intermixed with messages that do not contain gamedata (or contain different elements of the gamedata) in the AML. But again, if gamedata are kept in a file, auditability becomes a problem. -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Tue Oct 10 21:54:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 11 Oct 2000 04:54:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 15633 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2000 04:54:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Oct 2000 04:54:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Oct 2000 04:54:57 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03236 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:54:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:52:47 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:32 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day From: Gallivanting Tripper >* In light of that, any future Socialnomic should try to: > > - Decrease epsilon > - Increase N' Good anaylsis, no problems there > But in fact, part of increasing N' is increasing N, and part of > increasing both N' and N is decreasing epsilon. The less overhead > there is in administration, the more attractive the game is to > newcomers and the more players will actually take on administrative > tasks rather than wait for someone else to do them. (I know I > refrained from posting at least one accusation in part because I > didn't want to be saddled with the job of rewinding the gamedata.) Another good way of increasing N is to make all the archives _readable_ by non-players. Not having the game data open to the casual surfer is a great way of discouraging potential players! I must admit I had no idea that the archives weren't accessible until Tyrethali just pointed it out to me... Gamedata-unwinding falls to the Admin of Everynomic, and hence, to Everyone in Socialnomic! Perhaps Accusations could be spiced up a bit by providing a point bonus to someone who makes and carries out a successful accusation (funded by the DoJ, presumably) >* Decreasing epsilon: Running Socialnomic on four separate mailing > lists was, I think, a mistake. I understand the arguments -- but I > don't find them compelling. In fact, I had email subscriptions to > all four, because it was the easiest way for me to keep abreast of > action on all four. Thus the redundancies of e.g. posting an > adoption message to the VML, an adoption message with point totals > to the AML, and the new rules to RULES didn't bring me any benefits. I'm the first to agree that there have been gross inefficiencies in data storage, but in the case of Votes, consider the history (which you probably weren't aware of, to be fair). Originally, adoption messages weren't posted to the VML at all, which turned out to be very confusing when trying to read the archives, so the extra message was legislated quite early on. Hell, at least we took the "announcement of proposal" out! > Indeed, I'd argue most of the benefits of having four mailing lists > could have been gained by having a single mailing list and using > filters to separate different types of messages. Or maybe two > lists, a discussion list and an action list. I also found it easier to use filters, but other players used the archive directly and then there's always the question of archive-trawling and audit trails, in which it's also easier to keep the data separate. Basically there are three lists to fulfil three data-presentation needs. * Actions concerning game data are best viewed sequentially * Proposals and votes are best viewed threaded, and with as little extra message-clutter as possible * Rules are also probably best viewed threaded, but I like the idea of just leaving them (or the whole ruleset) as an attached file. Although I do like to recieve email updates of the new text of individual rules rather than have to search through a whole new updated ruleset. > Following is a list of actions that (by the latest version of the > ruleset, ignoring the Last Judgement) require posting of multiple > messages. I urge Xylen to consider more efficient ways to > accomplish the same. If one is concerned about the rather anal book-keeping requirements, compare those of the old-school, complex but rather open Nomics (for example the rather young one hosted by www.nomic.net) which do not specify how an action should be taken, only that it should be "in a public forum", which leads to the following: - the admin or officer responsible for certain actions has to check every message to tally up what's going on - various existential crises on what constitutes a public forum, an action, a message or even a player! The beauty of the current anal system is that it allows one to apprise the gamestate with a glance at the various tables of contents, and _that_ is worth the hassle of administration in triplicate! GT From rsholmes@m... Wed Oct 11 08:14:34 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 11 Oct 2000 15:14:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9552 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2000 15:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Oct 2000 15:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Oct 2000 15:12:54 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0068F261@m...>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:12:54 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21477; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:12:53 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day References: Date: 11 Oct 2000 11:12:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:32 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 96 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Another good way of increasing N is to make all the archives _readable_ by > non-players. Not having the game data open to the casual surfer is a great > way of discouraging potential players! I must admit I had no idea that the > archives weren't accessible until Tyrethali just pointed it out to me... Hmm, I thought they were world-readable at the time I joined. Maybe not. Should be. > Gamedata-unwinding falls to the Admin of Everynomic, and hence, to Everyone > in Socialnomic! Perhaps Accusations could be spiced up a bit by providing > a point bonus to someone who makes and carries out a successful accusation > (funded by the DoJ, presumably) I modestly point out that my own Accusations reform proposal, P94, had among its other virtues a point bonus for the adopter or rejecter of an accusation. *Not* for the plaintiff, however -- unless the plaintiff also is the adopter or rejecter. I'm not enthusiastic about rewarding people for making accusations; better to distinguish the making from the carrying out, and reward the latter. > I'm the first to agree that there have been gross inefficiencies in data > storage, but in the case of Votes, consider the history (which you probably > weren't aware of, to be fair). Originally, adoption messages weren't > posted to the VML at all, which turned out to be very confusing when trying > to read the archives, so the extra message was legislated quite early on. What you're holding up here as an example of the virtues of redundant postings strikes me instead as one of the evils of multiple lists. > I also found it easier to use filters, but other players used the archive > directly and then there's always the question of archive-trawling and audit > trails, in which it's also easier to keep the data separate. Basically > there are three lists to fulfil three data-presentation needs. > > * Actions concerning game data are best viewed sequentially > * Proposals and votes are best viewed threaded, and with as little extra > message-clutter as possible > * Rules are also probably best viewed threaded, but I like the idea of just > leaving them (or the whole ruleset) as an attached file. Although I do > like to recieve email updates of the new text of individual rules rather > than have to search through a whole new updated ruleset. There's been discussion here and there of web-based (or otherwise) tools to assist in the administration of Nomics, and it always comes back to the fact that procedures change as Nomics evolve and updating the tools to track the changes is as much of a headache as just doing it all manually. Perhaps what you have here is an argument for a web-based tool for a slightly different purpose, namely, presentation of archival information about a Nomic. One that could take all the posts to a single mailing list, digest them based on subject lines, and present responses to queries like "show me all actions relating to P94" or "show me the current ruleset" or "show me the most recent changes to the ruleset" or "show me the current gamedata", etc. (Not that the tool literally should have to parse such command phrases; they'd be among a stock of predefined actions one could select.) Of course the raw mailing list archives should be available to verify the honesty of the presentation tool. (So there's an answer to my conundrum: a way to get "one-stop shopping" for the current ruleset or gamedata without losing auditability.) The tool would allow for creating mail, too; "let me compose an email that updates the gamedata" -- it'd set you up with a mailto window with the current gamedata in the body for you to update, annotate, and post. Such a tool might be less afflicted by game changes (it'd only need to know how to filter a message into the appropriate category or categories, not e.g. how to assign points for a successful proposal) and would both allow easier access to game information than this clumsy multiple-list method and obviate the need for redundant posts. I hasten to add that I have neither the time, the web resources, nor the expertise to produce such a tool! > If one is concerned about the rather anal book-keeping requirements, > compare those of the old-school, complex but rather open Nomics (for > example the rather young one hosted by www.nomic.net) which do not specify > how an action should be taken, only that it should be "in a public forum", > which leads to the following: > - the admin or officer responsible for certain actions has to check every > message to tally up what's going on > - various existential crises on what constitutes a public forum, an action, > a message or even a player! I hasten to add I have no problems with, indeed have great admiration for, the "current anal system"'s specifications of where actions get posted and with what format for their subject lines! Such specifications obviously would be of fundamental importance in making feasible a presentation tool such as I sketched above. Even without such a tool, there's no question but that they made Socialnomic much more playable. -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Wed Oct 11 17:29:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 12 Oct 2000 00:29:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 2062 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 00:29:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Oct 2000 00:29:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2000 00:29:14 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01024 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:29:11 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:32 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:31:50 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day From: Gallivanting Tripper >I modestly point out that my own Accusations reform proposal, P94, had >among its other virtues a point bonus for the adopter or rejecter of >an accusation. *Not* for the plaintiff, however -- unless the >plaintiff also is the adopter or rejecter. I'm not enthusiastic about >rewarding people for making accusations; better to distinguish the >making from the carrying out, and reward the latter. Of course. Silly me ;-) >> * Actions concerning game data are best viewed sequentially >> * Proposals and votes are best viewed threaded, and with as little extra >> message-clutter as possible >> * Rules are also probably best viewed threaded, but I like the idea of just >> leaving them (or the whole ruleset) as an attached file. Although I do >> like to recieve email updates of the new text of individual rules rather >> than have to search through a whole new updated ruleset. > > Perhaps what you have here is an argument for a >web-based tool for a slightly different purpose, namely, presentation >of archival information about a Nomic. One that could take all the >posts to a single mailing list, digest them based on subject lines, >and present responses to queries like "show me all actions relating to >P94" or "show me the current ruleset" or "show me the most recent >changes to the ruleset" or "show me the current gamedata", etc. Hmm - so there would have to be a number of defined header-keywords for the tool to use - and new actions that get insituted during the course of the Nomic would have to conform to these, in order to obviate the need to update the tool. Perhaps the tool should able to search for keywords: for example "Trifield 3.*" would bring up all the business of the third trifield game. > (So there's an answer to my >conundrum: a way to get "one-stop shopping" for the current ruleset or >gamedata without losing auditability.) A consequence of this is that illegal posts without proper headings would fall through the cracks of the search tool - perhaps we would have to define legal messages as those which can be found by the tool?! > >The tool would allow for creating mail, too; "let me compose an email >that updates the gamedata" -- it'd set you up with a mailto window >with the current gamedata in the body for you to update, annotate, and >post. Which is effectively what we do already. But I'm a bit wary of the tool actually storing the game data - we tried storing data in an egroups database with little effect. Perhaps the tool should just quote back the most recent game data message for you to modify >Such a tool might be less afflicted by game changes (it'd only need to >know how to filter a message into the appropriate category or >categories, not e.g. how to assign points for a successful proposal) >and would both allow easier access to game information than this >clumsy multiple-list method and obviate the need for redundant posts. Yes, this seems reasonable to attain in principle >I hasten to add that I have neither the time, the web resources, nor >the expertise to produce such a tool! Me neither! I still think that it should be a mailing list-filter rather than a self-contained CGI. Any takers? From rsholmes@m... Thu Oct 12 08:27:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 12 Oct 2000 15:27:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 29034 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 15:27:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Oct 2000 15:27:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2000 15:27:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.006A2CC0@m...>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:27:07 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06580; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:27:05 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day References: Date: 12 Oct 2000 11:27:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:31:50 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 119 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Hmm - so there would have to be a number of defined header-keywords for the > tool to use - and new actions that get insituted during the course of the > Nomic would have to conform to these, in order to obviate the need to > update the tool. Not necessarily; if the tool is essentially a glorified filter, then updating the tool shouldn't be all that hard. Comparable to updating your own email filters. Certainly some sort of standards on new actions would help, but I don't see them as strictly necessary. Hmm... so would the filter regexps and so forth that drive the tool be gamedata? Hmm again... I could almost see this evolving to a game where the main focus is to define the behavior of the filter... > A consequence of this is that illegal posts without proper headings would > fall through the cracks of the search tool - perhaps we would have to > define legal messages as those which can be found by the tool?! I imagine one of the query types the tool would respond to would be along the lines of "show me all messages posted since xx/xx/xx". So nothing would, in that sense, fall between the cracks. But if, say, I Adopted a proposal and posted a message with the subject "Proposal 666 -- ** Adoptid!~! @@@4 ", the filter probably wouldn't find it on a query for "show all adopted proposals" and so, yes, that message probably ought to be considered illegal... then again, that would have been a technically illegal message in Socialnomic I, too. > >The tool would allow for creating mail, too; "let me compose an email > >that updates the gamedata" -- it'd set you up with a mailto window > >with the current gamedata in the body for you to update, annotate, and > >post. > > Which is effectively what we do already. But I'm a bit wary of the tool > actually storing the game data - we tried storing data in an egroups > database with little effect. Perhaps the tool should just quote back the > most recent game data message for you to modify That was more or less what I meant. What you don't want is the situation where gamedata are stored in a database in such a way that querying and updating the database requires a lot of knowledge about the gamedata. Then you're back in the nightmare of trying to keep the tool current with the game changes. Far easier just to give the tool enough smarts to know how to find messages containing gamedata and extract the relevant text. For instance: Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:50:58 +1100 To: SocialNomic Actions list Socialnomic-AML@egroups.com Subject: The Populace Rejoices From: Gallivanting Tripper s3036845@s... The Following esteemed Personages have been Assessed to pay Taxes to the glorious State in the following manner: TopHeavy: 1 point Xylen: 3 points Tripper (CEO): 1 point and gain 1 Social Standing therewith No Players were in a parlous enough state to be eligible for Social Security Tripper receives 5 points for meritorious services to Tax Assessment [***gamedata:wealth] Player Points Tri Quad Pent Hex Jewels TopHeavy 10 12 0 0 0 2 Cubes Oloros 7 20 5 2 2 1 Tetrahedron Xylen 10 0 2 2 2 None Tripper 5 13 12 2 9 1 Icosahedron, 1 Dodecahedron Doctroid 71 0 0 0 0 None The State 82 SPLA(T) 7 KNPS 30 THoTH 5 4 DoJ 0 Wealth: TopHeavy 14 Oloros 30 Xylen 6 Tripper 38 Doctroid 0 [***] [***gamedata:socialstanding] Social Standing Person Social Standing ------------------------------- Tripper: 52 Oloros: 32 Doctroid: 25 The Governor: 4 TopHeavy: 3 Xylen: -4 [***] A useful tool wouldn't have to know what any of that message means except that - It contains gamedata - There are two sections of gamedata shown, with tags "wealth" and "socialstanding" Then the tool could build e.g. a complete gamedata report by including the text within the delimiters for each tag from the most recent message updating that tag. (The Stairmaster state would come from a different message; the wealth data might come from a later adoption message that contains a gamedata:wealth section but not a gamedata:socialstanding section; and so on.) With suitable tags you wouldn't even have to modify the filter every time a new sort of gamedata (e.g. "brain damage") is defined; you'd just put a [***gamedata:braindamage] tag in front of it and the filter would see it and add "braindamage" to its list of gamedata tags to maintain. -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Thu Oct 12 16:55:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 12 Oct 2000 23:55:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 16924 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 23:55:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Oct 2000 23:55:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2000 23:55:57 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26917 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:55:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:31:50 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:58:34 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day From: Gallivanting Tripper > >Then the tool could build e.g. a complete gamedata report by including >the text within the delimiters for each tag from the most recent >message updating that tag. (The Stairmaster state would come from a >different message; the wealth data might come from a later adoption >message that contains a gamedata:wealth section but not a >gamedata:socialstanding section; and so on.) With suitable tags you >wouldn't even have to modify the filter every time a new sort of >gamedata (e.g. "brain damage") is defined; you'd just put a >[***gamedata:braindamage] tag in front of it and the filter would see >it and add "braindamage" to its list of gamedata tags to maintain. Delimiters were exactly what I was thinking too - and a really smart tool might be able to scan the ruleset to automatically acquire new delimiters that become defined, and then offer them in a pop-up menu, or other multiple choice format. The more complex the tool, the more it should be self-updating, otherwise the game would rest unfairly upon those with the skill or acess to update it, and wuld also be vulnerable to filter hacking if it's open to anyone to update. But who's going to write it in the first place??? (I'd try if I knew _anything_ about Web programming :-( GT From mctupper@h... Fri Oct 13 11:21:14 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: mctupper@h... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 13 Oct 2000 18:21:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 3452 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2000 18:21:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Oct 2000 18:21:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns) (129.82.100.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Oct 2000 18:21:13 -0000 Received: from holly.ColoState.EDU (holly.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.76]) by eagle.acns (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA40772 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:21:12 -0600 Received: from Xylen (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by holly.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA174756 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:21:12 -0600 Organization: Xylen's Designs To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:06:22 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00101312181700.23727@X...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Xylen On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Gallivanting Tripper said: > > The more complex the tool, the more it should be self-updating, otherwise > the game would rest unfairly upon those with the skill or acess to update > it, and wuld also be vulnerable to filter hacking if it's open to anyone to > update. > > But who's going to write it in the first place??? That's the whole problem. If someone were to create such a tool that would work within all of the restrictions and deal with all of the changes in a nomic, they would probaly need a lot of $$$ to do it. Even if someone wanted to start such a tool, and others were willing to work on it also, it takes a lot of time and thought to come up with a solution. (Can you say Open-source?) But then again, without playing in an active nomic, I do have some time to think about it. 1) There is a registered site, I think it's nomic.org, that would be a good place to work on the tool, and use it for the good of the nomic community. Perhaps we can tap into that site as well as the bulletin board to get more viewpoints and suggestions. 2) To write a good program, we will need a set of requirenments that would encompass everything we can think of that would occur in a nomic. Admittedly, we can't think of everything, but we can prepare for most things. I think we have gotten a good start with the post-mortem of SocialNomic, but this tool could have a much greater application than just our nomic. 3) Skills? Well, I have some skills in html, javascript, database design and mangement, and general programming (C, C++, perl), but I think this tool is beyond me. I would be willing to help out, but I can't do it alone. 4) The Greatest Nomic Tool in Existence!!! Well, I hope it would last longer than a game of nomic, but it does sound like fun. Xylen, wondering if there is a Nobel prize for the team that creates the Great Nomic Tool? -- Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked From oloros@l... Fri Oct 13 16:01:47 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: oloros@l... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 13 Oct 2000 23:01:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 21707 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2000 23:01:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Oct 2000 23:01:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Oct 2000 23:01:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.10.105] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Oct 2000 23:01:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:01:45 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: meanwhile back at the drawing board Message-ID: <8s848p+k1ii@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 441 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.144 From: "Oloros the Blue" Talk of a new larger player body gets me thinking that I had intended to propose for SocialNomic the enlargement of the Social Engagements subgame into a kind of inter-Nomic game that would invite players of member nomics to the social gatherings as both a form of recruitment, and to recognize that that particular subgame needed more people, while the whole game suffered from the Four Mailing List Complexity previously mentioned. From s3036845@s... Sun Oct 15 19:49:47 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 16 Oct 2000 02:49:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 24476 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2000 02:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Oct 2000 02:49:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Oct 2000 02:49:46 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06928 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:49:43 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00101312181700.23727@X...> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:52:37 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day From: Gallivanting Tripper >On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Gallivanting Tripper said: >> >> The more complex the tool, the more it should be self-updating, otherwise >> the game would rest unfairly upon those with the skill or acess to update >> it, and wuld also be vulnerable to filter hacking if it's open to anyone to >> update. >> >> But who's going to write it in the first place??? > >That's the whole problem. If someone were to create such a tool that >would work within all of the restrictions and deal with all of the >changes in a nomic, they would probaly need a lot of $$$ to do it. Even >if someone wanted to start such a tool, and others were willing to >work on it also, it takes a lot of time and thought to come up with a >solution. (Can you say Open-source?) But then again, without playing in >an active nomic, I do have some time to think about it. > >1) There is a registered site, I think it's nomic.org, that would >be a good place to work on the tool, and use it for the good of the >nomic community. Perhaps we can tap into that site as well as the >bulletin board to get more viewpoints and suggestions. www.nomic.net occasionally hosts discussion on Nomic tools, I don't know anything about nomic.org >2) To write a good program, we will need a set of requirenments >that would encompass everything we can think of that would occur in a >nomic. Admittedly, we can't think of everything, but we can prepare for >most things. I think we have gotten a good start with the post-mortem >of SocialNomic, but this tool could have a much greater application >than just our nomic. > >3) Skills? Well, I have some skills in html, javascript, database >design and mangement, and general programming (C, C++, perl), but I >think this tool is beyond me. I would be willing to help out, but I >can't do it alone. As I think I've mentioned previously, I have no experience in any of this milennium's programming languages, but conceptually the design seems quite simple. The core of the tool is a message filter that can search for, and extract, messages with various keywords or dates. e.g. collate the ruleset, or search for posts relating to a specific proposal The next-most useful tool is a search engine that can search for game data delimiters, and collate the game data so delimited e.g. points/social standing/wealth/all game data The icing on the cake is a search engine that would regularly search the ruleset for said delimiters, and add them to the other search tools I could probably write these routines in an antiquated programming language, leaving blanks for useful things like manipulating emails, of which I haven't the foggiest (but I guess can't be that hard) Of course it is still up to the players to do the following: Use the correct keywords in message headers Update game data correctly Use the correct delimiters for game data, and when adding new delimiters to the ruleset I think it's unreasonable to ask a generic tool to perform these actions, because they are so easily liable to be changed in the nomic. cf Unanomic as the example of a Nomic that required _everything_ to be programmed - the programmer reserved the power of veto and eventually gave up. >4) The Greatest Nomic Tool in Existence!!! Well, I hope it would >last longer than a game of nomic, but it does sound like fun. Not _the_ greatest Nomic tool, just a useful tool for admins (and in SocialNomic, everybody) From rsholmes@m... Mon Oct 16 09:03:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 16 Oct 2000 16:03:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 30106 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2000 16:03:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Oct 2000 16:03:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Oct 2000 16:03:08 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.006B6751@m...>; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:03:08 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA11745; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:03:07 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: [Socialnomic-AML] Judgement Day References: <00101312181700.23727@X...> Date: 16 Oct 2000 12:03:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: Xylen's message of "Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:06:22 -0600" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Xylen writes: > That's the whole problem. If someone were to create such a tool that > would work within all of the restrictions and deal with all of the > changes in a nomic, they would probaly need a lot of $$$ to do it. Even > if someone wanted to start such a tool, and others were willing to > work on it also, it takes a lot of time and thought to come up with a > solution. (Can you say Open-source?) But then again, without playing in > an active nomic, I do have some time to think about it. ... > 3) Skills? Well, I have some skills in html, javascript, database > design and mangement, and general programming (C, C++, perl), but I > think this tool is beyond me. I would be willing to help out, but I > can't do it alone. Naah, it's not that hairy. Not as I see it. As I see it, this would be essentially a glorified email filter, with some text-extraction capabilities bolted on. I could probably cobble something like what I have in mind together in Perl in a few hours -- except that it would be a script that would run on my system, reading messages out of my mailbox, and showing the results to me. Turning it into a tool any player could use via a web interface is where I would bottom out. -- Doctroid From oloros@l... Tue Oct 17 07:37:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: oloros@l... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 17 Oct 2000 14:37:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 30827 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2000 14:37:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Oct 2000 14:37:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ef.egroups.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Oct 2000 14:37:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.163] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2000 14:37:06 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:36:59 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: better bulletin board ??? Message-ID: <8sho6b+svdo@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 645 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.110 From: "Oloros the Blue" On the discussion of whether or not the four-list structure of this game was a nearly insurmountable challenge to potential players, I would like to point out an interesting bulletin board/open database/mailing list I recently found: www.everything2.com (The code is open source and freely available.) Its strength lies in its ability to freely link postings. The four lists we had in SocialNomic could be placed on a single board, and related messages more quickly accessed than by window-swapping or click-navigation. It seems that there had once been a nomic on E2 itself, but it has since passed away and dropped from the archives. From s3036845@s... Thu Oct 19 21:35:29 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 04:35:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16431 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 04:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 04:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 04:35:28 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08475; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:35:24 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:38:24 +1100 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing Cc: unmoderatednomic@egroups.com From: Gallivanting Tripper This is a Order-set that combines Rules (Standing Orders) and game data (Executive Orders) on the one list, with the interesting properties that Orders cannot be repealed, only overruled by subsequent orders, and the possibility of Executive Orders with Rule-like powers, especially over _other_ nomics. Don't know how it would stand up to out favourite Tool, but hopefully the set of Orders would never get _that_ complex........ Orders defining the set or Orders! SO 001 The set of Orders posted on this Newsgroup comprises the rules of LNS. Each Order may be a Standing Order (SO) or an Executive Order (XO) SO 002 If there is a conflict between a SO and a XO, the SO takes precedence, except if the XO is an Overrule. If there is a conflict between two SOs or two XOs, the most recently posted Order takes precedence= . SO 003 A SO is legal iff at the time of posting: =85 A ballot specifying the text of the SO had been active for the voting period =85 quorum was attained for that ballot =85 the number of votes FOR that ballot outnumbered the votes AGAINST that ballot SO 004 A ballot is an egroups poll with the following properties: =85 There may only be two options - FOR and AGAINST =85 Only Councillors may vote (the poll must not be anonymous) =85 Each Councillor may only vote once SO 005 The voting period is 7 days. Quorum is 20% of the number of Councillors. SO 006 A XO is legal iff it was posted in a way prescribed by the Orders in effect at the time of posting SO 007 If a SO or XO is not legal, any Councillor may post an XO with one or both of the following effects =85 To Overrule the illegal Order =85 To remove the Councillor who posted the Order from Council Orders governing Nomic Players SO 008 In order for a Nomic to become Recognised by LNS, a Player of that Nomic must post an XO, containing the Ruleset and Player List of that Nomic, or links to that information. Subsequently, an XO must also be posted adding that Nomic to the set of Recognised Nomics and all Players of that Nomic to Council. A Nomic cannot become Recognised if it has been previously Recognised by LNS. SO 009 In the event of changes to the Ruleset or Player List, of a Recognised Nomic posted according to the above SO, or of the links to this information, any Councillor may post an XO updating this information. SO 010 Scrutiny: If the Ruleset or Player List of a Recognised Nomic is inconsistent with directives specified in this set of Orders, any Councillor may post an XO removing that Nomic from the set of Recognised Nomics. Orders describing Winning conditions SO 011 Machiavelli: There exists a Nomic known as Machiavelli. The first Rule of Machiavelli is: "The Rules of Machiavelli may only change as directed by the Orders of LNS". The second Rule of Machiavelli is "The Player List of Machiavelli may only change as specified by the Orders of LNS". SO 012 If a Recognised Nomic ever has exactly two Players as determined by its Player List, any Councillor may post an XO removing that Nomic from the set of Recognised Nomics and adding those two Players to the Player List of Machiavelli. SO 013 If only one Nomic is Recognised by LNS, any Councillor may post an XO awarding that Nomic the title of "Last Nomic Standing", and adding the Players of that Nomic to the Player List of Machiavelli. SO 014 If a Nomic is entitled "Last Nomic Standing", and there is only one Player on the Player List of Machiavelli, any Councillor may post an XO awarding that Player the title of "Devious Conniving Bastard", and declaring that no more Orders may be posted. At this point, there are no Orders describing how to acheive and enforce these winning conditions. I thought that these should be left up to the game's Nomic Nature! Also note that this game does not require initial Players. Anynomic can join by posting an XO of intent. From rsholmes@m... Wed Oct 25 07:31:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_0); 25 Oct 2000 14:31:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 3048 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2000 14:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Oct 2000 14:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Oct 2000 14:31:15 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.006F1229@m...>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:31:15 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25944; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:31:14 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Cc: unmoderatednomic@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing References: Date: 25 Oct 2000 10:31:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:38:24 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 51 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > … Only Councillors may vote (the poll must not be anonymous) [...] > Subsequently, an XO must also be > posted adding that Nomic to the set of Recognised Nomics and all Players of > that Nomic to Council. The Council, and Councillors, are undefined terms. Is a Councillor defined to be a Player of a Recognized Nomic (RN)? Or is a Councillor simply anyone who is on the Council, and the initial rules specify only one way to join the Council, namely, by being a Player of a Recognized Nomic? If a RN's Player List is updated, are the new Players automatically added to the Council? Are the old Players who are no longer on the RN's Player List still Councillors? > SO 011 Machiavelli: There exists a Nomic known as Machiavelli. The first > Rule of Machiavelli is: "The Rules of Machiavelli may only change as > directed by the Orders of LNS". The second Rule of Machiavelli is "The > Player List of Machiavelli may only change as specified by the Orders of > LNS". I guess I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of Machiavelli. > SO 012 If a Recognised Nomic ever has exactly two Players as determined by > its Player List, any Councillor may post an XO removing that Nomic from the > set of Recognised Nomics and adding those two Players to the Player List of > Machiavelli. If a Nomic becomes derecognized, are its Players still Councillors? > SO 013 If only one Nomic is Recognised by LNS, any Councillor may post an > XO awarding that Nomic the title of "Last Nomic Standing", and adding the > Players of that Nomic to the Player List of Machiavelli. If a Nomic is designated Last Nomic Standing, are its Players still Councillors? > SO 014 If a Nomic is entitled "Last Nomic Standing", and there is only one > Player on the Player List of Machiavelli, any Councillor may post an XO > awarding that Player the title of "Devious Conniving Bastard", and > declaring that no more Orders may be posted. This suggests there are, or will be, mechanisms by which Players of Machiavelli can be removed from its Player List; however, no such mechanisms are defined initially. Do I understand correctly? -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Wed Oct 25 19:58:02 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_0); 26 Oct 2000 02:58:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2777 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2000 02:58:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Oct 2000 02:58:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Oct 2000 02:58:00 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21419 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:57:56 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:38:24 +1100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:01:18 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing From: Gallivanting Tripper Thanks for the (incredulous) analysis... Obviously this is all pretty open and up in the air, but I'll clarify how I see each point... >Gallivanting Tripper writes: > >> =D6 Only Councillors may vote (the poll must not be anonymous) >[...] >> Subsequently, an XO must also be >> posted adding that Nomic to the set of Recognised Nomics and all Players= of >> that Nomic to Council. > >The Council, and Councillors, are undefined terms. Is a Councillor >defined to be a Player of a Recognized Nomic (RN)? Or is a Councillor >simply anyone who is on the Council, and the initial rules specify >only one way to join the Council, namely, by being a Player of a >Recognized Nomic? A councillor is effectively a Player of LNS, I decided to use the terms Council/Councillor for that purpose to avaoid confusion. Initially, when a Nomic is Regognised, all of its players become councillors. >If a RN's Player List is updated, are the new Players automatically added = to >the Council? Presumably. Although I suspect that Orders may be enacted to stop Nomics recruiting new Players.... >Are the old Players who are no longer on the RN's Player >List still Councillors? As I see it, the only way to remove someone from Council is by an Overrule of an illegal order. Which is, I belive, a little extreme and I hope would not be used often. If Players are eliminated from RNs of if RNs are eliminated by SO 012, I would like to see them stay on the Council as impartial judges, so to speak. > >> SO 011 Machiavelli: There exists a Nomic known as Machiavelli. The fir= st >> Rule of Machiavelli is: "The Rules of Machiavelli may only change as >> directed by the Orders of LNS". The second Rule of Machiavelli is "The >> Player List of Machiavelli may only change as specified by the Orders of >> LNS". > >I guess I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of Machiavelli. Basically, the goal of LNS for a Nomic is to eliminate the other nomics, whereas for a Player it is to win Machiavelli by a) getting into Machiavelli and b) eliminating all other Players from Machiavelli. a) can be acheived either by being in the winning Nomic, or by eliminating enough players from your Nomic ! >> SO 013 If only one Nomic is Recognised by LNS, any Councillor may post a= n >> XO awarding that Nomic the title of "Last Nomic Standing", and adding th= e >> Players of that Nomic to the Player List of Machiavelli. > >If a Nomic is designated Last Nomic Standing, are its Players still >Councillors? Certainly. At this stage, the role of the council is to supervise Machiavelli, and if neccessary, choose the winner from the two last Players= . >> SO 014 If a Nomic is entitled "Last Nomic Standing", and there is only o= ne >> Player on the Player List of Machiavelli, any Councillor may post an XO >> awarding that Player the title of "Devious Conniving Bastard", and >> declaring that no more Orders may be posted. > >This suggests there are, or will be, mechanisms by which Players of >Machiavelli can be removed from its Player List; however, no such >mechanisms are defined initially. Do I understand correctly? Precisely. Again it's up to the council to specify this. They may give Machiavelli a degree of autonomy, or just use it as a plaything (although members of Machiavelli are still Councillors). I would envisage something like the elimination process in all those horrible reality-gameshow programs. But ultimately,it's up to the Nomic. Do you think there are enough Nomics active to do this? I make: SocailNomic (coma) spoon (~g1 at nomic.net) Polynomic(s) - now that would be interesting I guess FRC doesn't count From rsholmes@m... Thu Oct 26 19:40:59 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 27 Oct 2000 02:40:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 93834 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2000 02:40:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Oct 2000 02:40:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2000 02:40:58 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0070012F@m...>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:40:58 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA23070; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:40:57 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing References: Date: 26 Oct 2000 22:40:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:01:18 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Do you think there are enough Nomics active to do this? > > I make: > SocailNomic (coma) > spoon (~g1 at nomic.net) > Polynomic(s) - now that would be interesting > I guess FRC doesn't count If that's a list of all the active Nomics you know of, there are more. At least there seem to be, although I'm not active in any others at present. See for a non-comprehensive list. Hmm, I just thought of a possible improvement to the initial rules: Disqualify Agora for "Last Nomic Standing" status... -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Thu Oct 26 23:07:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 27 Oct 2000 06:07:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 362 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2000 06:07:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Oct 2000 06:07:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2000 06:07:05 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08142 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:06:57 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:01:18 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:10:24 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing From: Gallivanting Tripper <5 nomics + FRC + Polynomic (shudder)> >Hmm, I just thought of a possible improvement to the initial rules: >Disqualify Agora for "Last Nomic Standing" status... No no not at all! In fact, I have the feeling that the wise, gentle and venerable Agora may not take kindly to losing Players and being bullied about by the Council. Of course I might be wrong..... From oloros@l... Fri Oct 27 07:31:10 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: oloros@l... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 27 Oct 2000 14:31:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 27937 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2000 14:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Oct 2000 14:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Oct 2000 14:31:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: oloros@l... Received: from [10.1.2.225] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2000 14:31:08 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:31:02 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: over and out Message-ID: <8tc3j6+h56t@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 163 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.2.49.156 From: "Oloros the Blue" GT, Doctroid, Xylen, I will be off the net for the next two months. At such time as I return, (it will surely be the new millenium) I shall be in touch. Oloros From pulp@W... Mon Oct 30 14:20:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: pulp@W... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 30 Oct 2000 22:20:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 20158 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2000 22:20:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Oct 2000 22:20:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2000 22:20:06 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: pulp@W... Received: from [10.1.10.66] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Oct 2000 22:20:05 -0000 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:20:01 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: What grows? Message-ID: <8tks6h+gir4@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 418 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.254.102.217 From: pulp@W... Howdo. Checking through the Nomic Database, rode the links to this here place. Curious as to if Socialnomic or its spawn is facing a genuine ressurection in the near future. I know-ish GT and Oloros from Genomic (I'm Pulp), and I'm starting to suspect that there are really only about two dozen Nomic players in the world. ;) Be glad to hear if something is in the works. Pulp, for lack of a better handle From s3036845@s... Mon Oct 30 20:02:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 31 Oct 2000 04:02:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 17258 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2000 04:02:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Oct 2000 04:02:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2000 04:02:11 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21215; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:02:06 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8tks6h+gir4@e...> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:05:52 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] What grows? Cc: pulp@w... From: Gallivanting Tripper >Howdo. Checking through the Nomic Database, rode the links to this >here place. Curious as to if Socialnomic or its spawn is facing a >genuine ressurection in the near future. Well the original players certainly hope it will, although early next year is probably the most optimistic time. Of course, if 5 or so new interested players chirp up, Xylen may wish to start'er up early. >I know-ish GT and Oloros from Genomic (I'm Pulp), and I'm starting to >suspect that there are really only about two dozen Nomic players in >the world. ;) And only about half a dozen games active at the moment. Why doesn't the NND show the alive/dead status at it's table of contents?? It _is_ rather frustrating! >Be glad to hear if something is in the works. The ultimate problem with this rather utopian game was that due to lack of web-based archiving it was nigh impossible for new players to join, and so the game eventually died for lack of interest. >Pulp, >for lack of a better handle > > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >Socialnomic-DML-unsubscribe@egroups.com From mctupper@h... Mon Oct 30 23:51:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: xylen@c... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 31 Oct 2000 07:51:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 19093 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2000 07:51:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Oct 2000 07:51:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle.acns) (129.82.100.90) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2000 07:51:55 -0000 Received: from yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU (yuma.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.64]) by eagle.acns (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA84266 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:51:49 -0700 Received: from crosswinds.net (res099037.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.99.37]) by yuma.acns.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA158960 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:51:48 -0700 Sender: root@y... Message-ID: <39FE8769.D91090F6@c...> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:48:41 -0700 Reply-To: mctupper@h... X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] What grows? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-eGroups-From: Xylen From: Xylen Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > >Howdo. Checking through the Nomic Database, rode the links to this > >here place. Curious as to if Socialnomic or its spawn is facing a > >genuine ressurection in the near future. > > Well the original players certainly hope it will, although early next year > is probably the most optimistic time. Of course, if 5 or so new interested > players chirp up, Xylen may wish to start'er up early. If we can get 5 players, who have net access, remain in the game for more than two months, and have never played Agora, I would expect to see pigs flying. :) Unfortunetly, I will be losing net access in mid-December, and I'm not sure how sonn I will be back online. Hopefully by mid-January. > > >I know-ish GT and Oloros from Genomic (I'm Pulp), The same Pulp that was my favorite meal? The founder of Pulism and our religous icon? > > and I'm starting to > >suspect that there are really only about two dozen Nomic players in > >the world. ;) > If you check closely, you will find two types of players. Deadly-serious nitpickers, and people who just play for fun. I know Beserker has been resurrected, but they are still arguing (discussing) the initial rules. > And only about half a dozen games active at the moment. Why doesn't the > NND show the alive/dead status at it's table of contents?? It _is_ rather > frustrating! Of course, if a game dies, no one wants to take the time to make the changes in the listing. That reminds me, I really should update SocialNomics entry. > > >Be glad to hear if something is in the works. > > The ultimate problem with this rather utopian game was that due to lack of > web-based archiving it was nigh impossible for new players to join, and so > the game eventually died for lack of interest. Archiving wasn't the problem. "Useable" archiving was the problem. It was all there, but it was hard to work with. Oloros had suggested a system (check out http://www.everything2.com ) that we could use that would make things easier. Similar to a bulletin board, but with much more flexibility. If I can get it to compile, I m going to try and get it on a server so we can run a game using it. ("source code available" = "It works for us. What's your problem?") We could make the lists 'open' to everybody, but then we are subject to posts of SPAM. Maybe we could give out points to creative SPAM? FRC actually had a round where a SPAM message slipped thru the filters. It was judeged and got several points. Later, the players made up thier own SPAM round. Xylen From rsholmes@m... Tue Oct 31 07:05:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 31 Oct 2000 15:05:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 6540 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2000 15:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Oct 2000 15:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2000 15:05:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.007183C5@m...>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:05:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA03618; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:05:56 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] What grows? References: <39FE8769.D91090F6@c...> Date: 31 Oct 2000 10:05:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: Xylen's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:48:41 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 77 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... WPI, eh? I graduated from there myself. A long time ago. A long, LONG time ago... Not a member of WPISFS, are you? Xylen writes: > Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > > > and I'm starting to > > >suspect that there are really only about two dozen Nomic players in > > >the world. ;) > > > If you check closely, you will find two types of players. Deadly-serious > nitpickers, and people who just play for fun. I know Beserker has been > resurrected, but they are still arguing (discussing) the initial rules. Speaking of such, a bulletin board based Nomic is starting up at . Given that only four people are playing so far, and five votes (of which at least three must be in favor) are needed to pass a proposal, I'd say it could use a few new players... > > And only about half a dozen games active at the moment. Why doesn't the > > NND show the alive/dead status at it's table of contents?? It _is_ rather > > frustrating! > > Of course, if a game dies, no one wants to take the time to make the > changes in the listing. That reminds me, I really should update > SocialNomics entry. I was just there a few minutes ago. Someone (you, just now?) prepended the following to the description: The first instance of SocialNomic had its last Judgement on October 5, 2000, and is looking to restart up soon. New Players most welcome - you will become a Debutante and start on top of the Social Ladder. Status is "Starting up". Yeah, the lack of status information on the NND table of contents as well as the unreliability of the status information really cripples the usefulness of the NND. I do have NetMind telling me when the NND front page changes, though, so I hear about it when a new Nomic is added... > Archiving wasn't the problem. "Useable" archiving was the problem. It > was all there, but it was hard to work with. Oloros had suggested a > system (check out http://www.everything2.com ) that we could use that > would make things easier. Similar to a bulletin board, but with much > more flexibility. If I can get it to compile, I m going to try and get > it on a server so we can run a game using it. ("source code available" = > "It works for us. What's your problem?") I looked at everything and wasn't particularly impressed. Not as impressed as they are with themselves, anyway. That plus the eye-crossing microscopic font size, at least as it renders on my system, kept me from hanging around much. Maybe there are some really neat features that'd benefit SocialNomic II, but I didn't see any such. > We could make the lists 'open' to everybody, but then we are subject to > posts of SPAM. Why? What benefit is there in allowing non-members to post? On the other hand, I think there'd be great benefit in allowing non-members to read the archives. I see they still can't. Why? > Maybe we could give out points to creative SPAM? FRC > actually had a round where a SPAM message slipped thru the filters. It > was judeged and got several points. Later, the players made up thier own > SPAM round. God, don't remind me. -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Tue Nov 07 18:41:53 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 8 Nov 2000 02:41:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6222 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2000 02:41:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Nov 2000 02:41:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 02:41:51 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26242 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:41:48 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:38:24 +1100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:45:51 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing From: Gallivanting Tripper Hmm With Nomic.net now hosting a couple of games and being a bit of a focal point, perhaps LNS could be hosted on a bulletin board there, with a bit of tweaking to the proposal/vote format (a post with vote replies would do) Somehow it would have to look better than BB Nomic, which is not absolutely transparent and is still (shudder) Administrated. From rsholmes@m... Wed Nov 08 07:23:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 8 Nov 2000 15:23:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 86164 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2000 15:20:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Nov 2000 15:20:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 15:20:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0074B628@m...>; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:20:57 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27573; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:20:56 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing References: Date: 08 Nov 2000 10:20:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:45:51 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Somehow it would have to look better than BB Nomic, which is not absolutely > transparent and is still (shudder) Administrated. I'm curious as to what you mean by "absolutely transparent"... -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Wed Nov 08 18:47:43 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 9 Nov 2000 02:47:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 82232 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 02:47:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Nov 2000 02:47:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 02:47:41 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29084 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:47:38 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:45:51 +1100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:51:41 +1100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing From: Gallivanting Tripper >Gallivanting Tripper writes: > >> Somehow it would have to look better than BB Nomic, which is not absolutely >> transparent and is still (shudder) Administrated. > >I'm curious as to what you mean by "absolutely transparent"... Oh I dunno. I guess I'm not such a big fan of the "threaded reversed" format - or maybe I'm used to reading SocialNomic from the comfort of my POP mail. At least the current BB ruleset is easy to find, though... The inevitable problem of LNS is that it wouldn't have the facility of a "current ruleset" - in fact its format disallows the whole concept, as its Orders can never be modified or repealed, only overruled..... [offtopic] so what's going to happen to this round of FRC then - everyone else appears to have nodded off for the time being - including the Judge - is it _that_ uninspiring?! From s3036845@s... Wed Nov 08 19:33:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 9 Nov 2000 03:33:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 12073 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 03:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Nov 2000 03:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 03:32:18 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.8] (Altin7100.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.8]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03541 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:11:29 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:15:33 +1100 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: "Recommendations for the Omega" From: Gallivanting Tripper In accordance with Rule 39, I hereby submit a list of recommendations for the restarting of SocialNomic (not that Xylen will probably read this before January) * Accessiblity - Make all the SocialNomic lists publicly accessible - Make a "FAQ" or Introductory page, which could be attached to egroups, with a brief summary of the game and its mechanics - Link this page to the NND, Nomic.net and/or the Nomic ring * From rsholmes@m... Thu Nov 09 07:55:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 9 Nov 2000 15:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 6752 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 15:55:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Nov 2000 15:55:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 16:56:17 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00752E1E@m...>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:55:11 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA27379; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing References: Date: 09 Nov 2000 10:55:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:51:41 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 26 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > [offtopic] > so what's going to happen to this round of FRC then - everyone else appears > to have nodded off for the time being - including the Judge - is it _that_ > uninspiring?! I dunno what the Judge is up to (or not) but as for everyone else... you and I are the only ones still eligible. As I reckon it, your eligibility expires 2000-11-13 04:22:08 GMT. Mine expires 2000-11-10 16:49:39 GMT. Hmm, that's about 24 hours from now. I was going to forfeit unless I came up with a really cool idea for another rule, which I haven't. But if you want to evade Judgeship, contact me ASAP and I'll cobble something together and you can forfeit. Better email me at as well as here, if that's the case, to make sure I see it in time. Actually this has been the best round in some time... even if (or because?) we were essentially the only two players... I think Kunne's rule probably stifled some participation. Or not. -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Nov 09 08:09:17 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 9 Nov 2000 16:09:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 7918 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 16:01:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Nov 2000 16:01:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 17:02:57 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.00752EF8@m...>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:01:51 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28566; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:01:51 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] "Recommendations for the Omega" References: Date: 09 Nov 2000 11:01:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:15:33 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 30 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > In accordance with Rule 39, I hereby submit a list of recommendations for > the restarting of SocialNomic (not that Xylen will probably read this > before January) > > * Accessiblity > - Make all the SocialNomic lists publicly accessible I assume this means the archives, not posting privileges. Agreed. > - Make a "FAQ" or Introductory page, which could be attached to > egroups, with a brief summary of the game and its mechanics Agreed. The first thing I do when I go to investigate an online game is check out the web site, looking for current ruleset, current proposals, summary of the game, history, etc. All of which is daunting at best, unavailable at worst, for Socialnomic. Of course, someone has to administer such stuff... > - Link this page to the NND, Nomic.net and/or the Nomic ring Yep. Speaking of NND, you might like to take a peek at . -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Thu Nov 09 17:21:04 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 10 Nov 2000 01:21:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 25855 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2000 01:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Nov 2000 01:21:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Nov 2000 01:21:02 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12510 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:20:58 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:15:33 +1100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:25:10 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] "Recommendations for the Omega" From: Gallivanting Tripper >> - Make a "FAQ" or Introductory page, which could be attached to >> egroups, with a brief summary of the game and its mechanics > >Agreed. The first thing I do when I go to investigate an online game >is check out the web site, looking for current ruleset, current >proposals, summary of the game, history, etc. All of which is >daunting at best, unavailable at worst, for Socialnomic. > >Of course, someone has to administer such stuff... > Weeel - one of us could set up the original FAQ when the game restarts, and updating it could be an "administrative task". The current ruleset wouldn't _have_ to be there, that would be a sellout of SocialNomic's minimalist philosophy IMHO but if the rules list was better archived it wouldn't be that hard to browse??? >Speaking of NND, you might like to take a peek at >. Very pretty, I approve! From rsholmes@m... Fri Nov 10 11:25:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 10 Nov 2000 19:25:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16916 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2000 19:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Nov 2000 19:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Nov 2000 20:26:59 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0075E034@m...>; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:25:54 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA08090; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:25:53 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Ruleset for Last Nomic Standing References: Date: 10 Nov 2000 14:25:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:51:41 +1100" Message-ID: Lines: 10 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... I have to say thus far I haven't found myself being very favorably inclined to the idea of LNS. But maybe I just need to think about it more. Anyway, it seems to me a discussion of LNS would much more profitably occur on the Nomic Bulletin Board... and the NBB could use a little action, anyway! -- Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Thu Nov 30 07:54:51 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 15:54:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 75262 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 15:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 15:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 15:54:50 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.64] by jj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 15:54:50 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:54:45 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: DocNomic Message-ID: <905t85+6l1f@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 rsholmes@m... Thu Nov 30 08:14:23 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 30 Nov 2000 16:14:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 42499 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 16:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Nov 2000 16:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO f19.egroups.com) (10.1.2.136) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 16:14:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.10.98] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2000 16:14:22 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:14:21 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Subject: n_omic Message-ID: <905uct+1u0v@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 112 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: "Doctroid " There's also a new Nomic using Suber's initial ruleset starting up; see . From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 16 12:40:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 16 Feb 2001 20:40:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 73524 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2001 20:40:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Feb 2001 20:40:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Feb 2001 20:40:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.52] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Feb 2001 20:40:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:40:17 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: DocNomic Message-ID: <96k37h+brfn@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 776 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 128.230.72.24 From: rsholmes@m... DocNomic has been running for about 2 1/2 months now, and things are humming nicely. A hospital theme has developed including various hospital rooms, various diseases and injuries, and various staff members such as a Surgeon, an Epidemiologist, a Pharmacist, and a Psychiatrist (and hey, who doesn't need a psychiatrist around here?), not to mention a Mad Scientist who's recently animated a dead player and set him loose as a zombie! The ruleset's gotten considerably longer, but it's not particularly complex. There's no reason new players couldn't jump right in. You'll get a decent starting allocation of body points and soul points, and enough cash to buy pills to help keep you healthy... Have a look! From s3036845@s... Wed Feb 21 20:45:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 04:45:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 29273 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 04:45:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 04:45:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 05:46:43 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06206; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:45:33 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:47:18 +0100 To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? Cc: rsholmes@m..., mctupper@h... From: Gallivanting Tripper I've been lurking around the foundations of WikiNomic (www.nomic.net/~g5) for a while, and I've been mulling through the properties of Wiki and how it might become a better UnmoderatedNomic engine. The desired properties are: 1) Unmoderatedness 2) Ease of searching 3) Ease of editing 4) Auditability. The first is easily done - provided the admins don't crash the site of course, anyone can edit anything The second would also not be too bad - I understand the Wiki has a search function that will bring up a list of pages by page name and text word search The third is that wiki pages are probably a little quicker to navigate and edit than egroups messages, but the linking ability of Wiki means that it would no longer be neccessary to post redundant messages, simply cross-link to the various gamestate pages. The fourth is the sticking point - anyone can edit anything anonymously. However, the Wiki does track the last change(s?) and can tell if a page has not been altered. The latter function means that actions could be posted as individual pages, and voided if edited. The same could go for proposals or even rules - although it would be more convenient to have votes and adoption/rejection tallied at the base of each proposal (although this could allow proposals to be edited by stealth) I'll mull over a more precise ruleset over the weekend Cheers GT From rsholmes@m... Thu Feb 22 10:32:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 18:32:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 63576 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 18:32:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 18:32:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 19:33:31 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009A8A33@m...>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:32:25 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA00344; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:32:25 -0500 (EST) To: SocialNomic Discussion List Subject: Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? References: Date: 22 Feb 2001 13:32:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:47:18 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 92 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > I've been lurking around the foundations of WikiNomic (www.nomic.net/~g5) > for a while, and I've been mulling through the properties of Wiki and how > it might become a better UnmoderatedNomic engine. > > The desired properties are: > 1) Unmoderatedness > 2) Ease of searching > 3) Ease of editing > 4) Auditability. > > The first is easily done - provided the admins don't crash the site of > course, anyone can edit anything > The second would also not be too bad - I understand the Wiki has a search > function that will bring up a list of pages by page name and text word > search > The third is that wiki pages are probably a little quicker to navigate and > edit than egroups messages, but the linking ability of Wiki means that it > would no longer be neccessary to post redundant messages, simply cross-link > to the various gamestate pages. > The fourth is the sticking point - anyone can edit anything anonymously. > However, the Wiki does track the last change(s?) and can tell if a page has > not been altered. The latter function means that actions could be posted > as individual pages, and voided if edited. The same could go for proposals > or even rules - although it would be more convenient to have votes and > adoption/rejection tallied at the base of each proposal (although this > could allow proposals to be edited by stealth) Right, auditability is a problem. You have a good point with regard to non-editing of pages. However... (1) To apply this to voting, you'd have to create a new page for every vote on every proposal. Each with its own WikiName! Messy. (2) The fact that a page has not been edited does mean an action hasn't been revised ex post facto. But there remains the question of whether the action was taken by the person who claims credit for it in the first place. To some degree there's auditability for this, in the sense that the IP address of the page author is stored. That, maybe, is sufficient for Nomic purposes. (3) And if you adopt a "nullify if edited" policy, that means anyone (player or not) can nullify any action, quasi-anonymously, simply by editing it. That could be nearly as havoc-inducing as being able to modify or forge actions. I also point out that while PhpWiki does track the number of times a page has been edited, apparently only two versions (max) are preserved -- the current version and the archived version, which is *not* necessarily the one before the current version; i.e. it doesn't archive every time a page is edited. So not only can you not track multiple modifications, you can't even necessarily see what the last modification was. Perhaps you wouldn't have to, if you used the "create pages but don't edit them" approach. I just point this out in case anyone *is* harboring ideas based on this kind of auditability. On the whole, the auditability issues strike me as potentially deadly. I'd say a Yahoo Group (or two) (but not four) (but you've heard that diatribe) beats a Wiki by a wide margin for running a Nomic, if it weren't for the fact that the search facility is so piss-poor. At least you can now traverse threads in a Yahoo Groups archive (within a *single* group, of course). Incidentally, have you looked at the membership list of Socialnomic-DML lately? (Yahoo ID / email / profile info / joined): / abou@c... / Zutroi Zatatakowsky / 6/20/00 driley7 / adistius@y... / David (M) / 1/21/01 / chris.ciesliga@h... / / 1/15/01 / hrholmes@m... / Doctroid / 7/17/00 kevandavis / kevan@s... / Kevan Davis / 7/6/00 / kingjawa@h... / / 12/11/00 / mctupper@h... / Xylen / 6/16/00 ottisa / oairhart@i... / (M) / 12/11/00 oloros_luin / oloros@l... / (M) / 6/16/00 / pulp@W... / / 10/30/00 rsholmes / rsholmes@m... / (M) / 8/25/00 / s3036845@s... / Gallivanting Tripper / 6/16/00 topheavyyah / topheavy@s... / (M) / 6/16/00 / unmoderatednomic@y... / / 6/16/00 There appear to be at least four members who joined after Socialnomic I ended. I don't know how many are really reading this, though... (Ottis Airhart is a player in Docnomic, though apparently kinda busy with the Real World these days.) -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Thu Feb 22 15:10:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 23:10:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 54226 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 23:10:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 23:10:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 23:10:06 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21591 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:10:02 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:47:18 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:11:49 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? From: Gallivanting Tripper > (1) To apply this to voting, you'd have to create a new page for > every vote on every proposal. Each with its own WikiName! > Messy. Big problem yes. But otherwise there's nothing to stop an unscrupulous player from voting and then changing another vote on the same page. It would perhaps be practical to create empty pages titled "313TripperVotesFOR" with just a link back to the original proposal or something. It would then be easy to search for "313 Votes" and see who's voted what (you could even put a search button on the bottom of the proposal page. How easy would that be?). Also, the title ?can't? be edited, which might solve _some_ security problems > (2) The fact that a page has not been edited does mean an action > hasn't been revised ex post facto. But there remains the > question of whether the action was taken by the person who claims > credit for it in the first place. To some degree there's > auditability for this, in the sense that the IP address of the > page author is stored. That, maybe, is sufficient for Nomic > purposes. Indeed - new Players could specify an IP address or addresses to prevent such skulduggery > (3) And if you adopt a "nullify if edited" policy, that means anyone > (player or not) can nullify any action, quasi-anonymously, simply > by editing it. That could be nearly as havoc-inducing as being > able to modify or forge actions. Yes, but just about any PBEM Nomic is trashable by someone, player or no, who wants to spam/delete messages/post misinformation/whatever. For example in a Yahoo Group, players could edit or delete their own posts, and the other players as well if they signed in as a moderator. So SocialNomic actually had some fairly byzantine leglislation to deal with those sort of actions. In a Wiki things could be much simpler - if a page is edited, it is considered corrupted and the poster can re-post a duplicate page, putting the link to the new page into the corrupted page (which is already corrupted so e can edit as much as he likes). Mind you, editing a page could also be a good way of *contesting* an action. I've been thinking of ways to track actions. Every action could be a page with the text of the action, a link to the previous action, an empty link to the next action, and perhaps also to the GameData page. And when the GameData page is updated, its link (to the most recent action at the time of the update) can also be updated. >I also point out that while PhpWiki does track the number of times a >page has been edited, apparently only two versions (max) are preserved >-- the current version and the archived version, which is *not* >necessarily the one before the current version; i.e. it doesn't >archive every time a page is edited. So not only can you not track >multiple modifications, you can't even necessarily see what the last >modification was. Perhaps you wouldn't have to, if you used the >"create pages but don't edit them" approach. I just point this out in >case anyone *is* harboring ideas based on this kind of auditability. Thinks - is it possible to edit the editability status of pages in PHPWiki? >On the whole, the auditability issues strike me as potentially deadly. >I'd say a Yahoo Group (or two) (but not four) (but you've heard that >diatribe) beats a Wiki by a wide margin for running a Nomic, if it >weren't for the fact that the search facility is so piss-poor. Yes, Wiki wins for the searchability. The only extra paperwork required for threadability in Wiki would be appending "PreviousAction NextAction GameData" to each action page, which is a small price to pay IMHO >At least you can now traverse threads in a Yahoo Groups archive >(within a *single* group, of course). > >Incidentally, have you looked at the membership list of >Socialnomic-DML lately? (Yahoo ID / email / profile info / joined): > > / abou@c... / Zutroi Zatatakowsky / 6/20/00 >driley7 / adistius@y... / David (M) / 1/21/01 > / chris.ciesliga@h... / / 1/15/01 > / hrholmes@m... / Doctroid / 7/17/00 >kevandavis / kevan@s... / Kevan Davis / 7/6/00 > / kingjawa@h... / / 12/11/00 > / mctupper@h... / Xylen / 6/16/00 >ottisa / oairhart@i... / (M) / 12/11/00 >oloros_luin / oloros@l... / (M) / 6/16/00 > / pulp@W... / / 10/30/00 >rsholmes / rsholmes@m... / (M) / 8/25/00 > / s3036845@s... / Gallivanting Tripper / 6/16/00 >topheavyyah / topheavy@s... / (M) / 6/16/00 > / unmoderatednomic@y... / / 6/16/00 > >There appear to be at least four members who joined after Socialnomic >I ended. I don't know how many are really reading this, though... So many Nomics, so little time. I wonder who would appear if we broadbanded a "resurrection of SocialNomic" post? >(Ottis Airhart is a player in Docnomic, though apparently kinda busy >with the Real World these days.) > >-- >Doctroid > \ Later GT From s3036845@s... Thu Feb 22 15:20:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 23:20:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 78802 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 23:20:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 23:20:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 23:20:50 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23448 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:20:45 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:47:18 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:22:32 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? From: Gallivanting Tripper Ho hum You could apply the threading thing to Votes as well. Just put the vote itself in the text of the message (it'll still come up in the search function) and append "PreviousVote NextVote ProposalN" (well obviously these will have to be different for every page but there you go) From rsholmes@m... Fri Feb 23 10:13:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 18:13:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 71976 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 18:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 18:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 18:01:06 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009AF5A7@m...>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:01:06 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27852; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:01:05 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? References: Date: 23 Feb 2001 13:01:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:11:49 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 101 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > (you could even put a search button on the bottom of the > proposal page. How easy would that be?). If you literally mean a button, you can't, using PhpWiki in its default configuration -- if I understand what you're talking about, it'd require putting arbitrary HTML on a Wiki page, and while PhpWiki can be set to allow that, the default is not (for security reasons). But you could put a search link, if you can remember the syntax... [http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php?full=eus] (or search= for a title-only search.) You can't do anything fancy in the search, like boolean operators. Hmm, comparing Yahoo Groups and PhpWiki searches: YG PW -- -- searches Message body and ALL headers Message body OR title for all words in query phrase in query I think that's correct. PhpWiki wins, but not by a lot. > Also, the title ?can't? be > edited, which might solve _some_ security problems True. > Indeed - new Players could specify an IP address or addresses to prevent > such skulduggery Except, of course, there is not a 1-1 mapping between IP addresses and players. In particular, someone using a dialup connection will generally have a different IP address each time. > Yes, but just about any PBEM Nomic is trashable by someone, player or no, > who wants to spam/delete messages/post misinformation/whatever. For > example in a Yahoo Group, players could edit or delete their own posts, and > the other players as well if they signed in as a moderator. So SocialNomic > actually had some fairly byzantine leglislation to deal with those sort of > actions. Of course, but it's worse with a Wiki -- suggesting a WikiSocialnomic would require even more byzantine remedies. Hmm, can you actually edit posts in a Yahoo Group? Hang on. Nope. You can delete, but not edit. And, as you say, only your own posts, or others' if you sign in as moderator. And it's tough to forge an action in another player's name. With a Wiki *anyone* -- player or observer or 14 year old "hacker" -- can delete *or edit* any action, and can forge an action on the part of any other player, with nothing but the IP address to finger them. Of course you can do any of the above in any PBEM Nomic if you're willing to do enough hacking. With a Wiki, it's not even hacking -- it's using the system as intended. OK, so you nullify any edited actions -- that still means anyone, anywhere, anytime can nullify any action. Hmm, I guess you don't have to nullify an action if it can be restored, i.e. if the original action is archived. And as I pointed out before, archiving doesn't happen as soon as a page is edited. I'm not sure when it happens, but if it's long enough, it gives you a window of opportunity to fix the damage. > I've been thinking of ways to track actions. Every action could be a page > with the text of the action, a link to the previous action, an empty link > to the next action, and perhaps also to the GameData page. And when the > GameData page is updated, its link (to the most recent action at the time > of the update) can also be updated. Hmm -- so the GameData page is editable, which means it's corruptable by anyone; in principle you can decorrupt from the unedited action pages ... in practice that could get hairy. > Thinks - is it possible to edit the editability status of pages in PHPWiki? I don't think a user can. The Wiki owner can. So if all players know the Wiki owner password, they can make their actions uneditable. Of course, they can still make *each other*'s actions editable... > Yes, Wiki wins for the searchability. The only extra paperwork required > for threadability in Wiki would be appending "PreviousAction NextAction > GameData" to each action page, which is a small price to pay IMHO And presumably you'd want an editable ActionsTableOfContents page so you can find an action without traversing the thread all the way from one end or the other... No, no! You just have to put a link to "Actions" at the end of each action, and then you can search for pages that link to "Actions" to get an actions ToC. Still, it's sounding to me like the measures required to get it to work end up making it tedious to use, defeating the purpose. Maybe not, but that's how it looks from here. Anyway, setting up things on a Wiki and then requiring that nearly all pages never be edited kind of strikes me as trying to have a system *not* do exactly what it was designed *to* do. -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Sun Feb 25 15:35:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 25 Feb 2001 23:35:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 16042 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2001 23:35:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2001 23:35:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Feb 2001 23:34:59 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15578 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:34:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:11:49 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:36:43 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? From: Gallivanting Tripper >Gallivanting Tripper writes: > >> (you could even put a search button on the bottom of the >> proposal page. How easy would that be?). >(or search= for a title-only search.) I meant /search/ or /fullsearch/ (whatever the actual syntax is) There's one in the RiceTable >You can't do anything fancy in the search, like boolean operators. You can do a NOT, but I don't see any need for more than that >Hmm, comparing Yahoo Groups and PhpWiki searches: > > YG PW > -- -- >searches Message body and ALL headers Message body OR title >for all words in query phrase in query > >I think that's correct. PhpWiki wins, but not by a lot. Wiki is Quicki (for me, anyway) >> Indeed - new Players could specify an IP address or addresses to prevent >> such skulduggery > >Except, of course, there is not a 1-1 mapping between IP addresses and >players. In particular, someone using a dialup connection will >generally have a different IP address each time. Good point - but wouldn't those IP addresses be related? Enough to give a negative/positive ID? >Of course you can do any of the above in any PBEM Nomic >if you're willing to do enough hacking. With a Wiki, it's not even >hacking -- it's using the system as intended. Which is why it is interesting to see if it could runa Nomic in this way. Ultimately a (young) Nomic game survives on the will of its players - if they aren't interested or a few players are being dicks, it would kill the game off anyway. >OK, so you nullify any edited actions -- that still means anyone, >anywhere, anytime can nullify any action. In SocialNomic, this would have been done by CFJing it and putting an Injunction on... >Hmm, I guess you don't have to nullify an action if it can be >restored, i.e. if the original action is archived. And as I pointed >out before, archiving doesn't happen as soon as a page is edited. I'm >not sure when it happens, but if it's long enough, it gives you a >window of opportunity to fix the damage. Thing is, _who_ would fix the damage? A SocialNomic shouldn't have to rely on admin for life support. I imagine that nullified actions would just be treated as a CFJ and then re-posted. The actions pages would leave an audit trail, so long as some-one doesn't trash every single one of them >Hmm -- so the GameData page is editable, which means it's corruptable >by anyone; in principle you can decorrupt from the unedited action >pages ... in practice that could get hairy. Exactly as in the case of SN 1. If just the points differentials were tracked on actions pages, it would actually be _easier_ to recalculate, as cumulative errors wouldn't creep in as much > >And presumably you'd want an editable ActionsTableOfContents page so >you can find an action without traversing the thread all the way from >one end or the other... No, no! You just have to put a link to >"Actions" at the end of each action, and then you can search for pages >that link to "Actions" to get an actions ToC. Yep, and exactly the same thing for Proposals and Votes. RecentChanges would also allow action tracking. The only editable page you need (apart from the gamedata one) is somewhere to create proposals and votes. To save that, it might even be easier to have each proposal nominate a list of empty WikiNames for player's votes with the format 301TrippersVote etc. But that is probably more open to abuse as any player could use any (or all) of the votes. >Still, it's sounding to me like the measures required to get it to >work end up making it tedious to use, defeating the purpose. Maybe >not, but that's how it looks from here. Anyway, setting up things on >a Wiki and then requiring that nearly all pages never be edited kind >of strikes me as trying to have a system *not* do exactly what it was >designed *to* do. Well I had a bit of a muckaround on WikiNomic through a page called ProPosal - the mechanics didn't work out exactly as I hoped (because the search function is not case sensitive, creating a ProPosal TOC also hits the discussion board quite a lot!) See what you think From rsholmes@m... Mon Feb 26 07:22:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Feb 2001 15:22:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 35574 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 15:22:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2001 15:22:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 15:22:38 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.009BBB8E@m...>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:22:38 -0500 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11161; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:22:37 -0500 (EST) To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? References: Date: 26 Feb 2001 10:22:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:36:43 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 84 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Gallivanting Tripper writes: > Which is why it is interesting to see if it could runa Nomic in this way. > Ultimately a (young) Nomic game survives on the will of its players - if > they aren't interested or a few players are being dicks, it would kill the > game off anyway. Sure, but in the case of a Wiki, it's not just dickheaded players you have to worry about -- it's dickheaded *anyone*. > >OK, so you nullify any edited actions -- that still means anyone, > >anywhere, anytime can nullify any action. > > In SocialNomic, this would have been done by CFJing it and putting an > Injunction on... Again, that could be done only by a player. And the Judgment can proceed knowing what the action was. On a Wiki where actions are CFJ'ed if edited, anyone including a non-player could do that, and the Judgment has to proceed on a basis of not knowing what the action was before editing took place (unless it was archived). > >Hmm, I guess you don't have to nullify an action if it can be > >restored, i.e. if the original action is archived. And as I pointed > >out before, archiving doesn't happen as soon as a page is edited. I'm > >not sure when it happens, but if it's long enough, it gives you a > >window of opportunity to fix the damage. > > Thing is, _who_ would fix the damage? Anyone could, as long as the old page is in the archive. > A SocialNomic shouldn't have to rely > on admin for life support. I imagine that nullified actions would just be > treated as a CFJ and then re-posted. The actions pages would leave an > audit trail, so long as some-one doesn't trash every single one of them I don't see this. Yes, if the original action is still in the archive then you can audit a reposting of the action. But if an action is edited before it can be archived -- or if it's edited twice and the first edit is the one in the archive -- then there's no way to audit a repost. > >Hmm -- so the GameData page is editable, which means it's corruptable > >by anyone; in principle you can decorrupt from the unedited action > >pages ... in practice that could get hairy. > > Exactly as in the case of SN 1. No, because in SN 1 only a player can post incorrect gamedata, and no one can (without some serious hacking) modify or erase correct gamedata. (Anyone with moderator privileges could remove correct gamedata *from the archive* -- but by then it's been emailed to those who choose to receive that list as email.) Again, on a Wiki, *anyone* -- player or not -- can post incorrect gamedata or modify or erase correct gamedata. > Yep, and exactly the same thing for Proposals and Votes. RecentChanges > would also allow action tracking. The only editable page you need (apart > from the gamedata one) is somewhere to create proposals and votes. I was thinking you'd need one or more editable pages for the ruleset, but I guess not -- at some cost. Each rule could be on a non-editable page... non-editable, that is, except when the rule is amended or repealed, in which case the page would be edited to say the rule is no longer in effect (and in the case of an amendment, a new page would be created for the amended version). A link to RuleSetPage, edited out when a rule is amended or repealed, would enable one to find all valid rules. Still, assembling a ruleset from all those disparate pages would be a pain in the butt. Much easier to read if all rules are on the same page (that was one of the problems with SN 1, remember? No easy way for non-subscribers to obtain a current complete ruleset.), but then the page has to be editable. > To save > that, it might even be easier to have each proposal nominate a list of > empty WikiNames for player's votes with the format 301TrippersVote etc. > But that is probably more open to abuse as any player could use any (or > all) of the votes. Or any non-player... -- Doctroid From s3036845@s... Mon Feb 26 15:57:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: s3036845@s... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 26 Feb 2001 23:57:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 19210 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2001 23:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2001 23:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bohm.anu.edu.au) (150.203.21.88) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2001 23:57:56 -0000 Received: from [150.203.41.65] (bambimac55.anu.edu.au [150.203.41.65]) by bohm.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27303 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:57:48 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:36:43 +0100" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:59:49 +0100 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Socialnomic-DML] Re: SocialNomic II in a Wiki?? From: Gallivanting Tripper [player/non-player issues] In a similar manner to SN1, anyone who edits the Wiki becomes a Player (or at least a Person) If they don't leave their name, they become a Force of Nature! I contemplated an idea for a minimal Wiki nomic-esqe game where users are omnipotent agents (effectively gods), but can be knocked out by having their home page deleted. Although this could be very nasty at first, presumably some sort of conventions/(un)written rules would arise to control the _behaviour_ of users. Suspicion of a crime leaves one liable to punishment! Maybe this could be a SN2 subgame, where all users (not neccessarily Players) can play [ruleset issues] This is indeed a sticking point. (Really the ultimate sticking point for a non-moderated nomic in general) The system you discussed is a good one, and similar to what was used in SN1. A central ruleset page could be maintained, but since it would be editable it would be open to mistakes/corruption. So the unedited RuleSetPage pages would be the stone tablets, if you like. >Gallivanting Tripper writes: > >> Which is why it is interesting to see if it could runa Nomic in this way. >> Ultimately a (young) Nomic game survives on the will of its players - if >> they aren't interested or a few players are being dicks, it would kill the >> game off anyway. > >Sure, but in the case of a Wiki, it's not just dickheaded players you >have to worry about -- it's dickheaded *anyone*. > >> >OK, so you nullify any edited actions -- that still means anyone, >> >anywhere, anytime can nullify any action. >> >> In SocialNomic, this would have been done by CFJing it and putting an >> Injunction on... > >Again, that could be done only by a player. And the Judgment can >proceed knowing what the action was. On a Wiki where actions are >CFJ'ed if edited, anyone including a non-player could do that, and the >Judgment has to proceed on a basis of not knowing what the action was >before editing took place (unless it was archived). > >> >Hmm, I guess you don't have to nullify an action if it can be >> >restored, i.e. if the original action is archived. And as I pointed >> >out before, archiving doesn't happen as soon as a page is edited. I'm >> >not sure when it happens, but if it's long enough, it gives you a >> >window of opportunity to fix the damage. >> >> Thing is, _who_ would fix the damage? > >Anyone could, as long as the old page is in the archive. > >> A SocialNomic shouldn't have to rely >> on admin for life support. I imagine that nullified actions would just be >> treated as a CFJ and then re-posted. The actions pages would leave an >> audit trail, so long as some-one doesn't trash every single one of them > >I don't see this. Yes, if the original action is still in the archive >then you can audit a reposting of the action. But if an action is >edited before it can be archived -- or if it's edited twice and the >first edit is the one in the archive -- then there's no way to audit a >repost. > >> >Hmm -- so the GameData page is editable, which means it's corruptable >> >by anyone; in principle you can decorrupt from the unedited action >> >pages ... in practice that could get hairy. >> >> Exactly as in the case of SN 1. > >No, because in SN 1 only a player can post incorrect gamedata, and no >one can (without some serious hacking) modify or erase correct >gamedata. (Anyone with moderator privileges could remove correct >gamedata *from the archive* -- but by then it's been emailed to those >who choose to receive that list as email.) Again, on a Wiki, *anyone* >-- player or not -- can post incorrect gamedata or modify or erase >correct gamedata. > >> Yep, and exactly the same thing for Proposals and Votes. RecentChanges >> would also allow action tracking. The only editable page you need (apart >> from the gamedata one) is somewhere to create proposals and votes. > >I was thinking you'd need one or more editable pages for the ruleset, >but I guess not -- at some cost. Each rule could be on a non-editable >page... non-editable, that is, except when the rule is amended or >repealed, in which case the page would be edited to say the rule is no >longer in effect (and in the case of an amendment, a new page would be >created for the amended version). A link to RuleSetPage, edited out >when a rule is amended or repealed, would enable one to find all valid >rules. Still, assembling a ruleset from all those disparate pages >would be a pain in the butt. Much easier to read if all >rules are on the same page (that was one of the problems with SN 1, >remember? No easy way for non-subscribers to obtain a current >complete ruleset.), but then the page has to be editable. > >> To save >> that, it might even be easier to have each proposal nominate a list of >> empty WikiNames for player's votes with the format 301TrippersVote etc. >> But that is probably more open to abuse as any player could use any (or >> all) of the votes. > >Or any non-player... > >-- >Doctroid > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >Socialnomic-DML-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From rsholmes@m... Tue Jun 05 13:18:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@m... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 5 Jun 2001 20:18:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 19719 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 20:18:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2001 20:18:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2001 20:18:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: rsholmes@m... Received: from [10.1.2.240] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2001 20:18:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:18:12 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: DocNomic redux Message-ID: <9fjeq4+1pmp@e...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 734 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: . - Doctroid From rsholmes@m... Wed Jun 27 11:55:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rsholmes@M... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 27 Jun 2001 18:55:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 64168 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2001 18:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2001 18:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailer.syr.edu) (128.230.18.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2001 18:55:12 -0000 Received: from rodan.syr.edu by mailer.syr.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.001F030F@m...>; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:55:12 -0400 Received: (from rsholmes@l...) by rodan.syr.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18449; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:55:11 -0400 (EDT) To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: Owner? Date: 27 Jun 2001 14:55:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: Gallivanting Tripper's message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:36:43 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 6 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-eGroups-From: rsholmes@M... (Richard S. Holmes) From: rsholmes@m... Does anyone within shouting distance remember the Socialnomic lists owner's name and password? -- Doctroid From jmorgantx@p... Sun Dec 02 17:21:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jmorgantx@p... X-Apparently-To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 3 Dec 2001 01:21:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 93505 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 01:21:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2001 01:21:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n9.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.59) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2001 01:21:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jmorgantx@p... Received: from [10.1.2.109] by n9.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2001 01:21:15 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:21:13 -0000 To: Socialnomic-DML@yahoogroups.com Subject: SPAM- A Pure n_omic Message-ID: <9uek29+e0r8@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: 63.254.176.16 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