Subject: SNN - Breaking News Flash

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:52:26 -0600

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: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:47:31 +1000

>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,

So? I couldn't think how to summarise "I dislike the use of Private Email"
in 2 words!

>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!

>subject to dissapearing into thin air.

As mentioned above, the new rule 10 is illegal so I'd have to agree on this

>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: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 22:22:08 -0600

> 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

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:28:22 +1000

>> >desrcibing them, or they are not eligible for voting.

The choice of "up to" rather than "one or two" was deliberate here.

>not exist, thus there _must_ be at least one word.

Of course you can ;-) 0 - 0 = 0 n'est-ce pas?

>in Rule 4, and without Votes, they cannot be adopted or defeated under

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: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:36:27 -0600

> 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.

> 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

---

From: Gallivanting Tripper <s3036845@s...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:10:07 +1000

>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

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 . . . <evil grin>

Cheers

GT

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:53:05 -0600

> I find that certain votes are no longer in the archives
.. . . <evil grin> 

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.