Subject: Proposal Regarding Deregistered Judges

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:51:47 -0700

<begin proposal "reassigning Judges">
Create a rule 11.7 within the JUDGEMENT group which reads:
"A Judge who has deregistered before ey have communicated eir Judgement, will be
replaced with another player randomly selected, by the Stenographer, from
amongst those players who have not yet been directly involved with the Call For
Judgement, unless there are no such players remaining, in which case the next
player to register will be assigned."

Create a rule 12.6 within the APPEALS group which reads:
"An Appellate Justice who has deregistered before ey have communicated eir
Judgement, will be replaced with another player randomly selected, by the
Stenographer, from amongst those players who have not yet been directly involved
with the Call For Judgement, unless there are no such players remaining, in
which case the next player to register will be assigned."

Destroy Rule (4 pi).

Create a rule 12.56 within the APPEALS group which reads:
"The decision of the majority of Appellate Justices shall be binding, and not
subject to appeal.

Append the text "Judges who are no longer able to carry out eir duties, due to
deregistration, will be relieved of such duties." to the Comment of the
JUDGEMENT group.

Append the text "Appellate Justices who are no longer able to carry out eir
duties, due to deregistration, will be relieved of such duties." to the Comment
of the APPEALS group.

Destroy two random Coins.
<end proposal "reassigning Judges">

I am FOR this proposal.

Note that the destruction of (4 pi) and creation of 12.56 is simply so I can be
precise in a database I've been creating. I'm highly amused by the (X pi) or
(e) concepts presented, I just can't fill out the fields that way...

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:57:57 -0400

>I am FOR this proposal.

AGAINST.
I said this ten minutes ago, but it hasn't gotten through. Forgive me if
this becomes a duplicate. If it is a duplicate, I also cast a FOR vote so
that I am effectively not voting extra.

I support the idea, but you really ought to use your own Coins. Doing them
at random means that richer players are more at risk than poorer players.
Once the Bank rule is in place, it means that the Bank is just a storage
space for extra Things. Although there will be times when we will want to be
able to take other people's Coins, I encourage everyone to remember the
spirit of the Coin rule and vote down any proposal that seeks to destroy
Coins not belonging to is proposer or a supporter of the idea who is OK
giving up eir Coins for the cause. Vote against this, and establish a
tradition that players spend their own Coins on their own proposals. In
fact, even though it may come in handy for just and good purposes later,
let's get rid of this right now:

<begin proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>
Destroy rule 5.2 and create a new rule 5.2 in its place reading:
A pending proposal is a proposal which obeys the Three Sacred Laws, has been
submitted to the official mailing list, and has not expired, with the
exception that a proposal which would destroy any Coins not belonging to its
proposer does not become pending until it has the support of the player
whose Coins would be destroyed.

Create a rule in the section PROPOSALS whose number fits the criteria listed
below, with the text:
If a proposal expires that would result in the destruction of any Coins
belonging to a player who has not voted FOR it, the proposal fails
automatically.

The criteria are:
The number must be less than A.
The number must be higher than that of any rule in the group whose header is
foo.
Of the numbers that fit the first two criteria, there must be no eligible
numbers that require more digits to write in base ten than the number that
is chosen.
Of the numbers that fit the first three criteria, the lowest one will be
used.

For the rule created above, A is six and foo is PROPOSALS

Destroy one Coin belonging to Craig, munificent creator of this proposal.

Create a rule in the section THINGS with the same criteria but A=6 and
foo=THINGS. It shall read:
No Coin may be destroyed by a proposal that does not have an affirmative
vote from the owner of the Coin.

Destroy this proposal.
<end proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>
FOR, of course.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:54:09 -0700

> ><end proposal "reassigning Judges">

Hmm, interesting that he who happens to have the most number of coins, is most interested in
preserving them...

>
> I said this ten minutes ago, but it hasn't gotten through.

Glad to see it's not just my systems. This is also (mostly) a duplicate posting.

> Forgive me if

As a shortcut, I'll simply ignore the second AGAINST if/when it shows up.

> at random means that richer players are more at risk than poorer players.

Which of course, means you. Personally I was hoping the bank stuff would be in place first,
then you concerns are negligible.

> space for extra Things.

Except, that isn't accurate. Under the current rules and even including the currently pending
bank related proposals (barring the one below), I could specify that 1,000 coins possessed by
the bank were destroyed, to be replaced by an army of 1000 potato wielding flying monkeys...

> Although there will be times when we will want to be
> giving up eir Coins for the cause.

Remember again e who is worrying the most about Coins, is e who has the most Coins...

> Vote against this, and establish a tradition that players spend their own Coins on their own
> proposals.

A tradition currently completely unfounded in Thermo Law...

> In fact, even though it may come in handy for just and good purposes later,

> whose Coins would be destroyed.

Of course a better version would be less specific, replace both usages of Coins with Things, and

you might be onto something...

> belonging to a player who has not voted FOR it, the proposal fails

Again replace Coins with Things, and this wuld be reasonable.

> For the rule created above, A is six and foo is PROPOSALS

For reference: this would be 5.9 or 5.91

> Destroy one Coin belonging to Craig, munificent creator of this proposal.

Everyone should note that while a great sacrifice this seems, it is actually a ruse, for Craig
will be granted a Coin according to rule 2.1, if this proposl passes

> foo=THINGS.

Impossible, x must be less than 6, but greater than either 9.7 or 16.0.

> It shall read:

Ah, so was that last rule creation merely a slip, or a deliberate deception to make this
destruction not so obviously a simple ploy for you to gain a Coin from the passage of this
proposal?

> <end proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>

I am AGAINST, of course. (Ignore duplications)

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:18:02 -0400

>I am FOR this proposal.

As it stands, I vote AGAINST it. Use your own coins.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:04:34 -0700

> As it stands, I vote AGAINST it. Use your own coins.

As stated in myother post I am ignoring this duplicate AGAINST, rather than posting it with it's
matching FOR.

---

From: Ian Kelly <kellyia@e...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:17:03 -0500

>at random means that richer players are more at risk than poorer players.

Sounds like a good thing to me...

>giving up eir Coins for the cause.

I didn't think the spirit of the coin rule was so much to establish a
mirror image of the real-world capitalist economy complete with the notion
of absolute ownership, as just to establish the bare bones of an economy,
which can then develop in any direction the players choose. With that in
mind, I don't think the idea of destroying coins at random necessarily
violates the spirit of the Coin rule.

> Vote against this, and establish a

Question: Does this include numbers such as the square root of 34, which
requires only two digits to write but falls in between 5.8 and 5.9 (assuming
the highest is 5.8)? If so, the smallest such number may be tricky to find.

><end proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>

If I were a player, I would be strongly opposed to this proposal. If there
isn't any real need to place limitations on the power of the proposal system,
then they shouldn't be placed, imo. After all, the proposal does need to be
passed before the coins are destroyed, and if the proposal is passed then it
must have received a majority vote. If you think that a particular instance
of a proposal destroying somebody's coins is unjust or whatever, then you
should take political action to stop that proposal. The system need not be
banned entirely.

Ian

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:29:19 -0400

>the highest is 5.8)? If so, the smallest such number may be tricky to
find.

No. The square root of 34 is irrational, and actually writing it out in base
ten takes an ifinity of digits.

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:42:43 -0400

On Wednesday 30 April 2003 06:29 pm, Craig wrote:
> >requires only two digits to write but falls in between 5.8 and 5.9
>
> (assuming
>
> >the highest is 5.8)? If so, the smallest such number may be tricky to
>
> find.
>
> No. The square root of 34 is irrational, and actually writing it out in
> base ten takes an ifinity of digits.

This gives me an idea - how about representing Thermo rules as complex 
numbers? We might find some clever way to manipulate them in the future ;)
- -- 
bd
Se procuras uma mão disposta a te ajudar, a
encontrarás no final do teu braço.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:51:13 -0400

>numbers? We might find some clever way to manipulate them in the future ;)

Since we didn't want to mess with determining priority among them, someone
suggested that the original rule 4.1 (which would have allowed that) be
amended. Now it is "4.1 Every rule shall include a real number which
uniquely identifies it."

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:23:46 -0400

>Hmm, interesting that he who happens to have the most number of coins, is
most interested in

Everyone should share my interest, as everyone has the same potential to
aquire as many Coins. Besides, Nomic is my only chance to play the
reactionary rightist Republican role (and allitterate atypically).

>then you concerns are negligible.

But the Bank should be a storage space for Coins, not a place for cannon
fodder. Anyway, there are timing questions about whether that would work if
this is the first proposal after the Bank rule passes.

>Remember again e who is worrying the most about Coins, is e who has the
most Coins...

I have realized a potential for wealth that exists within us all. We all
have reason to worry about our revenue, as we all might get some.

>A tradition currently completely unfounded in Thermo Law...

A tradition founded in the intent of an economy, but yes, a tradition rather
than a law. Ideally this would just be the way it was done, with no need to
legislate it.

>you might be onto something...

Only Coins are a currency. This is at heart an economic proposal.

>will be granted a Coin according to rule 2.1, if this proposl passes

Had I done it your way, I would have gained a Coin and then maybe not lost
it.

>Impossible, x must be less than 6, but greater than either 9.7 or 16.0.

Typo. A=16.

>destruction not so obviously a simple ploy for you to gain a Coin from the
passage of this

1. There is no profit to doing it either way. So no, it isn't anything
sinister, this time.
2. This is an idea that applies to both Coins as a thing and proposals. It
ought to go in both groups. Also, one of those rules is potential cannon
fodder, so it is an act of generosity to whoever uses it. I'm not *all*
greedy capitalist, even in game.

>I am AGAINST, of course. (Ignore duplications)

Figures. Commie pig.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:12:17 -0400

>Typo. A=16.

Still risks impossobility. Can we all just pretend A=17? Please?

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:36:36 -0700

> <end proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>

I am AGAINST, of course.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:20:22 -0700

> Still risks impossobility. Can we all just pretend A=17? Please?

Unfortunately, I believe we have to take the proposal in it's original form, which would mean
A=6. Which leaves it impossible...

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:44:51 -0400

>A=6. Which leaves it impossible...

What happens, then? CFJ TIME! I submit two, so that if one is false we can
still figure out what the court thinks:
1. Because the proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins' will, if passed,
create a rule which must be assigned a number which not only cannot be
assigned but cannot exist, it is acceptable to give the resulting rule a
different number.
2. Because the proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins' will, if passed,
create a rule which must be assigned a number which not only cannot be
assigned but cannot exist, the clause in question must be ignored.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:29:06 -0400

> <begin proposal "reassigning Judges">

[snip]

> <end proposal "reassigning Judges">

Since we've seen the Rightist Capitalist and the Commie Pig, I'm going
to take the tack of the Chaotic Neutral Fighter Dwarf and decide via
coinflip.

Heads is for, tails is against.

The coin is a Cuban 25-cent piece.

The vote, it turns out, is AGAINST.

Josh

-- 
This is my signature. * BEHOLD! * (1) cortex@n...
There are many like it, * Josh Millard * (2) /~cortex at same
But this one is mine. * OBEY! * (3) the voice in yer head

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:36:44 -0400

>The vote, it turns out, is AGAINST.

Of COURSE you'll vote with the commie pig when you use a Cuban coin. Use a
Chinese coin; the Chinese claim to be communists but in reality, you go to
work, do your job, get paid a salary, then spend the money on various goods
that are availible in the free market.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:45:54 -0700

> The vote, it turns out, is AGAINST.

I would like a bit of clarification, Josh.

Are you casting this vote in regards to my Judges proposal, or Craig's 'stealing coins'
proposal?

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:43:35 -0400

> at random means that richer players are more at risk than poorer players.

Which is only a sympathetic argument to those who expect to be richer
than others. For all we know, the economy may quickly grow imbalanced.
One player may hoard riches and keep the rest unjustly poor. Or
something like that. I support the idea, but I don't feel like losing a
random coin right now.

> let's get rid of this right now:

If voting against this sort of activity establishes said tradition, then
legislation hardly seems necessary. If voting against it fails to do
so, then the spirit of the people has evidenced itself.

I'm secure in my belief in the tides of fate and the ethics of our
little gestalt. Granted, I also have a fever, but I nonetheless believe
that I actually believe in letting the voters decide the merits of coin
distribution, rather than bulky, hasty legislative maneuvering.

> <begin proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>

Madness, I say MADNESS, elided.

> <end proposal 'stop stealing my damn coins'>

AGAINST. With every fiber of two randomly selected beings.

Josh

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:50:02 -0400

AGAINST.

[snip stuff that I agree with]

> AGAINST. With every fiber of two randomly selected beings.

Also AGAINST.

- -- 
bd
All is well that ends well.
-- John Heywood

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:50:37 -0400

>something like that. I support the idea, but I don't feel like losing a

It is also a sympathetic argument to anyone who recognizes that e has the
potential to become richer than others, whether or not e actually does so.
Right now I am richer than others - Josh is second, btw - but nothing I have
done to enrich myself is unique to me.

>so, then the spirit of the people has evidenced itself.

I'm hoping that voting against this until Dr Ducker uses eir own coins will
suffice. The proposal is a just-in-case.

---

From: "Ian Kelly" <kellyia@e...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:40:38 -0500 (EST)

Craig wrote:
>>Question: Does this include numbers such as the square root of 34,
>> which requires only two digits to write but falls in between 5.8 and
>> 5.9
> (assuming

Writing it out in decimal format would require an infinite number of
digits. Writing it as the square root of 34 requires exactly two base-ten
digits. What's more, I contend that this notation still fits the condition
of being written "in base ten".

Ian

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:56:55 -0400

>of being written "in base ten".

I contend that that is giving a formula to find the number rather than
writing the number itself.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:59:02 -0400

>writing the number itself.

I further contend that if you really care, the rules don't require
playerhood to submit a CFJ.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:25:03 -0400

>Also AGAINST.

Having seen enough opposition that I don't think I'll need to leave it in
its present form, I convert my last Coin into 1000 BNS. I now own, let's
see, 3 thousand BNS and no Coins. If I need my Coins I'll bring them back
into the less protected form.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:49:35 -0400

> Are you casting this vote in regards to my Judges proposal, or Craig's 'stealing coins'

The former. I know, cross-thread context scoping and all that.

Josh

---

From: "Ian Kelly" <kellyia@e...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:03:06 -0500 (EST)

Craig wrote:
>>> No. The square root of 34 is irrational, and actually writing it out
>>> in base ten takes an ifinity of digits.
>
>> digits. Writing it as the square root of 34 requires exactly two
>> base-ten digits. What's more, I contend that this notation still fits
>> the condition of being written "in base ten".
>

Perhaps at this point I'm getting too picky, but a number is an abstract
thing; we cannot simply write a number, we can only express that number using
different notations. One such is decimal notation, and this is often the
standard because it is often the most convenient, but this does not mean that
the decimal format "is" the number. Other societies, such as the Romans and
the Egyptians, have developed perfectly functional systems of mathematics
that don't even contain anything resembling the decimal system.

Extending this notion, decimal notation is in fact probably an inferior
format for expressing irrational numbers such as the square root of 34, since
writing "the square root of 34" expresses the number much more precisely and
conveniently than actually trying to write out its decimal expansion.

As to the CFJ point, 11.0 clearly says "any player", but there may be wiggle
room. I make the following CFJs:

1) A CFJ submitted by a person who is not a player has legal effect.

2) The square root of 34 is a number that satisfies the first three
rule-numbering criteria specified in the proposal "Stop Stealing My Damn
Coins", using the values A = 6 and foo = PROPOSALS.

Ian

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 06:15:27 -0400

>room. I make the following CFJs:

It doesn't forbid non-players, and anything not prohibited is OK.

---

From: Ian Kelly <kellyia@e...>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 08:15:49 -0500

>It doesn't forbid non-players, and anything not prohibited is OK.

What about Rule 6.5? In any case, I still think that Rule 4.4 is only
talking about permission and not about legal effect.

Ian

---

From: "Craig Daniel" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:46:23 -0000

> > >As to the CFJ point, 11.0 clearly says "any player", but there 
may be
> >wiggle

Hmm... is it even part of the gamestate? It can become such, through 
the judgement process, but there is no standard of what the gamestate 
is. So are CFJs with no judges yet assigned part of the gamestate? If 
not, then the Stenographer can still assign judges, and the judges 
can still judge them, with legal effect. And if a judge judges your 
CFJ that you can submit a CFJ to be false, what has e judged?

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:30:38 -0700

> Coins", using the values A = 6 and foo = PROPOSALS.

In my capacity as Stenographer, I am unsure as to how to proceed with regard to these
"potential" CFJs.

I believe the best course is for an actual player to take action to rectify this, therefore:

<begin Proposal "Call For Judgement Player Deficiency">
Create a rule 11.01 under the group JUDGEMENT, which reads:
"A Call For Judgement may only be submitted by a Player."

Destroy this proposal.
<end Proposal "Call For Judgement Player Deficiency">

I, of course, vote FOR.

---

From: "Ian Kelly" <kellyia@e...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:00:17 -0500 (EST)

Doctor Ducker wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>>
>> As to the CFJ point, 11.0 clearly says "any player", but there may be
>> wiggle room. I make the following CFJs:
>>
>> rule-numbering criteria specified in the proposal "Stop Stealing My
>> Damn Coins", using the values A = 6 and foo = PROPOSALS.
>>
>
> In my capacity as Stenographer, I am unsure as to how to proceed with
> regard to these "potential" CFJs.
>

I would prefer fixing it the other way: allow non-players to submit CFJs.
As to my CFJs, I recommend assigning them. As Craig notes, if the first
one is found true, then you have performed correctly. If the first one is
found false, then the judgements simply have no legal effect, and no foul
is committed by subsequently ignoring them.

Ian

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 11:21:03 -0700

> I would prefer fixing it the other way: allow non-players to submit CFJs.

Perhaps you should make this into a registration proposal then.

> is committed by subsequently ignoring them.

The issue I see with assigning Judges to these "potential" CFJs is that, by making an
assignment, I am implicitly declaring that they are in fact CFJs, and that's a determination I
feel is in opposition to the spirit of rule 0.2 .

While I may be a "Commie pig" (although I prefer Porcine Socialist), as Craig puts it, I am not
a dictator, capable, or even willing to make such sweeping and arbitrary decisions.

---

From: "Ian Kelly" <kellyia@e...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:42:05 -0500 (EST)

Doctor Ducker wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> Doctor Ducker wrote:
>> > Ian Kelly wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As to the CFJ point, 11.0 clearly says "any player", but there may
>> be wiggle room. I make the following CFJs:
>> >>
>> > In my capacity as Stenographer, I am unsure as to how to proceed
>> with regard to these "potential" CFJs.
>> >
>> As to my CFJs, I recommend assigning them. As Craig notes, if the
>> first one is found true, then you have performed correctly. If the
>> first one is found false, then the judgements simply have no legal
>> effect, and no foul is committed by subsequently ignoring them.
>>
>
> The issue I see with assigning Judges to these "potential" CFJs is that,
> by making an assignment, I am implicitly declaring that they are in fact
> CFJs, and that's a determination I feel is in opposition to the spirit
> of rule 0.2 .
>
> While I may be a "Commie pig" (although I prefer Porcine Socialist), as
> Craig puts it, I am not a dictator, capable, or even willing to make
> such sweeping and arbitrary decisions.

On the other hand, by refusing to assign judges, you are implicitly
declaring that they are in fact not CFJs.

Ian

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 11:55:23 -0700

> declaring that they are in fact not CFJs.

That would be true, except that there is a proposal on the record which would alter the state of
this determination. If it is voted through, then I can explicitly decline to assign judges. If
instead it is not voted through, then I will be following an indicated consensus, and explicity
assign judges. I think it's important to note that I am not "refusing", I am delaying, any such
assignments.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:04:44 -0400

>> 1) A CFJ submitted by a person who is not a player has legal effect.

<snip>

>In my capacity as Stenographer, I am unsure as to how to proceed with
regard to these
>"potential" CFJs.

If it were me, I would assign only the first one. Then, if it is judged
TRUE, nothing happens - the CFJ was invalid, so it won't become a rule,
merely a precedent. If it is false, then you assign the other one.

Precedents don't seem to affect anything, though, as we are currently
playing. I submit the following guidelines for judging CFJs, which are not
submitted as any sort of official document.

1. CFJs are statements of what is true at the time they are submitted. They
do not indicate what ought to be true or what might become true. Thus, if a
CFJ alleges that it is a rule, then that CFJ will become true if it is
judged true, but it should be judged false.

2. Within the areas that are still grey, of course, the highest priority in
figuring out what is true must of course go to the letter of the rules. This
remains true even if the letter contradicts the spirit.

3. If it is still not clear, the spirit of the rules and the precedents set
by earlier CFJs should be given roughly equal weight. This will probably be
the majority of cases.

4. And please, give an argument for why your judgement is correct. It may
not be obvious why you feel that way.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:51:02 -0400

><end Proposal "Call For Judgement Player Deficiency">

I Abstain.

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:31:15 -0400

> <end Proposal "Call For Judgement Player Deficiency">

FOR

- -- 
bd
An alcoholic is someone you don't like who drinks as much as you do.
-- Dylan Thomas