Subject: Proposal 1

From: "Cassie Harley" <charley@t...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:44:01 -0000

My thoughts are the following:
An officer should be nominated to track pending proposals, note his 
job would not be to tabulate votes, or make judgments, but act as a 
secretary to ensure all proposals are looked administered correctly, 
and deemed expired at the correct point of time.

I propose the following:

The follow rule be created:
10.5 An office exists known as the 'Proposal Officer'

The follow rule be created:
10.6 The job of the 'Proposal Officer' shall be to ensure proposals 
are correctly processed.

The follow rule be created:
10.7 If the position of 'Proposal Officer' is vacated, then it is 
the duty of the 'Speaker' to call an election.

The follow rule be created:
5.9 The owner of the proposal may process the proposal eyself.

The follow rule be created:
5.10 If the owner has incorrectly processed a proposal it will be 
deemed to have expired.

The follow rule be created:
5.11 A proposal is processed when it has been submitted to the 
mailing list with a subject heading as follows 'Proposal X', where X 
is the next number following in chronological order from the number 
of the last proposal. 

The following rule be deleted:
5.2 A pending proposal is a proposal which obeys the Three Sacred 
Laws, has been submitted to the official mailing list, and has not 
expired.

The follow rule be created:
5.2 A pending proposal is a proposal which obeys the Three Sacred 
Laws, has been processed, and has not expired.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:44:14 -0400

Unfortunately, the rules do not let you increase the number of rules.
HOWEVER, it occurs to me that that won't work until we have a larger
ruleset. Thus, I suggest the following, as a way to allow such things in a
purely temporary way. This will, of course, be proposal 2:

Rule 1.1 is to be deleted, and replaced with a new rule 1.1 reading "No
proposal may be submitted whose passage would directly increase the number
of Things in the game by more than one, unless it is explicitly permitted by
rules in the group headed FIRST SACRED LAW."

Rule 1.2 is to be deleted, and replaced with a new rule 1.2 reading "A
Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in the
game."

A rule 1.0 is to be added, reading "The rules in the group headed FIRST
SACRED LAW are in temporary hiatus and will not be in force until such time
as this rule is repealed."

The comment on the FIRST SACRED LAW will be amended to read, "Without
outside influence, the game cannot expand at a very high rate."

Rule 4.0 will be deleted, but players are advised to continue to use short
rules in case of SSL damage.

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:16:38 -0700 (PDT)

These proposals seem rather ad hoc.
I suggest instead that the game start with more than zero therms. 

I propose Proposal 3, CREATE Rule 5.9, "A therm is destroyed when a rule is
created."

> rules in the group headed FIRST SACRED LAW."

I vote AGAINST this proposal.

> Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in the

I vote AGAINST this proposal.

> outside influence, the game cannot expand at a very high rate."

I vote AGAINST this proposal.

> rules in case of SSL damage.
I vote FOR this proposal.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:21:13 -0500

> I propose Proposal 3, CREATE Rule 5.9, "A therm is destroyed when a rule is

How about two therms? Or one, plus another based on a random roll. We don't 
want to be able to maintain things forever without outside help, that's the 
whole point :)

> > ruleset. Thus, I suggest the following, as a way to allow such things in
> > a purely temporary way. This will, of course, be proposal 2:
> >
> > proposal may be submitted whose passage would directly increase the
> > number of Things in the game by more than one, unless it is explicitly
> > permitted by rules in the group headed FIRST SACRED LAW."
>
> > Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in
> > the game."
>
> > SACRED LAW are in temporary hiatus and will not be in force until such
> > time as this rule is repealed."
> >
> > Rule 4.0 will be deleted, but players are advised to continue to use
> > short rules in case of SSL damage.
>

It's all one part. And we don't want to delete without creating, it'll leadto 
thermodynamic doom. Or something. Remember, the ruleset is totally untested, 
and we need to be able to fix things as we notice them.
- -- 
bd
I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay.
- -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:23:51 -0500

On Thursday 10 April 2003 05:21 pm, bd wrote:
> > I propose Proposal 3, CREATE Rule 5.9, "A therm is destroyed when a rule
> > is created."

Oh, and also, you can't do that, you need to destroy something as well.

- -- 
bd
O muito torna-se pouco com desejar um pouco mais.
-- Francisco de Quevedo

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:28:12 -0700 (PDT)

--- bd <bdonlan@b...> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 

Ok, I change my proposal to CREATE Rule 5.9, "When a rule is created, choose
randomly between destroying one therm and destroying two therms."

> and we need to be able to fix things as we notice them.

Well, alright then. I vote FOR this proposal. For real, this time.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:36:59 -0400

>> > These proposals seem rather ad hoc.

yup.

>randomly between destroying one therm and destroying two therms."

Sounds good. Becomes pending when and if the FSL hiatus goes into effect.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:39:36 -0700

> rules in case of SSL damage.

I, Doctor Ducker, cast my vote AGAINST this proposal.

As I see it there are three ways to increase the number of things in the game:

1) A new player's registration proposal can directly increase the number of
things by two, plus the proposal itself, thus three total.

2) Any submitted proposal, regardless of pending, expired, or any other status,
increases the number of things by one (the proposal itself).

3) Calls For Judgement increase the number of rules, and thus the number of
things.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:18:19 -0700

> randomly between destroying one therm and destroying two therms."

Is this meant to be a proposal? According to the rules your first proposal to
create rule 5.9 is now a thing, and therefore CANNOT be _changed_ only
destroyed.

I will make a Proposal, to be titled "Proposal Dr. Ducker::1"

<begin Proposal "Proposal Dr. Ducker::1">
Create a Rule:
5.9 When a rule is created, choose randomly between destroying one therm and
destroying two therms.

Destroy this Proposal.
<end Proposal "Proposal Dr. Ducker::1">

Net change in number of Things: 0 (+1 Rule, -1 Proposal)

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:27:52 -0400

>3) Calls For Judgement increase the number of rules, and thus the number of

This is a very good point. I am glad that you took the time to notice
numbers 2 and 3, and vote accordingly.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:07:38 -0700

I believe Bd intended this to be sent to the list as a whole, not just to me. 
Bd, please confirm.

bd wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2003 05:39 pm, Doctor Ducker wrote:
> > Craig wrote:
> > 2) Any submitted proposal, regardless of pending, expired, or any other
> > status, increases the number of things by one (the proposal itself).
> >
> Ooh, good point:
> I create the following Call for Judgement:
> 14.1 This thing is a rule.
> 
> I create the following Call for Judgement:
> 14.2 This thing is a rule.
> 
> I create the following Call for Judgement:
> 14.3 This thing is a rule.
> 
> I create the following Call for Judgement:
> 14.4 This thing is a rule.
> 
> I create the following Call for Judgement:
> 14.5 This thing is a rule.
> 
> I create the following Call for Judgement:
> The title of section 14 is 'Extra rules'. The comment of section 14 is 'These
> are used in the early game to allow the ruleset to grow.'
> 
> That should give us room to grow. Provided they're judged true, of course.
> 
> - --
> bd
> Remark of Dr. Baldwin's concerning upstarts: We don't care to eat toadstools
> that think they are truffles.
> -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE+lfNqx533NjVSos4RAhiTAKCvfdTIP3JVhqUqBG4Yc+guu6VmUACgx7/M
> i0XhN5P/d2wgKPQ3dWiV/Gg=
> =keCK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:17:17 -0700

> randomly between destroying one therm and destroying two therms."

In either case, I, Doctor Ducker, cast my vote AGAINST both potential forms of
this proposal.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:21:58 -0700

> <end Proposal "Proposal Dr. Ducker::1">

I, Doctor Ducker, cast my vote FOR this proposal.

---

From: "kreig_daniyl" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:07:17 -0000

> > > As I see it there are three ways to increase the number of 
things in the
> > > game:

I'm not sure they should be, though. They aren't rules until 1) they 
are judged true, 2) they are not appealed, and 3) the judge decides 
to add them to the ruleset. However, it isn't my call - so, let's 
assign judges. Number one goes to Cassie. Number 2 goes to unlin_e. 
Number 3 goes to Dr Ducker. Number four goes to Cassie. Number five 
goes to me, and I judge it FALSE.

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT)

> goes to me, and I judge it FALSE.

Number 2 goes to me, unlin_e, and I judge it TRUE.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:33:17 -0700

> > > 14.3 This thing is a rule.

I, Doctor Ducker, Judge this to to be FALSE. I do so due to the fact that this
CFJ contains a number which is not necessarily the rule number under which it
would be added according to rules 13.0 and 13.1 .

kreig_daniyl wrote:
>
> and 3) the judge decides to add them to the ruleset.
>

My reading of rules 13.0 and 13.1 makes it pretty clear that any CFJ which is
judged true under Section JUDGEMENT, and is then unappealed, or which is
appealed and subsequently found to be true by the Appellate Justices under
Section APPEALS, then after two weeks the statements of the CFJ will
automatically be added to the ruleset according to rules 13.0 and 13.1 .

Craig, I believe you forgot to assign a judge to this CFJ (it would be number
six):
> > > The title of section 14 is 'Extra rules'.
> > > The comment of section 14 is
> > > 'These are used in the early game to allow the ruleset to grow.'
> > >

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:26:26 -0500

On Friday 11 April 2003 02:07 am, Doctor Ducker wrote:
> I believe Bd intended this to be sent to the list as a whole, not just to
> me. Bd, please confirm.

Er, yes. I did. Oops.

- -- 
bd
All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.
-- Chou En Lai

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:27:06 -0500

On Friday 11 April 2003 02:17 am, Doctor Ducker wrote:
> > Ok, I change my proposal to CREATE Rule 5.9, "When a rule is created,
> > choose randomly between destroying one therm and destroying two therms."
>
> In either case, I, Doctor Ducker, cast my vote AGAINST both potential forms
> of this proposal.

Me, too. I'd like to do some stuff with the proposed Kudoses, this being one.
- -- 
bd
"Love your country but never trust its government."
- -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:27:36 -0500

On Friday 11 April 2003 02:21 am, Doctor Ducker wrote:
> > 5.9 When a rule is created, choose randomly between destroying one therm
> > and destroying two therms.
> >
> > Destroy this Proposal.

And I AGAINST. Kudoses are more elegant IMO.
- -- 
bd
"If you own a machine, you are in turn owned by it, and spend your time
serving it..."
- -- Marion Zimmer Bradley, _The Forbidden Tower_

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:43:09 -0400

>would be added according to rules 13.0 and 13.1 .

Also remember that it is not yet a rule.

>automatically be added to the ruleset according to rules 13.0 and 13.1 .

I was remembering an earlier version of the rules that worked exactly as
stated above. It DOES, however, need to wait either 1 week or 1 appeal to
become a rule, so it isn't true (yet?)

>> > > 'These are used in the early game to allow the ruleset to grow.'

My bad. As I assign a judge, let me just put in my two cents. There is not
(yet?) a section 14 in the rules, so this cannot possibly be a statement of
fact. However, it isn't my call, it's Dr Ducker's, since HotBits gives it to
em.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:51:04 -0400

>Me, too. I'd like to do some stuff with the proposed Kudoses, this being
one.

I would like to point out that neither of these is a Pending Proposal
suitable for voting on, as they do not obey the First Sacred Law.

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:16:53 -0500

On Friday 11 April 2003 03:51 pm, Craig wrote:
> >Me, too. I'd like to do some stuff with the proposed Kudoses, this being
>
> one.
>

Yes, it does. It destroys a rule, creates a rule, a Kudos, and a player. And 
the Laws can be amended.
- -- 
bd
Não brinque com fogo! Ele é chato, não sabe brincar.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:45:39 -0400

>Yes, it does. It destroys a rule, creates a rule, a Kudos, and a player.
And

Both of the proposals in question just destroy a rule.
You seem to have mistaken my comment for one about Let There Be Josh, which
is indeed Pending.

Amending the laws, though possible, is tricky.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 00:41:46 -0700

> fact. However, it isn't my call, it's Dr Ducker's, since HotBits gives it to

I judge this Call for Judgement to be FALSE. 

There is no "section 14" at the time that this Call for Judgement was made,
therefore neither sentence can be considered to be true. Had the CFJ referred
simply to "a new section", or even better had it conditionally specified the
creation of a section, then it is possible I could have judged this true. 
For instance if the Call had read:
"If this sentence is added to the ruleset, then, at that time, a new group of
rules is created, which is entitled 'Extra Rules', which contains the comment
'These are used in the early game to allow the ruleset to grow.', and which
contains any rules whose number is greater than or equal to 14.0 and less than
15.0 ."

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 09:44:51 -0400

>contains any rules whose number is greater than or equal to 14.0 and less
than

In that case, of course, it would have been neitheer provably true nor
provably false, and either judgement would be acceptable.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:19:48 -0400

My "proposal 2", when it was generally agreed that things needed to be
fixed, included a temporary First Sacred Law hiatus. Dr Ducker voted it
down. If the docta agrees, I will repropose the hiatus; for now I'll
reiterate the other part. I think this was less hated; I will propose only
this if people support it.

>Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in the

What do people think? Should I officially resubmit this portion?

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:22:33 -0400

On Tuesday 15 April 2003 04:19 pm, Craig wrote:
> >of Things in the game by more than one, unless it is explicitly permitted
>
> by
>

Sounds good - provided it's temporary.
- -- 
bd
<Shinobi> There are worse things than Perl....ASP comes to mind

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:08:20 -0400

>> >proposal may be submitted whose passage would directly increase the
number
>> >Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in
the

>Sounds good - provided it's temporary.

This is Nomic. Everything in the game is temporary. Anything can be undone
at any time, unless we decide we like it.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:59:25 -0400

> What do people think? Should I officially resubmit this portion?

I would, in theory, vote for this. If I was a player. :)

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: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:32:51 -0700

> What do people think? Should I officially resubmit this portion?

This is a distinct improvement, though I still believe unnecessary. I will,
however, concede to the will of the group on it, and Abstain, if this is
proposed. I would also like to point out that it could do with some
improvements in the language, so perhaps more like:

--------------------------
<begin not-a-proposal>
Destroy rule 1.1
Create a rule 1.1 under the group entitled "FIRST SACRED LAW" which reads:
A proposal which is submitted, and whose passage would directly increase the
number of Things in the game by more than one, except as explicitly permitted by
rules in the group headed FIRST SACRED LAW, shall be considered INERT, and shall
not be considered PENDING.

Destroy rule 1.2
Create a rule 1.2 under the group entitled "FIRST SACRED LAW" which reads:
A Registration Proposal may, if passed, increase the number of Things in the
game by up to three, one of which is of course the player who submits that
proposal.
<end not-a-proposal>
--------------------------

It's still restrictive, and it maintains the flavor of the game's spirit, but
gives a little more leeway to create things.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:20:21 -0400

>gives a little more leeway to create things.

I like this version very much. I do think that it better fits the spirit of
the game (though I imagine that the spirit will evolve with time). This is a
nomic, so we ought to give the rules more room to change; at the same time
it is Thermo, so we ought to stay restrictive - at least for now.

---

From: "Cassie Harley" <charley@t...>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 06:27:22 -0000

I am against this (at least for now).

It doesn't solve any problems.

It just opens the floor it stacks of proposals, and would ultimately 
be dangerous for the game until we as a group have decided on some 
priorites, and debated the best way to go about them.