Subject: I quit! And I'd like to join, too!

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:34:30 -0400

As the current state of Thing-creating and proposing and whatnot is
entertainingly messy, I may as well muck things up a bit more with
what may or may not be a very good idea, which is to say:

--- I, Josh Millard, hereby announce my wish to deregister. ---

Hence, by rule 7.1, I am now no longer a player. Being a thing (9.1),
and having just been destroyed (9.4), my deregistration has led to an
increase by one of the number of Therms in the game (9.3). Which, I
believe, puts the grand total at 1.

While rule 7.3 would forbid it, I'd like to make a symbolic gesture
by stating that, had I any Things or plural points, I would like to have
been able to bequeath them to Craig for having gotten this thing going.
Alas, they will be randomly scattered to you all -- or they would be, if 
I had any, of course.

Also, I'm curious to see how exactly 7.3 will destroy a non-existent
point.

(Also also, I'm curious as to whether my vote on bd's unlabeled proposal 
re: 7.3 would be an issue, since I have now ceased to be a player; but
then, my vote earlier caused it to expire, and so it was from that point
enacted anyway, yes? Am I right? Am I coherent, even?)

-> But! Lo! <-

I must admit that I wish I was still in the game. 

Hence, re: rule 8.0, I would like to make a (Registration) proposal,
which I will casually refer to as "Let There Be Josh":

(a) Delete rule 9.1.

(b) Create a new rule 9.1, which reads:

"Rules, players, proposals, offices, points, and kudoses are
Things."

(c) Create one kudos, which belongs to Josh Millard. (Which
would, of course, be the Thing besides myself for which rule 1.2 allows.)

Now I can only pray for appreciation, or mercy, or at least a
relatively brief filibuster.

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: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:56:24 -0500

On Thursday 10 April 2003 07:34 pm, cortex wrote:
[snip]
> relatively brief filibuster.

I vote FOR this.

- -- 
bd
When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand.
-- Raymond Chandler

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:39:18 -0400

>Alas, they will be randomly scattered to you all -- or they would be, if

I think you could have given them away right before deregistering. If you
had any.

>Also, I'm curious to see how exactly 7.3 will destroy a non-existent

Either there are now a negative number of points or there is nothing to
destroy. I hereby submit the following CFJ: "Rule 7.3 did not destroy any
points upon Josh's deregistration of April 10, 2003, as there was nothing to
destroy." I ALSO submit a contradictory CFJ: "Rule 7.3 decreased the number
of points in the game by 1 upon Josh's deregistration. A random player must
therefore receive a negative number of points." As speaker, I randomly asign
judges. The first one goes to unlin_e, the second to bd.

>enacted anyway, yes? Am I right? Am I coherent, even?)

My take on it is this. You cast a vote; that vote is thus there. Had the
proposal still been pending, I think your vote would still count. However,
everyone has voted for it. Thus, it passed before your destruction, so the
question is moot.

>relatively brief filibuster.

I vote FOR this proposal.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:55:29 -0400

>believe, puts the grand total at 1.

Two. The recently passed proposal created one also. There are 2 Therms.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:24:26 -0700

> would, of course, be the Thing besides myself for which rule 1.2 allows.)

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

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:43:59 -0700

> Two. The recently passed proposal created one also. There are 2 Therms.

I must disagree. As of Josh's missive, there is only one therm.

I believe you are referring to the proposal submitted by Bd which destroys rule
7.3 (thus genereating a therm), and then creates a new version of rule 7.3.

Unfortunately, that proposal, at the time I'm writing this has not yet expired,
according to rules 5.4 or 5.7, since Cassie has not yet voted on it (rule 5.4),
and a week has not passed since it's submission (rule 5.7), thus according to
rule 6.2, which only applies to an expired proposal, it cannot yet have passed. 

While, under the current ruleset, it will pass regardless of Cassie's vote, e
need not even cast eir vote on this proposal, thus requiring the week allotted
by rule 5.7, to occur before the proposal expires, and then it will be passed.

In either case (Cassie voting, or not), the proposal had not at the time of
Josh's missive, yet passed.

If I am mistaken with regard to which proposal has passed, then please inform me
of which proposal it is which has passed.

---

From: "kreig_daniyl" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:02:16 -0000

--- In [email-masked], Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...> 
> by rule 5.7, to occur before the proposal expires, and then it 
will be passed.

Huh. I seem to recall a FOR vote from Cassie, but I guess I was 
hallucinating. There is one Therm.

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:25:24 -0500

On Thursday 10 April 2003 10:39 pm, Craig wrote:
> points upon Josh's deregistration of April 10, 2003, as there was nothing
> to destroy." I ALSO submit a contradictory CFJ: "Rule 7.3 decreased the
> number of points in the game by 1 upon Josh's deregistration. A random
> player must therefore receive a negative number of points." As speaker, I
> randomly asign judges. The first one goes to unlin_e, the second to bd.

TRUE. It decreased his points by one, making his points negative. This was 
then distributed randomly.

Also, how about some summation emails, listing all game-relevant events that 
have happened? Like B Nomic's Recognizers.

- -- 
bd
Tu bi or not tu bi 

LAY -- Norma a ser cumprida: Roubar é contra LAY