Subject: FW: [Thermo] Proposal Regarding Deregistered Judges

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:33:23 -0400

This hasn't shown up yet. I'm forwarding it back to the list, in case the
early one never does.

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig [mailto:ragnarok@p...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Thermo] Proposal Regarding Deregistered Judges

>> >Destroy two random Coins.
>> ><end proposal "reassigning Judges">
>>
>> >I am FOR this proposal.
>>
>> AGAINST.

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

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).

>> 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.

>Which of course, means you. Personally I was hoping the bank stuff would
be in place first,
>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.

>> 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.

>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.

>> 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...

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.

>Of course a better version would be less specific, replace both usages of
Coins with Things, and
>you might be onto something...

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

>> 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

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

>> Create a rule in the section THINGS with the same criteria but A=6 and
>> foo=THINGS.

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

Typo. A=16.

>> 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.

>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?

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.

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

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

Figures. Commie pig.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:57:36 -0400

Hasn't gotten through yet. But now that I repost, it will be a duplicate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig [mailto:ragnarok@p...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Thermo] Proposal Regarding Deregistered Judges

><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 Abstain.