Subject: Proto-Proposal: EcoNomic Stimulus Package

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:04:28 -0400

I have observed that most stable Nomics have some sort of economy.
Therefore, I suspect that having an economy might help long-term to stablize
Thermo. Now, there is no difference rule-wise between Points and Kudoses.
Both are Things, and both do absolutely nothing. The only distinction is
that although it is difficult, you can get new Points created without a
proposal to create them. Therefore, I suggest that we merge the two, and to
encourage economic growth we call the unified currency Coins. I suspect that
such a name would encourage people to think of them as Thermo's money. We
also have to modify 6.5 so that it doesn't prevent us from spending our
money, and we must then give people Coins to spend so that there will be an
incentive to write proposals which use them. Since the rule that I suggest
that gives out Coins increases the number of Things in a regular fashion,
I'm suggesting it go in the First Sacred Law. This idea also requires other
minor rewrites to the TSLs, so I request that those who simply want to cast
a dissenting vote remember that on such a proposal an abstention has that
effect; those who wish to veto it of course should speak up before it
becomes official so that we don't waste our time on this.

<begin protoproposal 'economic stimulus package'>
Rule 9.1 is repealed, and a new rule 9.1 is put in its place reading "Rules,
players, proposals, offices, points, kudoses, and Coins are Things."
A point is created in bd's posession, bringing eir total up to zero.
A Coin of bd's is destroyed, bringing eir total down to -1.
For every Kudos or Point in existence, a Coin is created in the posession of
the same player.
Every Kudos and every Point is destroyed.
Rule 9.1 is repealed, and a new rule 9.1 is put in its place reading "Rules,
players, proposals, offices, and coins are Things."
Rule 7.3 is repealed, and a new rule 7.3 is put in its place reading "When a
player deregisters, one of eir Coins is destroyed, and all eir things are
distributed randomly between all other players."
Rule 1.3 is repealed, and a new rule 1.3 is put in its place reading
"Whenever a player Registers and the number of Therms exceeds the number of
players by at least five, all players recieve a point and the number of
Therms is set to zero."
Rule 2.1 is repealed, and a new rule 2.1 is put in its place reading "Any
player who submits a proposal that would destroy at least three Things
recieves a Coin if that proposal passes."
Rule 6.5 is repealed, and a new rule 6.5 is put in its place reading "No
changes to the ruleset may occur except as defined in the ruleset, nor may
Things be created or destroyed except as specified in the ruleset."
Rule 1.5 is created, reading "Every week, one Coin is created in the
posession of each player."
The comment for the First Sacred Law is changed to read "These rules impose
limits on the increase of Things in the game, leading to the more restricted
style of Thermo."
This proposal is destroyed.
<end protoproposal 'economic stimulus package'>

So, any comments?

---

From: Ian Kelly <kellyia@e...>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:03:46 -0500

>players by at least five, all players recieve a point and the number of
^^^^^
I think you missed a substitution here.

>posession of each player."

Isn't the proposed 1.5 contrary to the entropic theme of Thermo?

>This proposal is destroyed.

Cute.

><end protoproposal 'economic stimulus package'>

I don't think it's possible to destroy things that don't exist, but if bd
has -1 points then I guess it's already happened once...

Ian

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:09:38 -0400

> has -1 points then I guess it's already happened once...

Well, we could argue for the existence of anti-Things as well, and then
let the number of things actually represent the difference between the
number of things and the number of anti-things; so that bd has one fewer
points than ey has anti-points.

But that's kinda silly. Frankly, I think the judgement on that CFJ was
bad. But I'm not sure if I really want to appeal it, yet.

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: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:57:40 -0700

Craig wrote:

> such a name would encourage people to think of them as Thermo's money.

This sounds interesting, though I think we still should work out some of our procedural
difficulties first.

> We also have to modify 6.5 so that it doesn't prevent us from spending our money,

So long as we create rules that define how to spend money, there is no need to actually change
6.5.

> and we must then give people Coins to spend so that there will be an incentive to write
> proposals which use them.

I can more or less concede this.

> Since the rule that I suggest that gives out Coins increases the number of Things in a regular
> fashion, I'm suggesting it go in the First Sacred Law.

I'm not sure that a regular increase is such a good idea. Why not create a "Bank" or some such,
with a large number of coins, say 1,000,000,000. I think this could avoid rule 1.1, by simply
having the rule which creates the coins do so 1 day after the passage of the proposal, or
perhaps conditional upon when the next subsequent proposal passes. text along these lines would
do the job nicely:

<begin not-a-proposal>
Destroy rule 9.1
Create a new rule 9.1 under the heading THINGS with the text:
Rules, players, proposals, offices, coins, points, kudos, and The Bank are things.

Destroy rule 9.7
Create a new rule 9.7 under the heading THINGS with the text:
Any Thing which is not a player, Rule, or The Bank, must be possessed by a player or The Bank.

Create a group of rules headed THE BANK

Create a new rule 15.0 under the heading THE BANK with the text:
When the first proposal, after the creation of this rule, becomes expired, then at that time,
The Bank will be created, 1,000,000,000 coins will be created in the possession of The Bank, and
this rule will then be destroyed.

Create a new rule 15.1 under the heading THE BANK with the text:
The Bank may only possess coins, if any other type of Thing comes under the possession of The
Bank, then said Thing is destroyed.
<end not-a-proposal>

> This idea also requires other minor rewrites to the TSLs, so I request that those who simply
> want to cast a dissenting vote remember that on such a proposal an abstention has that effect;
> those who wish to veto it of course should speak up before it becomes official so that we
> don't waste our time on this.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:54:22 -0400

>I think you missed a substitution here.

Yup. Supposed to say "Coin".

>Isn't the proposed 1.5 contrary to the entropic theme of Thermo?

All Nomics evolve with time. The question, if the proposed 1.5 is added, is
no longer "What are you going to destroy" but "Is this proposal worth
destryoing one of your Coins for?"

>Cute.

That's actually become fairly standard if you feel like sneaking in one
created Thing.

>has -1 points then I guess it's already happened once...

Josh deregistered, destroying a point he didn't have, which got
redistributed to bd. There was a CFJ on this issue.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 07:02:18 -0400

>points than ey has anti-points.

Since Things have no physical manifestation, they can be negative in number.

>bad. But I'm not sure if I really want to appeal it, yet.

You can't; you have to convince me to do that. And you have to do so
quickly; the old one becomes a rule soon.

---

From: Ian Kelly <kellyia@e...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:37:04 -0500

>Since Things have no physical manifestation, they can be negative in number.

It seems to me that this interpretation pretty much breaks the whole entropy
thing. Since I don't really care too much whether I have a positive number
of points, I'll just destroy as many as I want in order to create as many
rules as I want. Or if points get replaced with Coins in such a way that it
*is* desirable to have a positive number of Coins, I'll just destroy all my
non-existent proposals instead.

>quickly; the old one becomes a rule soon.

Well, we can always repeal the rule later on. =)

Ian

---

From: "kreig_daniyl" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:57:01 -0000

> non-existent proposals instead.

That is an excellent point. Before it is too late for me to stop the 
rulification, I hereby appeal that CFJ, which is number 10 in the 
unofficial file. HotBits give Josh, Cassie, and His Royal Duckness as 
appelate justices.

> Well, we can always repeal the rule later on. =)

Which would be recognizing that that interpretation was correct, and 
changing the rules to make it incorrect. However, I appealed it, so 
we don't care.

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:01:01 -0700 (PDT)

--snip--
> perhaps conditional upon when the next subsequent proposal passes. text
--snip--

I'm with the Good Doctor on this one, it seems more in line with the intention
of the original ruleset to have a finite pool of Things to work with than to
have regular mechanisms for the creation of Things.
Granted, the rules are supposed to evolve with time, but let's give the entropy
paradigm a little more time.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:13:01 -0400

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 03:57:01PM -0000, kreig_daniyl keyboarded:

[if the below-mentioned CFJ is not overturned by appeal, an arbitrary
number of things can be destroyed, yielding negative things, which
ruins (or at least perverts) the whole goddam game, yo]

> unofficial file. HotBits give Josh, Cassie, and His Royal Duckness as 

Assuming that I understand correctly (the unofficial proposal file being
oddly inaccessible at the moment), I judge this CFJ to be FALSE, which
(as I recall) is a vote to reverse the original CFJ ruling.

Josh

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:32:35 -0400

>(as I recall) is a vote to reverse the original CFJ ruling.

There are two relevant CFJs. One of them has been judged TRUE, and since
appealed. That is this one. The other one states that rule 7.3 did nothing
because there was no point to destroy. It has not been judged, probably
because it felt irrelevant after the first one was judged. The one in
question here states that your deregistration DID create a negative point,
so yes, I think you think it's false.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:36:47 -0400

> so yes, I think you think it's false.

Yes. Precisely. Okay. Good.

Thank you. 

Josh

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:49:48 -0700

cortex wrote:

> oddly inaccessible at the moment),

I may have been upping a newer version.

> I judge this CFJ to be FALSE, which

Actually the language of rule 12.2 is: "All Appellate Justices shall announce whether they
consider the Call For Judgement in question to true or false."

So I would interpret your ruling to actually be TRUE. (i.e. You judge the original CFJ to be
TRUE.) Please confirm so I can update to Proposal file.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:50:52 -0400

> consider the Call For Judgement in question to true or false."

Right. Though I can't actually access the rules right now, either. (or
any other file in the "Files" section. They're all timing out. Yahoo?)

> TRUE.) Please confirm so I can update to Proposal file.

No, my intention was to vote the original CFJ to be FALSE. I do not
agree with the notion of the negative point.

Josh

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:58:23 -0700

> any other file in the "Files" section. They're all timing out. Yahoo?)

Yeah, I think so too, i'm having some difficulty as well.

> agree with the notion of the negative point.

Okay, gotcha.

I'm re-upping the proposals files now

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:58:47 -0400

>TRUE.) Please confirm so I can update to Proposal file.

It was originally judged TRUE. False is a reversal not because False means
the judge was worng but because the judge said True.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:03:27 -0400

> Yeah, I think so too, i'm having some difficulty as well.

Yep. Things seem to be at least working now, though, if with a great
deal of latency.

Not that me pointing this out to the list was strictly necessary, of
course.

Josh

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:20:06 -0700

> the judge was worng but because the judge said True.

Yes, I realize that now. What I hadn't been clear on was whether Josh thought an Appellate
Judgement was on the original CFJ or on the Judgement of the CFJ.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:27:48 -0400

>paradigm a little more time.

I agree. I was only hoping for us to evolve out of that because I could see
no other way to stimulate any growth. The Docta's way gets around this
nicely.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 02:36:14 -0700

> unofficial file. HotBits give Josh, Cassie, and His Royal Duckness as

For reference the text of rule 7.3 is:
When a player deregisters, one of eir points is destroyed, and all eir points and things are
distributed randomly between all other players.

Note that this is the text from bd's untitled, and now destroyed, proposal.

And the text of the 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.

In examining this CFJ, the question seems to be are the phrases, "one of eir points is
destroyed" and "decreased the number of points in the game", equivalent. First, it seems to me
that the text of rule 7.3 is specific to a point in the possession of the player in question,
and not simply more generally within the game. If Josh had had a point when he deregistered
then the effect of deregistration would trivially prove this CFJ true, however, since Josh did
not have a point when he deregistered the question then appears to shift to whether a
non-existant Thing can be destroyed. This issue seems to go to the spirit of the game as a
whole, and it seems to me to be against that spirit to have "negative" Things.

Additionally, I find the second sentence to be dangerously ambiguous as a stand-alone rule,
which it would become if this CFJ is found true.

For these reasons, I must find the CFJ to be FALSE.

> Which would be recognizing that that interpretation was correct, and changing the rules to
> make it incorrect.

> However, I appealed it, so we don't care.
>

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 09:15:43 -0400

>distributed randomly between all other players.

It wasn't when the CFJ was judged. Should a change in the rules between
judgement and appeal have an effect on the truth of the CFJ, if it would? In
this case it doesn't matter, but it seems interesting generally.

>which it would become if this CFJ is found true.

That ought not to affect judgements. Therefore, I suggest that we make the
addition non-automatic. That is, in the case of a TRUE judgement, the judge
or appelate justice in question must state which sentneces should become
rules.