Subject: Potato Proto

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:24:50 -0400

Since we have nothing else going on right now, and we can now give away our
Things, I submit the following protoporopsal:

<begin proto 'hot potatoes'>
The text "hot potatoes, " will be inserted before the word "and" in rule 9.1
and the resulting string will be known as NEWTEXT for the purposes of this
proposal, so that we don't have to worry about other additions. Rule 9.1
will be repealed, and a new rule 9.1 whose text is NEWTEXT will be created.

A group will be created with the heading POTATOES. A rule 15.0 will be
created in that group with the text "Each Hot Potato must have its own
unique name, and it must also have a description of when its effect occurs
and what that effect is." The comment for POTATOES will be as follows: "The
intent of these rules is that hot potatoes will be created which in some way
harm their posessors, so that players will frantically give them to one
another as the appointed time draws near."

This proposal is destroyed.
<end proto 'hot potatoes'>

And, to get people started thinking about hot potatoes to create, my first
suggestion will be the Potato of Cash Flow, whose description reads "Every
time Yahoo automatically posts the ruleset, each Coin belonging to the
posessor of this hot potato will be given to a random player." Note that
Yahoo is currently set to post the ruleset every other week.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:02:54 -0400

> <end proto 'hot potatoes'>

I am wholeheartedly, and entirely without caution, FOR this proposal.

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: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:07:38 -0400

On Sunday 27 April 2003 01:02 pm, cortex wrote:
> > The text "hot potatoes, " will be inserted before the word "and" in rule
> > 9.1 and the resulting string will be known as NEWTEXT for the purposes of
> > this proposal, so that we don't have to worry about other additions. Rule
> > 9.1 will be repealed, and a new rule 9.1 whose text is NEWTEXT will be
> > created.
> >
> > unique name, and it must also have a description of when its effect
> > occurs and what that effect is." The comment for POTATOES will be as
> > follows: "The intent of these rules is that hot potatoes will be created
> > which in some way harm their posessors, so that players will frantically
> > give them to one another as the appointed time draws near."
> >

It's not a proposal - it's a protoproposal. I'd be FOR it, if it was a 
proposal.
- -- 
bd
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
-- Aesop

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:16:45 -0400

> It's not a proposal - it's a protoproposal. I'd be FOR it, if it was a 

That's how enthusiastic I am -- I've lost my ability to read critically.
So. Yes. I would be for such a proposal. If such a proposal existed.

Josh

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:26:48 -0400

>It's not a proposal - it's a protoproposal. I'd be FOR it, if it was a

Wow. With the above reaction, I hereby submit a proposal titled 'hot
potatoes'. It has the exact text of the proto above.
Any potato ideas, other than my Potato of Cash Flow?

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:29:12 -0400

On Sunday 27 April 2003 01:26 pm, Craig wrote:
> >> > The text "hot potatoes, " will be inserted before the word "and" in
>
> rule
>
> >> > 9.1 and the resulting string will be known as NEWTEXT for the purposes
>
> of
>
> >> > this proposal, so that we don't have to worry about other additions.
>
> Rule
>
> >> > follows: "The intent of these rules is that hot potatoes will be
>
> created
>
> >> > which in some way harm their posessors, so that players will
>
> frantically
>

FOR.

> Any potato ideas, other than my Potato of Cash Flow?

Not at the moment.

- -- 
bd
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what value there may
be in owning a piece thereof.
-- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:31:07 -0400

>FOR.

Me too.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:57:07 -0700

> potatoes'. It has the exact text of the proto above.

I hereby vote FOR "hot potatoes".

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:03:22 -0400

>I hereby vote FOR "hot potatoes".

Having gotten three affirmative votes in, this proposal cannot fail unless
someone registers quickly and Josh, unlin_e, and someone all vote against
it. I think we need a system where when the outcome of a proposal can be
known unless any registration proposals occur, and no registration proposals
are Pending, the proposal expires immediately.

Anyway, since 'hot potatoes' is going to pass, I hereby submit another
Potato Proposal, which I am FOR:

<begin proposal 'cash flow'>
A hot potato shall be created, called the Potato of Cash Flow. Its
description shall be "Every time Yahoo automatically posts the ruleset, each
Coin belonging to the posessor of this hot potato will be given to a random
player." The group owner, who is also the submitter of the proposal,
promises not to change the frequency of such occurrences. The Potato of Cash
Flow shall begin in the posession of a random player.
<end proposal 'cash flow'>

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:12:36 -0400

On Sunday 27 April 2003 02:03 pm, Craig wrote:
> known unless any registration proposals occur, and no registration
> proposals are Pending, the proposal expires immediately.
>
> description shall be "Every time Yahoo automatically posts the ruleset,
> each Coin belonging to the posessor of this hot potato will be given to a
> random player." The group owner, who is also the submitter of the proposal,
> promises not to change the frequency of such occurrences. The Potato of
> Cash Flow shall begin in the posession of a random player.

AGAINST. 'Promises' is too vague - we need a rule specifying it.
- -- 
bd
These days, the only time politicians tell the truth is when they call
each other a liar.
-- Alfred E. Newman

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:19:53 -0400

>AGAINST. 'Promises' is too vague - we need a rule specifying it.

What? You don't *trust* me?
Anyway, you're right. We need a regular way of timing events. Then, the
Potato of Cash Flow could just describe itself as having an effect every two
weeks. Maybe the following?
<begin proto 'timing'>
A rule 0.6 shall be created in the group ThermodyNomic, with the text:
If an event is supposed to happen periodically (such as if it is specified
as happening every week), then every time its period passes without it
occurring (once a week in the every week example), it shall occur.
<end proto 'timing'>
This could also be used to fix a bug in the TSLs, where by my reading the
following (which I hereby submit as a CFJ) must be true:
If two weeks go by without a proposal passing, the Second Sacred Law
destroys everyThing.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 11:33:21 -0700

> <end proposal 'cash flow'>

Sounds good and other than the "promise" issue I'd be all for this, except one little thing: it
violates the TSLs by creating a hot potato, but without destroying anything...

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:38:59 -0400

>> known unless any registration proposals occur, and no registration
proposals
>> description shall be "Every time Yahoo automatically posts the ruleset,
each
>> promises not to change the frequency of such occurrences. The Potato of
Cash

>violates the TSLs by creating a hot potato, but without destroying
anything...

Yeah. I forgot to have it destroy itself.
So, as I do whenever I screw up like that, I submit the following:

<begin proposal 'cash flow take 2'>
A hot potato shall be created, called the Potato of Cash Flow. Its
description shall be "Whenever the Potato of Cash Flow has gone two full
weeks without causing any Things to be redistributed, the Potato of Cash
Flow and each Coin belonging to its posessor will be given to a random
player." The Potato of Cash Flow shall begin in the posession of a random
player. This proposal shall be destroyed.
<end proposal 'cash flow take 2'>

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 11:58:41 -0700

> <end proposal 'cash flow take 2'>

Better, but there is a point of vagueness that I think should be clarified within the
description portion is that the word "its" is ambiguous. Does it refer to the possessor of the
Potato, or to each Coin? I think it's clear you meant the Potato, but it could get read the
other way as well, which means it doesn't matter who has the Potato when it goes off...

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:19:58 -0400

On Sunday 27 April 2003 02:19 pm, Craig wrote:
> >> Having gotten three affirmative votes in, this proposal cannot fail
>
> unless
>
> >> someone registers quickly and Josh, unlin_e, and someone all vote
> >> against it. I think we need a system where when the outcome of a
> >> proposal can be known unless any registration proposals occur, and no
> >> registration proposals are Pending, the proposal expires immediately.
> >>
> >> each Coin belonging to the posessor of this hot potato will be given to
> >> a random player." The group owner, who is also the submitter of the
>
> proposal,
>

No, it's just that it's not specified in the ruleset. If there's one thing 
I've learned in B Nomic, it's that you have to be precise about *everything*.

> Potato of Cash Flow could just describe itself as having an effect every
> two weeks. Maybe the following?
> <begin proto 'timing'>

Okay, but seems redundant to me. It's just that a rule needs to specify that 
the potato of cash flow activates at intervals of two weeks, or somesuch. 
There isn't really a need for a meta-rule specifying periodic events, unless 
we're going to require all english words to be defined :P

> If two weeks go by without a proposal passing, the Second Sacred Law

- -- 
bd
You teach best what you most need to learn.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:35:53 -0400

>other way as well, which means it doesn't matter who has the Potato when it
goes off...

And, if someone tries to read it that way, there will be a CFJ. And everyone
knows what was intended, so we all know how it'll go.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:01:53 -0400

> Any potato ideas, other than my Potato of Cash Flow?

I am wildy, overwhelmingly, mind-crushingly FOR said
this-time-it-really-is-a proposal.

As for potato ideas, I think we could see interesting things happen with
a Potato of Hasty Agreement: at such time as all but one players have
voted on a proposal, the remaining player is considered to have voted
FOR that proposal if ey hold this Potato.

This suggests a place for similar potatoes of Majority, Minority,
Negation and Abstention. Though then there'd be a question of
precedence, if someone held more than one of these potatoes. So they'd
have to be a constructed set with that in mind. 

Josh

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:10:30 -0400

> <end proposal 'cash flow take 2'>

Without bothering with any external rule-making regarding periodicity,
it seems to me that the PoCF would first redistribute exactly 2 weeks
(to the minute, presumably) after this proposal succeeds and creates
said Potato; and it would then do it every two weeks (to the minute)
thereafter, which seems reasonable enough. 

Also, a question: is the intention that a single, randomly selected
player recieves the Potato-holder's coins, or that for each coin, a
random recipient is selected? The nature of this wealth-redistribution
sort of depends on the answer.

Josh

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:12:53 -0400

On Sunday 27 April 2003 02:38 pm, Craig wrote:
> >> registration
> >> Coin belonging to the posessor of this hot potato will be given to a
>
> random
>
> >Sounds good and other than the "promise" issue I'd be all for this, except
>
> one little thing: it
>
> >violates the TSLs by creating a hot potato, but without destroying
>
> anything...
>

FOR.
- -- 
bd
O sonho e a esperança são dois calmantes que a natureza concede ao ser
humano.
-- Frederico I

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:37:50 -0400

>sort of depends on the answer.

A random recipient for each coin.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:38:27 -0400

>FOR.

Oh, yeah. Me too.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:43:21 -0400

> >> <end proposal 'cash flow take 2'>

Josh vote FOR!

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:45:39 -0400

>have to be a constructed set with that in mind.

Potato of Agreement: "Whenever a proposal is submitted, the posessor of this
hot potato automatically votes FOR the proposal. If more than one hot potato
attempts to control that player's vote, then which potato takes effect will
be determined randomly."

Potato of Contrarianism: "Whenever a proposal is submitted, the posessor of
this hot potato automatically votes AGAINST the proposal, unless that
proposal would modify the Three Sacred Laws, in which case e ABSTAINS on the
proposal. If more than one hot potato attempts to control that player's
vote, then which potato takes effect will be determined randomly."

Of course, we don't want too many voting potatoes out there - it would
really suck if everyone just had to put up with their potatoes. So let's
limit it to two, for a while at least. I also think someone should come up
with a description for the "Potatoe".

---

From: "Ian Kelly" <kellyia@e...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:55:37 -0500 (EST)

Josh wrote:
>> description shall be "Whenever the Potato of Cash Flow has gone two
>> full weeks without causing any Things to be redistributed, the Potato
>> of Cash Flow and each Coin belonging to its posessor will be given to
>> a random player." The Potato of Cash Flow shall begin in the posession
>> of a random player. This proposal shall be destroyed.

Except that if the time is that predictable, the holder of the hot potato
can simply hold on to it until 10 seconds before it goes off and then give
it away to whomever ey wants, which is not all that interesting.

Ian

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:02:28 -0400

>it away to whomever ey wants, which is not all that interesting.

Good catch. I'm glad we didn't need to wait for anyone to try that.
Now, how would you recommend handling it instead?

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:29:49 -0400

> >it away to whomever ey wants, which is not all that interesting.

Right.

> Now, how would you recommend handling it instead?

A simple method would be to set up a hot-potato-event machine that would
mail announcements to the list when specific hot potatoes trigger. It
could have an e-mail interface, or it could be managed by an Officer; it
would be given instructions (perhaps just a minimum and maximum time of
expiration) and would then elect a random time to fire off the relevant
announcement.

This would have to be created, tested and maintained by someone, though,
and that someone would most probably be a player, and that brings up an
issue of trust -- how do the other players know that the administrator
of Hot Potatimer isn't rigging the game? 

Assuming such ethical questions can be settled satisfactorily, though, I
would be happy to create such an app. 

(One could, of course, provide the source code to all players, but then 
how do we prove that the same program is the one being run? Or that the 
program is running at all? A clever deciever could generate fake input
by emself, indistinguishable from that which the program should
generate. And this all assumes that the players are literate in the
language of choice.

Perhaps the program could use a simple and easy-to-implement random
number generation algorithm, and have some method of choosing the seed
for each expiration decision. The program would record and store the
seed for each decision, and reveal it after a set period for inspection
and verification. The seed would be gotten from some sort of external,
unpredictable phenomenon (the product of the high temperatures of three
consecutive days in Phoenix, or something) to prevent nasty choosing of
seeds by the aforementioned deciever. But then, even that could be
boondoggled somehow; and I'm brainstorming here without thinking too
much about the ideas expressed, so much of this may just be downright
silly.)

Other suggestions?

Josh

---

From: Ian Kelly <kellyia@e...>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:46:54 -0500

>much about the ideas expressed, so much of this may just be downright

I think it's going to be difficult to come up with an acceptable solution
along these lines. The PBM dice server is a good source of random numbers
because it's PGP-signed and run by a third party. As you point out, a hot
potato event machine would almost certainly be maintained by a player. We
would probably be best off sticking to something concrete. Perhaps it
could go off something like every 100th message to the Thermo list sent by
a player who hasn't recently held the hot potato. Or perhaps it could be
linked to something in the real world, such as stock prices; it is unlikely
that any collaboration of Thermo players would have sufficient sway over
the stock market as to make such determinations unreliable.

Ian

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:14:33 -0400

> Now, how would you recommend handling it instead?

Well, in B Nomic, we had something vaguely similar - the Cursed Sushi of 
Babel. The holder of the Babel Fish would have to translate all messages to 
korean and back in every public forum message. The player could give it away 
after a sppecified time, or at any time someone else could voulentarily take 
it. It got repealed, because the results were annoying. But could something 
similar (giving it away after a specified length, or being able to take it) 
work here? A player could trade the potato of $foo to someone, along with 
some incentive that offsets the loss of holding said potato.
- -- 
bd
It seems to make an auto driver mad if he misses you.

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:03:18 -0700 (PDT)

> >> potatoes'. It has the exact text of the proto above.
Me three. (sez unlin_e)

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

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:19:32 -0700 (PDT)

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

I'm a pauper, so I feel safe in also voting FOR.

---

From: sonof <unlin_e@y...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:28:41 -0700 (PDT)

> have to be a constructed set with that in mind. 

There's no question of precedence, by Rule 3.2

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:31:49 -0700

> > >> potatoes'. It has the exact text of the proto above.

And with that "hot potatoes" is passed.

The current version of the ruleset is ruleset.20030428.txt. In the process I've noticed I don't
have ownership of the ruleset.txt file, and I'm guessing that that's because a moderator (Craig)
needed to own it in order that it'll be mailed out periodically. So, unless anyone has an
objection, I'd like to ask that I be given moderator status in the group. That way Craig won't
have to worry about keeping up with the ruleset file.

---

From: "Ian Kelly" <kellyia@e...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:02:51 -0500 (EST)

sonof wrote:
>> As for potato ideas, I think we could see interesting things happen
>> with a Potato of Hasty Agreement: at such time as all but one players
>> have voted on a proposal, the remaining player is considered to have
>> voted FOR that proposal if ey hold this Potato.
>>
>> precedence, if someone held more than one of these potatoes. So
>> they'd have to be a constructed set with that in mind.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>

3.2 only applies to rules, not potatoes.

Ian

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:01:58 -0400

>have to worry about keeping up with the ruleset file.

Done.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:05:57 -0400

>3.2 only applies to rules, not potatoes.

Besides, what number is the Potato of Cash Flow? I'd vote for e, but I'm
crazy.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:29:11 -0700

> >have to worry about keeping up with the ruleset file.

Thanks. I've transferred the ruleset to ruleset.txt, w/ 2 week send-outs.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:10:46 -0400

> the stock market as to make such determinations unreliable.

Aye, that solves the Wizard of Oz aspect of the problem. I suppose the
next step is to figure out some means of formalizing the
trigger-checking interaction with the stock market (or other suitable
crazy random-ish process). If we wanted to use the stock market, how
would we specify a trigger? 

One idea: let the Potato of Agreement state that, when a proposal is
made, the owner of the PoA is automatically considered to have voted FOR 
the proposal iff the Dow is up from the opening of the market that day?

(Not good enough, though, since the market is closed much of the time.
But it's a ferexample.)

We'd have to have some way of checking the current state of the market
(or, really, the state of the market at any given time, since, unless we
do something clever with the mailing list, we'll have to manually
process the arrival of a proposal and check the market's standing at
the time that the proposal was officially submitted). 

Am I overthinking this?

Josh

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:16:51 -0400

>the proposal iff the Dow is up from the opening of the market that day?

How 'bout using Yahoo's message numbers? If the number of the message in
which a trigger is given away mod foo is bar, the potato goes off. Or, when
a message whose number has certain properties is posted, the potato goes off
a set amount of time later. Someone would have to monitor the numbers to
track the Potato Detonations, tho, and that player could have a big
advantage over others who weren't paying attention.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:26:47 -0400

> advantage over others who weren't paying attention.

Yeah, that's the trick. Of course, we could try to automate the process
and make the current state of such things part of the info available on
Dr. D's page, or something, which would even things out a bit. Hmm.

I have many ideas that aren't workable jumping around in my head.

Josh

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:37:34 -0400

>I have many ideas that aren't workable jumping around in my head.

Suggest them. Perhaps someone can fix them.

---

From: cortex <cortex@n...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:09:04 -0400

> Suggest them. Perhaps someone can fix them.

A couple that are compelling for some weird reason:

1. Using the output of one of those "numbers stations" (radio stations
that transmit nothing but an unending stream of digits read in a creepy
monotone) as the seed/trigger for events.

2. Making telephone calls to randomly-generated numbers and asking a
specific question -- using the answer given (or the particular state of
of non-workingness of the number) as a decider/trigger.

These things are sort of cumbersome and silly and hard to regulate, but
they occur to me anyway. I will certainly post anything with a bit more
robustness and simplicity that occurs to me, though.

Josh

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:28:26 -0700

> <end proposal 'cash flow take 2'>

I ABSTAIN.

And with that vote this proposal is passed.

---

From: "Craig Daniel" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:35:58 -0000

> And with that vote this proposal is passed.

Who's got the Potato, o great and randomizing Speaker Duck?

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:02:02 -0700

> Who's got the Potato, o great and randomizing Speaker Duck?

Workin' on it.

Got a whole lotta things to get straightened out, but first I'd like to point your attention to
rules 9.1, and 9.2.

It appears to me that the Potato of Cash Flow can't be created... as hot potatoes aren't Things,
as they aren't listed in the list of Things.

---

From: "Craig Daniel" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:04:10 -0000

> as they aren't listed in the list of Things.

Um, IIRC, the (recently passed) proposal 'hot potatoes' made hot 
potatoes Things.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:04:03 -0700

> Um, IIRC, the (recently passed) proposal 'hot potatoes' made hot

You're correct, but then the passage of "eco nomic stimulus package" then wiped out "hot
potatoes" changes to rule 9.1 . It's basically a timeing issue, if hot potatoes hadn't been
voted through so quickly, it would have arrived after ENSP, and thus rule 9.1 would have allowed
for the creation of potatoes, but of course rule 15.0 would have been alking about The Bank, and
so the hot potatoes description would have been undefined, and not had any power... Kind of a
"damned of you do, damned if you don't" situation...

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:37:23 -0400

On Tuesday 29 April 2003 04:04 pm, Doctor Ducker wrote:
> > > > > > A hot potato shall be created, called the Potato of Cash
> >
> > Flow. Its
> >
> > > > > > description shall be "Whenever the Potato of Cash Flow has
> >
> > gone two full
> >
> > > > > > weeks without causing any Things to be redistributed, the
> >
> > Potato of Cash
> >
> > > > > > Flow and each Coin belonging to its posessor will be given to
> >
> > a random
> >
> > > > > > player." The Potato of Cash Flow shall begin in the posession
> >
> > of a random
> >
> > > Got a whole lotta things to get straightened out, but first I'd
> >
> > like to point your attention to
> >
> > > rules 9.1, and 9.2.
> > >
> > > It appears to me that the Potato of Cash Flow can't be created...
> >
> > as hot potatoes aren't Things,
> >
> You're correct, but then the passage of "eco nomic stimulus package" then
> wiped out "hot potatoes" changes to rule 9.1 . It's basically a timeing
> issue, if hot potatoes hadn't been voted through so quickly, it would have
> arrived after ENSP, and thus rule 9.1 would have allowed for the creation
> of potatoes, but of course rule 15.0 would have been alking about The Bank,
> and so the hot potatoes description would have been undefined, and not had
> any power... Kind of a "damned of you do, damned if you don't"
> situation...

Ths is why single-sentence rules are a serious restriction (IMO). With 
multi-sentence rules we could use a list, and simply add to it.
- -- 
bd
Murder is always a mistake -- one should never do anything one cannot
talk about after dinner.
-- Oscar Wilde, "The Picture of Dorian Gray"

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:28:13 -0400

>multi-sentence rules we could use a list, and simply add to it.

If you want that, let's try the following - which is NOT a proposal:

Create a rule 9.15 reading:
"Flying Monkeys are also Things."

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:46:33 -0700

> "Flying Monkeys are also Things."

The only problem I see with it is some ambiguity with regard to the language of rule 9.2 where
it specifies a "list". 9.1 is the only rule that seems to satisfy being a "list".

---

From: bd <bdonlan@b...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:51:08 -0400

> "Flying Monkeys are also Things."

How about a new section, of which all its rules (except n.0) state the nameof 
a class of Thing?
- -- 
bd
AUTHOR
FvwmAuto just appeared one day, nobody knows how.
-- FvwmAuto(1x)

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:14:46 -0400

>How about a new section, of which all its rules (except n.0) state the name
of

I'd rather not be responsible for the drafting of such a proposal, but it's
got my support.