From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:07:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:07:56 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 333 Proposal 333 - Wild Card - Rejected Chocolate Frogs Votes: 9/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/9 - failed FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym Enact the following as a rule: " Chocolate Frogs A chocolate frog is created in the possession of a player if, when a proposal they proposed is accepted, they have had at least four other proposals accepted within the previous 168 hours. Chocolate frogs are edible. Chocolate frogs can only be manipulated by the player that they are in the possession of. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Change to Score: Wild Card: -50 => -60 -10: P333 rejected From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:41:37 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:41:37 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 335 Proposal 335 - Duncan Richer - Rejected Votes: 8/10 - passed quorum FOR: 4/8 - rejected FOR: Muppet, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Paragon, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym Proposal: I propose that CFJ 1 be overturned to Undecided. Rationale: I believe that Rules 105 and 106 overrule any attempt by Rule 110 to ban the adoption of proposals which change the methods of winning. They do not stop Rule 110 from preventing any new such rules from having an effect (as per Rule 109), but that is not the issue covered by the statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Change: Slakko: 40 => 30 -10: P335 rejected From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:58:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:58:48 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 Proposal 344 - Slakko Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " Rationale: It does not make sense to penalise someone for failure to agree to judge a CFJ when they've headed off to Coventry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko Is It a Vote, Or Not? Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." Rationale: mormegil has been "formally abstaining" on a number of proposals - as yet no-one has checked whether or not this counts as a vote for the purposes of determining quorum and the acceptance of a proposal (so far I have been ruling as if it is no different from a standard abstention). If it does count as a vote, then this amendment is necessary to ensure it is not equivalent to a vote AGAINST the proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. From andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:09:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:09:42 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Walkingshaw andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 344 - Slakko > Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: > > " > When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal > probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be > Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker > of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed > to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further > random selection is made from the remaining pool. > " Yes > > Proposal 345 - Slakko > Is It a Vote, Or Not? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number > of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with > "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal > votes cast for and against it." > Yes. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposal 346 - Slakko > Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First > > Rule Change: > Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. > > Rationale: > I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting > towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The > current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. > And, indeed, yes. -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:03:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:03:00 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 336-338 Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 0/7 - fails FOR: AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 The creation of the following rule *Then the demons are really angels, freeing you* " winning, where specified in this ruleset is to mean winning in terms of the game, and the ability to truthfully state `I won'. However, a player is free to adopt whatever personal motives they wish, whether they be to win at all costs, to be altruistic, or self-abdicating. Every player is free to set their own goals in life, and in Nomic, but, at least in Nomic, it is the right of other players to judge them on their performance according to the explicit and implicit game criteria. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/7 - fails FOR: mormegil AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule I've got your number "It is the role of the speaker to assign numbers to proposals, according to 107, and to inform players of those numbers, in order that there are no race conditions in the simultaneous assignment of the same number by network-distant individuals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 338 - Dan Sheppard - Accepted (Creates Rule 338) Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule The Wake "If a player is taken from us by real life, we will hold a Wake, if the nature of a Wake has been specified in the rules, customs, or spirit of the game." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes: Dan: +5 => -5 -10: P336 rejected -10: P337 rejected +10: P338 accepted 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 35 => 40 +5: voted AGAINST P338 From andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:31:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:31:05 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Walkingshaw andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Acronym has been selected. He has 3 days to indicate whether or not he > accepts the selection. > > CFJ 4 - pm215 > Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:36:20 +0100 > > Statement: > > When a mutable rule is found to be in conflict with an immutable > rule, the mutable rule is "wholly void and without effect", > by rule 109. This means that the mutable rule is effectively > not part of the current ruleset; it will remain in this state > until the ruleset is amended to remove the conflict." > False. The mutable rule is void: therefore it cannot be any part of the ruleset, and is deemed to not exist. > Initiator's Reasoning: > > Rule 109 isn't very specific about exactly what the phrase > "wholly void and without effect" actually means. I can think > of several possibilities: > > (3) the rule is ignored forever; it is effectively thrown out > of the ruleset. This seems a bit drastic to me. Moreover, > there is no practical gain over (2) -- you'd just have to > create a new rule which didn't conflict and repeal the old one, > rather than being able to amend the old rule in a > straightforward manner. This is what I interpret it to mean. Void, to me, means invalid; invalid rules cannot exist, and therefore have to be chucked out the ruleset. If people don't like this, well, that's what rulechanges are for. Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:52:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:52:43 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). What do other people think of this judgement? Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:56:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:56:01 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 339 Proposal 339 - mormegil - Accepted (Creates Rule 339) Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet Abstain: Acronym, mormegil, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal of a New Rule "Someone To Watch Over Me" "A Player may (for the purposes of chiark Nomic) have a Guardian Angel, Guardian Spirit, or Guardian Demon. These entities shall be collectively referred to as "Immortal Guardians". No Player may have more than one Immortal Guardian at once. A Player is not obliged to have an Immortal Guardian. Immortal Guardians shall have such powers, capabilities, and other characteristics as shall be determined by the rules. The manner of acquiring an Immortal Guardian shall be determined by the rules. Initially, a Player may acquire an Immortal Guardian simply by declaring themselves to have done so. They must specify which form of Immortal Guardian they have and what its name is. Each Immortal Guardian must have a name, which must consist of characters from the set of characters acceptable for use in Players' pseudonyms. An Immortal Guardian's name must not be the same as the name of any existing Immortal Guardian, and also must not be the same as the name or pseudonym of any Player. If a new Player enters the game whose name is the same as that of an existing Immortal Guardian, that Immortal Guardian must be immediately renamed in compliance with the rules. A Player may not adopt a pseudonym that is the same as the name of an existing Immortal Guardian." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: mormegil: 20 => 30 +10: P339 accepted Muppet: -15 => -10 +5: voted AGAINST P339 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:04:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:04:01 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Lack of Voting Well, the last proposal only just passed quorum - so if you haven't voted on the current crop, please do so soon. The next set of proposals come due tomorrow evening. This has been a promotional message on behalf of the Don't Fail Quorum Society. Yours, Slakko From andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:44:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:44:54 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Walkingshaw andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules > are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status > of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to > confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of > the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). > > What do other people think of this judgement? > FWIW, I interpreted it as follows: you have an immutable rule that explicitly outlaws a mutable rule. The immutable rule takes precedence; therefore, the mutable rule cannot be validly passed by the game rules. Does anyone want to enlighten me about the flaw in this logic? Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 4 Aug 2000 19:22:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 19:22:59 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Read mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Notice of Coventrification As I am going to Nottingham for the next week or so and will be incommunicado, I am sending myself to Coventry until 1800 hours BST, Saturday 12th August 2000. Yrs, mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:08:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:08:10 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 340 QUORUM FAILURE! Please remember: Vote Early, Vote Often! Proposal 340 - Slakko - rejected So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: mormegil, pm215 Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede, Muppet, Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal: Enact a rule with the title "For the Sake of Simplicity I" with the following text: "If the rules require a player to perform an action In Public or Publicly, then they must either (a) email all Players to indicate that the action is being performed, or (b) email the official mailing list at nomic@chiark.greenend.org.uk to indicate that the action is being performed." Rationale: This gives us a nice reasonable definition which can be inserted in all other rules with just a one or two word phrase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Slakko loses 10 points, to 20. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:34:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:34:17 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 More Quorum Failure! Proposal 341 - Muppet Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Paragon As people may wish to change their pseudonyms at some point. So the following is suggested. We need to esnure that some restriction can be placed on ludicrous behaviour (changing every few minutes...) and to avoid confusion. To this end I suggest we enact the following as a rule: -- start -- "I was Al, but now I want to be Alice" If a Player grows tired of their pseudonym they may change it by emailing all the Players telling them unambiguously that they wish to change it and what they wish to change it to; sending this email is making The Notification Of Name Change. The pseudonym must be one that could legitimately be chosen by a new Player. The Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can force the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change to take a Pseudonym chosen by the Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" for one week. After that week the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change may change his pseudonym as decreed within the rules. {Game Custom may decree how often a player may change Pseudonym (once a month possibly) but the power is intended to be absolute -- if the Player with the title thinks changing Pseudonyms is evil he can stop it totally or conversely he can leave it unregulated. I'd also strongly suggest the Job of Policing Pseudonyms maintains a web page which tracks peoples changing Pseudonyms so as to allow people to work out who voted for what.} Unless otherwise decreed by any other rule the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. If no other Player holds the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" then the Speaker is granted it. {It may be desired to change it to an elected position when we get those sorted out for example.} -- end -- Additional Note from Muppet: I'd also like to point out for those who may not yet know, that the mailing list archives are available at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/nomic/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 342 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon AGAINST: pm215, Slakko Repeal Rule 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: pm215 Create a rule entitled "Rule Change Redefined", with the following text: A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, amendment or renumbering of a mutable rule, or (b) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. A proposal consists of exactly one proposed rule change. A proposal to renumber a Rule must meet the following conditions: (i) the new rule number must be a cardinal number; (ii) the new rule number must not already be assigned to a Rule; (iii) the new rule number must be less than or equal to the number of the last proposal whose voting period has elapsed; (iv) the new rule number must not be the same as the new rule number in any proposal to renumber which is still in its voting period. When a Rule is renumbered, a note of its previous number(s) should be kept with it. {e.g. if a Rule is renumbered from 213 to 99, it should be listed in the Ruleset as "Rule 99 (was 213)"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Points Changes: Paragon: 0 => -20 Muppet: -1 => -11 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:36:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:36:30 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Current Scores 00:00:a4:00:06:04 40 mormegil 30 Slakko 20 Ganymede 15 pm215 15 Acronym 0 Dan -1 Muppet -11 Paragon -20 Wild Card -50 Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:42:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:42:40 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Voting Effort I know that there are now 2 people in Coventry, but we can still pass quorum if at least 5 of the 8 remaining people turn out to vote. Could people please remember to vote on the outstanding proposals. (If this is due to me not putting details up on the web pages, let me know ASAP - I do mean to be punctual but sometimes can't keep up). Also, more proposal ideas are welcome - we seem to be running a bit low at the moment. To those who suffered from quorum failure - feel free to submit the proposals again - in some cases it looked like it was only electoral apathy, rather than public opinion, which was preventing their adoption. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:44:24 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:44:24 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]P340 I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think (a) the codification was unnecessary, (b) it shouldn't include the option of mailing people off the mailing list, (c) it shouldn't include the specific address of the mailing list, (d) they just didn't like it, or (e) something else? I'd be interested to see if there's a compromise proposal which can gain popular support. Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 05 Aug 2000 20:38:47 +0100 Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 20:38:47 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]P340 Duncan Richer wrote: >I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define >what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think >or (e) something else? I'm afraid that to some extent I was voting tactically because (1) it was an uncontentious proposal and I expected it to pass fairly easily and (2) you have a higher score than I do :-> -- pm215 From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:12:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:12:34 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many points. I'll think about it next week... I'll be back at work and so on #nomic on chiark next week. -- Mike Pitt "He was killed by a small cushion, not unlike this one." From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:49:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:49:33 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) > > However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready > I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. > > I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to > expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( > > As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the > speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many > points. I'll think about it next week... It seems to have worked - both Ben and Pete Maydell are ahead of me now. :-) I'm trying to keep my proposal rate down - I don't want to be a single person deciding the direction the game is heading in (given I've played in other Nomics before, it would disadvantage others if I moved this one in the same direction, consciously or not). Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:49:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:49:08 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 347 Proposal 347 - pm215 I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== Rationale: This is the draft proposal which I previously submitted to the mailing list for comments. Nobody seemed to have any particular problems with this. In any case, we can always fix minor flaws by subsequent amendments. The stuff about elections still needs some more work; I intend to submit a proposal about that at a later date. in the absence of any rule allowing joint credit for proposals, I hereby announce that if this proposal is adopted I will gift two points to Muppet, and one point to Slakko, in recognition of their assistance. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:02:22 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:02:22 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals Some possible proposals We now have several rules that require names, to this end a common definition might be useful. This needs quite a lot of work. Secondly is a better formed but slightly more contentious motion (I would guess) about Technical Motions. The idea being to add a way for the Speaker to get normal stuff thru' without derailing the ease he can get technical stuff done. I'd like comments on this. Thirdly I've returned to the idea of factions. Draft Proposal 1: Name Space A rule may require a name for a game entity {A game entity is something referred to in the rules or game custom. It includes such things as Guardian angels, chocolate frogs and so on. I am intentionally leaving this somewhat vague}. A name consists of a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version. Names may be used subject to the restraints (i) Names are not case sensitive. {this removes one possible layer of confusion. I'm sure we don't need to rigorously define this. ;-( } (ii) A name may not be a reserved words. Reserved words are defined by the rules. Speaker, Player {Insert list of rerserved words here. I'd guess Rule, Psuedonym, Ruleset, Title, Post. Any others?} are reserved words. (iii) A name should be unique within the system. There should be no other Pseudonym, Title, Post, or name made of the same sequence {subject to condition (i)}. Draft Proposal 2: Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. {The alternative is to say that the Proposer can declare a motion to be a Technical Motion.} ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may ask for a CFJ {of the form "Proposal xxx is not a Technical motion"}. If the CFJ unambiguously supports this claim then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. If that is accepted I will propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. Draft Proposal 3: Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. -- Mike Pitt "What did I do this time?" Really means... "What did you catch me at?" From M.Hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:36:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:36:11 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Hardcastle M.Hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals Mike Pitt wrote: > Factions are subject to the following rules: > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > faction and it's initial membership. I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Has nobody taken advantage of rule 339 yet? I declare myself to have an Immortal Guardian, being a Guardian Spirit by the name of `Jupiter'. G. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:49:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:49:23 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Martin Hardcastle wrote: > Mike Pitt wrote: > > Factions are subject to the following rules: > > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > > faction and it's initial membership. > I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've > formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them > whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there > isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Good point. What I wanted to avoid was requiring everyone to say publically they are in. How about: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. -- Mike Pitt 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist' Dom Helder Camara, Bishop of Recife, Brazil From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:46:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:46:48 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 344-346 Proposal 344 - Slakko - Accepted Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko - Accepted Is It a Vote, Or Not? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Paragon, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko - Accepted Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes in Scores: Slakko: 20 => 50 Ganymede: 15 => 20 Muppet: -11 => -6 From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:28:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:28:42 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals No other comments? Does anyone support/oppose the ideas in them? Any feedback at all? -- Mike Pitt "He's a disgrace to the dental profession." Seymour, LSH From mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:06:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:06:30 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Read mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Angels. I declare myself to have a Guardian Angel named Mirizel. mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:13:32 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:13:32 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 347 Proposal 347 - pm215 - Rejected (failed quorum) Votes: 2/10 - failed quorum FOR: Slakko, Muppet (Ganymede attempted to vote after the deadline) Abstain: All Others (8 players) I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:15:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:15:34 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 Proposal 348 - Muppet Preamble: To allow easy changes to facilitate the smooth running of the game, and to allow thos worried about the Speaker being able to bulldoze motions through. ;-) If this is accepted I suugest that someone (me?) propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. It might also be desired to change the voting period for such motions or reduce the required quorum. If adopted Slakko should be granted 2 points as co-author if allowed. Slakko suggested removing the need for an RFC so that people know what they are voting for. Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Preamble: I like politics, and this is a political game. Alliances make such things fun, and we may wish to formalise these. Of course it mustn't be compulsary, and we should set the ground rules first. These are suggestions for such rules. If adopted and the rules allow it Gannymede should be granted 2 of the pounts as co-author. Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:17:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:17:41 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Going north Owing to an excess of Real Life, I shall be in Coventry until 2000-09-21. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. E-mail: bjh21@cam.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1223 334728 Fax: +44 (0)1223 334679 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:23:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:23:29 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. So, any ideas? Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:24:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:24:48 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the > way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can > write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if > anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. > I'm not going to be able to write up any ideas closely. -- Jonathan Amery. Now there's a light at the end of the tunnel, ##### Someone's lit a campfire in my cave. #######__o The first rays of dawn are breaking through the clouds, #######'/ And somehow I know I can be brave. - Steve Kitson From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:30:14 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:30:14 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? Will the posts proposal be resubmitted any time soon? -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:05:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:05:17 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 350 Proposal 350 - Dan *Tum Tee Tum* Should no proposals be created within two weeks, the Speaker must nominate a player to tell an anecdote, joke, narg, thought for the day, nomic proposal, or similar to be posted to the list, along with a plea for people to create proposals, vote, and be otherwise active in the game. For each proposal created within the following week which is adopted, the poster of the encouraging piece will be awarded one point. The speaker should nominate individuals in an equitable way. This may be defined more precisely should need arise. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:20:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:20:44 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 348 - Muppet -- Technical Motions > Proposal 349 - Muppet -- Factions If you've voted already there is nothing of interest in this post... This is a reminder to people to vote on these exciting proposals. I don't mind being defeated (oh alright I do) but I'd rather it happened 'cos people voted against rather than because people forget. End of prepaid announcement for the "Please Remember to Vote" organisation. I think 348 could prove very useful should it be adopted as it will allow uncontentious administrivia items to be passed without making it too easy for the Speaker to rack up points. (This will require the passing of a follow up proposal as well, but I'm happy to let someone else do this.) Proposal 349 adds some sort of formal allainces, which seems an obvious step for a political game. This has been a prepaid message from the "Vote YES to 348 and 349" organisation. :-) -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:57:46 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:57:46 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 348-349 Sorry for the delay here. Proposal 348 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 348) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 349) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Acronym Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Muppet gains 20 points, Acronym and Ganymede gain 5 each. Scores will be updated soonish. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 24 Aug 2000 16:11:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 16:11:36 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Suggestsion for change to points... This is not yet a proposal. Seeing 348 was adopted I think it'd probably be best to amend rule 202. It current;ly reads: < When a proposal becomes adopted, those players who voted against it < receive 5 points each, and its author also receives 10 points. When a < proposalbecomes defeated, its author loses 10 points. What do people feel would be right for technical motions: I'd say either +5/-5 or 0/0 or 0/-5, with no points for opposing it if adopted? Does anyone want to make a proposal? Suggested new wording < When a proposal becomes adopted, points are awarded < as described below to the player < who proposed it and those who voted against it. < When a < proposal becomes defeated, its author loses points as described below. < 1, If the motion is a technical motion the author gains n points if it < is adopted and loses n points if it is rejected. Players who opposie < it if it is adopted gain m points. < 2, For any other motion... Comments, suggestions, improvements? -- Mike Pitt CAT n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle. Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 10:07:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 09:07:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 333 Message-ID: Proposal 333 - Wild Card - Rejected Chocolate Frogs Votes: 9/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/9 - failed FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym Enact the following as a rule: " Chocolate Frogs A chocolate frog is created in the possession of a player if, when a proposal they proposed is accepted, they have had at least four other proposals accepted within the previous 168 hours. Chocolate frogs are edible. Chocolate frogs can only be manipulated by the player that they are in the possession of. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Change to Score: Wild Card: -50 => -60 -10: P333 rejected From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 10:43:41 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 09:43:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 335 Message-ID: Proposal 335 - Duncan Richer - Rejected Votes: 8/10 - passed quorum FOR: 4/8 - rejected FOR: Muppet, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Paragon, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym Proposal: I propose that CFJ 1 be overturned to Undecided. Rationale: I believe that Rules 105 and 106 overrule any attempt by Rule 110 to ban the adoption of proposals which change the methods of winning. They do not stop Rule 110 from preventing any new such rules from having an effect (as per Rule 109), but that is not the issue covered by the statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Change: Slakko: 40 => 30 -10: P335 rejected From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 11:58:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 10:58:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 Message-ID: Proposal 344 - Slakko Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " Rationale: It does not make sense to penalise someone for failure to agree to judge a CFJ when they've headed off to Coventry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko Is It a Vote, Or Not? Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." Rationale: mormegil has been "formally abstaining" on a number of proposals - as yet no-one has checked whether or not this counts as a vote for the purposes of determining quorum and the acceptance of a proposal (so far I have been ruling as if it is no different from a standard abstention). If it does count as a vote, then this amendment is necessary to ensure it is not equivalent to a vote AGAINST the proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 19:09:44 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Tue Aug 1 18:09:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 344 - Slakko > Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: > > " > When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal > probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be > Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker > of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed > to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further > random selection is made from the remaining pool. > " Yes > > Proposal 345 - Slakko > Is It a Vote, Or Not? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number > of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with > "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal > votes cast for and against it." > Yes. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposal 346 - Slakko > Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First > > Rule Change: > Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. > > Rationale: > I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting > towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The > current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. > And, indeed, yes. -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 2 11:03:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Wed Aug 2 10:03:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 336-338 Message-ID: Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 0/7 - fails FOR: AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 The creation of the following rule *Then the demons are really angels, freeing you* " winning, where specified in this ruleset is to mean winning in terms of the game, and the ability to truthfully state `I won'. However, a player is free to adopt whatever personal motives they wish, whether they be to win at all costs, to be altruistic, or self-abdicating. Every player is free to set their own goals in life, and in Nomic, but, at least in Nomic, it is the right of other players to judge them on their performance according to the explicit and implicit game criteria. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/7 - fails FOR: mormegil AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule I've got your number "It is the role of the speaker to assign numbers to proposals, according to 107, and to inform players of those numbers, in order that there are no race conditions in the simultaneous assignment of the same number by network-distant individuals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 338 - Dan Sheppard - Accepted (Creates Rule 338) Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule The Wake "If a player is taken from us by real life, we will hold a Wake, if the nature of a Wake has been specified in the rules, customs, or spirit of the game." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes: Dan: +5 => -5 -10: P336 rejected -10: P337 rejected +10: P338 accepted 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 35 => 40 +5: voted AGAINST P338 From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 2 23:31:08 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Wed Aug 2 22:31:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Acronym has been selected. He has 3 days to indicate whether or not he > accepts the selection. > > CFJ 4 - pm215 > Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:36:20 +0100 > > Statement: > > When a mutable rule is found to be in conflict with an immutable > rule, the mutable rule is "wholly void and without effect", > by rule 109. This means that the mutable rule is effectively > not part of the current ruleset; it will remain in this state > until the ruleset is amended to remove the conflict." > False. The mutable rule is void: therefore it cannot be any part of the ruleset, and is deemed to not exist. > Initiator's Reasoning: > > Rule 109 isn't very specific about exactly what the phrase > "wholly void and without effect" actually means. I can think > of several possibilities: > > (3) the rule is ignored forever; it is effectively thrown out > of the ruleset. This seems a bit drastic to me. Moreover, > there is no practical gain over (2) -- you'd just have to > create a new rule which didn't conflict and repeal the old one, > rather than being able to amend the old rule in a > straightforward manner. This is what I interpret it to mean. Void, to me, means invalid; invalid rules cannot exist, and therefore have to be chucked out the ruleset. If people don't like this, well, that's what rulechanges are for. Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 11:52:45 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 10:52:45 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) Message-ID: Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). What do other people think of this judgement? Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 11:56:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 10:56:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 339 Message-ID: Proposal 339 - mormegil - Accepted (Creates Rule 339) Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet Abstain: Acronym, mormegil, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal of a New Rule "Someone To Watch Over Me" "A Player may (for the purposes of chiark Nomic) have a Guardian Angel, Guardian Spirit, or Guardian Demon. These entities shall be collectively referred to as "Immortal Guardians". No Player may have more than one Immortal Guardian at once. A Player is not obliged to have an Immortal Guardian. Immortal Guardians shall have such powers, capabilities, and other characteristics as shall be determined by the rules. The manner of acquiring an Immortal Guardian shall be determined by the rules. Initially, a Player may acquire an Immortal Guardian simply by declaring themselves to have done so. They must specify which form of Immortal Guardian they have and what its name is. Each Immortal Guardian must have a name, which must consist of characters from the set of characters acceptable for use in Players' pseudonyms. An Immortal Guardian's name must not be the same as the name of any existing Immortal Guardian, and also must not be the same as the name or pseudonym of any Player. If a new Player enters the game whose name is the same as that of an existing Immortal Guardian, that Immortal Guardian must be immediately renamed in compliance with the rules. A Player may not adopt a pseudonym that is the same as the name of an existing Immortal Guardian." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: mormegil: 20 => 30 +10: P339 accepted Muppet: -15 => -10 +5: voted AGAINST P339 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 12:04:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 11:04:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Lack of Voting Message-ID: Well, the last proposal only just passed quorum - so if you haven't voted on the current crop, please do so soon. The next set of proposals come due tomorrow evening. This has been a promotional message on behalf of the Don't Fail Quorum Society. Yours, Slakko From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 22:44:56 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Thu Aug 3 21:44:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules > are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status > of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to > confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of > the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). > > What do other people think of this judgement? > FWIW, I interpreted it as follows: you have an immutable rule that explicitly outlaws a mutable rule. The immutable rule takes precedence; therefore, the mutable rule cannot be validly passed by the game rules. Does anyone want to enlighten me about the flaw in this logic? Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 4 20:23:00 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Fri Aug 4 19:23:00 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Notice of Coventrification Message-ID: <14731.2563.104293.978991@chiark.greenend.org.uk> As I am going to Nottingham for the next week or so and will be incommunicado, I am sending myself to Coventry until 1800 hours BST, Saturday 12th August 2000. Yrs, mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 00:08:11 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Aug 4 23:08:11 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 340 Message-ID: QUORUM FAILURE! Please remember: Vote Early, Vote Often! Proposal 340 - Slakko - rejected So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: mormegil, pm215 Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede, Muppet, Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal: Enact a rule with the title "For the Sake of Simplicity I" with the following text: "If the rules require a player to perform an action In Public or Publicly, then they must either (a) email all Players to indicate that the action is being performed, or (b) email the official mailing list at nomic@chiark.greenend.org.uk to indicate that the action is being performed." Rationale: This gives us a nice reasonable definition which can be inserted in all other rules with just a one or two word phrase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Slakko loses 10 points, to 20. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:34:18 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:34:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 Message-ID: More Quorum Failure! Proposal 341 - Muppet Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Paragon As people may wish to change their pseudonyms at some point. So the following is suggested. We need to esnure that some restriction can be placed on ludicrous behaviour (changing every few minutes...) and to avoid confusion. To this end I suggest we enact the following as a rule: -- start -- "I was Al, but now I want to be Alice" If a Player grows tired of their pseudonym they may change it by emailing all the Players telling them unambiguously that they wish to change it and what they wish to change it to; sending this email is making The Notification Of Name Change. The pseudonym must be one that could legitimately be chosen by a new Player. The Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can force the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change to take a Pseudonym chosen by the Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" for one week. After that week the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change may change his pseudonym as decreed within the rules. {Game Custom may decree how often a player may change Pseudonym (once a month possibly) but the power is intended to be absolute -- if the Player with the title thinks changing Pseudonyms is evil he can stop it totally or conversely he can leave it unregulated. I'd also strongly suggest the Job of Policing Pseudonyms maintains a web page which tracks peoples changing Pseudonyms so as to allow people to work out who voted for what.} Unless otherwise decreed by any other rule the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. If no other Player holds the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" then the Speaker is granted it. {It may be desired to change it to an elected position when we get those sorted out for example.} -- end -- Additional Note from Muppet: I'd also like to point out for those who may not yet know, that the mailing list archives are available at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/nomic/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 342 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon AGAINST: pm215, Slakko Repeal Rule 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: pm215 Create a rule entitled "Rule Change Redefined", with the following text: A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, amendment or renumbering of a mutable rule, or (b) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. A proposal consists of exactly one proposed rule change. A proposal to renumber a Rule must meet the following conditions: (i) the new rule number must be a cardinal number; (ii) the new rule number must not already be assigned to a Rule; (iii) the new rule number must be less than or equal to the number of the last proposal whose voting period has elapsed; (iv) the new rule number must not be the same as the new rule number in any proposal to renumber which is still in its voting period. When a Rule is renumbered, a note of its previous number(s) should be kept with it. {e.g. if a Rule is renumbered from 213 to 99, it should be listed in the Ruleset as "Rule 99 (was 213)"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Points Changes: Paragon: 0 => -20 Muppet: -1 => -11 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:36:31 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:36:31 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Current Scores Message-ID: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 40 mormegil 30 Slakko 20 Ganymede 15 pm215 15 Acronym 0 Dan -1 Muppet -11 Paragon -20 Wild Card -50 Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:42:41 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:42:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Voting Effort Message-ID: I know that there are now 2 people in Coventry, but we can still pass quorum if at least 5 of the 8 remaining people turn out to vote. Could people please remember to vote on the outstanding proposals. (If this is due to me not putting details up on the web pages, let me know ASAP - I do mean to be punctual but sometimes can't keep up). Also, more proposal ideas are welcome - we seem to be running a bit low at the moment. To those who suffered from quorum failure - feel free to submit the proposals again - in some cases it looked like it was only electoral apathy, rather than public opinion, which was preventing their adoption. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:44:25 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:44:25 2000 Subject: [Nomic]P340 Message-ID: I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think (a) the codification was unnecessary, (b) it shouldn't include the option of mailing people off the mailing list, (c) it shouldn't include the specific address of the mailing list, (d) they just didn't like it, or (e) something else? I'd be interested to see if there's a compromise proposal which can gain popular support. Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 21:39:02 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sat Aug 5 20:39:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic]P340 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 05 Aug 2000 14:44:24 BST." Message-ID: Duncan Richer wrote: >I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define >what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think >or (e) something else? I'm afraid that to some extent I was voting tactically because (1) it was an uncontentious proposal and I expected it to pass fairly easily and (2) you have a higher score than I do :-> -- pm215 From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 18:12:37 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Sun Aug 6 17:12:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many points. I'll think about it next week... I'll be back at work and so on #nomic on chiark next week. -- Mike Pitt "He was killed by a small cushion, not unlike this one." From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 18:49:34 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Aug 6 17:49:34 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) > > However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready > I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. > > I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to > expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( > > As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the > speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many > points. I'll think about it next week... It seems to have worked - both Ben and Pete Maydell are ahead of me now. :-) I'm trying to keep my proposal rate down - I don't want to be a single person deciding the direction the game is heading in (given I've played in other Nomics before, it would disadvantage others if I moved this one in the same direction, consciously or not). Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 23:49:10 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Aug 6 22:49:10 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 347 Message-ID: Proposal 347 - pm215 I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== Rationale: This is the draft proposal which I previously submitted to the mailing list for comments. Nobody seemed to have any particular problems with this. In any case, we can always fix minor flaws by subsequent amendments. The stuff about elections still needs some more work; I intend to submit a proposal about that at a later date. in the absence of any rule allowing joint credit for proposals, I hereby announce that if this proposal is adopted I will gift two points to Muppet, and one point to Slakko, in recognition of their assistance. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 7 12:02:27 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Aug 7 11:02:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals Message-ID: Some possible proposals We now have several rules that require names, to this end a common definition might be useful. This needs quite a lot of work. Secondly is a better formed but slightly more contentious motion (I would guess) about Technical Motions. The idea being to add a way for the Speaker to get normal stuff thru' without derailing the ease he can get technical stuff done. I'd like comments on this. Thirdly I've returned to the idea of factions. Draft Proposal 1: Name Space A rule may require a name for a game entity {A game entity is something referred to in the rules or game custom. It includes such things as Guardian angels, chocolate frogs and so on. I am intentionally leaving this somewhat vague}. A name consists of a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version. Names may be used subject to the restraints (i) Names are not case sensitive. {this removes one possible layer of confusion. I'm sure we don't need to rigorously define this. ;-( } (ii) A name may not be a reserved words. Reserved words are defined by the rules. Speaker, Player {Insert list of rerserved words here. I'd guess Rule, Psuedonym, Ruleset, Title, Post. Any others?} are reserved words. (iii) A name should be unique within the system. There should be no other Pseudonym, Title, Post, or name made of the same sequence {subject to condition (i)}. Draft Proposal 2: Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. {The alternative is to say that the Proposer can declare a motion to be a Technical Motion.} ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may ask for a CFJ {of the form "Proposal xxx is not a Technical motion"}. If the CFJ unambiguously supports this claim then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. If that is accepted I will propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. Draft Proposal 3: Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. -- Mike Pitt "What did I do this time?" Really means... "What did you catch me at?" From M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk Tue Aug 8 11:36:15 2000 From: M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle) Date: Tue Aug 8 10:36:15 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: from Mike Pitt at "Aug 7, 2000 11:02:22 am" Message-ID: Mike Pitt wrote: > Factions are subject to the following rules: > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > faction and it's initial membership. I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Has nobody taken advantage of rule 339 yet? I declare myself to have an Immortal Guardian, being a Guardian Spirit by the name of `Jupiter'. G. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 8 12:49:26 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Aug 8 11:49:26 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Martin Hardcastle wrote: > Mike Pitt wrote: > > Factions are subject to the following rules: > > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > > faction and it's initial membership. > I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've > formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them > whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there > isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Good point. What I wanted to avoid was requiring everyone to say publically they are in. How about: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. -- Mike Pitt 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist' Dom Helder Camara, Bishop of Recife, Brazil From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 8 16:46:52 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 8 15:46:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 344-346 Message-ID: Proposal 344 - Slakko - Accepted Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko - Accepted Is It a Vote, Or Not? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Paragon, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko - Accepted Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes in Scores: Slakko: 20 => 50 Ganymede: 15 => 20 Muppet: -11 => -6 From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 9 14:28:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Wed Aug 9 13:28:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No other comments? Does anyone support/oppose the ideas in them? Any feedback at all? -- Mike Pitt "He's a disgrace to the dental profession." Seymour, LSH From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 14 20:06:32 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Mon Aug 14 19:06:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Angels. Message-ID: <14744.13606.364661.840246@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I declare myself to have a Guardian Angel named Mirizel. mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 15 12:13:35 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:13:35 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 347 Message-ID: Proposal 347 - pm215 - Rejected (failed quorum) Votes: 2/10 - failed quorum FOR: Slakko, Muppet (Ganymede attempted to vote after the deadline) Abstain: All Others (8 players) I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 15 12:15:37 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:15:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 Message-ID: Proposal 348 - Muppet Preamble: To allow easy changes to facilitate the smooth running of the game, and to allow thos worried about the Speaker being able to bulldoze motions through. ;-) If this is accepted I suugest that someone (me?) propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. It might also be desired to change the voting period for such motions or reduce the required quorum. If adopted Slakko should be granted 2 points as co-author if allowed. Slakko suggested removing the need for an RFC so that people know what they are voting for. Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Preamble: I like politics, and this is a political game. Alliances make such things fun, and we may wish to formalise these. Of course it mustn't be compulsary, and we should set the ground rules first. These are suggestions for such rules. If adopted and the rules allow it Gannymede should be granted 2 of the pounts as co-author. Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Tue Aug 15 12:18:01 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:18:01 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Going north Message-ID: Owing to an excess of Real Life, I shall be in Coventry until 2000-09-21. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. E-mail: bjh21@cam.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1223 334728 Fax: +44 (0)1223 334679 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 17 17:23:32 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 17 16:23:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? Message-ID: I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. So, any ideas? Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 17 17:24:52 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Thu Aug 17 16:24:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the > way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can > write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if > anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. > I'm not going to be able to write up any ideas closely. -- Jonathan Amery. Now there's a light at the end of the tunnel, ##### Someone's lit a campfire in my cave. #######__o The first rays of dawn are breaking through the clouds, #######'/ And somehow I know I can be brave. - Steve Kitson From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 10:30:16 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Aug 18 09:30:16 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Will the posts proposal be resubmitted any time soon? -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 13:05:19 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Aug 18 12:05:19 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 350 Message-ID: Proposal 350 - Dan *Tum Tee Tum* Should no proposals be created within two weeks, the Speaker must nominate a player to tell an anecdote, joke, narg, thought for the day, nomic proposal, or similar to be posted to the list, along with a plea for people to create proposals, vote, and be otherwise active in the game. For each proposal created within the following week which is adopted, the poster of the encouraging piece will be awarded one point. The speaker should nominate individuals in an equitable way. This may be defined more precisely should need arise. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 13:20:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Aug 18 12:20:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 348 - Muppet -- Technical Motions > Proposal 349 - Muppet -- Factions If you've voted already there is nothing of interest in this post... This is a reminder to people to vote on these exciting proposals. I don't mind being defeated (oh alright I do) but I'd rather it happened 'cos people voted against rather than because people forget. End of prepaid announcement for the "Please Remember to Vote" organisation. I think 348 could prove very useful should it be adopted as it will allow uncontentious administrivia items to be passed without making it too easy for the Speaker to rack up points. (This will require the passing of a follow up proposal as well, but I'm happy to let someone else do this.) Proposal 349 adds some sort of formal allainces, which seems an obvious step for a political game. This has been a prepaid message from the "Vote YES to 348 and 349" organisation. :-) -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 24 14:57:48 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 24 13:57:48 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 348-349 Message-ID: Sorry for the delay here. Proposal 348 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 348) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 349) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Acronym Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Muppet gains 20 points, Acronym and Ganymede gain 5 each. Scores will be updated soonish. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 24 17:11:37 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Thu Aug 24 16:11:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Suggestsion for change to points... Message-ID: This is not yet a proposal. Seeing 348 was adopted I think it'd probably be best to amend rule 202. It current;ly reads: < When a proposal becomes adopted, those players who voted against it < receive 5 points each, and its author also receives 10 points. When a < proposalbecomes defeated, its author loses 10 points. What do people feel would be right for technical motions: I'd say either +5/-5 or 0/0 or 0/-5, with no points for opposing it if adopted? Does anyone want to make a proposal? Suggested new wording < When a proposal becomes adopted, points are awarded < as described below to the player < who proposed it and those who voted against it. < When a < proposal becomes defeated, its author loses points as described below. < 1, If the motion is a technical motion the author gains n points if it < is adopted and loses n points if it is rejected. Players who opposie < it if it is adopted gain m points. < 2, For any other motion... Comments, suggestions, improvements? -- Mike Pitt CAT n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle. Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 10:07:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 09:07:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 333 Message-ID: Proposal 333 - Wild Card - Rejected Chocolate Frogs Votes: 9/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/9 - failed FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym Enact the following as a rule: " Chocolate Frogs A chocolate frog is created in the possession of a player if, when a proposal they proposed is accepted, they have had at least four other proposals accepted within the previous 168 hours. Chocolate frogs are edible. Chocolate frogs can only be manipulated by the player that they are in the possession of. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Change to Score: Wild Card: -50 => -60 -10: P333 rejected From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 10:43:41 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 09:43:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 335 Message-ID: Proposal 335 - Duncan Richer - Rejected Votes: 8/10 - passed quorum FOR: 4/8 - rejected FOR: Muppet, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Paragon, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym Proposal: I propose that CFJ 1 be overturned to Undecided. Rationale: I believe that Rules 105 and 106 overrule any attempt by Rule 110 to ban the adoption of proposals which change the methods of winning. They do not stop Rule 110 from preventing any new such rules from having an effect (as per Rule 109), but that is not the issue covered by the statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Change: Slakko: 40 => 30 -10: P335 rejected From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 11:58:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 10:58:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 Message-ID: Proposal 344 - Slakko Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " Rationale: It does not make sense to penalise someone for failure to agree to judge a CFJ when they've headed off to Coventry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko Is It a Vote, Or Not? Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." Rationale: mormegil has been "formally abstaining" on a number of proposals - as yet no-one has checked whether or not this counts as a vote for the purposes of determining quorum and the acceptance of a proposal (so far I have been ruling as if it is no different from a standard abstention). If it does count as a vote, then this amendment is necessary to ensure it is not equivalent to a vote AGAINST the proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 19:09:44 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Tue Aug 1 18:09:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 344 - Slakko > Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: > > " > When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal > probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be > Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker > of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed > to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further > random selection is made from the remaining pool. > " Yes > > Proposal 345 - Slakko > Is It a Vote, Or Not? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number > of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with > "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal > votes cast for and against it." > Yes. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposal 346 - Slakko > Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First > > Rule Change: > Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. > > Rationale: > I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting > towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The > current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. > And, indeed, yes. -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 2 11:03:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Wed Aug 2 10:03:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 336-338 Message-ID: Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 0/7 - fails FOR: AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 The creation of the following rule *Then the demons are really angels, freeing you* " winning, where specified in this ruleset is to mean winning in terms of the game, and the ability to truthfully state `I won'. However, a player is free to adopt whatever personal motives they wish, whether they be to win at all costs, to be altruistic, or self-abdicating. Every player is free to set their own goals in life, and in Nomic, but, at least in Nomic, it is the right of other players to judge them on their performance according to the explicit and implicit game criteria. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/7 - fails FOR: mormegil AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule I've got your number "It is the role of the speaker to assign numbers to proposals, according to 107, and to inform players of those numbers, in order that there are no race conditions in the simultaneous assignment of the same number by network-distant individuals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 338 - Dan Sheppard - Accepted (Creates Rule 338) Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule The Wake "If a player is taken from us by real life, we will hold a Wake, if the nature of a Wake has been specified in the rules, customs, or spirit of the game." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes: Dan: +5 => -5 -10: P336 rejected -10: P337 rejected +10: P338 accepted 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 35 => 40 +5: voted AGAINST P338 From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 2 23:31:08 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Wed Aug 2 22:31:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Acronym has been selected. He has 3 days to indicate whether or not he > accepts the selection. > > CFJ 4 - pm215 > Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:36:20 +0100 > > Statement: > > When a mutable rule is found to be in conflict with an immutable > rule, the mutable rule is "wholly void and without effect", > by rule 109. This means that the mutable rule is effectively > not part of the current ruleset; it will remain in this state > until the ruleset is amended to remove the conflict." > False. The mutable rule is void: therefore it cannot be any part of the ruleset, and is deemed to not exist. > Initiator's Reasoning: > > Rule 109 isn't very specific about exactly what the phrase > "wholly void and without effect" actually means. I can think > of several possibilities: > > (3) the rule is ignored forever; it is effectively thrown out > of the ruleset. This seems a bit drastic to me. Moreover, > there is no practical gain over (2) -- you'd just have to > create a new rule which didn't conflict and repeal the old one, > rather than being able to amend the old rule in a > straightforward manner. This is what I interpret it to mean. Void, to me, means invalid; invalid rules cannot exist, and therefore have to be chucked out the ruleset. If people don't like this, well, that's what rulechanges are for. Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 11:52:45 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 10:52:45 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) Message-ID: Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). What do other people think of this judgement? Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 11:56:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 10:56:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 339 Message-ID: Proposal 339 - mormegil - Accepted (Creates Rule 339) Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet Abstain: Acronym, mormegil, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal of a New Rule "Someone To Watch Over Me" "A Player may (for the purposes of chiark Nomic) have a Guardian Angel, Guardian Spirit, or Guardian Demon. These entities shall be collectively referred to as "Immortal Guardians". No Player may have more than one Immortal Guardian at once. A Player is not obliged to have an Immortal Guardian. Immortal Guardians shall have such powers, capabilities, and other characteristics as shall be determined by the rules. The manner of acquiring an Immortal Guardian shall be determined by the rules. Initially, a Player may acquire an Immortal Guardian simply by declaring themselves to have done so. They must specify which form of Immortal Guardian they have and what its name is. Each Immortal Guardian must have a name, which must consist of characters from the set of characters acceptable for use in Players' pseudonyms. An Immortal Guardian's name must not be the same as the name of any existing Immortal Guardian, and also must not be the same as the name or pseudonym of any Player. If a new Player enters the game whose name is the same as that of an existing Immortal Guardian, that Immortal Guardian must be immediately renamed in compliance with the rules. A Player may not adopt a pseudonym that is the same as the name of an existing Immortal Guardian." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: mormegil: 20 => 30 +10: P339 accepted Muppet: -15 => -10 +5: voted AGAINST P339 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 12:04:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 11:04:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Lack of Voting Message-ID: Well, the last proposal only just passed quorum - so if you haven't voted on the current crop, please do so soon. The next set of proposals come due tomorrow evening. This has been a promotional message on behalf of the Don't Fail Quorum Society. Yours, Slakko From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 22:44:56 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Thu Aug 3 21:44:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules > are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status > of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to > confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of > the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). > > What do other people think of this judgement? > FWIW, I interpreted it as follows: you have an immutable rule that explicitly outlaws a mutable rule. The immutable rule takes precedence; therefore, the mutable rule cannot be validly passed by the game rules. Does anyone want to enlighten me about the flaw in this logic? Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 4 20:23:00 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Fri Aug 4 19:23:00 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Notice of Coventrification Message-ID: <14731.2563.104293.978991@chiark.greenend.org.uk> As I am going to Nottingham for the next week or so and will be incommunicado, I am sending myself to Coventry until 1800 hours BST, Saturday 12th August 2000. Yrs, mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 00:08:11 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Aug 4 23:08:11 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 340 Message-ID: QUORUM FAILURE! Please remember: Vote Early, Vote Often! Proposal 340 - Slakko - rejected So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: mormegil, pm215 Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede, Muppet, Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal: Enact a rule with the title "For the Sake of Simplicity I" with the following text: "If the rules require a player to perform an action In Public or Publicly, then they must either (a) email all Players to indicate that the action is being performed, or (b) email the official mailing list at nomic@chiark.greenend.org.uk to indicate that the action is being performed." Rationale: This gives us a nice reasonable definition which can be inserted in all other rules with just a one or two word phrase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Slakko loses 10 points, to 20. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:34:18 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:34:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 Message-ID: More Quorum Failure! Proposal 341 - Muppet Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Paragon As people may wish to change their pseudonyms at some point. So the following is suggested. We need to esnure that some restriction can be placed on ludicrous behaviour (changing every few minutes...) and to avoid confusion. To this end I suggest we enact the following as a rule: -- start -- "I was Al, but now I want to be Alice" If a Player grows tired of their pseudonym they may change it by emailing all the Players telling them unambiguously that they wish to change it and what they wish to change it to; sending this email is making The Notification Of Name Change. The pseudonym must be one that could legitimately be chosen by a new Player. The Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can force the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change to take a Pseudonym chosen by the Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" for one week. After that week the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change may change his pseudonym as decreed within the rules. {Game Custom may decree how often a player may change Pseudonym (once a month possibly) but the power is intended to be absolute -- if the Player with the title thinks changing Pseudonyms is evil he can stop it totally or conversely he can leave it unregulated. I'd also strongly suggest the Job of Policing Pseudonyms maintains a web page which tracks peoples changing Pseudonyms so as to allow people to work out who voted for what.} Unless otherwise decreed by any other rule the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. If no other Player holds the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" then the Speaker is granted it. {It may be desired to change it to an elected position when we get those sorted out for example.} -- end -- Additional Note from Muppet: I'd also like to point out for those who may not yet know, that the mailing list archives are available at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/nomic/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 342 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon AGAINST: pm215, Slakko Repeal Rule 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: pm215 Create a rule entitled "Rule Change Redefined", with the following text: A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, amendment or renumbering of a mutable rule, or (b) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. A proposal consists of exactly one proposed rule change. A proposal to renumber a Rule must meet the following conditions: (i) the new rule number must be a cardinal number; (ii) the new rule number must not already be assigned to a Rule; (iii) the new rule number must be less than or equal to the number of the last proposal whose voting period has elapsed; (iv) the new rule number must not be the same as the new rule number in any proposal to renumber which is still in its voting period. When a Rule is renumbered, a note of its previous number(s) should be kept with it. {e.g. if a Rule is renumbered from 213 to 99, it should be listed in the Ruleset as "Rule 99 (was 213)"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Points Changes: Paragon: 0 => -20 Muppet: -1 => -11 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:36:31 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:36:31 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Current Scores Message-ID: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 40 mormegil 30 Slakko 20 Ganymede 15 pm215 15 Acronym 0 Dan -1 Muppet -11 Paragon -20 Wild Card -50 Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:42:41 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:42:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Voting Effort Message-ID: I know that there are now 2 people in Coventry, but we can still pass quorum if at least 5 of the 8 remaining people turn out to vote. Could people please remember to vote on the outstanding proposals. (If this is due to me not putting details up on the web pages, let me know ASAP - I do mean to be punctual but sometimes can't keep up). Also, more proposal ideas are welcome - we seem to be running a bit low at the moment. To those who suffered from quorum failure - feel free to submit the proposals again - in some cases it looked like it was only electoral apathy, rather than public opinion, which was preventing their adoption. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:44:25 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:44:25 2000 Subject: [Nomic]P340 Message-ID: I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think (a) the codification was unnecessary, (b) it shouldn't include the option of mailing people off the mailing list, (c) it shouldn't include the specific address of the mailing list, (d) they just didn't like it, or (e) something else? I'd be interested to see if there's a compromise proposal which can gain popular support. Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 21:39:02 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sat Aug 5 20:39:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic]P340 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 05 Aug 2000 14:44:24 BST." Message-ID: Duncan Richer wrote: >I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define >what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think >or (e) something else? I'm afraid that to some extent I was voting tactically because (1) it was an uncontentious proposal and I expected it to pass fairly easily and (2) you have a higher score than I do :-> -- pm215 From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 18:12:37 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Sun Aug 6 17:12:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many points. I'll think about it next week... I'll be back at work and so on #nomic on chiark next week. -- Mike Pitt "He was killed by a small cushion, not unlike this one." From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 18:49:34 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Aug 6 17:49:34 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) > > However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready > I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. > > I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to > expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( > > As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the > speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many > points. I'll think about it next week... It seems to have worked - both Ben and Pete Maydell are ahead of me now. :-) I'm trying to keep my proposal rate down - I don't want to be a single person deciding the direction the game is heading in (given I've played in other Nomics before, it would disadvantage others if I moved this one in the same direction, consciously or not). Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 23:49:10 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Aug 6 22:49:10 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 347 Message-ID: Proposal 347 - pm215 I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== Rationale: This is the draft proposal which I previously submitted to the mailing list for comments. Nobody seemed to have any particular problems with this. In any case, we can always fix minor flaws by subsequent amendments. The stuff about elections still needs some more work; I intend to submit a proposal about that at a later date. in the absence of any rule allowing joint credit for proposals, I hereby announce that if this proposal is adopted I will gift two points to Muppet, and one point to Slakko, in recognition of their assistance. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 7 12:02:27 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Aug 7 11:02:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals Message-ID: Some possible proposals We now have several rules that require names, to this end a common definition might be useful. This needs quite a lot of work. Secondly is a better formed but slightly more contentious motion (I would guess) about Technical Motions. The idea being to add a way for the Speaker to get normal stuff thru' without derailing the ease he can get technical stuff done. I'd like comments on this. Thirdly I've returned to the idea of factions. Draft Proposal 1: Name Space A rule may require a name for a game entity {A game entity is something referred to in the rules or game custom. It includes such things as Guardian angels, chocolate frogs and so on. I am intentionally leaving this somewhat vague}. A name consists of a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version. Names may be used subject to the restraints (i) Names are not case sensitive. {this removes one possible layer of confusion. I'm sure we don't need to rigorously define this. ;-( } (ii) A name may not be a reserved words. Reserved words are defined by the rules. Speaker, Player {Insert list of rerserved words here. I'd guess Rule, Psuedonym, Ruleset, Title, Post. Any others?} are reserved words. (iii) A name should be unique within the system. There should be no other Pseudonym, Title, Post, or name made of the same sequence {subject to condition (i)}. Draft Proposal 2: Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. {The alternative is to say that the Proposer can declare a motion to be a Technical Motion.} ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may ask for a CFJ {of the form "Proposal xxx is not a Technical motion"}. If the CFJ unambiguously supports this claim then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. If that is accepted I will propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. Draft Proposal 3: Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. -- Mike Pitt "What did I do this time?" Really means... "What did you catch me at?" From M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk Tue Aug 8 11:36:15 2000 From: M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle) Date: Tue Aug 8 10:36:15 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: from Mike Pitt at "Aug 7, 2000 11:02:22 am" Message-ID: Mike Pitt wrote: > Factions are subject to the following rules: > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > faction and it's initial membership. I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Has nobody taken advantage of rule 339 yet? I declare myself to have an Immortal Guardian, being a Guardian Spirit by the name of `Jupiter'. G. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 8 12:49:26 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Aug 8 11:49:26 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Martin Hardcastle wrote: > Mike Pitt wrote: > > Factions are subject to the following rules: > > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > > faction and it's initial membership. > I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've > formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them > whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there > isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Good point. What I wanted to avoid was requiring everyone to say publically they are in. How about: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. -- Mike Pitt 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist' Dom Helder Camara, Bishop of Recife, Brazil From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 8 16:46:52 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 8 15:46:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 344-346 Message-ID: Proposal 344 - Slakko - Accepted Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko - Accepted Is It a Vote, Or Not? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Paragon, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko - Accepted Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes in Scores: Slakko: 20 => 50 Ganymede: 15 => 20 Muppet: -11 => -6 From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 9 14:28:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Wed Aug 9 13:28:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No other comments? Does anyone support/oppose the ideas in them? Any feedback at all? -- Mike Pitt "He's a disgrace to the dental profession." Seymour, LSH From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 14 20:06:32 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Mon Aug 14 19:06:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Angels. Message-ID: <14744.13606.364661.840246@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I declare myself to have a Guardian Angel named Mirizel. mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 15 12:13:35 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:13:35 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 347 Message-ID: Proposal 347 - pm215 - Rejected (failed quorum) Votes: 2/10 - failed quorum FOR: Slakko, Muppet (Ganymede attempted to vote after the deadline) Abstain: All Others (8 players) I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 15 12:15:37 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:15:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 Message-ID: Proposal 348 - Muppet Preamble: To allow easy changes to facilitate the smooth running of the game, and to allow thos worried about the Speaker being able to bulldoze motions through. ;-) If this is accepted I suugest that someone (me?) propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. It might also be desired to change the voting period for such motions or reduce the required quorum. If adopted Slakko should be granted 2 points as co-author if allowed. Slakko suggested removing the need for an RFC so that people know what they are voting for. Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Preamble: I like politics, and this is a political game. Alliances make such things fun, and we may wish to formalise these. Of course it mustn't be compulsary, and we should set the ground rules first. These are suggestions for such rules. If adopted and the rules allow it Gannymede should be granted 2 of the pounts as co-author. Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Tue Aug 15 12:18:01 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:18:01 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Going north Message-ID: Owing to an excess of Real Life, I shall be in Coventry until 2000-09-21. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. E-mail: bjh21@cam.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1223 334728 Fax: +44 (0)1223 334679 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 17 17:23:32 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 17 16:23:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? Message-ID: I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. So, any ideas? Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 17 17:24:52 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Thu Aug 17 16:24:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the > way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can > write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if > anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. > I'm not going to be able to write up any ideas closely. -- Jonathan Amery. Now there's a light at the end of the tunnel, ##### Someone's lit a campfire in my cave. #######__o The first rays of dawn are breaking through the clouds, #######'/ And somehow I know I can be brave. - Steve Kitson From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 10:30:16 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Aug 18 09:30:16 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Will the posts proposal be resubmitted any time soon? -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 13:05:19 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Aug 18 12:05:19 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 350 Message-ID: Proposal 350 - Dan *Tum Tee Tum* Should no proposals be created within two weeks, the Speaker must nominate a player to tell an anecdote, joke, narg, thought for the day, nomic proposal, or similar to be posted to the list, along with a plea for people to create proposals, vote, and be otherwise active in the game. For each proposal created within the following week which is adopted, the poster of the encouraging piece will be awarded one point. The speaker should nominate individuals in an equitable way. This may be defined more precisely should need arise. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 13:20:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Aug 18 12:20:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 348 - Muppet -- Technical Motions > Proposal 349 - Muppet -- Factions If you've voted already there is nothing of interest in this post... This is a reminder to people to vote on these exciting proposals. I don't mind being defeated (oh alright I do) but I'd rather it happened 'cos people voted against rather than because people forget. End of prepaid announcement for the "Please Remember to Vote" organisation. I think 348 could prove very useful should it be adopted as it will allow uncontentious administrivia items to be passed without making it too easy for the Speaker to rack up points. (This will require the passing of a follow up proposal as well, but I'm happy to let someone else do this.) Proposal 349 adds some sort of formal allainces, which seems an obvious step for a political game. This has been a prepaid message from the "Vote YES to 348 and 349" organisation. :-) -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 24 14:57:48 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 24 13:57:48 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 348-349 Message-ID: Sorry for the delay here. Proposal 348 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 348) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 349) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Acronym Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Muppet gains 20 points, Acronym and Ganymede gain 5 each. Scores will be updated soonish. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 24 17:11:37 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Thu Aug 24 16:11:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Suggestsion for change to points... Message-ID: This is not yet a proposal. Seeing 348 was adopted I think it'd probably be best to amend rule 202. It current;ly reads: < When a proposal becomes adopted, those players who voted against it < receive 5 points each, and its author also receives 10 points. When a < proposalbecomes defeated, its author loses 10 points. What do people feel would be right for technical motions: I'd say either +5/-5 or 0/0 or 0/-5, with no points for opposing it if adopted? Does anyone want to make a proposal? Suggested new wording < When a proposal becomes adopted, points are awarded < as described below to the player < who proposed it and those who voted against it. < When a < proposal becomes defeated, its author loses points as described below. < 1, If the motion is a technical motion the author gains n points if it < is adopted and loses n points if it is rejected. Players who opposie < it if it is adopted gain m points. < 2, For any other motion... Comments, suggestions, improvements? -- Mike Pitt CAT n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle. Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 10:07:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 09:07:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 333 Message-ID: Proposal 333 - Wild Card - Rejected Chocolate Frogs Votes: 9/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/9 - failed FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym Enact the following as a rule: " Chocolate Frogs A chocolate frog is created in the possession of a player if, when a proposal they proposed is accepted, they have had at least four other proposals accepted within the previous 168 hours. Chocolate frogs are edible. Chocolate frogs can only be manipulated by the player that they are in the possession of. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Change to Score: Wild Card: -50 => -60 -10: P333 rejected From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 10:43:41 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 09:43:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 335 Message-ID: Proposal 335 - Duncan Richer - Rejected Votes: 8/10 - passed quorum FOR: 4/8 - rejected FOR: Muppet, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Paragon, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym Proposal: I propose that CFJ 1 be overturned to Undecided. Rationale: I believe that Rules 105 and 106 overrule any attempt by Rule 110 to ban the adoption of proposals which change the methods of winning. They do not stop Rule 110 from preventing any new such rules from having an effect (as per Rule 109), but that is not the issue covered by the statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Change: Slakko: 40 => 30 -10: P335 rejected From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 11:58:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 1 10:58:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 Message-ID: Proposal 344 - Slakko Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " Rationale: It does not make sense to penalise someone for failure to agree to judge a CFJ when they've headed off to Coventry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko Is It a Vote, Or Not? Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." Rationale: mormegil has been "formally abstaining" on a number of proposals - as yet no-one has checked whether or not this counts as a vote for the purposes of determining quorum and the acceptance of a proposal (so far I have been ruling as if it is no different from a standard abstention). If it does count as a vote, then this amendment is necessary to ensure it is not equivalent to a vote AGAINST the proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 1 19:09:44 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Tue Aug 1 18:09:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 344-346 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 344 - Slakko > Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: > > " > When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal > probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be > Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker > of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed > to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further > random selection is made from the remaining pool. > " Yes > > Proposal 345 - Slakko > Is It a Vote, Or Not? > > Rule Change: > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number > of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with > "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal > votes cast for and against it." > Yes. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposal 346 - Slakko > Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First > > Rule Change: > Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. > > Rationale: > I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting > towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The > current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. > And, indeed, yes. -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 2 11:03:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Wed Aug 2 10:03:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 336-338 Message-ID: Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 0/7 - fails FOR: AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 The creation of the following rule *Then the demons are really angels, freeing you* " winning, where specified in this ruleset is to mean winning in terms of the game, and the ability to truthfully state `I won'. However, a player is free to adopt whatever personal motives they wish, whether they be to win at all costs, to be altruistic, or self-abdicating. Every player is free to set their own goals in life, and in Nomic, but, at least in Nomic, it is the right of other players to judge them on their performance according to the explicit and implicit game criteria. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard - Rejected Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/7 - fails FOR: mormegil AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule I've got your number "It is the role of the speaker to assign numbers to proposals, according to 107, and to inform players of those numbers, in order that there are no race conditions in the simultaneous assignment of the same number by network-distant individuals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 338 - Dan Sheppard - Accepted (Creates Rule 338) Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: Acronym, Dan, pm215 Proposal of new rule The Wake "If a player is taken from us by real life, we will hold a Wake, if the nature of a Wake has been specified in the rules, customs, or spirit of the game." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes: Dan: +5 => -5 -10: P336 rejected -10: P337 rejected +10: P338 accepted 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 35 => 40 +5: voted AGAINST P338 From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 2 23:31:08 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Wed Aug 2 22:31:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Acronym has been selected. He has 3 days to indicate whether or not he > accepts the selection. > > CFJ 4 - pm215 > Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:36:20 +0100 > > Statement: > > When a mutable rule is found to be in conflict with an immutable > rule, the mutable rule is "wholly void and without effect", > by rule 109. This means that the mutable rule is effectively > not part of the current ruleset; it will remain in this state > until the ruleset is amended to remove the conflict." > False. The mutable rule is void: therefore it cannot be any part of the ruleset, and is deemed to not exist. > Initiator's Reasoning: > > Rule 109 isn't very specific about exactly what the phrase > "wholly void and without effect" actually means. I can think > of several possibilities: > > (3) the rule is ignored forever; it is effectively thrown out > of the ruleset. This seems a bit drastic to me. Moreover, > there is no practical gain over (2) -- you'd just have to > create a new rule which didn't conflict and repeal the old one, > rather than being able to amend the old rule in a > straightforward manner. This is what I interpret it to mean. Void, to me, means invalid; invalid rules cannot exist, and therefore have to be chucked out the ruleset. If people don't like this, well, that's what rulechanges are for. Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 11:52:45 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 10:52:45 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) Message-ID: Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). What do other people think of this judgement? Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 11:56:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 10:56:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 339 Message-ID: Proposal 339 - mormegil - Accepted (Creates Rule 339) Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet Abstain: Acronym, mormegil, pm215, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal of a New Rule "Someone To Watch Over Me" "A Player may (for the purposes of chiark Nomic) have a Guardian Angel, Guardian Spirit, or Guardian Demon. These entities shall be collectively referred to as "Immortal Guardians". No Player may have more than one Immortal Guardian at once. A Player is not obliged to have an Immortal Guardian. Immortal Guardians shall have such powers, capabilities, and other characteristics as shall be determined by the rules. The manner of acquiring an Immortal Guardian shall be determined by the rules. Initially, a Player may acquire an Immortal Guardian simply by declaring themselves to have done so. They must specify which form of Immortal Guardian they have and what its name is. Each Immortal Guardian must have a name, which must consist of characters from the set of characters acceptable for use in Players' pseudonyms. An Immortal Guardian's name must not be the same as the name of any existing Immortal Guardian, and also must not be the same as the name or pseudonym of any Player. If a new Player enters the game whose name is the same as that of an existing Immortal Guardian, that Immortal Guardian must be immediately renamed in compliance with the rules. A Player may not adopt a pseudonym that is the same as the name of an existing Immortal Guardian." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: mormegil: 20 => 30 +10: P339 accepted Muppet: -15 => -10 +5: voted AGAINST P339 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 12:04:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 3 11:04:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Lack of Voting Message-ID: Well, the last proposal only just passed quorum - so if you haven't voted on the current crop, please do so soon. The next set of proposals come due tomorrow evening. This has been a promotional message on behalf of the Don't Fail Quorum Society. Yours, Slakko From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 3 22:44:56 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Thu Aug 3 21:44:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Well, this certainly opens up a can of worms. However, as the rules > are currently, this ruling, being false, does not have the official status > of explicit game custom. Does anyone want to submit a CFJ designed to > confirm this (because, as things stand, it is still unclear whether any of > the existing rules are actually not there due to such a conflict). > > What do other people think of this judgement? > FWIW, I interpreted it as follows: you have an immutable rule that explicitly outlaws a mutable rule. The immutable rule takes precedence; therefore, the mutable rule cannot be validly passed by the game rules. Does anyone want to enlighten me about the flaw in this logic? Acronym -- Andrew Walkingshaw | andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk (personal) adw27@cam.ac.uk | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andreww/ From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 4 20:23:00 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Fri Aug 4 19:23:00 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Notice of Coventrification Message-ID: <14731.2563.104293.978991@chiark.greenend.org.uk> As I am going to Nottingham for the next week or so and will be incommunicado, I am sending myself to Coventry until 1800 hours BST, Saturday 12th August 2000. Yrs, mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 00:08:11 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Aug 4 23:08:11 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 340 Message-ID: QUORUM FAILURE! Please remember: Vote Early, Vote Often! Proposal 340 - Slakko - rejected So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: mormegil, pm215 Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede, Muppet, Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Proposal: Enact a rule with the title "For the Sake of Simplicity I" with the following text: "If the rules require a player to perform an action In Public or Publicly, then they must either (a) email all Players to indicate that the action is being performed, or (b) email the official mailing list at nomic@chiark.greenend.org.uk to indicate that the action is being performed." Rationale: This gives us a nice reasonable definition which can be inserted in all other rules with just a one or two word phrase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Slakko loses 10 points, to 20. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:34:18 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:34:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 Message-ID: More Quorum Failure! Proposal 341 - Muppet Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Paragon As people may wish to change their pseudonyms at some point. So the following is suggested. We need to esnure that some restriction can be placed on ludicrous behaviour (changing every few minutes...) and to avoid confusion. To this end I suggest we enact the following as a rule: -- start -- "I was Al, but now I want to be Alice" If a Player grows tired of their pseudonym they may change it by emailing all the Players telling them unambiguously that they wish to change it and what they wish to change it to; sending this email is making The Notification Of Name Change. The pseudonym must be one that could legitimately be chosen by a new Player. The Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can force the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change to take a Pseudonym chosen by the Player with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" for one week. After that week the Player who made The Notification Of Name Change may change his pseudonym as decreed within the rules. {Game Custom may decree how often a player may change Pseudonym (once a month possibly) but the power is intended to be absolute -- if the Player with the title thinks changing Pseudonyms is evil he can stop it totally or conversely he can leave it unregulated. I'd also strongly suggest the Job of Policing Pseudonyms maintains a web page which tracks peoples changing Pseudonyms so as to allow people to work out who voted for what.} Unless otherwise decreed by any other rule the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. If no other Player holds the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Pseudonyms" then the Speaker is granted it. {It may be desired to change it to an elected position when we get those sorted out for example.} -- end -- Additional Note from Muppet: I'd also like to point out for those who may not yet know, that the mailing list archives are available at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/nomic/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 342 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon AGAINST: pm215, Slakko Repeal Rule 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - Paragon - rejected Votes: 4/10 - failed quorum FOR: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: pm215 Create a rule entitled "Rule Change Redefined", with the following text: A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, amendment or renumbering of a mutable rule, or (b) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. A proposal consists of exactly one proposed rule change. A proposal to renumber a Rule must meet the following conditions: (i) the new rule number must be a cardinal number; (ii) the new rule number must not already be assigned to a Rule; (iii) the new rule number must be less than or equal to the number of the last proposal whose voting period has elapsed; (iv) the new rule number must not be the same as the new rule number in any proposal to renumber which is still in its voting period. When a Rule is renumbered, a note of its previous number(s) should be kept with it. {e.g. if a Rule is renumbered from 213 to 99, it should be listed in the Ruleset as "Rule 99 (was 213)"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Points Changes: Paragon: 0 => -20 Muppet: -1 => -11 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:36:31 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:36:31 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Current Scores Message-ID: 00:00:a4:00:06:04 40 mormegil 30 Slakko 20 Ganymede 15 pm215 15 Acronym 0 Dan -1 Muppet -11 Paragon -20 Wild Card -50 Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:42:41 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:42:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Voting Effort Message-ID: I know that there are now 2 people in Coventry, but we can still pass quorum if at least 5 of the 8 remaining people turn out to vote. Could people please remember to vote on the outstanding proposals. (If this is due to me not putting details up on the web pages, let me know ASAP - I do mean to be punctual but sometimes can't keep up). Also, more proposal ideas are welcome - we seem to be running a bit low at the moment. To those who suffered from quorum failure - feel free to submit the proposals again - in some cases it looked like it was only electoral apathy, rather than public opinion, which was preventing their adoption. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 15:44:25 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Aug 5 14:44:25 2000 Subject: [Nomic]P340 Message-ID: I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think (a) the codification was unnecessary, (b) it shouldn't include the option of mailing people off the mailing list, (c) it shouldn't include the specific address of the mailing list, (d) they just didn't like it, or (e) something else? I'd be interested to see if there's a compromise proposal which can gain popular support. Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Aug 5 21:39:02 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sat Aug 5 20:39:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic]P340 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 05 Aug 2000 14:44:24 BST." Message-ID: Duncan Richer wrote: >I notice a couple of people didn't approve of my attempt to define >what it means within the game to act "Publically". Did people think >or (e) something else? I'm afraid that to some extent I was voting tactically because (1) it was an uncontentious proposal and I expected it to pass fairly easily and (2) you have a higher score than I do :-> -- pm215 From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 18:12:37 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Sun Aug 6 17:12:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many points. I'll think about it next week... I'll be back at work and so on #nomic on chiark next week. -- Mike Pitt "He was killed by a small cushion, not unlike this one." From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 18:49:34 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Aug 6 17:49:34 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 341-343 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Hmmm had I voted my proposal 341 would have been passed. (4-1 out of 8) > > However I guess that as the motions to create posts are very nearly ready > I ought to wait for those before resubmitting. > > I was on holiday and forgot to check which proposals were coming up to > expiry whilst dialed up. It won't happen again. :-( > > As for 340 I was concerned by the number of proposals coming from the > speaker and wanted to see if there was a way round him getting so many > points. I'll think about it next week... It seems to have worked - both Ben and Pete Maydell are ahead of me now. :-) I'm trying to keep my proposal rate down - I don't want to be a single person deciding the direction the game is heading in (given I've played in other Nomics before, it would disadvantage others if I moved this one in the same direction, consciously or not). Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Aug 6 23:49:10 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Aug 6 22:49:10 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 347 Message-ID: Proposal 347 - pm215 I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== Rationale: This is the draft proposal which I previously submitted to the mailing list for comments. Nobody seemed to have any particular problems with this. In any case, we can always fix minor flaws by subsequent amendments. The stuff about elections still needs some more work; I intend to submit a proposal about that at a later date. in the absence of any rule allowing joint credit for proposals, I hereby announce that if this proposal is adopted I will gift two points to Muppet, and one point to Slakko, in recognition of their assistance. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 7 12:02:27 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Aug 7 11:02:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals Message-ID: Some possible proposals We now have several rules that require names, to this end a common definition might be useful. This needs quite a lot of work. Secondly is a better formed but slightly more contentious motion (I would guess) about Technical Motions. The idea being to add a way for the Speaker to get normal stuff thru' without derailing the ease he can get technical stuff done. I'd like comments on this. Thirdly I've returned to the idea of factions. Draft Proposal 1: Name Space A rule may require a name for a game entity {A game entity is something referred to in the rules or game custom. It includes such things as Guardian angels, chocolate frogs and so on. I am intentionally leaving this somewhat vague}. A name consists of a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version. Names may be used subject to the restraints (i) Names are not case sensitive. {this removes one possible layer of confusion. I'm sure we don't need to rigorously define this. ;-( } (ii) A name may not be a reserved words. Reserved words are defined by the rules. Speaker, Player {Insert list of rerserved words here. I'd guess Rule, Psuedonym, Ruleset, Title, Post. Any others?} are reserved words. (iii) A name should be unique within the system. There should be no other Pseudonym, Title, Post, or name made of the same sequence {subject to condition (i)}. Draft Proposal 2: Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. {The alternative is to say that the Proposer can declare a motion to be a Technical Motion.} ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may ask for a CFJ {of the form "Proposal xxx is not a Technical motion"}. If the CFJ unambiguously supports this claim then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. If that is accepted I will propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. Draft Proposal 3: Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. -- Mike Pitt "What did I do this time?" Really means... "What did you catch me at?" From M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk Tue Aug 8 11:36:15 2000 From: M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle) Date: Tue Aug 8 10:36:15 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: from Mike Pitt at "Aug 7, 2000 11:02:22 am" Message-ID: Mike Pitt wrote: > Factions are subject to the following rules: > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > faction and it's initial membership. I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Has nobody taken advantage of rule 339 yet? I declare myself to have an Immortal Guardian, being a Guardian Spirit by the name of `Jupiter'. G. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 8 12:49:26 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Aug 8 11:49:26 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Martin Hardcastle wrote: > Mike Pitt wrote: > > Factions are subject to the following rules: > > i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the > > faction and it's initial membership. > I note that this allows me to publicly and validly state that I've > formed a faction consisting of every player without asking them > whether they want to join it. Is this what you want? Right now, there > isn't any advantage in doing so, but there might be later... Good point. What I wanted to avoid was requiring everyone to say publically they are in. How about: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. -- Mike Pitt 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist' Dom Helder Camara, Bishop of Recife, Brazil From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 8 16:46:52 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 8 15:46:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 344-346 Message-ID: Proposal 344 - Slakko - Accepted Oi, What Do You Think You're Doing Running Away? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 206 to read as delimited by quotes below: " When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker selects at random with equal probability one of the Voters not currently in Coventry to be Judge. The Player selected has 3 days in which to notify the Speaker of their acceptance or refusal, or else lose 10 points and be deemed to have refused appointment. If a Judge refuses appointment, a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 345 - Slakko - Accepted Is It a Vote, Or Not? Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Paragon, pm215, Slakko AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Amend Rule 201 by replacing the sentence "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast on it." with "The required number of votes for a proposal is two-thirds of the legal votes cast for and against it." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 346 - Slakko - Accepted Make mormegil's Methods More Meaningful - Part the First Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 7/7 - passed FOR: Acronym, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko Abstain: Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Rule Change: Transmute Rule 108 to Mutable. Rationale: I wish to introduce the concept of voting NEUTRAL on a proposal - counting towards quorum, but not affecting the ratio needed for acceptance. The current rule explaining the nature of voting is 108, Immutable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes in Scores: Slakko: 20 => 50 Ganymede: 15 => 20 Muppet: -11 => -6 From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Aug 9 14:28:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Wed Aug 9 13:28:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Ideas for proposals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No other comments? Does anyone support/oppose the ideas in them? Any feedback at all? -- Mike Pitt "He's a disgrace to the dental profession." Seymour, LSH From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Aug 14 20:06:32 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Mon Aug 14 19:06:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Angels. Message-ID: <14744.13606.364661.840246@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I declare myself to have a Guardian Angel named Mirizel. mormegil -- \_V_/ | Martin Read, 16 Willow Crescent, Durrington, Worthing BN13 2SU \ / | swing low in a dark glass hour you turn and cower see it turn to V | dust move on a stone dark night we take to flight snowfall turns ------' to rust -- Stiltskin, "Inside" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 15 12:13:35 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:13:35 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 347 Message-ID: Proposal 347 - pm215 - Rejected (failed quorum) Votes: 2/10 - failed quorum FOR: Slakko, Muppet (Ganymede attempted to vote after the deadline) Abstain: All Others (8 players) I propose that the following rule be created: ===begin=== Posts, or, Is Anybody Actually Running This Bloody Zoo? A Post is defined to be a Unique Title with the following additional qualities: (a) If the Unique Title belongs to a player they are said to be the holder of the Post; if it belongs to no player then the post is said to be empty and no player holds the Post. (b) Any specific Post will generally be defined to have certain Rights and Responsibilities; the holder of the Post is required to fulfil the responsibilities and permitted to exercise the rights of the Post. (c) If the holder of a Post changes or if the Post becomes empty then the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty. (d) If the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office then they lose the Unique Title associated with the Post. A holder of a Post may be Hounded Out Of Office only as explicitly permitted by the rules. {This just defines a convenient phrase for use in other Rules.} Potential Attributes of Posts: For convenience in drafting rules defining Posts, the following standard attributes are defined: {The intention is that Posts should be defined by rules such as: "The Post of Wombat Herder is a Resignable Elected Post with the following Rights and Responsibilities: [...]"} If a Post is Resignable then the holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign the Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. If a Post is Critical then during any period when the Post is empty its Rights and Responsibilities are assumed by the Speaker; however this does not mean that the Speaker is the holder of the Post. If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of is [not fulfilling his responsibilities / exceeding his rights]". If the statement is judged to be True then the holder of the Post is Hounded Out Of Office and fined 10 points. If the statement is judged to be False then the Player who requested the CFJ is fined 5 points for wasting the court's time. ===endit=== From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Aug 15 12:15:37 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:15:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 Message-ID: Proposal 348 - Muppet Preamble: To allow easy changes to facilitate the smooth running of the game, and to allow thos worried about the Speaker being able to bulldoze motions through. ;-) If this is accepted I suugest that someone (me?) propose amending rule 202 to give lower bonuses and penalties to Technical Motions. It might also be desired to change the voting period for such motions or reduce the required quorum. If adopted Slakko should be granted 2 points as co-author if allowed. Slakko suggested removing the need for an RFC so that people know what they are voting for. Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Preamble: I like politics, and this is a political game. Alliances make such things fun, and we may wish to formalise these. Of course it mustn't be compulsary, and we should set the ground rules first. These are suggestions for such rules. If adopted and the rules allow it Gannymede should be granted 2 of the pounts as co-author. Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Tue Aug 15 12:18:01 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Tue Aug 15 11:18:01 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Going north Message-ID: Owing to an excess of Real Life, I shall be in Coventry until 2000-09-21. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. E-mail: bjh21@cam.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1223 334728 Fax: +44 (0)1223 334679 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 17 17:23:32 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 17 16:23:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? Message-ID: I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. So, any ideas? Yours, Slakko -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ "South Australians are very proud that theirs is the only Australian state that never received convicts. What they don't often mention is that it was planned by one." -- Bill Bryson From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 17 17:24:52 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Thu Aug 17 16:24:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > I don't really want to use my position as Speaker to end up dictating the > way play is going in this game. I've got a couple of proposals I can > write up and submitin the next day or so, but I'd rather not do this if > anyone else is going to be contributing shortly. > I'm not going to be able to write up any ideas closely. -- Jonathan Amery. Now there's a light at the end of the tunnel, ##### Someone's lit a campfire in my cave. #######__o The first rays of dawn are breaking through the clouds, #######'/ And somehow I know I can be brave. - Steve Kitson From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 10:30:16 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Aug 18 09:30:16 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Any Ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Will the posts proposal be resubmitted any time soon? -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 13:05:19 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Aug 18 12:05:19 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 350 Message-ID: Proposal 350 - Dan *Tum Tee Tum* Should no proposals be created within two weeks, the Speaker must nominate a player to tell an anecdote, joke, narg, thought for the day, nomic proposal, or similar to be posted to the list, along with a plea for people to create proposals, vote, and be otherwise active in the game. For each proposal created within the following week which is adopted, the poster of the encouraging piece will be awarded one point. The speaker should nominate individuals in an equitable way. This may be defined more precisely should need arise. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Aug 18 13:20:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Aug 18 12:20:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 348-349 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 348 - Muppet -- Technical Motions > Proposal 349 - Muppet -- Factions If you've voted already there is nothing of interest in this post... This is a reminder to people to vote on these exciting proposals. I don't mind being defeated (oh alright I do) but I'd rather it happened 'cos people voted against rather than because people forget. End of prepaid announcement for the "Please Remember to Vote" organisation. I think 348 could prove very useful should it be adopted as it will allow uncontentious administrivia items to be passed without making it too easy for the Speaker to rack up points. (This will require the passing of a follow up proposal as well, but I'm happy to let someone else do this.) Proposal 349 adds some sort of formal allainces, which seems an obvious step for a political game. This has been a prepaid message from the "Vote YES to 348 and 349" organisation. :-) -- Mike Pitt "But light is made up of many atoms!" From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 24 14:57:48 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Aug 24 13:57:48 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 348-349 Message-ID: Sorry for the delay here. Proposal 348 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 348) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Acronym, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede Proposal: Adopt the folowing as a rule -- Begin -- Technical Motion i) The speaker may at the proposer's request declare a Proposal to be a Technical Motion. ii) A Technical Motion is a Proposal concerned with the smooth running and administration of the the game. iii) If a Proposal is declared a Technical Motion and someone disputes that the Proposal satisfies the requirements of the definition they may object by emailing the speaker. If more than 1/5 of the Players, rounded up, object to the status before the close of the voting period then the status of Techincal Motion is stripped from the Proposal. -- End -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 349 - Muppet Accepted (Creates Rule 349) Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Acronym Proposal: Adopt the following as a rule. -- begin -- Factions A group of {one or more} Players may form a Faction. A Faction shall be identified by a unique name {subject to namespace or rule similar to that for pseudonyms}. Factions are subject to the following rules: i) A Faction is formed by one member publically stating the forming of the faction and it's initial membership. There is then a 3 day period for those Players listed as members to inform the Speaker of any inaccuracy, in which case the Faction is not formed and the Speaker should publically announce this fact. ii) Players may leave or join a Faction by publically stating that they are so doing, and meeting whatever requirements the Faction has for membership. iii) Factions may have officers. Officers have descriptions that shall be used to form a Title as descibed by Game Custome. { " of the ".} iv) All factions shall have the office of Leader who shall hold the Unique Title constructed by prepending "Leader of the " to the faction name. A faction shall decide how to choose it's leader. If a faction goes for a week without a Leader the faction is considered dissolved and no longer exists. During such time the Faction may exercise no rights or privileges due from being a Faction. iv) Factions are free to define their internal rules and methods for appointing officers and Leader. These should be available to all Players. v) If the rules allow Faction victories the Leader of the faction shall become the Speaker in the next game as per rule 110. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Muppet gains 20 points, Acronym and Ganymede gain 5 each. Scores will be updated soonish. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 24 17:11:37 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Thu Aug 24 16:11:37 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Suggestsion for change to points... Message-ID: This is not yet a proposal. Seeing 348 was adopted I think it'd probably be best to amend rule 202. It current;ly reads: < When a proposal becomes adopted, those players who voted against it < receive 5 points each, and its author also receives 10 points. When a < proposalbecomes defeated, its author loses 10 points. What do people feel would be right for technical motions: I'd say either +5/-5 or 0/0 or 0/-5, with no points for opposing it if adopted? Does anyone want to make a proposal? Suggested new wording < When a proposal becomes adopted, points are awarded < as described below to the player < who proposed it and those who voted against it. < When a < proposal becomes defeated, its author loses points as described below. < 1, If the motion is a technical motion the author gains n points if it < is adopted and loses n points if it is rejected. Players who opposie < it if it is adopted gain m points. < 2, For any other motion... Comments, suggestions, improvements? -- Mike Pitt CAT n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle. Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary