From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:17:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:17:16 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]We can start the game anytime now. OK, this should be getting out to the 10 people who indicated they wanted to play. Before we actually start, there is one question I would like to discuss. The initial rules of most Nomics indicate that they are open to anyone who wishes to play. I would suggest that, at the start, we restrict play in this game to people who hold chiark accounts. Of course the nature of Nomic makes it relatively easy to swap between these two positions, but it would be nice if we started in the one which had greater agreement. If anyone has any particularly strong opinions one way or the other, share them with the list. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:49:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:49:25 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Initial Ruleset I was planning to start the game (with the exception of the clause I talked about in my previous message) with the Initial Ruleset as given on my page at http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/newstart.html and with myself as Speaker. Is this alright with people? If so, we may as well start the game as soon as possible - say an official start time of 6am BST tomorrow morning (so that everyone's asleep and I don't have to deal with a to-the-second deluge of initial proposals)? We can worry about setting up webpages to hold the ruleset and such in the next few days - there's no way that it can change much within the first week or so anyway. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery Why shouldn't the speaker vote? Transmute Rule 102 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery Immutability considered harmful Transmute Rule 104 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery More flexibility in proposal success Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery Quick Start Enact the following as a rule: " Quick Start The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the legal votes cast on it. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery Default Assumption Enact the following as a rule: " Wording Rules Easier Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which the rule was enacted. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery Lets have some property to play with Enact the following as a rule: " Property Claims Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic miles of land. The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery And you can call me Al Enact the following as a rule: " And you can call me Al Every Player, within a week of joining the game, may choose for themselves a pseudonym, which must be representable in 7 bit ASCII, unique, and not the same as the name of any Player other than themselves. If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the Speaker must choose one for them. If a Player has a pseudonym then that is the only unambiguous way of refering to that Player. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery Make it easy for the Speaker Enact the following as a rule: " Make it easy for the Speaker A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK NOMIC]'. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery What week is it? Enact the following as a rule: " What week is it? For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery Encourage Voting Enact the following as a rule: " Encourage Voting At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 points. " From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:29:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:29:50 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery > Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > > Transmute Rule 102 I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > Quick Start > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Quick Start > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > legal votes cast on it. > " I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting around the two-thirds requirement? > " > Wording Rules Easier > > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > the rule was enacted. > " Nice concept - I'm surprised I haven't seen it around before. > Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery > And you can call me Al Welcome to the land of silly names. > A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker > if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK > NOMIC]'. " No - I don't like this at all. The mailing list is already set up to prepend [Nomic] to the subject line of all messages - I'm quite happy to have people just reply to those messages, redirecting the reply to me. 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 Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:43:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:43:40 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery > > Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > > > > Transmute Rule 102 > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > Quick Start > > > > Enact the following as a rule: > > > > " > > Quick Start > > > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > > legal votes cast on it. > > " > I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why > couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting > around the two-thirds requirement? Good point - it's badly worded. OK - lets set some precident here... I hereby change my vote on this proposal to "against". -- 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 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:51:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:51:58 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? What conflicts? > > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > > Quick Start > > > > > I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why > > couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting > > around the two-thirds requirement? > > Good point - it's badly worded. > > OK - lets set some precident here... > > I hereby change my vote on this proposal to "against". Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. -- 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 Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:55:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:55:11 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? > > What conflicts? That's rule 204. > Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify > a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - > so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. > No - the rules specify how to vote, and that I'm only allowed one vote - they don't specify what happens if the Speaker recieves two votes from one player on an issue. -- 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 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:04:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:04:29 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > > > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > > > > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? Oops. Sorry, rule 201. > > Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify > > a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - > > so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. > > > No - the rules specify how to vote, and that I'm only allowed one vote - > they don't specify what happens if the Speaker recieves two votes from one > player on an issue. But you've voted. You've only got one vote, so anything else which looks like a vote can't actually be one. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:53:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:53:28 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Create a new Rule, labelled "Titles", with the following text: "Players may own Titles. They may only acquire and lose Titles as described by the Rules. Unique Titles are a special type of Title. If any Player acquires a Unique Title, all other Players who own that Title lose it. When a Player has a proposal accepted, and have not previously had a proposal accepted, they acquire the Title of Non-Newbie." -- 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 Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:37:20 +0100 Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:37:20 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery >Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > >Transmute Rule 102 >Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery >Immutability considered harmful > >Transmute Rule 104 I'm against both these proposals because I think they are too sweeping. We should defer such significant changes to the rule set until we've worked with the current rules for a while and have a better idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Evolution, not revolution. >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery >More flexibility in proposal success > >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified >elsewhere in the rules the'. This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, the second one, or both? >Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery >Quick Start >The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the >legal votes cast on it. I think this also falls in the "too drastic" category. >Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery >Lets have some property to play with >Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic >miles of land. > >The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. Given that you haven't defined "land", this proposal could be construed as bringing the rule set into conflict with English law. Should we assume that we're playing the game in a parallel universe, or should we explicitly talk about "land on chiark"? >Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery [...] >If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the >Speaker must choose one for them. This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to proposals currently under discussion? >Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery >What week is it? >For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am >BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " Do you really want to use BST rather than GMT0BST or similar? Peter Maydell From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:08:51 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:08:51 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery > [...] > >If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the > >Speaker must choose one for them. > > This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in > proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote > for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want > to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to > proposals currently under discussion? One way I have seen to deal with this in other Nomic games (I don't know if we'll want to go the same way, but it's an option) is a rule which states that any unambiguous misspelling is taken to mean the same as the word it was an unambiguous misspelling of. Another way (interestingly from the same game) is to have some non-proposal based method for fixing obvious misspellings and other grammatical kludges in the rules. Other ideas along these lines would be welcome. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:38:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:38:02 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > >More flexibility in proposal success > > > >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > >elsewhere in the rules the'. > > This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word > 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, > the second one, or both? > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. -- 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 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:58:37 +0100 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:58:37 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 "Jonathan D. Amery" wrote: >On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >> >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery >> >More flexibility in proposal success >> > >> >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified >> >elsewhere in the rules the'. >> >> This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word >> 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, >> the second one, or both? >> > > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. "Quorum is half of all active... The required number of votes... Each playr has exactly one... The prescribed voting period..." The second and fourth sentences start with 'The'. HTH! Peter Maydell From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:48:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:48:21 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > "Jonathan D. Amery" wrote: > > > > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. > > "Quorum is half of all active... > The required number of votes... > Each playr has exactly one... > The prescribed voting period..." > > The second and fourth sentences start with 'The'. > Oops. Oh, well - it works in both situations really. I think that the 'correct' interpretation is probably that both 'The's are replaced. Jonathan. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule "As ane fule kno" If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement (CFJ). From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:37:52 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:37:52 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > More flexibility in proposal success > > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > elsewhere in the rules the'. Having seen the discussion I think this should be voted down and a less ambiguous wording proposed. > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > Quick Start > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > legal votes cast on it. Why is it called Quick Start? Other people seem to think this is a bad thing. What sort of effect could it have? > Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > the rule was enacted. I think an unless otherwise stated is needed here, for example we may want to decide later in the game to award more than 125 square miles of land to newcomers to balance them out for starting late. Of course we could change this rule then, but I think rejecting it and including that change now would be a better course. > Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic > miles of land. > The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. This does give us something to play with, but do we really want to play Monopoly? > Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery > At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every > proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 > points. We should reduce the offered points. Encouragement may be good but 10 points is quite high (the reward for a succesful proposal). I'd say 5 is more reasonable. Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all proposals? For this reason I am against this as phrased, tho' I could be persuaded. End of discussion. I notice from the archives of Acka Nomic: > Congressional Voting Record > Mitchell Harding > Decision: Accepted > Each week the Speaker must send a message to all players which > contains the names and numbers of all proposals voted on in the past > week, and how each player and the speaker voted (yes, no, or abstain) on > each said proposal. This seems like a good idea. Would people support it's proposal? The Speaker is currently at liberty to so do if he desires. Could he do so until a motion like the above is explicitly enacted one way or the other? On an administrative point, how goes the web page? -- Mike Pitt I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:54:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:54:27 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. -- Mike Pitt I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:22:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:22:17 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were > I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all > proposals? As the rules stand, the first is not a legitimate type of vote, and therefore could not be counted as such. The second is an interesting question - whether an email in advance counts as sufficient, and could well be reason for a CFJ. > I notice from the archives of Acka Nomic: > > Congressional Voting Record > > Mitchell Harding > > Decision: Accepted > > Each week the Speaker must send a message to all players which > > contains the names and numbers of all proposals voted on in the past > > week, and how each player and the speaker voted (yes, no, or abstain) on > > each said proposal. > > This seems like a good idea. Would people support it's proposal? > > The Speaker is currently at liberty to so do if he desires. Could he do > so until a motion like the above is explicitly enacted one way or the > other? At the moment, I will post the results of each proposal, including who voted which way, as soon as is practicable after it is accepted or rejected. A weekly summary might be a good idea - depends on exactly how people want their information. > On an administrative point, how goes the web page? Visit http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~dricher/Nomic/CN/ to see what I've done so far. Don't just click on the link from the list of user's pages - that currently points elsewhere (I'll email Ian to get him to change it sometime soonish). Alternatively, you should be able to see it at ~dricher/public-html/Nomic/CN/index.html If and when a nomic group is established on chiark, I will endeavour to move the webpages there. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:56:46 +0100 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:56:46 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt >Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid >chiark email account >Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt >Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid >chiark email account What do you consider the worth of these proposals to be? (As an aside, I think that it would be useful if each Proposal were accompanied by a Rationale, where the proposer advanced arguments in favour of it. I don't think we need a new rule to allow this (it is not expressly prohibited or regulated).) >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. >Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt >Enact the following as a rule >If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed >by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the >proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no >ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a >player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement >(CFJ). Unfortunately this is flawed, as you don't say what the result of asking for a CFJ would be. Presumably you want a successful appeal to the CFJ to result in the wording change being undone or the proposal declared invalid, or something, but you have to *say* this! Also, your proposal contains a grammatical mistake :-> In the phrase "the speaker may correct them", "them" can only logically refer to "the players", since both "a rule" and "a [...] mistake" are singular. Furthermore, strictly speaking changing "them" to "the error" would be resolving an ambiguity and changing the meaning... (Oh, and it should be "proposal's proposer".) Peter Maydell (aiming for Lord High Pedant status...) From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:23:37 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:23:37 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > > More flexibility in proposal success > > > > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > > elsewhere in the rules the'. > > Having seen the discussion I think this should be voted down and a less > ambiguous wording proposed. Nah... :) > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > Quick Start > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > > legal votes cast on it. > > Why is it called Quick Start? So that rules get enacted quicker. I was intending to put a time-lapse clause in, but forgot... (oops) > Other people seem to think this is a bad thing. What sort of effect could > it have? > > > Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery > > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > > the rule was enacted. > > I think an unless otherwise stated is needed here, for example we may want > to decide later in the game to award more than 125 square miles of land to > newcomers to balance them out for starting late. Rules can always explicitly override it (Rule 204). > Of course we could change this rule then, but I think rejecting it and > including that change now would be a better course. And slow. > > Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic > > miles of land. > > The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. > > This does give us something to play with, but do we really want to play > Monopoly? Who says we're talking monopoly? > > Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery > > At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every > > proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 > > points. > We should reduce the offered points. Encouragement may be good but 10 > points is quite high (the reward for a succesful proposal). I'd say 5 is > more reasonable. I guess it depends how many points are floating around, really. > Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were > I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all > proposals? I think that that's agains the rules. -- 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 jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:24:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:24:43 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System > > Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. > Mr Speaker, do you accept this vote? It hasn't actually been emailed to *you*, but... -- 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 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:21:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:21:45 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > > > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System > > > > Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. > > > Mr Speaker, do you accept this vote? > > It hasn't actually been emailed to *you*, but... It has - the fact that this got to me via the list is not something which the ruleset differentiates at the moment. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery Some degree of reversability Enact the following as a rule: " Some degree of reversability A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still available for voting perform the action of repudiating it. A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they would usually loose in such an occurance. This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a proposal is defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 317 - Jonathan Amery Speak up will you? Enact the following as a rule: " Speak up will you? Rules may call for hearings to be held. If a hearing is called then one Player (by default the Speaker) is in charge of the hearing (and is called by default the Herald of the hearing). The hearing lasts four days. During this time all Players who don't have the Title "Disenfranchised" are entitled to mail the Herald once and once only with either an unambiguous indication that they are in favour of the hearing called, or an unambiguous indication that they are against it. The Herald is required at the end of the four days, to report whether those in favour or those against have the majority of the indications. If the majority are in favour then the hearing is said to have been Upheld, otherwise it is said to have been Defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery Something missing in the rules? Enact the following as a rule: " Making 105 useful For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery Consider Phlebas Enact as a rule: " Consider Phlebas The game of Damage is illegal within the precincts of Chiark. (Note, this does not make it against the rules) " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery Textual Convention Enact as a rule the following: " A textual convention to make life easier Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained along with the rules. It may be considered part of game custom. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery We'd like *some* leeway Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 322 - Jonathan Amery Undecided? Poppycock! Enact the following as a rule: " Undecided? Poppycock! While a Judgement is 'undecided' and no Judge is assigned to that Judgement any Player who has not been a Judge on that Judgement, and who is neither the Player who incurred the CFJ nor any Player mentioned by name or psuedonym in the text of the CFJ, may assume the position of Judge for that CFJ by emailing the Players with a message of the form: 'CFJ### undecided? Poppycock! I'll decide it myself!' where '###' is replaced by the appropriate number. They then have three days to make Judgement on that CFJ. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery Reduce the lockdown further Enact as a rule: " Reduce the lockdown! There can never be more rules that are less mutable than Mutable rules than there are Mutable rules. Immutable rules are less mutable than Mutable rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery A wider definition of 'person' Enact as a rule: " A wider definition of 'person' A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the 'animate' attribute. The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as described by the rules. " From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:37:14 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:37:14 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 Proposal 325 - Duncan Richer Soft Upper Limit Create a new Rule, entitled "Slow Down and save the Speaker" with the following sentence as its text: It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have ten or more proposals under voting consideration. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:52:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:52:41 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > What do you consider the worth of these proposals to be? > (As an aside, I think that it would be useful if each Proposal > were accompanied by a Rationale, where the proposer advanced > arguments in favour of it. I don't think we need a new rule > to allow this (it is not expressly prohibited or regulated).) The point is that at the moment there is nothing in the rules to say how votes may be cast, they could be sent by carrier pigeon or verbally transferred. The restriction to email from a valid chiark account is a method to ensure that email is sent to the speaker, making it easier for him (he would no longer have to remember that he was told on Tuesday by Fred that Fred voted for 356 and against 378). It is an attempt to make the speakers life easier. The restriction to a chiark acocunt is because we all have one and it prevents someone sending votes from multiple acocunts making accounting of the votes slightly harder. (As a dip GM I disliked the players who sent orders from multiple accounts as it made it hard to see NMRs /easily/, but I accept the situation here is different). The restriction "to" a valid chiark email account is to ensure the speaker remains part of the chiark community, with access to the required resources. > >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt > >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint > >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. > "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible > to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. The point being they were undefined and to see how it developed. As rule 110 vetoes any mutable rule win methods at the moment this is not unsafe. It will give us something else to play with. We don't define Land or what a Title may be either (tho' an example is given). The next round of proposals will certainly fix this. > >Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt > >Enact the following as a rule > >If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed > >by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the > >proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no > >ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a > >player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement > >(CFJ). > Unfortunately this is flawed, as you don't say what the result > of asking for a CFJ would be. Presumably you want a successful > appeal to the CFJ to result in the wording change being undone > or the proposal declared invalid, or something, but you have to > *say* this! Surely that would require a CFJ on the effect of the CFJ. If the change is ruled to break this rule it is clearly overruled by the rules and the change is overturned. :-| > Also, your proposal contains a grammatical mistake :-> > In the phrase "the speaker may correct them", "them" can only logically > refer to "the players", since both "a rule" and "a [...] mistake" are > singular. Furthermore, strictly speaking changing "them" to "the error" > would be resolving an ambiguity and changing the meaning... Oh well. Well we should vote it in so we have some idea of the expected custom and then correct the mistakes. (No I'm not convinced either) > (Oh, and it should be "proposal's proposer".) I blame my keyboard. No really... -- Mike Pitt Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:05:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:05:03 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have > ten or more proposals under voting consideration. ... but it is not against the rules? People /can/ do whatever is not proper? The rules don't mention "proper". Or is this your intention? In which case surely just adopting it as game custom suffices? btw before I get corrected I just reread rule 108 and know you have to email the speaker -- the points about a single address are still valid IMO tho. Mike -- Mike Pitt Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:06:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:06:23 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have > > ten or more proposals under voting consideration. > > ... but it is not against the rules? People /can/ do whatever is not > proper? The rules don't mention "proper". Or is this your intention? In > which case surely just adopting it as game custom suffices? Actually, the rules talk about "all proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on", and "The proper way to submit a proposal is...". I thought, therefore, that if some condition meant that submitting proposals was not proper, then I didn't have to do anything about said submissions. -- 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 Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:50:08 +0100 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:50:08 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery >Enact the following as a rule: >Making 105 useful > >For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable >by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation >changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. Are you aware that if adopted as a rule this would be (at least initially) useless? It would conflict with the immutable rule 105 and/or with rule 108 (which defines what voting is) and therefore by rule 109 would be "wholly void and without effect". [This is entirely sensible, since it would otherwise be possible to make amendments to immutable rules via the "back door"...] Peter Maydell From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:15:21 +0100 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:15:21 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 Mike Pitt wrote: [proposals 312 and 313] >The point is that at the moment there is nothing in the rules to say how >votes may be cast, they could be sent by carrier pigeon or verbally >transferred. The restriction to email from a valid chiark account is a >method to ensure that email is sent to the speaker, making it easier for >him (he would no longer have to remember that he was told on Tuesday by >Fred that Fred voted for 356 and against 378). It is an attempt to make >the speakers life easier. personally I'm dubious about this sort of thing being proposed by anybody other than the Speaker. Surely it's up to the Speaker to decide what would make his life easier; proposed by anybody else it's just an unnecessary restriction... >The restriction "to" a valid chiark email account is to ensure the speaker >remains part of the chiark community, with access to the required >resources. This is a rather better justification, although I don't think this is liable to be a problem in practice :-> >> >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt >> >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint >> >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. >> "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible >> to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. > >The point being they were undefined and to see how it developed. As rule >110 vetoes any mutable rule win methods at the moment this is not >unsafe. True; I hadn't noticed rule 110. However, arguably rule 110 actually forbids the passing of rules defining other winning methods, rather than merely rendering such rules ineffectual. I think I'll request a Call For Judgement, just to see how that works :-> Peter Maydell From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:07:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:07:05 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Leaving of a Player David McKnight told me last night that he doesn't have the time to continue. I am therefore going to remove him from the mailing lists and drop him from the list of Players. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:14:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:14:35 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell Proposal: Amend rule 202 as follows: the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". Rationale: The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:21:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:21:26 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: BEGIN Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal which would change the rules so as to define a different method of winning the game. ENDIT From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:58:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:58:31 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at the moment. (That was my precedent anyway.) -- Mike Pitt It's easy to solve the halting problem with a shotgun. Larry Wall From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:47:35 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:47:35 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) Mike Pitt wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: >> BEGIN >> Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game >> may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." >> This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal >> which would change the rules so as to define a different method >> of winning the game. >> ENDIT > >I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of >winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at >the moment. Rule 110 does not say "the way to win the game may not be any other method", it says "the way to win the game may not be *changed* to any other method". So rule 212 isn't affected because it is already in the ruleset. Alternatively, the existence of rule 212 means that the way to win is already something other than simply "achieving n points", and therefore the first sentence of rule 110 has no effect (and will not have any effect until or unless all other means of winning are removed from the ruleset). On the gripping hand, you might consider that since all the rules defining the validity of a proposal have lower numbers than 110, the statement in rule 110 is ineffectual (by rule 204) and making and voting in such a proposal is valid. Option 4 starts off like the third analysis, but observes that rule 204 is therefore conflicting with rule 110 (because it is trying to render it ineffectual) and that therefore you should ignore rule 204 because it is mutable (by rule 109). [Note that this is effectively saying that rule 204 has no power to resolve conflicts between immutable rules because it is not itself immutable. Furthermore, a strict reading of rule 109 "the mutable rule is wholly void and without effect" would effectively remove 204 from the ruleset as soon as you tried to apply it to an immutable-rule conflict -- rule 109 does not restrict itself in time or circumstances.] You decide... Peter Maydell From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:50:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:50:12 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > BEGIN > > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > > of winning the game. > > ENDIT > > I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of > winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at > the moment. > I believe 212 establishes a way to win if play cannot proceed. -- 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 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:38:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:38:31 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Reminder The first set of proposals have results due at around 8 tomorrow morning - so those who wish to vote should probably do so ASAP. Yours, Duncan your friendly neighbourhood Speaker -- 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 Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:37:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:37:26 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 301-310 Summary: 301 - Rejected 302 - Rejected 303 - Rejected 304 - Rejected 305 - Accepted 306 - Rejected 307 - Accepted 308 - Rejected 309 - Accepted 310 - Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Why shouldn't the speaker vote? Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/5 - fails FOR: Amery AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Transmute Rule 102 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Immutability considered harmful Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/5 - fails FOR: Amery AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Transmute Rule 104 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected More flexibility in proposal success Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Quick Start Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Richer AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Quick Start The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the legal votes cast on it. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery - accepted Default Assumption Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Wording Rules Easier Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which the rule was enacted. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Lets have some property to play with Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Property Claims Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic miles of land. The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery - accepted And you can call me Al Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Maydell Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " And you can call me Al Every Player, within a week of joining the game, may choose for themselves a pseudonym, which must be representable in 7 bit ASCII, unique, and not the same as the name of any Player other than themselves. If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the Speaker must choose one for them. If a Player has a pseudonym then that is the only unambiguous way of refering to that Player. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Make it easy for the Speaker Enact the following as a rule: " Make it easy for the Speaker A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK NOMIC]'. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery - accepted What week is it? Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Maydell Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " What week is it? For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Encourage Voting Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Richer AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Encourage Voting At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 points. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes Jonathan Amery: 0 => -40 -10: P301 rejected -10: P302 rejected -10: P303 rejected -10: P304 rejected +10: P305 accepted -10: P306 rejected +10: P307 accepted -10: P308 rejected +10: P309 accepted -10: P310 rejected Peter Maydell: 0 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P307 +5: voted AGAINST P309 ------------------------------------------------------------- Yours, Duncan Richer Speaker From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:03:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:03:56 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. Yours, Slakko Speaker From mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:07:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:07:03 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Read mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy Duncan Richer writes: > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. Yours, 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 mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:20:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:20:38 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Read mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 Duncan Richer writes: > Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery > Some degree of reversability > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Some degree of reversability > > A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still > available > for voting perform the action of repudiating it. > > A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the > author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they > would > usually loose in such an occurance. > > This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a > proposal is defeated. > " I'm not sure about this; I think people who make bad/hasty proposals should have to deal with the results. > Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery > Something missing in the rules? > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Making 105 useful > > For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable > by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation > changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. > " Seems reasonable. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery > Consider Phlebas This proposal strikes me as pointless. I will be voting against it. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery > Textual Convention > > Enact as a rule the following: > > " > A textual convention to make life easier > > Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, > however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained > along > with the rules. > > It may be considered part of game custom. > " A useful-sounding suggestion. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery > We'd like *some* leeway I like this one. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery > Reduce the lockdown further *shurg* you're being fussy again, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery > A wider definition of 'person' > > Enact as a rule: > > " > A wider definition of 'person' > > A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the > 'animate' attribute. > > The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as > described by the rules. > " Interesting... 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 jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:52:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:52:49 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > Duncan Richer writes: > > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > > As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. > Suchwise am I known as Wild Card. -- 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 jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:58:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:58:43 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > Duncan Richer writes: > > Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery > > Some degree of reversability > > > > Enact the following as a rule: > > > > " > > Some degree of reversability > > > > A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still > > available > > for voting perform the action of repudiating it. > > > > A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the > > author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they > > would > > usually loose in such an occurance. > > > > This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a > > proposal is defeated. > > " > > I'm not sure about this; I think people who make bad/hasty proposals > should have to deal with the results. This would save some time if proposals can be shown to be broken, and reduce the chance of such proposals being voted in. -- 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 clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:57:13 +0100 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:57:13 +0100 From: Clare Boothby clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: Before I accept/reject... > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT 212 deals with estabishing a winner when play cannot be continued, as explicitly permitted in 110, and so is not relevant to this CFJ. 110 permits changes to the way of winning the game *only* when considering situations in which play cannot be continued. So, a) would I be allowed to judge this statement "true (except as explicitly permitted by rule 110)"? I'm guessing not (208). b) would a judgement of "true" imply "true (except as explicitly permitted by rule 110)", as the rest of 110 clearly allows for changes to the way to win in a situation where play cannot be continued? (209) c) would a judgement of "true" be instantly overrule-able, for the reason above? I'm guessing b), but I'd hate to judge "true" and then find that everyone else thinks c) ;-) Thoughts? BTW, call me Paragon. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:02:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:02:26 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell > > Proposal: > > Amend rule 202 as follows: > the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" > should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". > > Rationale: > > The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since > the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the > last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those > proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker > votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting > against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the > five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. That is true, and if I was so inclined I could use it to my own unfair advantage. I've realised this, and so I have been voting on each proposal as soon as I go through the proposal and publish it, so that no-one else's votes can affect mine. If you are happy for me to continue doing this, and taking the luck of the draw with everyone else, then there's no need to vote this proposal in. Yours, Slakko self-interested (who isn't?) From andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:15:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:15:00 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Walkingshaw andreww@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > > > Duncan Richer writes: > > > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > > > > As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. > > > > Suchwise am I known as Wild Card. Furthermore, I am known as Acronym. (A very long story behind that one...) -- 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 Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:05:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:05:40 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 311 Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer - Accepted Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Maydell, Pitt, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: mormegil Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Paragon, Sheppard Create a new Rule, labelled "Titles", with the following text: "Players may own Titles. They may only acquire and lose Titles as described by the Rules. Unique Titles are a special type of Title. If any Player acquires a Unique Title, all other Players who own that Title lose it. When a Player has a proposal accepted, and have not previously had a proposal accepted, they acquire the Title of Non-Newbie." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Score: Slakko: 0 => 10 +10: Proposal 311 accepted mormegil: 0 => 5 +5: Voted AGAINST Proposal 311 From clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:14:38 +0100 Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:14:38 +0100 From: Clare Boothby clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell Well, as no-one seems to think anything about this at all, I'm going to go ahead and try it before my 3 days runs out ;-) > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: I accept the appointment. > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT True. Sorry guys, you're going to have to get rid of 110 first... -Paragon From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:50:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:50:07 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] New Player Ben Harris has asked to join. He has been subscribed to the mailing list, so this should be the first message he receives from the list. Welcome Ben! -- 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 Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:50:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:50:41 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 327 Proposal 327 - Ben Harris Proposal: To amend rule 307 as follows: Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". Rationale: The first change is necessary to prevent duplicate pseudonyms. The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in a freely-available document and that control characters are disallowed. Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7 bit ASCII" includes control characters. From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:55:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:55:35 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 327 On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 327 - Ben Harris > > Proposal: > > To amend rule 307 as follows: > > Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". > > Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from > the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". > > Rationale: > > The first change is necessary to prevent duplicate pseudonyms. > > The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in a > freely-available document and that control characters are disallowed. > Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7 bit ASCII" > includes control characters. > Sounds reasonable. Could you provide a uri for the ECMA-6 thingy? -- 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 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:01:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:01:23 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 327 On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in a > > freely-available document and that control characters are disallowed. > > Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7 bit ASCII" > > includes control characters. > > > > Sounds reasonable. > > Could you provide a uri for the ECMA-6 thingy? The actual document can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.ecma.ch/ecma-st/Ecma-006.pdf Have a look around www.ecma.ch if you can't find a .pdf reader. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:29:51 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:29:51 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell > > Well, as no-one seems to think anything about this at all, I'm > going to go ahead and try it before my 3 days runs out ;-) > > > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: > > I accept the appointment. You still had three days from this point in which to think about the Judgement, if you wanted to. Note the exact wording on Rule 207 - "within 3 days of accepting their appointment". > > BEGIN > > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > > of winning the game. > > ENDIT > > True. I'm really sorry about this - but I think I've discovered a flaw in your reasoning. Rule 105 specifies when a proposal is adopted, and that "all proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on". Rule 106 specified that adopted proposals have their rule changes put into effect. Both of these, courtesy of Rule 204, override Rule 110 in the event of a conflict, and so the proposal which would change the rules still gets adopted. Of course, as soon as it is adopted, Rule 110 stops it from having any effect, but that's a different issue. I may need to propose that this be overturned - if it is, and one of my up-and-coming props passes (you'll know which one), then I'll give you back the 10 points I get for the acceptance to cover your loss of 20. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:45:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:45:00 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 Proposal 328 - Slakko Oops - Probably Not For the Last Time Proposal: Create a new Rule entitled "Moose and Squirrel" containing the following quoted text: "Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both Titles. Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points. Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict." Rationale: This is designed to encourage people to chase the leader - if you are in second place you can catch up rather quickly. The names - well, I just like Rocky & Bullwinkle. The first sentence is necessary because Rule 311 doesn't affect people who had already had a proposal accepted at or before the time of its acceptance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 329 - Slakko Over Compensation Proposal: Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following quoted text: "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." Rationale: This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 330 - Slakko Rehabilitation of Offenders Proposal: Create a Rule, titled "Points Recovery", with the following quote-delimited text: "At the start of each calendar week, any player who has a negative number of points gains 10 points, or the number of points needed to increase their score to -1, whichever is smaller." Rationale: If players have a long run of bad proposals, they may feel that they have no chance of getting back into the game. This little compensation may keep their spirits up. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:54:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:54:25 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Andrew Walkingshaw wrote: > Furthermore, I am known as Acronym. For my sins I can be referred to as Muppet. -- Mike Pitt From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:13:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:13:42 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]CFJ 2 (Dan Sheppard to Judge) CFJ 2 - Mike Pitt Statement: Proposal 327 is invalid as it contains two rule changes. Initiator's Reasoning: On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal: > To amend rule 307 as follows: > Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". > Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from > the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". Rule 104: A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, or amendment 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. I think this is two amendments to the rule and is thus two proposals. I'd have accepted it if it has just quoted the new full text. I'd have welcomed the chance to vote on the two parts. From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:04:44 +0100 Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:04:44 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy Martin Read wrote: >Duncan Richer writes: >> But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > >As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. My Rule 307 pseudonym is "pm215", because it is "the only unambiguous way of refering to [me]"... Peter Maydell From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:42:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:42:19 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 328 - Slakko > Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8 points, > and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points. > Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points, > and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule > takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict." It is possible that this could then lead to a two horse race: the second placed player leapfrogging the leader both of them getting 12 for each proposal as opposed to the ten that the rest get. Also it reduces the risk for the leader while increasing it for the "Boris", which goes against the rationale. Or am I (as normal) wrong? The same desired effect could be achieved by reducing the points for both, or increasing the risk: making both more vulnerable. Say 5 points for the "Fearless Leader" and 8 for the "Boris", with penalties of 12 and 15? (Wouldn't amending 202 be easier as well?) Mike -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:52:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:52:21 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals These are ideas that I'm thinking about forming into a proposal, but before doing so properly (if at all) I thought I'd get people's opinions. Wild Card suggested that the voting process is slow and we wish to encourage people to vote. I agree with him. The idea of giving points to people who vote on each proposal was suggested by Wild Card, but defeated. I supported the motive, but felt it wasn't the right way to do it. Other possibilities are: Encourage participation by awarding compensation points to anyone whose proposal takes the full week to resolve. 5 points seems an appropriate amount, but I can see arguments for reducing this sum for either succesful or rejected motions. (Rejected: reduce risk of proposals if other people can't be bothered to vote, encouraging participation, against don't want to reward failure. Accepted: The idea was good but it was slowed without good reason, have a bonus, against already rewarded.) Taking 1 point off of anyone who misses a proposal -- i.e. fails to vote on it inside the week. (there is the risk that this may encourage people to vote randomly rather than not at all.) Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. Any thoughts/Suggestions? Muppet/Mike Pitt -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:17:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:17:12 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 Duncan Richer wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: >> Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell >> The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since >> the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the >> last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those >> proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker >> votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting >> against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the >> five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. > >That is true, and if I was so inclined I could use it to my own unfair >advantage. I've realised this, and so I have been voting on each proposal >as soon as I go through the proposal and publish it, so that no-one else's >votes can affect mine. If you are happy for me to continue doing this, >and taking the luck of the draw with everyone else, then there's no need >to vote this proposal in. However, doing this means that you are casting your votes without the benefit of any discussion on the proposal, which I think is not something we want the rules to encourage. Also, the next Speaker might not be as honourable as you are, and therefore it would be better to close this loophole. I realise that my proposed change would put the Speaker at a disadvantage. However, the Speaker is generally going to be the person who won the previous game (Rule 110), so we might actually consider this a feature :-> This is also an interesting proposal in that it is trying to fix flaws in the Initial Ruleset. I think it's worth trying to do this just on general principles. Peter Maydell From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:34:13 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:34:13 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 329 - Slakko > Over Compensation > > Proposal: > > Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following quoted > text: > > "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, > provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer > with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift > does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." > > Rationale: > > This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered > to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win > the game. This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that Wild Card has some. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:25:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:25:01 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Points I hereby award myself ten points. Can anyone see a rule which prevents my doing this? I can't (so by 112 it's permitted), so I'll submit a proposal to introduce one. I recommend it be passed quickly before someone awards themselves 200 points and wins. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:43:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:43:09 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Points On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > I hereby award myself ten points. > > Can anyone see a rule which prevents my doing this? I can't (so by 112 > it's permitted), so I'll submit a proposal to introduce one. I recommend > it be passed quickly before someone awards themselves 200 points and wins. By Rule 112, only those things which are "not otherwise explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules" are permitted. The gaining and losing of points is heavily regulated by the rules - Rule 202 specifies a number of ways to gain or lose points, and so do Rules 206 and 207. It depends on whether you interpret 112 to mean that you can do anything unless the rules say you can't (in which case, why put "or regulated" in there?) or whether you can do things, provided that the rules don't mention the issue. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:44:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:44:44 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > These are ideas that I'm thinking about forming into a proposal, but > before doing so properly (if at all) I thought I'd get people's opinions. > Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this > would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if > there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. This last one sounds like the most interesting of the ideas. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:47:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:47:06 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 329 - Slakko > > Over Compensation > This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. > I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of > negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that > Wild Card has some. Has some points, or some negative points? Or maybe he owes a debt of points? I think that standard English usage for "some" includes the condition that it is more than zero, and hence that the rule only permits transfers of positive numbers of points between players anyway. Yours, Slakko From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:48:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:48:54 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Points Similarly I hereby penalise Ben Harris 10 points. Better cut that out in the motion too. :-( -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:49:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:49:00 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 331-332 Proposal 331 - Ben Harris Proposal: To introduce a new rule, entitled "Order of points", to read: Players may only lose and gain points as prescribed by the Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - Ben Harris Proposal: To transmute Rule 110. From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:56:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:56:04 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > > > Proposal 329 - Slakko > > > Over Compensation > > > This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. > > I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of > > negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that > > Wild Card has some. > > Has some points, or some negative points? I think I meant "has one", ie has a negative number of points. > Or maybe he owes a debt of points? To whom does he owe that debt? A debt with no creditor seems like a strange concept. > I think that standard English usage for "some" includes the > condition that it is more than zero, and hence that the rule only permits > transfers of positive numbers of points between players anyway. I agree. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:02:55 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:02:55 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Slakko wrote: > "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, > provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer > with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift > does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." Some thoughts: Maybe the agreement of the recipient should be required. (Especially considering the -ve points discussion). Maybe there should be a penalty for this action: say 1/2 points lost in transfer (1st point in every ten or part thereof would be less steep). Muppet -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:03:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:03:28 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. > I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of > negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that > Wild Card has some. Interesting... I hereby transfer all my negative points to Ben Harris... -- 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 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:22:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:22:17 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 312 - 315 Proposal 312 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: pm215, Wild Card, Harris Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 313 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 2/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Paragon AGAINST: pm215, Wild Card, Harris, Slakko Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: pm215, Harris, Muppet Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Paragon, pm215, Harris Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule "As ane fule kno" If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement (CFJ). ------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: Muppet: 0 => -40 -10: Proposal 312 rejected -10: Proposal 313 rejected -10: Proposal 314 rejected -10: Proposal 315 rejected From M.Hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:08:09 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Hardcastle M.Hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy Mike Pitt wrote: > For my sins I can be referred to as Muppet. Ganymede, I. Martin From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:29:52 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:29:52 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 314, 315 - CORRECTED Apologies - I accidentally swapped around Paragon and Muppet's votes on 314 and 315. The actual results are below. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Paragon, pm215, Harris Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, AGAINST: pm215, Harris, Muppet Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard ------------------------------------------------------------- From clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:28:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:28:41 +0100 From: Clare Boothby clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:52:21AM +0100, Mike Pitt wrote: > Encourage participation by awarding compensation points to anyone whose > proposal takes the full week to resolve. 5 points seems an appropriate > amount, but I can see arguments for reducing this sum for either succesful > or rejected motions. (Rejected: reduce risk of proposals if other people > can't be bothered to vote, encouraging participation, against don't want > to reward failure. Accepted: The idea was good but it was slowed without > good reason, have a bonus, against already rewarded.) This might be a good idea later, but at the moment it just changes the points awarded for a proposal passing/failing. > Taking 1 point off of anyone who misses a proposal -- i.e. fails to vote > on it inside the week. (there is the risk that this may encourage people > to vote randomly rather than not at all.) Hm. I think at this stage we have a reasonable number of active players and so are probably better off rewarding those who vote rather than penalising those who don't. This method would also penalise people for abstaining, which I think is a Bad Thing. On the other hand... > Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this > would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if > there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. ... this seems like a very good way of making sure people stay active. A small penalty, easily avoided, will encourage people to at least spend a few minutes voting even when they've got a busy week. With a per-proposal penalty, people suddenly attacked by work have no hope... -Paragon From M.Hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:45:14 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:45:14 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Hardcastle M.Hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals > > Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this > > would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if > > there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. > > ... this seems like a very good way of making sure people stay active. > A small penalty, easily avoided, will encourage people to at least spend > a few minutes voting even when they've got a busy week. I think this is good in principle, but some people do go away for a week or ten days at a time; we would need a means for a player to suspend themselves. Also it seems a bit odd to penalize everybody in the game if there are no proposals to vote on in any given week! Ganymede From clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:52:47 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:52:47 +0100 From: Clare Boothby clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 03:29:51PM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > You still had three days from this point in which to think about the > Judgement, if you wanted to. Note the exact wording on Rule 207 - "within > 3 days of accepting their appointment". This I know, but I wanted to see what would happen... > Rule 105 specifies when a proposal is adopted, and that "all proposals > made in the proper way shall be voted on". Rule 106 specified that > adopted proposals have their rule changes put into effect. Both of these, > courtesy of Rule 204, override Rule 110 in the event of a conflict, and so > the proposal which would change the rules still gets adopted. Of course, > as soon as it is adopted, Rule 110 stops it from having any effect, but > that's a different issue. Ah, but as soon as the offending proposal is adopted, we've changed the way of winning, as forbidden by 110, even if 109 and 110 immediately make the new way impossible to use. I'd say this was a matter to be decided in the spirit of the game, and that a judgement of "true" makes offending proposals invalid. I'm happy for you to put it to a vote though ;-) Hmm. Methinks we need more conditions on proposal validity in this game... > I may need to propose that this be overturned - if it is, and one of my > up-and-coming props passes (you'll know which one), then I'll give you > back the 10 points I get for the acceptance to cover your loss of 20. That's very kind of you :-) -Paragon From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:01:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:01:12 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal OK people seem to like the third idea, but some method of suspension is needed. So comments/corrections on: Proposal Enact the following as a rule: "Inactivity considered harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the speaker. While in Coventry the Player may not vote. Players cease to be in Coventry 2 days after emailing the Speaker to this effect, or at a fixed time stated in the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. " Rationale: It is considered a good idea to get people involved in the game and to keep the game active. In an attempt to do this a small penalty to people who remain inactive for a period of time is proposed. The time period should be such that some it is likely that activity will be possible, while ensuring that the penalty is not criplling should it be impossible to be involved due to external factors. It also has the side effect of encouraging some proposals every week to avoid the game stagnating. Coventry was used 'cos I can't spell abeisance. Players in Coventry have to have a penalty (hence may not vote) to avoid abuse. The fixed time allows "I'm off on holiday" type mails, wheras the second way out is for when you are snowed under. Comment to Ganymede: I think we wish to encourage proposals, and penalising everyone if none are made seems to be a good way to do this. -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:01:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:01:20 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote: > Hmm. Methinks we need more conditions on proposal validity in this game... > ...we do? > -Paragon Hobb reference? Wild Card. -- 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 bjh21@cam.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:04:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:04:35 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any > proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. replace "fails to vote on any proposal" with "votes on no proposals". The former looks slightly ambiguous to me. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:09:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:09:47 +0100 (BST) From: Jonathan D. Amery jdamery@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > > > the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any > > proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. > > replace "fails to vote on any proposal" with "votes on no proposals". The > former looks slightly ambiguous to me. > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have been any". -- 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 Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:30:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:30:58 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have > been any". I think I prefer leaving the penalty in for when there are no proposals in the week. Am I in a minority here? -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:34:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:34:07 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have > > been any". > > I think I prefer leaving the penalty in for when there are no proposals in > the week. Am I in a minority here? I quite like that -- it makes the rule shorter, for one thing. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:01:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:01:54 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have > > been any". > > I think I prefer leaving the penalty in for when there are no proposals in > the week. Am I in a minority here? I think it makes sense - if everyone's penalised, then it doesn't change things much overall, and the method does make the rule simpler. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:04:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:04:05 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > OK people seem to like the third idea, but some method of suspension > is needed. So comments/corrections on: > > Proposal > > Enact the following as a rule: > > "Inactivity considered harmful > > Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the speaker. While in > Coventry the Player may not vote. Players cease to be in Coventry 2 days > after emailing the Speaker to this effect, or at a fixed time stated in > the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any > proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. > " I think this might need a bit more clarification on the time in Coventry. Something along the lines perhaps of "Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry. Any player ... Yours, Slakko From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:22:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:22:02 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal It occurs to me a minimal time of one week might also be imposed on someone in Coventry. Currently the only valid reason to go to Coventry is to avoid a penalty invoked by being busy for a week. As it stands without this someone could enter every (start of Cal week - 1 hour) and leave every (start of Cal week +1 hour). Inactivity Considered Harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. Comments? -- Mike Pitt * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:39:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:39:21 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 333 Proposal 333 - Wild Card Chocolate Frogs 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. " From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:56:07 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:56:07 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Inactivity Considered Harmful > > Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, > optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not > vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if > specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are > leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering > Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a > calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. > > > Comments? Great. Propose it. That's about all I can say. :-) Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:56:57 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:56:57 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Another casualty of Real Life Duncan MacGregor has made it known to me (at pizza this evening) that he is no longer interested in playing, as he does not have the time to both read and contribute to the list. He does, however, wish to continue as an observer on the list. Yours, Slakko your friendly Speaker From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:26:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:26:45 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 316-325 Summary of Results 316 - Accepted 317 - Rejected 318 - Rejected 319 - Rejected 320 - Accepted 321 - Accepted 322 - Rejected 323 - Rejected 324 - Accepted 325 - Accepted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted Some degree of reversability Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/7 - passes FOR: mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Harris Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Some degree of reversability A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still available for voting perform the action of repudiating it. A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they would usually loose in such an occurance. This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a proposal is defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 317 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Speak up will you? Votes: 6/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/6 - fails FOR: Ganymede, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet, Paragon, Harris Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Speak up will you? Rules may call for hearings to be held. If a hearing is called then one Player (by default the Speaker) is in charge of the hearing (and is called by default the Herald of the hearing). The hearing lasts four days. During this time all Players who don't have the Title "Disenfranchised" are entitled to mail the Herald once and once only with either an unambiguous indication that they are in favour of the hearing called, or an unambiguous indication that they are against it. The Herald is required at the end of the four days, to report whether those in favour or those against have the majority of the indications. If the majority are in favour then the hearing is said to have been Upheld, otherwise it is said to have been Defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Something missing in the rules? Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/7 - fails FOR: mormegil, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Making 105 useful For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Consider Phlebas Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/7 - fails FOR: Paragon, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Slakko, Harris Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule: " Consider Phlebas The game of Damage is illegal within the precincts of Chiark. (Note, this does not make it against the rules) " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted Textual Convention Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule the following: " A textual convention to make life easier Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained along with the rules. It may be considered part of game custom. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted We'd like *some* leeway Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Slakko Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 322 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Undecided? Poppycock! Votes: 6/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/6 - fails FOR: Slakko, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Undecided? Poppycock! While a Judgement is 'undecided' and no Judge is assigned to that Judgement any Player who has not been a Judge on that Judgement, and who is neither the Player who incurred the CFJ nor any Player mentioned by name or psuedonym in the text of the CFJ, may assume the position of Judge for that CFJ by emailing the Players with a message of the form: 'CFJ### undecided? Poppycock! I'll decide it myself!' where '###' is replaced by the appropriate number. They then have three days to make Judgement on that CFJ. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Reduce the lockdown further Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/7 - fails FOR: Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Harris Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule: " Reduce the lockdown! There can never be more rules that are less mutable than Mutable rules than there are Mutable rules. Immutable rules are less mutable than Mutable rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted A wider definition of 'person' Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Paragon, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Muppet, Slakko Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule: " A wider definition of 'person' A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the 'animate' attribute. The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as described by the rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 325 - Duncan Richer - Accepted Soft Upper Limit Votes: 6/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/6 - passes FOR: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Muppet Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede, pm215, Sheppard Create a new Rule, entitled "Slow Down and save the Speaker" with the following sentence as its text: It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have ten or more proposals under voting consideration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes Ganymede: 0 => 5 +5: voted NO on P316 Muppet: -40 => -30 +5: voted NO on P324 +5: voted NO on P325 Slakko: 10 => 30 +5: voted NO on P321 +5: voted NO on P324 +10: P325 accepted Wild Card: -40 => -50 +10: P316 accepted -10: P317 rejected -10: P318 rejected -10: P319 rejected +10: P320 accepted +10: P321 accepted -10: P322 rejected -10: P323 rejected +10: P324 accepted Ben Harris: 0 => 5 +5: voted NO on P316 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:29:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:29:34 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 334 Proposal 334 - Muppet Enact the following as a rule: " Inactivity Considered Harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. " Rationale: It is considered a good idea to get people involved in the game and to keep the game active. In an attempt to do this a small penalty to people who remain inactive for a period of time is proposed. The time period should be such that some it is likely that activity will be possible, while ensuring that the penalty is not criplling should it be impossible to be involved due to external factors. It also has the side effect of encouraging some proposals every week to avoid the game stagnating. Some method to allow players to opt-out when they are on holiday, snowed under due to work or other reasons was needed, hence Coventry. Coventry was used 'cos I can't spell abeisance. Players in Coventry have to have a penalty (hence may not vote) to avoid abuse. The fixed time allows "I'm off on holiday" type mails, wheras the second way out is for when you are snowed under. Thanks to all those who helped with the phrasing. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:41:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:41:42 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 Proposal 335 - Duncan Richer 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. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:17:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:17:31 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 3 (pm215 to Judge) Call for Judgement 3 - Muppet Statement: We currently have no defined n as per rule 110 Initiator's Reasoning: Rule 110 says the method of winning "may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method". Proposal 321 changed rule 203 from "The winner is the first player to achieve 200 points." to "The winner is the first player to achieve 200 points, and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player". This changed it from "achieving n points" to "achieving n points" plus a condition, which is another method. This means that by rule 109 rule 203 is wholly without effect. We thus have no n defined. I suggest we pass the motion transmuting rule 110 and fix this troublesome rule so we can have a winner (at some stage ;-) From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:49:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:49:33 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: Rationale: Currently it can take a long time to appoint a judge. Also people in the game may not wish to be appointed judges. An opt out or opt in mechanism would be useful, these are more or less equivalent depending on the number of Judicial Posts we create. People at the moment have no way to opt out of being nominated, although all they need do is reply saying "no", this might lead to long delays (3 days per person). I like four as it creates some competition, but I'd be open to suggestions as to why more or less might be better, or to a better way to do this. I originally wanted to do this in one rule but it got too unwieldy. Again if someone can suggest ways to reduce the verboisty/clarify any of it I'd be very happy. Judicial Posts There shall be 4 Judicial Posts that carry the unique titles "High Chief Justice", "Lord High Magistrate", "Judge In Ordinary" and "Supreme Invigilator". A holder of a Judicial Post can resign at any point by emailing the Speaker and may then no longer use the title. {I'm not at all attached to the titles, better suggestions are encouraged} Elected Judiciary A post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method as described in the rules. Should a Judicial Post become empty the Speaker shall as soon as possible email all players inviting Voters to nominate themselves for the post. A Voter may nominate himself by emailing the Speaker making the intention clear. After 2 days the Speaker shall email all players with a list of nominees for the Post. The nominee with most votes cast after 3 days is appointed. Player cast their vote by emailing the Speaker. Conflict of Interests Should a holder of a Judicial Post become Speaker he must resign his Judicial Post. Should a holder of a Judicial Post go to Coventry for more than two weeks he must resign his Judicial Post. Should a holder of a Judicial Post be appointed to another Judicial Post he must resign from all but one. Amend rule 206 to read When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker randomly selects a holder of a Judicial Post to be Judge. The Player selected has 2 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. If all the holders of Judicial Posts in the pool refuse appointment they must all resign their Judicial Posts. Finally: Don't you know who I am... er was? Anyone who leaves a Judicial Post gets the non-unique title "ex-Justice ". Where was their pseudonym as per rule 307. {So if Wild Card resign from his hypothetical Judicial Post he gains the title "ex-Justice Wild Card".} Or "ex- <nickname>"? (Where title was the Judicial Post) -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Guy sure looks like plant food to me! Audrey II From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:28:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:28:38 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Updated rules (with RCS history) In case anyone's curious, ~bjharris/nomic/rules.txt has the rules with all the so-far-posted amendments applied, and with an RCS file for good measure. -- 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 Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:04:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:04:19 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Updated rules (with RCS history) On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > In case anyone's curious, ~bjharris/nomic/rules.txt has the rules with all > the so-far-posted amendments applied, and with an RCS file for good > measure. Thanks. Sorry I haven't updated /u2/nomic/rules.html for the changes today yet. There are pages at /u2/nomic/index.html which I have linked to http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~dricher/Nomic/CN (makes it easier for me to go in and modify the stuff). The nomic group on chiark is writable by everyone on the mailing list, so Ben if you want to move things into the group directory then you can. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:31:37 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:31:37 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Rationale: > > Currently it can take a long time to appoint a judge. Also people in the > game may not wish to be appointed judges. An opt out or opt in mechanism > would be useful, these are more or less equivalent depending on the number > of Judicial Posts we create. People at the moment have no way to opt out > of being nominated, although all they need do is reply saying "no", this > might lead to long delays (3 days per person). > > I like four as it creates some competition, but I'd be open to suggestions > as to why more or less might be better, or to a better way to do this. > > I originally wanted to do this in one rule but it got too unwieldy. Again > if someone can suggest ways to reduce the verboisty/clarify any of it I'd > be very happy. > > Judicial Posts > > There shall be 4 Judicial Posts that carry the unique titles "High Chief > Justice", "Lord High Magistrate", "Judge In Ordinary" and "Supreme > Invigilator". A holder of a Judicial Post can resign at any point by > emailing the Speaker and may then no longer use the title. > {I'm not at all attached to the titles, better suggestions are encouraged} > > Elected Judiciary > > A post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method > as described in the rules. Should a Judicial Post become empty the Speaker > shall as soon as possible email all players inviting Voters to nominate > themselves for the post. A Voter may nominate himself by emailing the > Speaker making the intention clear. After 2 days the Speaker shall email > all players with a list of nominees for the Post. The nominee with most > votes cast after 3 days is appointed. Player cast their vote by emailing > the Speaker. > > Conflict of Interests > > Should a holder of a Judicial Post become Speaker he must resign his > Judicial Post. Should a holder of a Judicial Post go to Coventry for more > than two weeks he must resign his Judicial Post. Should a holder of a > Judicial Post be appointed to another Judicial Post he must resign from > all but one. > > Amend rule 206 to read > > When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker randomly selects a holder of a > Judicial Post to be Judge. The Player selected has 2 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. If all the holders of Judicial Posts in the pool refuse appointment > they must all resign their Judicial Posts. > > Finally: > > Don't you know who I am... er was? > > Anyone who leaves a Judicial Post gets the non-unique title "ex-Justice > <nickname>". Where <nickname> was their pseudonym as per rule 307. {So if > Wild Card resign from his hypothetical Judicial Post he gains the title > "ex-Justice Wild Card".} > > Or "ex-<title> <nickname>"? (Where title was the Judicial Post) It's a nice idea in parts, but I'm uncomfortable with restricting all Judgements to only four people. The Justices as a new appeals process, perhaps (in which case we might want only 3 or so), but I think everyone should have the option of being able to Judge. How about There exists a list of players called the CFJ Opt-Out List. Any player may add their name to the list or remove their name from the list by notifying the Speaker. A second proposal would be to amend the Judgement selection rule so that the Speaker chooses at random a voter not on the CFJ Opt-Out List. Yours, Slakko From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:31:52 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:31:52 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Rule 107 clarification 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." Dan. From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:20:07 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:20:07 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 > 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. Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be illegal is a badly formed proposal, as it proposes something contrary to 101, which takes precedence over all other rules, it proposes something which cannot happen. For example, in the same way that the proposal "Proposal pi-beans be written in Croatian" is badly formed. Rule 110 doesn't explicitly block any changed winning method being acted upon, it merely says that the way to win the game must not be changed (which it might be by adopting the another rule). Like saying "a program must not be modified so that it SEGFAULTS" rules such changes out of hand, but does not protect from SEGFAULTS (apart from prohibiting their introduction, this prohibition might be overrided by a higher precedence rule which means that one sneaks in). I say vote for the overruling to be overruled, dismiss 335. Dan. From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:10:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:10:00 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 333 > Proposal 333 - Wild Card What happened to 331,332, or has my mailer lost them, or should I consider Mike's draft proposals as having these numbers? Dan. From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:01:14 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:01:14 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]CFJ 2 (Dan Sheppard to Judge) > CFJ 2 - Mike Pitt > > Statement: > > Proposal 327 is invalid as it contains two rule changes. > > Initiator's Reasoning: > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Proposal: > > To amend rule 307 as follows: > > Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". > > Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from > > the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". > > Rule 104: > A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, or amendment 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. > > I think this is two amendments to the rule and is thus two proposals. > I'd have accepted it if it has just quoted the new full text. I'd have > welcomed the chance to vote on the two parts. False. Text of judgement: I/ Here we are invoking part b of rule 104, the third list member "amendment". So, we are applying a rule change which is an amendment of a mutable rule A proposal is exactly one rule change, in this case exactly one amendment of a mutable rule. Amendation is not currently defined by the rules, and must therefore be established on the basis of precedent and custom, according to Rule 209: Judgements must accord with the rules. II/ On the subject of precedent, Proposal 321 appears the most directly relevant. Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. This proposal is clearly in two parts within a single rule. Whilst this proposal was rejected, no CFJ objection was raised during its discussion. It seems to me rational, and based upon this precedent (albeit limited, there is no -requirement- for a CFJ to be registered on an erroneous proposal), that the adjacency of words in an English sentence should not be relevant to taking a series of modifications as a single amendment, or multiple amendments. Consider for example, the two potential proposals there should be a blue balloon and there should be a balloon which is blue if we wished to modify this to a green frog, the first would require replacing an adjacent phrase, whereas the latter would require amending non-adjacent words. III/ So far (300-330,333-335), proposals 303,321,326,327 have been amendments. They have taken the form of single replacement text (303,326) and double replacement text (312,327). It has become conventional, since 301-310, to represent proposals in a particular way, for example specifying the entire rule for enactment (303-320,322-325,328-330,333-334) in some quotation form, to specify the simple fact of a transmutation request (301-302) and overturning request (335). As there have only been four proposed amendments, no clear custom has been established as it has in the case of enactment. Therefore, in absence of a certain custom, it must be seen as acceptable to state an amendment in any unambiguous form (Rule 112: Permissibility of the Unprohibited). The form of the proposal is clearly unambiguous. IV/ If proposal 327 had been worded differently, the two phrases being contested may have been adjacent, and so have been a single modification. As in II/, I judged that the adjacency or otherwise of words should not currently be distinguished from the point of view of determining a single amendment, the non-adjacency of the modifications within a rule should not be used as a criterion for distinguishing the modification. Further, according to III/ as no precedent has been set for the form of an amending proposal, there is no reason to reject one particular means of statement over another. The form where individual parts of a rule are modified in separate string modification notices to form a single amendment (as perhaps in the contested proposal 327) is supported by limited precedent (proposal 321) and is not expressly prohibited by the rules of the game, nor the customs of this game, in my judgement, nor the spirit of the game, in my judgement, and so is allowed. It is clear that a proposal containing a -single- substitution request may be reconstructed from the two phrases, and without restrictions on the form of an amendment, must be considered equivalent to such a proposal. Therefore, the grounds given are not sufficient to justify the proposal being seen as two modifications. V/ The spirit of the game is, in one light, for proposals to be suggested by players in the hope of their adoption, and that it is the role of all players eligible to vote to consider voting that proposal through, or otherwise. A player who considers proposing a series of modifications to a rule has in mind an amendment to the game-play, an alteration in the dynamic of the game. That player might consider parts of their goal worth achieving without other parts, or they may not. Within the rules (particularly 104) a player, in the spirit of the game, in my judgement, creates a proposal which they believe is best suited to their ends, be they for the benefit of the game or otherwise. It is for the voters to determine if the proposal is best suited for the ends of the game. In cases where uncertainty exists over the validity of a proposal (in terms of the rules, the custom, and the spirit) it is in the spirit of the game that a quorum of voters determine whether the proposal should be passed, not that of an individual judge. A judge is not entitled, under Rule 205, which sets out the role of a judge, to adjudicate on proposals, only on laws and their interpretation. A judge may only rule on proposals where laws directly affect the nature of proposals. As, with a sufficient majority of voters in favour of an action, an obstructing may be overturned, voters have within their power the ability to adopt a proposal despite judgement. Therefore, in cases where ambiguity or extreme doubt occur as to the validity of a proposal, it is in the spirit of the game, considering the relative assignment of powers set forth by the initial rule-set, appropriate for the proposal to be put to the vote, the individual voters considering the validity of this rule, or otherwise, when casting their vote. Rule 105 states that a proposal made properly shall be voted upon. Where there is a reasonable degree of doubt in the mind of a judge as to the invalidity of a proposal, it is, in my judgement, in the spirit of the game, appropriate that the proposal be seen as valid for the purposes of voting, leaving to the electorate the ultimate decision in accordance with the balance of power implicit in the initial and current rules. VI/ Rule 104 is clear as to the nature of an amendment, it is an amendment to a rule, not to the text of a rule, not particularly to the explicit format of a rule. Rule 101 states that players must always abide by the current ruleset in its explicit format this implies that the ruleset, and so the rules contained within them have other forms. The rules of a game may be expressed in many languages, character encodings, and so on, and still remain the rules of the game. An authoritative source of rules (the explicit ruleset) may have particular features and importance in the game, but never the less the rules have many forms. Rule 104, in light of 101, is clear that proposals are to the rule in abstract form, not to the explicit format of the rules, else this would have been specified in Rule 104. VII/ An amendment is, in my opinion, to be considered like this. An amendment comprises a single modification to the rule in abstract, a rule in abstract being a regulator of our game. If a single line of argument can be used by a proposer to suggest that an amendment is simple (not composite), for example "to achieve a certain end", then this, in the mind of the proposer, constitutes a single amendment. It is a matter for subsequent judgement as to whether a proposal is indeed simple, bearing in mind V which states that in the spirit of the game a judge should defer to the electorate in cases of a reasonable degree of doubt. In my judgement, in this case, is that the amendment could be constituted as a single amendment in abstract, as both apparent modifications extend and retract the range of allowed names in certain formats. The abstract goal of the proposer might have been to modify the boundary in this particular way, manifested as a number of textual changes. An abstract goal might be vague, `to make the game more interesting' `to open up future possibilities', but this does not invalidate that simple aim. All this is of course, within the bounds of rules, particularly 104 which requires that a proposal must refer to a single rule. VIII/ Should someone disagree with this judgement, or similar judgements, concerning the unity of an amendment they may seek to overturn the judgement, or campaign that the proposal be rejected. The rules do not currently stipulate the criteria which voters must use in the process of voting, accordingly Rule 112 allows for an individual to vote against a proposal on the grounds of their believe in its malformedness. It is my judgement that in the spirit of the game as a whole, given the initial balance of power between adjudicators and electorate that the latter method be used in preference by an individual, although their right to call for judgement remains. Should an individual wish to divide an ammending proposal, it being unitary in the mind of the proposer, but not in that of the objector, they should vote the proposal down, and then propose the appropriate separated proposals. Therefore, I judge that the amendment is simple, and so CFJ2 fails. Dan. From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:29:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:29:00 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Then the demons are really angels, freeing you. 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. " From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:34:59 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:34:59 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Wake 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." From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:09:20 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:09:20 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Rule 107 clarification > 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." Sorry, the new bit of the proposal is that it's required that speaker inform people of numbers. I kind of got lost on the way, explaining what 107 was on about. I shall rephrase it and mail again. Dan. From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:09:23 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:09:23 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 3 (pm215 to Judge) Duncan Richer wrote: >Call for Judgement 3 - Muppet > >Statement: >We currently have no defined n as per rule 110 > >Initiator's Reasoning: > >Rule 110 says the method of winning "may not be changed from achieving n >points to any other method". Proposal 321 changed rule 203 from "The >winner is the first player to achieve 200 points." to "The winner is the >first player to achieve 200 points, and to have at least 20 points more >than any other Player". This changed it from "achieving n points" to >"achieving n points" plus a condition, which is another method. This >means that by rule 109 rule 203 is wholly without effect. We thus have no >n defined. False. Reasoning: I/ Rule 110 does not prohibit a particular method of winning the game; it prohibits a *change* in the way to win the game. [Notice that the rule goes on to talk about enacting, amending and repealing various possible rules.] If such a change makes it into the ruleset (for example, by some other rule overriding rule 110) then rule 110 does not have anything to say about the new state of affairs. Therefore the new rule 203 does not conflict with rule 110 or with any other immutable rule, and so rule 203 remains in effect. If the intention had been for rule 110 to prohibit other methods of winning the game it would have been worded in a simpler fashion; for example, it might have said "the only way to win the game is to achieve n points". II/ Furthermore, rule 110 prohibits not just a change in the way of winning the game, but a change *from* a particular state of affairs, namely that the way to win the game is to achieve n points. However, the ruleset prior to the introduction of proposal 321 defined the way to win the game as: * achieve 200 points OR * call for judgment on a statement that the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, and have that statement judged to be true and not overruled (rule 212) Therefore the first sentence of rule 110 does not currently have any effect. It has been suggested that rule 212 is merely a rule establishing a winner when play cannot be continued. I do not believe that the text of the rule supports such an assertion. Rule 212 does not require that play is unable to be continued; it does not even require that anybody have attempted the action whose legality is uncertain. III/ In my opinion the first sentence of rule 110 is almost completely useless, and it should probably be removed from the initial ruleset if it is to be used for another game. -- pm215 From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:27:40 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:27:40 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Wake dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >Proposal of new rule I'd like to suggest that people who wish to submit proposals should always do this by e-mailing them directly to the speaker rather than simply sending them to this list. This avoids confusion and allows the speaker to allocate each proposal a unique number. Players wishing to solicit opinion on proposals they are drafting should clearly mark them as draft proposals. Peter Maydell From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:49:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:49:27 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: Thank you for the judgements. I'm a bit clearer now. %-} On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > It's a nice idea in parts, but I'm uncomfortable with restricting all > Judgements to only four people. The Justices as a new appeals process, > perhaps (in which case we might want only 3 or so), but I think everyone > should have the option of being able to Judge. I'd happily increase the number (and it would be a mutable rule so changeable later as well. Hoepfully). I thought potential competition might be good, but if you are unhappy with the restriction. However if you dislike it then maybe some rules for "democratic elected titles" in the first instance might be fun to do/better, as well as doing something like the CFJ Opt-Out List. Does anyone want to write the opt out rule or shall I bash something out? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "Yeah... the thing is about your internet, you see, is that it's the perfect medium for disseminating bollocks." Builder 1, Underworld. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:21:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:21:01 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 336-338 Yes, I know you've seen these already, but according to the rules their voting period does not start until I have distributed them to all players. Yours, Slakko Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard 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 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 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." From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:53:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:53:44 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 336-338 On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard > *Then the demons are really angels, freeing you* Why? Out of interest. I'm not sure I like the idea of legislating about players motives. :-) > Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard > I've got your number Misformed, lets vote it down as quickly as possible. (Unless Dan wishes to be the first to exercise rule 316.) -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "Yeah... the thing is about your internet, you see, is that it's the perfect medium for disseminating bollocks." Builder 1, Underworld. From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:12:22 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:12:22 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]In pursuit of uniqueness... ... I shall be known as "00:00:a4:00:06:04". -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:17:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:17:45 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals for Elected Positions Made them a bit more generic. Comments on these two rules? Do people think they are a good idea? Draft Proposal 1: Elected Posts A Title may be an "Elected Post" (EP) according to explicit rules or game custom. An Elected Post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method as described in the rules. Should an Elected Post become empty the Speaker shall as soon as possible email all players inviting Voters to nominate themselves for the Elected Post. A Voter may nominate himself by emailing the Speaker making the intention clear. After 3 days the Speaker shall email all players with a list of nominees for the Elected Post. The nominee with most votes cast after 3 days or all votes are cast, whichever is sooner, is appointed. Player cast their vote by emailing the Speaker stating unambiguously their favoured candidate. Draft Proposal 2: Conflict of Interests Elected Posts may conflict with other Titles or game roles {such as Speaker}. The rules of the game define which EPs conflict in this way. Conflict is reflexive {this is correct I want the aRb => bRa relationship name} but need only be explicitly stated one way in the rules. If a player holds an EP and is elected to another EP that conflicts with it the player ceases to hold the former Title or game role. {Note as defined above the Player has to nominate themselves so they aren't going to be elected accidently} If it is impossible for a Player to resign from a Title or game role then they may not be nominated for any conflicting EP. -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "Yeah... the thing is about your internet, you see, is that it's the perfect medium for disseminating bollocks." Builder 1, Underworld. From dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:40:27 +0200 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:40:27 +0200 From: dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Wake > I'd like to suggest that people who wish to submit proposals > should always do this by e-mailing them directly to the speaker > rather than simply sending them to this list. This avoids confusion > and allows the speaker to allocate each proposal a unique number. This makes sense. I'll do this in future. Dan. From bjh21@cam.ac.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:39:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:39:00 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals for Elected Positions On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Draft Proposal 1: > > Elected Posts > > A Title may be an "Elected Post" (EP) according to explicit rules or game > custom. An Elected Post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's > holder or other method as described in the rules. Should an Elected Post > become empty the Speaker shall as soon as possible email all players > inviting Voters to nominate themselves for the Elected Post. A Voter may > nominate himself by emailing the Speaker making the intention clear. After > 3 days the Speaker shall email all players with a list of nominees for the > Elected Post. The nominee with most votes cast after 3 days or all votes > are cast, whichever is sooner, is appointed. Player cast their vote by > emailing the Speaker stating unambiguously their favoured candidate. Replace "most votes cast" with "most votes cast in their favour". Replace "all votes are cast" with "all Players entitled to cast a vote have done so". Replace "Player cast" with "Players cast". > Draft Proposal 2: > > Conflict of Interests > > Elected Posts may conflict with other Titles or game roles {such as > Speaker}. Perhaps we should define "Speaker" to be a Title. > The rules of the game define which EPs conflict in this way. > Conflict is reflexive {this is correct I want the aRb => bRa relationship > name} YM "symmetric". Reflexive would be each Title conflicting with itself, which is silly. > but need only be explicitly stated one way in the rules. If a > player holds an EP and is elected to another EP that conflicts with it the > player ceases to hold the former Title or game role. {Note as defined > above the Player has to nominate themselves so they aren't going to be > elected accidently} If it is impossible for a Player to resign from a > Title or game role then they may not be nominated for any conflicting EP. s/player/Player/g s/rules/Rules/g s/EP/Elected Post/g -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:57:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:57:25 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > > 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. > > Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be illegal is a > badly formed proposal, as it proposes something contrary to 101, which takes > precedence over all other rules, it proposes something which cannot happen. Why can't it happen? Rule 101 can only prevent the proposal from being proper if some other rule says that it isn't proper - it's not an argument in and of itself. > For example, in the same way that the proposal "Proposal pi-beans be written > in Croatian" is badly formed. It is badly formed, but in a way different from a proposal which attempts to change the method of winning. Your example violates Rule 104 - it is a proposal which does not consist of exactly one proposed rule change. A proposal which amends Rule 203 so as to change the method of winning, and does nothing else, does not violate Rule 104. > Rule 110 doesn't explicitly block any changed winning method being acted upon, > it merely says that the way to win the game must not be changed (which it > might be by adopting the another rule). OK - here is my 64 point question - at what point during the process of a proposal being under voting consideration and then being adopted does Rule 110 kick in to prevent the proposal from having the effect it does? 1. You might claim that it renders any proposal which would change the winning method invalid. However, Rule 105 says that "all proposals made properly shall be voted on". Rule 110 does not explicitly indicate that a proposal to change the method of winning has not been made properly, and I don't believe it can (the use of "made" to me indicates that the issue of being made properly is about structure, not content). So if Rule 110 attempts to block the proposal from being voted on, Rule 105 overrules it (lower number in conflicting situation). 2. You might claim that it attempts to prevent the adoption of the rule change, if the proposal passes. In this case, Rule 110 is overriden by Rule 106, which states that "When a proposal is adopted, any rule changes it contains take effect." 3. Alternatively, you might say that it prevents proposals of this nature from ever being proposed. However, the rule only refers to changing of the rules, not attempts to change the rules. A proposal can't change the rules until it is adopted, and so I can't see that Rule 110 can have an effect to prevent this rule change from occurring. > Like saying "a program must not be modified so that it SEGFAULTS" rules such > changes out of hand, but does not protect from SEGFAULTS (apart from > prohibiting their introduction, this prohibition might be overrided by a > higher precedence rule which means that one sneaks in). I think that the higher precedence rules are allowing the changes to sneak in anyway. Vote FOR 335. Yours, Slakko This has been an unpaid political advertisement on behalf of the Overturn CFJ 1 campaign. From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:19:16 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:19:16 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: Mike Pitt wrote: >Judicial Posts > >There shall be 4 Judicial Posts that carry the unique titles "High Chief >Justice", "Lord High Magistrate", "Judge In Ordinary" and "Supreme >Invigilator". A holder of a Judicial Post can resign at any point by >emailing the Speaker and may then no longer use the title. >{I'm not at all attached to the titles, better suggestions are encouraged} > >Elected Judiciary > >A post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method >as described in the rules. I think we might be better off defining the generic concept of a Post as in this Draft Proposal: ===begin=== A Post is defined to be a Unique Title, generally with some accompanying rights and responsibilities stated when a particular Post is defined. Posts have all the attributes of Unique Titles and the following extra qualities: (a) The Unique Title may only be acquired or lost as described in this rule (b) 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. (c) The holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign their Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. (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. (e) If a Post becomes empty, the Speaker should as soon as possible announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty, and request nominations for the Post. (f) Any Voter may then nominate themselves for a Post by emailing the Speaker and making their intention clear. (g) Two days after the Speaker first requested nominations, the Speaker should distribute a list of all nominees for the Post. This is known as Calling an Election. (h) During the three days after the Election is called, Voters may email the Speaker to vote for exactly one of the nominees. (i) At the end of the three days, or when all Voters have voted, the nominee with the most votes acquires the Unique Title and becomes the new holder of the Post. If two or more nominees achieved an equal number of votes, then the Speaker should cast a vote to break the tie. ===endit=== This allows: * other rules to define when a player is Hounded Out Of Office (eg if they go to Coventry for more than 2 weeks without resigning first) * other rules to define Posts [such as the Justices] and also to associate useful things like rights and responsibilities with those Posts. It's supposed to tie down the details of voting and the link between Post and Unique Title so that other rules can't disrupt them. Any thoughts? Do we want to impose a penalty for being Hounded Out Of Office? >Should a holder of a Judicial Post go to Coventry for more >than two weeks he must resign his Judicial Post. I don't think this is quite right. Consider a player who goes to Coventry for an indefinite period without resigning his post. We want to strip him of the Post, not ask him to resign. [Under the suggested rule above, this bit would say: "Should a holder of a Judicial Post be in Coventry for more than two weeks they are Hounded Out Of Office."] >When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker randomly selects a holder of a >Judicial Post to be Judge. I agree with Slakko that we don't want to restrict judging to only four people. Peter Maydell From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:12:21 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:12:21 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 328 - Slakko >"Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this >sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the >score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless >Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the >Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless >Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. >If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both >Titles. This rule would appear to suffer from a race condition! Suppose that there exists both a Fearless Leader (player Adam) and a Boris Badinov (player Bill). Consider what happens when Bill receives sufficient points to take his score above that of Adam. By the second sentence in the proposal, Bill acquires the Unique Title of Fearless Leader, and therefore Adam loses this title (by the rules governing Unique Titles). At this point two things might happen: (1) the third sentence of the proposal has its effect, and Adam gains the unique title of Boris Badinov (causing Bill to lose it). The two players have effectively swapped roles, which was presumably what the proposer had in mind. (2) The fourth sentence of the proposal has its effect, since Bill has both titles. He therefore loses both, and since there is therefore no Fearless Leader there will be no Boris Badinov either. [what happens next depends upon whether you consider that the second sentence of the proposal (i) kicks in only when a player gains the points that cause his score to rise above that of the other players, or (ii) that it effectively continuously monitors the players' scores. If you think (ii) then there is the possibility of an infinite loop with a player gaining both titles and immediately losing them and then immediately gaining them again. At that point we can proceed directly to rule 212 and the end of the game...] Rule 204 only defines procedures for resolution of conflicts between different rules. There is currently no way to resolve an internal conflict within a single rule. We should probably fix this... (my preference would be to define a Clause and rules for resolving conflicts between Clauses of a Rule. Then people could draft their rules as a collection of Clauses.) -- pm215 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:17:01 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:17:01 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > Duncan Richer wrote: > >Proposal 328 - Slakko > >"Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this > >sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the > >score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless > >Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the > >Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless > >Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. > >If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both > >Titles. > > This rule would appear to suffer from a race condition! > (2) The fourth sentence of the proposal has its effect, since Bill > has both titles. He therefore loses both, and since there is therefore > no Fearless Leader there will be no Boris Badinov either. > [what happens next depends upon whether you consider that the second > sentence of the proposal (i) kicks in only when a player gains the points > that cause his score to rise above that of the other players, or > (ii) that it effectively continuously monitors the players' scores. > If you think (ii) then there is the possibility of an infinite loop > with a player gaining both titles and immediately losing them and > then immediately gaining them again. At that point we can proceed > directly to rule 212 and the end of the game...] I was assuming that condition (ii) would be the standard way of interpreting this rule. No-one can simultaneously qualify to acquire both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov - and if there is a conflict between the fourth sentence being applied and the earlier sentence being applied, under interpretation (ii) both end up with the same result, after some infinitesimal amount of time spent removing someone from both offices. The reason for assuming that condition (ii) applied was that the rule fails to mention the need for a change in scores. It therefore doesn't seem (at least in my opinion) to need to rely on other events happening for any of its clauses to take effect. > There is currently no way to resolve an internal conflict > within a single rule. We should probably fix this... > (my preference would be to define a Clause and rules for resolving > conflicts between Clauses of a Rule. Then people could draft their rules > as a collection of Clauses.) This isn't a bad idea, but it creates difficulties if someone accidentally fails to structure their rule as a series of Clauses. Given that, in most rules, later sentences act as modifiers for earlier ones (e.g. "A proposal must satisfy ... A proposal is invalid if ...") it might make sense simply for a rule to state that later sentences in a rule take precedence over earlier ones in the event of a conflict. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:36:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:36:42 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 339 Proposal 339 - mormegil 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." From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:33:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:33:56 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: I'm not sure whether I prefer these to mine, but the proposal is certainly easier to read. On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > (a) The Unique Title may only be acquired or lost as described in this rule Urgle. Or elsewhere in the rules surely? This is just waiting for a rule to overrule it leading to all sorts of trouble... Lets nobble it quickly. s/in this rule/in the Rules and by game custom/ > (c) The holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it > clear that the holder wishes to resign their Post. In this case the > holder loses the Unique Title. What if we wish to have "non-resignable posts"? > (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. (OK, but I think this makes my comment about (a) above *more* important) Also do we need to specify that they lose the duties/privileges of the Post at this point? Probably not, but I'm not sure. > (f) Any Voter may then nominate themselves for a Post by emailing the > Speaker and making their intention clear. Maybe s/./, unless another nomination procedure is specified by the Rules for that Post./? > (g) Two days after the Speaker first requested nominations, the Speaker > should distribute a list of all nominees for the Post. This is > known as Calling an Election. > (h) During the three days after the Election is called, Voters may > email the Speaker to vote for exactly one of the nominees. s/Election is called/Calling an Election/ ? I think making the two periods equal might be a good idea -- 3 days means if it happens at 7pm on Friday those who don't check email over the weekend are not too badly disadvantaged. (I guess thats why it was chosen all over the place originally... ;-) > (i) At the end of the three days, or when all Voters have voted, > the nominee with the most votes acquires the Unique Title and > becomes the new holder of the Post. > If two or more nominees achieved an equal number of votes, then > the Speaker should cast a vote to break the tie. > ===endit=== s/Post/Elected Post/ -- we may wish to have other sorts of Posts? (Speaker appointed say?) > This allows: > * other rules to define when a player is Hounded Out Of Office > (eg if they go to Coventry for more than 2 weeks without resigning > first) Point. I sort of woolily thought of imposing resignation. > * other rules to define Posts [such as the Justices] and also to > associate useful things like rights and responsibilities with > those Posts. That why I moved to Elected Posts following Duncan's comments -- it seems people don't want an elected judiciary of 4. :-) > Any thoughts? Do we want to impose a penalty for being Hounded > Out Of Office? Not in this rule. Other rules may wish to do so depending on the post. > I agree with Slakko that we don't want to restrict judging to only > four people. Fair enough. What do other people think about the two proposals. I probably think that pm215's proposal is more solid. I still think we need some concept of Conflict of Interest, including the corrections made by "00:00:a4:00:06:04" do people think this is a good idea? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "I now find myself in the position of having to apologise to ice-cubes everywhere. I'm sorry. I didn't know. It won't happen again." Vivek D. From clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:40:55 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:40:55 +0100 From: Clare Boothby clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 10:20:07PM +0200, dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be illegal is a > badly formed proposal, as it proposes something contrary to 101, which takes > precedence over all other rules, it proposes something which cannot happen. > For example, in the same way that the proposal "Proposal pi-beans be written > in Croatian" is badly formed. Hurrah! Thankyou, Dan, that's more-or-less what I was trying to say, but I kept getting bogged down somewhere in the 100s ;-) > I say vote for the overruling to be overruled, dismiss 335. Join the cause! You know it makes sense ;-) -Paragon From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:54:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:54:33 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Status of Rule 203 The ruling of CFJ 1, at least unless it becomes overruled, indicates proposals which change the method of winning cannot be adopted. CFJ 1 counts as explicit game custom, and hence Proposal 321 couldn't have actually been adopted, could it? So Rule 203 must still have the original wording, right? What's wrong with my logic here? -- 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 bjh21@cam.ac.uk Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:21:24 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:21:24 +0100 (BST) From: Ben Harris bjh21@cam.ac.uk Subject: [Nomic] Status of Rule 203 On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > The ruling of CFJ 1, at least unless it becomes overruled, indicates > proposals which change the method of winning cannot be adopted. CFJ 1 > counts as explicit game custom, and hence Proposal 321 couldn't have > actually been adopted, could it? So Rule 203 must still have the original > wording, right? > What's wrong with my logic here? *ponder* I'm not sure. The issue is over whether 321 introduces "a different method of winning the game". To me, this means that there must be a method one could apply which would fail to win the game without 321 applied, but succeed with 321. Can you exhibit any such? If not, I claim that 321 doesn't introduce a new method of winning, and is hence able to be adopted. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:52:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:52:40 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 (On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote agreeing with what Dan said...) > On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 10:20:07PM +0200, dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > > Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be > > illegal is a But the resulting rule would not be illegal. The adoption of the rule would be illegal, but the rules about adoption supercede the rule that would be contradicted. (If I undesrstand, which lets be honest I probably don't.) Mike -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "I now find myself in the position of having to apologise to ice-cubes everywhere. I'm sorry. I didn't know. It won't happen again." Vivek D. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:03:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:03:49 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 326 Proposal 326 - pm215 - Rejected Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/8 - fails FOR: Muppet, pm215, Sheppard, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede Proposal: Amend rule 202 as follows: the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". Rationale: The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. From mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:09:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:09:09 +0100 (BST) From: Mike Pitt mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposal about Pseudonyms I was bored at work so I wrote a new proposal. I think that maybe some people may wish to change their pseudonyms at some point. So the following is suggested. "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. If in the view of the person with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Psuedonyms" decides the player has changed pseudonym too often he may Step In and force the Player to take a Pseudonym of his choice for one week after which the Player may change his Pseudonym normally. {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 Psuedonyms 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 Psuedonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. {It may be changed to elected when we get that sorted out for example.} -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "I think it's time now to win some prizes." Dennis Bergkamp, July 1997 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:12:32 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:12:32 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Proposal Suggestion Proposal: Create a new Rule, entitled "Object Creation and Restrictions" with the following text: "Objects may only be created, manipulated and destroyed as described by the Rules. If a proposal is adopted which amends the Ruleset so as to define a new Object or type of Object, then (i) anything in the possession of players which purports to be that Object or type of Object is destroyed before the new rule takes effect. (ii) if the Ruleset claims that instances of that Object or class of Object exist, but none currently do, then the required number of instances will be created, and will be unowned." What do people think? We want something which regulates abstract entities which exist within the game, and we also want some simple method for setting these up. With this framework in place, Objects can easily be created by rules, without one classic scam being available. Suppose I put a proposal in the queue which would create the class of objects called Widgets, and that certain Widgets had certain properties. Without the rule above, between the submission of that proposal and its adoption anyone could create Widgets (as they aren't regulated) and then receive the benefits automatically. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:25:15 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:25:15 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 340 Proposal 340 - Slakko So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? 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. From mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:28:46 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:28:46 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Read mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 340 Duncan Richer writes: > Proposal 340 - Slakko > So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? Apparently, failing to post proposal 339 :-) (At least, I don't *think* I've bounced 'd' in VM...) 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 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:57:04 +0100 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:57:04 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 340 Martin Read wrote: >Duncan Richer writes: >> Proposal 340 - Slakko >> So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? > >Apparently, failing to post proposal 339 :-) #Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:36:42 BST #To: nomic@chiark.greenend.org.uk #From: Duncan Richer <dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [...] #Proposal 339 - mormegil #Proposal of a New Rule #"Someone To Watch Over Me" IRMTI. -- pm215 From clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:48:46 +0100 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:48:46 +0100 From: Clare Boothby clareb@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] FYI I've submitted a proposal to Duncan which looks suspiciously like 104 but includes the possibility of renumbering rules. If this passes I intend to transmute it and 104 and repeal the latter, just so you all know what I'm planning... This has been a public service announcement intended to confuse the populace. Thankyou. -Paragon From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:00:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:00:10 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 341-343 Proposal 341 - Muppet 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 Repeal Rule 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - Paragon 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)"} From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:11:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:11:56 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Nomenclature (307) In accordance with Rules 305 and 307 I am required to choose a pseudonym for Dan Sheppard. Seeing as we may well now end up with the ability to change our pseudonyms, there doesn't appear to be any benefit in picking anything too silly. I therefore bestow upon him the pseudonym of Dan I hope this meets with your approval. Yours, Slakko From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:43:19 +0100 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:43:19 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals to define Posts (second attempt) Here are some hopefully slightly better formed draft proposals for rules to define Posts; comments? ===begin=== Draft Proposed Rule I (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. {This is a bit ropey if the R&R aren't defined explicitly as such; consider the responsibilities of the Speaker, which are scattered throughout the existing ruleset.} If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of <Post> 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. {Anything else? We can always add things later. Perhaps a Delegatable attribute so the holder can give the job to an assistant temporarily?} Draft Proposed Rule II (Elections, or, The Worst Form of Goverment Except All Those Other Forms) {This isn't part of Rule I because (a) it's complicated and (b) I don't want to risk all the uncontentious stuff about Posts being nullified if anybody decides Rule 109 applies to the stuff about Elections} If a Post is defined to have the Elected attribute, then when it is first created and at any point when it subsequently becomes empty an Election must be held. The following rules govern Elections: (a) When an Election is to be held the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact and invite Players to nominate themselves for the Post. The Election is then said to be in the Nomination Phase. (b) The Nomination Phase lasts for three days. (c) During the Nomination Phase any Player may nominate themselves for the Post by emailing the Speaker and making their intention clear. (d) At the end of the Nomination Phase the Speaker must publicly announce the names of all Players who nominated themselves during the Nomination Phase: these are the Candidates. (e) If there are no Candidates then the Election is declared a Dismal Failure and the Post remains empty. While the Post remains empty any Player may trigger another Election by emailing the Speaker and declaring that they wish to hold the Post. Any Player who does this must then nominate themselves in the Nomination Phase of the resulting Election. {If it matters that this leaves the Post empty, then the Post should be defined to be Critical (see Rule I) so that the Speaker effectively gets the job. Or the rules could define something else, specific to that Post.} (f) If the Election is not a Dismal Failure then it moves into the Voting Phase. (g) The Voting Phase lasts for three days, or until all Voters entitled to cast a vote have done so. (h) During the Voting Phase Voters may email the Speaker to vote for a Candidate. Each Voter has exactly one vote in each Election. (i) At the end of the Voting Phase, the Candidate who had the most votes cast in his favour becomes the new holder of the Post. (j) If there is no single Candidate with the most votes, the Speaker must break the tie by casting a vote so as to cause a single Candidate to have the most votes. This Candidate then becomes the new holder of the Post. (k) The Speaker must publicly announce the result of the Election as soon as possible. {Does this really have to be this complicated?} Draft Proposed Rule III (The Speaker, or, But You Already Knew That) {I'm not strongly attached to this one.} The Speaker is defined to be a Post with the following qualities: (a) if the Post of Speaker ever becomes empty, the Player who last held the Post immediately becomes the holder again. If this is either (i) impossible or (ii) would result in the Post immediately becoming empty again or (iii) would cause some other infinite loop, then some randomly selected Player becomes the new holder of the Post. {This handles things like the possibility of the Speaker leaving the game.} (b) All Players except the Speaker have the non-unique Title of Voter. If a Player gains the Post of Speaker they first lose the Title of Voter. If this Rule disagrees in any aspect with Rule 102, then Rule 102 applies and the sections of this Rule which disgree have no effect. The remainder of this Rule remains in effect. {The intent here is to recast Rule 102 in terms of Titles and Posts. I would claim that this rule does not conflict with 102. We might find it cleaner to transmute 102 and amend it instead, though. The final paragraph is an attempt to avoid the entirety of the rule being declared void by Rule 109. Would this work?} ===endit=== I'll leave the Conflict of Interest aspect for now. -- pm215 From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:55:37 +0100 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:55:37 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]cvsweb rules I've just put the current ruleset into cvs; this means that you can access it via http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~pmaydell/cvsweb/nomic and get revision histories, diffs and so on. hint: the only rule we have currently amended is 203, so that's the only one you will be able to get diffs of ATM :-> ( chiark is running quite an elderly version of cvsweb, so the Web interface is a bit ugly. This should improve if that package is ever upgraded...) Peter Maydell From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 03:16:13 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 03:16:13 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 334 Proposal 334 - Muppet - Accepted Votes: 10/10 - passes quorum FOR: 10/10 - passes FOR: Acronym, Dan, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Enact the following as a rule: " Inactivity Considered Harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Change: Muppet: -30 => -20 +10: P334 accepted From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:42:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:42:08 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Coventry Ganymede has indicated that he is in Coventry until Monday the 7th of August. Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:13:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:13:45 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 327 Proposal 327 - 00:00:a4:00:06:04 - Accepted Amends Rule 307 Votes: 9/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/9 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, Dan Abstain: Acronym Proposal: To amend rule 307 as follows: Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes: 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 5 => 15 +10: P327 accepted mormegil: 5 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P327 Dan: 0 => 5 +5: voted AGAINST P327 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:47:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:47:38 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 328-330 Proposal 328 - Slakko - Rejected Oops - Probably Not For the Last Time Votes: 8/10 - passed quorum FOR: 3/8 - fails FOR: Dan, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym Proposal: Create a new Rule entitled "Moose and Squirrel" containing the following quoted text: "Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both Titles. Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points. Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 329 - Slakko - Accepted Over Compensation Creates Rule 329 Votes: 9/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/9 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Paragon, Slakko, Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, Muppet, pm215 Abstain: Acronym Proposal: Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following quoted text: "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." Rationale: This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 330 - Slakko - Accepted Rehabilitation of Offenders Creates Rule 330 Votes: 9/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/9 - passes FOR: mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: Ganymede, pm215 Abstain: Acronym Proposal: Create a Rule, titled "Points Recovery", with the following quote-delimited text: "At the start of each calendar week, any player who has a negative number of points gains 10 points, or the number of points needed to increase their score to -1, whichever is smaller." Rationale: If players have a long run of bad proposals, they may feel that they have no chance of getting back into the game. This little compensation may keep their spirits up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores Slakko: 30 => 40 -10: P328 rejected +10: P329 accepted +10: P330 accepted mormegil: 10 => 15 +5: voted AGAINST P329 Muppet: -20 => -15 +5: voted AGAINST P329 pm215: 0 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P329 +5: voted AGAINST P330 Ganymede: 5 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P330 From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:16:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:16:49 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals to define Posts (second attempt) On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > Here are some hopefully slightly better formed draft proposals for > rules to define Posts; comments? > > ===begin=== > Draft Proposed Rule II > (Elections, or, The Worst Form of Goverment Except All Those Other Forms) Here's my attempt at simplification: If any Elected Post is empty, and an Election is not currently underway for that Post, then the Speaker must initiate an Election Publically, and In Public make a Call for Nominations. A Nomination Phase lasts for three days, or until at least one Nomination is received, whichever is longer. A Player Nominates themselves for the Post by emailing the Speaker to that end during the Nomination Phase. When the Nomination Phase ends, the Speaker shall list the names of all Players who have Nominated themselves (the Nominees). If there is exactly one Nominee, then they are Elected, i.e. they receive the Unique Title of the Post up for Election. Otherwise, the Election enters a Voting Phase. In the Voting Phase, each Voter may email the Speaker indicating which Nominee they will vote for. Each Voter has only one Vote in each Election. The Election Phase ends after three days, or after all Voters have voted, whichever comes first. If a single Nominee has received more votes than each other Nominee, then they are Elected. Otherwise, the Speaker chooses one of the Nominees with the equal largest number of votes to be Elected. The Speaker must announce In Public the result of any Election. Discussion: If the post remains empty, we may as well have the first person to want the post get it, rather than go through the rigmarole of an Election whenever someone wants to fill a long-standing vacancy. The last paragraph rephrases the Speaker's casting vote as a choice, but the effect is exactly the same. I think the "as soon as possible" text is unnecessary - with Rule III defining the Speaker as a Post, if we make the Post rule indicate that all responsibilities need to be performed within "a reasonable time", however we define it, then we can save ourselves a lot of repetition. > Draft Proposed Rule III > (The Speaker, or, But You Already Knew That) > > {I'm not strongly attached to this one.} > > The Speaker is defined to be a Post with the following qualities: > (a) if the Post of Speaker ever becomes empty, the Player who last > held the Post immediately becomes the holder again. If this > is either (i) impossible or (ii) would result in the Post immediately > becoming empty again or (iii) would cause some other infinite loop, > then some randomly selected Player becomes the new holder of the Post. > {This handles things like the possibility of the Speaker leaving > the game.} The Speaker is currently a mission-critical post. Having it randomised when the Speaker ceases to become Speaker is a little risky. How about The Post of Speaker exists. The Post of Speaker-Apparent exists. The Speaker may appoint any player to become the Speaker-Apparent, other than themself. If any other rule would require the Speaker to be removed from Office, then (i) if the Post of Speaker-Apparent is not empty, then the Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Apparent becomes Speaker. (ii) if the Post of Speaker-Apparent is empty, and the Speaker is still eligible to be Speaker, nothing happens. (iii) otherwise, the Speaker ceases to be Speaker as soon as a Voter declares In Public that they wish to be Speaker, at which point that Voter becomes Speaker. > (b) All Players except the Speaker have the non-unique Title of Voter. > If a Player gains the Post of Speaker they first lose the Title > of Voter. non-unique isn't necessary - Unique Titles have been distinguished already in the rules. Rule 102 already stops people being both V&S, so why not make (b) simply read "If the preceding paragraph would cause a player to be both Voter and Speaker, then they cease to be a Voter." This doesn't contradict Rule 102 - it explains the mechanism by which 102 is enforced. > > If this Rule disagrees in any aspect with Rule 102, then Rule 102 > applies and the sections of this Rule which disgree have no effect. > The remainder of this Rule remains in effect. > > {The intent here is to recast Rule 102 in terms of Titles and Posts. > I would claim that this rule does not conflict with 102. We might > find it cleaner to transmute 102 and amend it instead, though. > The final paragraph is an attempt to avoid the entirety of the rule > being declared void by Rule 109. Would this work?} > ===endit=== Yours, Slakko From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:27:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:27:16 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Draft Prop Pair An idea in two proposals: Joint Credit, Part the First Create a new Rule, entitled "Six Degrees of Paul Erd\H{o}s", with the following quoted text: "When a proposal is submitted, its author may also provide a list of pairs, each pair being a Player other than the author, and an integer between 1 and 5 inclusive, such that the sum of all such integers in the list is at most 10. Any Player in this list is a Co-Author, and the integer paired with a Co-Author is that Co-Author's Credit. Any proposal with which such a list is submitted is a Joint Proposal." Joint Credit, Part the Second Amend Rule 202 to read as follows: "When a non-Joint Proposal becomes adopted, those players who voted against it receive 5 points each, and its author also receives 10 points. When a Joint Proposal is adopted, those players who voted against it receive 7 points each, its author also receives 5 points, and each Co-Author additionally receives points equal to their Credit. When a Proposal becomes defeated, its author loses 10 points, and each Co-Author (if any) loses points equal to their Credit." Rationale: There's a lot of discussion going on between players over the form and nature of proposals at the moment - and it's a good thing. We need a way to further encourage collaboration - as currently only one person gains the points benefit of the proposal. I increased the bonus for dissenters on Joint Proposals, because they are presumably working against a larger coalition of support for the concepts. I would be submitting this as two proposals, because I believe that some fiddling should occur as regards gains/losses both to the main author and to contra-voters, and hence that Rule 202 needs to be amended. Even if this were not so, it makes sense to include the Co-Authors' points in that same rule. Yours, Slakko From pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:21:37 +0100 Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:21:37 +0100 From: pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 331-332 Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 332 - Ben Harris > >Proposal: > >To transmute Rule 110. Incidentally, if this proposal is passed then the conflict between the first sentence of rule 110 and the rules about what constitutes a proper proposal becomes a mutable-immutable conflict, and rule 110 will be "wholly void and without effect". Peter Maydell From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:17:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:17:42 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) 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." 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: (1) the rule is ignored for the purposes of determining what is legal in the situation which gave rise to the conflict. This seems unlikely to me, as in that case rule 109 would just have said that the mutable rule takes precedence (compare rule 204) (2) the rule is ignored while the conflict exists. This is the possibility advanced by the statement above. (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. From dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:17 +0100 (BST) From: Duncan Richer dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 331-332 Proposal 331 - 00:00:a4:00:06:04 - Accepted Creates Rule 331 Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/8 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, pm215 Abstain: Acronym, Dan Proposal: To introduce a new rule, entitled "Order of points", to read: Players may only lose and gain points as prescribed by the Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 00:00:a4:00:06:04 - Accepted Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: Ganymede Abstain: Acronym, Dan Proposal: To transmute Rule 110. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 15 => 35 +10: P331 accepted +10: P332 accepted mormegil: 15 => 20 +5: voted AGAINST P331 pm215: 10 => 15 +5: voted AGAINST P331 Ganymede: 10 => 15 +5: voted AGAINST P332 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 14 12:17:18 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 14 11:17:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic]We can start the game anytime now. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007141115140.6820-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> OK, this should be getting out to the 10 people who indicated they wanted to play. Before we actually start, there is one question I would like to discuss. The initial rules of most Nomics indicate that they are open to anyone who wishes to play. I would suggest that, at the start, we restrict play in this game to people who hold chiark accounts. Of course the nature of Nomic makes it relatively easy to swap between these two positions, but it would be nice if we started in the one which had greater agreement. If anyone has any particularly strong opinions one way or the other, share them with the list. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Fri Jul 14 15:49:27 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 14 14:49:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Initial Ruleset Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007141436450.28345-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I was planning to start the game (with the exception of the clause I talked about in my previous message) with the Initial Ruleset as given on my page at http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/newstart.html and with myself as Speaker. Is this alright with people? If so, we may as well start the game as soon as possible - say an official start time of 6am BST tomorrow morning (so that everyone's asleep and I don't have to deal with a to-the-second deluge of initial proposals)? We can worry about setting up webpages to hold the ruleset and such in the next few days - there's no way that it can change much within the first week or so anyway.</famous_last_words> Yours, Duncan -- 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 Sat Jul 15 10:20:50 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 15 09:20:50 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery Why shouldn't the speaker vote? Transmute Rule 102 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery Immutability considered harmful Transmute Rule 104 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery More flexibility in proposal success Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery Quick Start Enact the following as a rule: " Quick Start The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the legal votes cast on it. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery Default Assumption Enact the following as a rule: " Wording Rules Easier Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which the rule was enacted. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery Lets have some property to play with Enact the following as a rule: " Property Claims Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic miles of land. The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery And you can call me Al Enact the following as a rule: " And you can call me Al Every Player, within a week of joining the game, may choose for themselves a pseudonym, which must be representable in 7 bit ASCII, unique, and not the same as the name of any Player other than themselves. If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the Speaker must choose one for them. If a Player has a pseudonym then that is the only unambiguous way of refering to that Player. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery Make it easy for the Speaker Enact the following as a rule: " Make it easy for the Speaker A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK NOMIC]'. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery What week is it? Enact the following as a rule: " What week is it? For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery Encourage Voting Enact the following as a rule: " Encourage Voting At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 points. " From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 15 15:29:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 15 14:29:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151425350.657-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery > Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > > Transmute Rule 102 I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > Quick Start > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Quick Start > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > legal votes cast on it. > " I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting around the two-thirds requirement? > " > Wording Rules Easier > > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > the rule was enacted. > " Nice concept - I'm surprised I haven't seen it around before. > Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery > And you can call me Al Welcome to the land of silly names. > A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker > if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK > NOMIC]'. " No - I don't like this at all. The mailing list is already set up to prepend [Nomic] to the subject line of all messages - I'm quite happy to have people just reply to those messages, redirecting the reply to me. 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 Sat Jul 15 19:43:41 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sat Jul 15 18:43:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151425350.657-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151841510.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery > > Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > > > > Transmute Rule 102 > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > Quick Start > > > > Enact the following as a rule: > > > > " > > Quick Start > > > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > > legal votes cast on it. > > " > I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why > couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting > around the two-thirds requirement? Good point - it's badly worded. OK - lets set some precident here... I hereby change my vote on this proposal to "against". -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 01:51:59 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 00:51:59 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151841510.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160050210.21133-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? What conflicts? > > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > > Quick Start > > > > > I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why > > couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting > > around the two-thirds requirement? > > Good point - it's badly worded. > > OK - lets set some precident here... > > I hereby change my vote on this proposal to "against". Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. -- 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 Sun Jul 16 01:55:13 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sun Jul 16 00:55:13 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160050210.21133-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160054040.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? > > What conflicts? That's rule 204. > Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify > a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - > so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. > No - the rules specify how to vote, and that I'm only allowed one vote - they don't specify what happens if the Speaker recieves two votes from one player on an issue. -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 02:04:30 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 01:04:30 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160054040.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160102550.22284-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > > > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > > > > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? Oops. Sorry, rule 201. > > Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify > > a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - > > so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. > > > No - the rules specify how to vote, and that I'm only allowed one vote - > they don't specify what happens if the Speaker recieves two votes from one > player on an issue. But you've voted. You've only got one vote, so anything else which looks like a vote can't actually be one. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Sun Jul 16 10:53:29 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 09:53:29 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160951580.13813-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Create a new Rule, labelled "Titles", with the following text: "Players may own Titles. They may only acquire and lose Titles as described by the Rules. Unique Titles are a special type of Title. If any Player acquires a Unique Title, all other Players who own that Title lose it. When a Player has a proposal accepted, and have not previously had a proposal accepted, they acquire the Title of Non-Newbie." -- 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 Sun Jul 16 17:03:00 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sun Jul 16 16:03:00 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13DjvO-00052L-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery >Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > >Transmute Rule 102 >Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery >Immutability considered harmful > >Transmute Rule 104 I'm against both these proposals because I think they are too sweeping. We should defer such significant changes to the rule set until we've worked with the current rules for a while and have a better idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Evolution, not revolution. >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery >More flexibility in proposal success > >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified >elsewhere in the rules the'. This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, the second one, or both? >Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery >Quick Start >The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the >legal votes cast on it. I think this also falls in the "too drastic" category. >Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery >Lets have some property to play with >Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic >miles of land. > >The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. Given that you haven't defined "land", this proposal could be construed as bringing the rule set into conflict with English law. Should we assume that we're playing the game in a parallel universe, or should we explicitly talk about "land on chiark"? >Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery [...] >If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the >Speaker must choose one for them. This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to proposals currently under discussion? >Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery >What week is it? >For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am >BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " Do you really want to use BST rather than GMT0BST or similar? Peter Maydell From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 17:08:52 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 16:08:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <E13DjvO-00052L-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007161606490.11324-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery > [...] > >If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the > >Speaker must choose one for them. > > This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in > proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote > for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want > to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to > proposals currently under discussion? One way I have seen to deal with this in other Nomic games (I don't know if we'll want to go the same way, but it's an option) is a rule which states that any unambiguous misspelling is taken to mean the same as the word it was an unambiguous misspelling of. Another way (interestingly from the same game) is to have some non-proposal based method for fixing obvious misspellings and other grammatical kludges in the rules. Other ideas along these lines would be welcome. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Mon Jul 17 01:38:03 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 17 00:38:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <E13DjvO-00052L-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007170037050.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > >More flexibility in proposal success > > > >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > >elsewhere in the rules the'. > > This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word > 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, > the second one, or both? > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. -- 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 pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 10:58:47 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Mon Jul 17 09:58:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:38:02 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007170037050.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13E6jY-0005XZ-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> "Jonathan D. Amery" wrote: >On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >> >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery >> >More flexibility in proposal success >> > >> >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified >> >elsewhere in the rules the'. >> >> This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word >> 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, >> the second one, or both? >> > > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. "Quorum is half of all active... The required number of votes... Each playr has exactly one... The prescribed voting period..." The second and fourth sentences start with 'The'. HTH! Peter Maydell From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 13:48:24 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 17 12:48:24 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <E13E6jY-0005XZ-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171246410.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > "Jonathan D. Amery" wrote: > > > > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. > > "Quorum is half of all active... > The required number of votes... > Each playr has exactly one... > The prescribed voting period..." > > The second and fourth sentences start with 'The'. > Oops. Oh, well - it works in both situations really. I think that the 'correct' interpretation is probably that both 'The's are replaced. Jonathan. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 14:56:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 17 13:56:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171352001.27780-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule "As ane fule kno" If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement (CFJ). From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 17:37:56 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 17 16:37:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171620240.9186-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > More flexibility in proposal success > > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > elsewhere in the rules the'. Having seen the discussion I think this should be voted down and a less ambiguous wording proposed. > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > Quick Start > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > legal votes cast on it. Why is it called Quick Start? Other people seem to think this is a bad thing. What sort of effect could it have? > Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > the rule was enacted. I think an unless otherwise stated is needed here, for example we may want to decide later in the game to award more than 125 square miles of land to newcomers to balance them out for starting late. Of course we could change this rule then, but I think rejecting it and including that change now would be a better course. > Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic > miles of land. > The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. This does give us something to play with, but do we really want to play Monopoly? > Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery > At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every > proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 > points. We should reduce the offered points. Encouragement may be good but 10 points is quite high (the reward for a succesful proposal). I'd say 5 is more reasonable. Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all proposals? For this reason I am against this as phrased, tho' I could be persuaded. End of discussion. I notice from the archives of Acka Nomic: > Congressional Voting Record > Mitchell Harding > Decision: Accepted > Each week the Speaker must send a message to all players which > contains the names and numbers of all proposals voted on in the past > week, and how each player and the speaker voted (yes, no, or abstain) on > each said proposal. This seems like a good idea. Would people support it's proposal? The Speaker is currently at liberty to so do if he desires. Could he do so until a motion like the above is explicitly enacted one way or the other? On an administrative point, how goes the web page? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 17:54:30 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 17 16:54:30 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160951580.13813-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171653160.13285-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 18:22:20 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 17 17:22:20 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171620240.9186-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171717540.15736-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were > I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all > proposals? As the rules stand, the first is not a legitimate type of vote, and therefore could not be counted as such. The second is an interesting question - whether an email in advance counts as sufficient, and could well be reason for a CFJ. > I notice from the archives of Acka Nomic: > > Congressional Voting Record > > Mitchell Harding > > Decision: Accepted > > Each week the Speaker must send a message to all players which > > contains the names and numbers of all proposals voted on in the past > > week, and how each player and the speaker voted (yes, no, or abstain) on > > each said proposal. > > This seems like a good idea. Would people support it's proposal? > > The Speaker is currently at liberty to so do if he desires. Could he do > so until a motion like the above is explicitly enacted one way or the > other? At the moment, I will post the results of each proposal, including who voted which way, as soon as is practicable after it is accepted or rejected. A weekly summary might be a good idea - depends on exactly how people want their information. > On an administrative point, how goes the web page? Visit http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~dricher/Nomic/CN/ to see what I've done so far. Don't just click on the link from the list of user's pages - that currently points elsewhere (I'll email Ian to get him to change it sometime soonish). Alternatively, you should be able to see it at ~dricher/public-html/Nomic/CN/index.html If and when a nomic group is established on chiark, I will endeavour to move the webpages there. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Mon Jul 17 21:56:53 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Mon Jul 17 20:56:53 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171352001.27780-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13EH0S-0005eB-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt >Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid >chiark email account >Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt >Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid >chiark email account What do you consider the worth of these proposals to be? (As an aside, I think that it would be useful if each Proposal were accompanied by a Rationale, where the proposer advanced arguments in favour of it. I don't think we need a new rule to allow this (it is not expressly prohibited or regulated).) >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. >Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt >Enact the following as a rule >If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed >by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the >proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no >ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a >player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement >(CFJ). Unfortunately this is flawed, as you don't say what the result of asking for a CFJ would be. Presumably you want a successful appeal to the CFJ to result in the wording change being undone or the proposal declared invalid, or something, but you have to *say* this! Also, your proposal contains a grammatical mistake :-> In the phrase "the speaker may correct them", "them" can only logically refer to "the players", since both "a rule" and "a [...] mistake" are singular. Furthermore, strictly speaking changing "them" to "the error" would be resolving an ambiguity and changing the meaning... (Oh, and it should be "proposal's proposer".) Peter Maydell (aiming for Lord High Pedant status...) From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 01:23:39 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Tue Jul 18 00:23:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171620240.9186-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180020310.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > > More flexibility in proposal success > > > > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > > elsewhere in the rules the'. > > Having seen the discussion I think this should be voted down and a less > ambiguous wording proposed. Nah... :) > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > Quick Start > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > > legal votes cast on it. > > Why is it called Quick Start? So that rules get enacted quicker. I was intending to put a time-lapse clause in, but forgot... (oops) > Other people seem to think this is a bad thing. What sort of effect could > it have? > > > Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery > > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > > the rule was enacted. > > I think an unless otherwise stated is needed here, for example we may want > to decide later in the game to award more than 125 square miles of land to > newcomers to balance them out for starting late. Rules can always explicitly override it (Rule 204). > Of course we could change this rule then, but I think rejecting it and > including that change now would be a better course. And slow. > > Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic > > miles of land. > > The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. > > This does give us something to play with, but do we really want to play > Monopoly? Who says we're talking monopoly? <grins> > > Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery > > At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every > > proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 > > points. > We should reduce the offered points. Encouragement may be good but 10 > points is quite high (the reward for a succesful proposal). I'd say 5 is > more reasonable. I guess it depends how many points are floating around, really. > Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were > I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all > proposals? I think that that's agains the rules. -- 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 jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 01:24:44 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Tue Jul 18 00:24:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171653160.13285-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180023530.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System > > Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. > Mr Speaker, do you accept this vote? It hasn't actually been emailed to *you*, but... -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 09:21:48 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:21:48 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180023530.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180821200.31818-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > > > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System > > > > Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. > > > Mr Speaker, do you accept this vote? > > It hasn't actually been emailed to *you*, but... It has - the fact that this got to me via the list is not something which the ruleset differentiates at the moment. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Tue Jul 18 09:31:33 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:31:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery Some degree of reversability Enact the following as a rule: " Some degree of reversability A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still available for voting perform the action of repudiating it. A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they would usually loose in such an occurance. This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a proposal is defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 317 - Jonathan Amery Speak up will you? Enact the following as a rule: " Speak up will you? Rules may call for hearings to be held. If a hearing is called then one Player (by default the Speaker) is in charge of the hearing (and is called by default the Herald of the hearing). The hearing lasts four days. During this time all Players who don't have the Title "Disenfranchised" are entitled to mail the Herald once and once only with either an unambiguous indication that they are in favour of the hearing called, or an unambiguous indication that they are against it. The Herald is required at the end of the four days, to report whether those in favour or those against have the majority of the indications. If the majority are in favour then the hearing is said to have been Upheld, otherwise it is said to have been Defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery Something missing in the rules? Enact the following as a rule: " Making 105 useful For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery Consider Phlebas Enact as a rule: " Consider Phlebas The game of Damage is illegal within the precincts of Chiark. (Note, this does not make it against the rules) " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery Textual Convention Enact as a rule the following: " A textual convention to make life easier Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained along with the rules. It may be considered part of game custom. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery We'd like *some* leeway Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 322 - Jonathan Amery Undecided? Poppycock! Enact the following as a rule: " Undecided? Poppycock! While a Judgement is 'undecided' and no Judge is assigned to that Judgement any Player who has not been a Judge on that Judgement, and who is neither the Player who incurred the CFJ nor any Player mentioned by name or psuedonym in the text of the CFJ, may assume the position of Judge for that CFJ by emailing the Players with a message of the form: 'CFJ### undecided? Poppycock! I'll decide it myself!' where '###' is replaced by the appropriate number. They then have three days to make Judgement on that CFJ. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery Reduce the lockdown further Enact as a rule: " Reduce the lockdown! There can never be more rules that are less mutable than Mutable rules than there are Mutable rules. Immutable rules are less mutable than Mutable rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery A wider definition of 'person' Enact as a rule: " A wider definition of 'person' A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the 'animate' attribute. The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as described by the rules. " From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 09:37:17 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:37:17 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180835070.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 325 - Duncan Richer Soft Upper Limit Create a new Rule, entitled "Slow Down and save the Speaker" with the following sentence as its text: It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have ten or more proposals under voting consideration. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 09:52:42 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:52:42 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 In-Reply-To: <E13EH0S-0005eB-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180837280.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > What do you consider the worth of these proposals to be? > (As an aside, I think that it would be useful if each Proposal > were accompanied by a Rationale, where the proposer advanced > arguments in favour of it. I don't think we need a new rule > to allow this (it is not expressly prohibited or regulated).) The point is that at the moment there is nothing in the rules to say how votes may be cast, they could be sent by carrier pigeon or verbally transferred. The restriction to email from a valid chiark account is a method to ensure that email is sent to the speaker, making it easier for him (he would no longer have to remember that he was told on Tuesday by Fred that Fred voted for 356 and against 378). It is an attempt to make the speakers life easier. The restriction to a chiark acocunt is because we all have one and it prevents someone sending votes from multiple acocunts making accounting of the votes slightly harder. (As a dip GM I disliked the players who sent orders from multiple accounts as it made it hard to see NMRs /easily/, but I accept the situation here is different). The restriction "to" a valid chiark email account is to ensure the speaker remains part of the chiark community, with access to the required resources. > >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt > >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint > >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. > "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible > to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. The point being they were undefined and to see how it developed. As rule 110 vetoes any mutable rule win methods at the moment this is not unsafe. It will give us something else to play with. We don't define Land or what a Title may be either (tho' an example is given). The next round of proposals will certainly fix this. > >Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt > >Enact the following as a rule > >If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed > >by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the > >proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no > >ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a > >player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement > >(CFJ). > Unfortunately this is flawed, as you don't say what the result > of asking for a CFJ would be. Presumably you want a successful > appeal to the CFJ to result in the wording change being undone > or the proposal declared invalid, or something, but you have to > *say* this! Surely that would require a CFJ on the effect of the CFJ. If the change is ruled to break this rule it is clearly overruled by the rules and the change is overturned. :-| > Also, your proposal contains a grammatical mistake :-> > In the phrase "the speaker may correct them", "them" can only logically > refer to "the players", since both "a rule" and "a [...] mistake" are > singular. Furthermore, strictly speaking changing "them" to "the error" > would be resolving an ambiguity and changing the meaning... Oh well. Well we should vote it in so we have some idea of the expected custom and then correct the mistakes. (No I'm not convinced either) > (Oh, and it should be "proposal's proposer".) I blame my keyboard. No really... -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 10:05:04 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Jul 18 09:05:04 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180835070.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180901420.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have > ten or more proposals under voting consideration. ... but it is not against the rules? People /can/ do whatever is not proper? The rules don't mention "proper". Or is this your intention? In which case surely just adopting it as game custom suffices? btw before I get corrected I just reread rule 108 and know you have to email the speaker -- the points about a single address are still valid IMO tho. Mike -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 14:06:24 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 13:06:24 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180901420.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007181305090.26842-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have > > ten or more proposals under voting consideration. > > ... but it is not against the rules? People /can/ do whatever is not > proper? The rules don't mention "proper". Or is this your intention? In > which case surely just adopting it as game custom suffices? Actually, the rules talk about "all proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on", and "The proper way to submit a proposal is...". I thought, therefore, that if some condition meant that submitting proposals was not proper, then I didn't have to do anything about said submissions. -- 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 Thu Jul 20 23:50:16 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Thu Jul 20 22:50:16 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13FOCo-0006eQ-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery >Enact the following as a rule: >Making 105 useful > >For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable >by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation >changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. Are you aware that if adopted as a rule this would be (at least initially) useless? It would conflict with the immutable rule 105 and/or with rule 108 (which defines what voting is) and therefore by rule 109 would be "wholly void and without effect". [This is entirely sensible, since it would otherwise be possible to make amendments to immutable rules via the "back door"...] Peter Maydell From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 00:15:26 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Thu Jul 20 23:15:26 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:52:41 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180837280.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13FObB-0006fP-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Mike Pitt wrote: [proposals 312 and 313] >The point is that at the moment there is nothing in the rules to say how >votes may be cast, they could be sent by carrier pigeon or verbally >transferred. The restriction to email from a valid chiark account is a >method to ensure that email is sent to the speaker, making it easier for >him (he would no longer have to remember that he was told on Tuesday by >Fred that Fred voted for 356 and against 378). It is an attempt to make >the speakers life easier. personally I'm dubious about this sort of thing being proposed by anybody other than the Speaker. Surely it's up to the Speaker to decide what would make his life easier; proposed by anybody else it's just an unnecessary restriction... >The restriction "to" a valid chiark email account is to ensure the speaker >remains part of the chiark community, with access to the required >resources. This is a rather better justification, although I don't think this is liable to be a problem in practice :-> >> >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt >> >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint >> >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. >> "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible >> to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. > >The point being they were undefined and to see how it developed. As rule >110 vetoes any mutable rule win methods at the moment this is not >unsafe. True; I hadn't noticed rule 110. However, arguably rule 110 actually forbids the passing of rules defining other winning methods, rather than merely rendering such rules ineffectual. I think I'll request a Call For Judgement, just to see how that works :-> Peter Maydell From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 09:07:07 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:07:07 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Leaving of a Player Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210806300.4218-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> David McKnight told me last night that he doesn't have the time to continue. I am therefore going to remove him from the mailing lists and drop him from the list of Players. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Fri Jul 21 09:14:38 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:14:38 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210813150.4926-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell Proposal: Amend rule 202 as follows: the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". Rationale: The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 09:21:29 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:21:29 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: BEGIN Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal which would change the rules so as to define a different method of winning the game. ENDIT From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 09:58:33 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:58:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210853160.6847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at the moment. (That was my precedent anyway.) -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> It's easy to solve the halting problem with a shotgun. Larry Wall From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 10:47:54 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Fri Jul 21 09:47:54 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:58:31 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210853160.6847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13FYT1-00072T-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Mike Pitt wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: >> BEGIN >> Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game >> may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." >> This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal >> which would change the rules so as to define a different method >> of winning the game. >> ENDIT > >I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of >winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at >the moment. Rule 110 does not say "the way to win the game may not be any other method", it says "the way to win the game may not be *changed* to any other method". So rule 212 isn't affected because it is already in the ruleset. Alternatively, the existence of rule 212 means that the way to win is already something other than simply "achieving n points", and therefore the first sentence of rule 110 has no effect (and will not have any effect until or unless all other means of winning are removed from the ruleset). On the gripping hand, you might consider that since all the rules defining the validity of a proposal have lower numbers than 110, the statement in rule 110 is ineffectual (by rule 204) and making and voting in such a proposal is valid. Option 4 starts off like the third analysis, but observes that rule 204 is therefore conflicting with rule 110 (because it is trying to render it ineffectual) and that therefore you should ignore rule 204 because it is mutable (by rule 109). [Note that this is effectively saying that rule 204 has no power to resolve conflicts between immutable rules because it is not itself immutable. Furthermore, a strict reading of rule 109 "the mutable rule is wholly void and without effect" would effectively remove 204 from the ruleset as soon as you tried to apply it to an immutable-rule conflict -- rule 109 does not restrict itself in time or circumstances.] You decide... Peter Maydell From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 18:50:14 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Fri Jul 21 17:50:14 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210853160.6847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007211749510.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > BEGIN > > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > > of winning the game. > > ENDIT > > I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of > winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at > the moment. > I believe 212 establishes a way to win if play cannot proceed. -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 21:38:33 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 20:38:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Reminder Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007212037480.13688-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> The first set of proposals have results due at around 8 tomorrow morning - so those who wish to vote should probably do so ASAP. Yours, Duncan your friendly neighbourhood Speaker -- 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 Sat Jul 22 10:37:27 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 22 09:37:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 301-310 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007220923200.14942-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Summary: 301 - Rejected 302 - Rejected 303 - Rejected 304 - Rejected 305 - Accepted 306 - Rejected 307 - Accepted 308 - Rejected 309 - Accepted 310 - Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Why shouldn't the speaker vote? Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/5 - fails FOR: Amery AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Transmute Rule 102 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Immutability considered harmful Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/5 - fails FOR: Amery AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Transmute Rule 104 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected More flexibility in proposal success Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Quick Start Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Richer AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Quick Start The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the legal votes cast on it. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery - accepted <Creates Rule 305> Default Assumption Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: <none> Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Wording Rules Easier Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which the rule was enacted. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Lets have some property to play with Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Property Claims Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic miles of land. The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery - accepted <Creates Rule 307> And you can call me Al Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Maydell Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " And you can call me Al Every Player, within a week of joining the game, may choose for themselves a pseudonym, which must be representable in 7 bit ASCII, unique, and not the same as the name of any Player other than themselves. If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the Speaker must choose one for them. If a Player has a pseudonym then that is the only unambiguous way of refering to that Player. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Make it easy for the Speaker Enact the following as a rule: " Make it easy for the Speaker A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK NOMIC]'. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery - accepted <Creates Rule 309> What week is it? Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Maydell Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " What week is it? For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Encourage Voting Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Richer AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Encourage Voting At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 points. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes Jonathan Amery: 0 => -40 -10: P301 rejected -10: P302 rejected -10: P303 rejected -10: P304 rejected +10: P305 accepted -10: P306 rejected +10: P307 accepted -10: P308 rejected +10: P309 accepted -10: P310 rejected Peter Maydell: 0 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P307 +5: voted AGAINST P309 ------------------------------------------------------------- Yours, Duncan Richer Speaker From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 11:03:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 22 10:03:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221002450.17653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. Yours, Slakko Speaker From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 11:07:04 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Sat Jul 22 10:07:04 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221002450.17653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221002450.17653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <14713.25655.339583.287253@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Duncan Richer writes: > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. Yours, 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 mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 11:20:39 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Sat Jul 22 10:20:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <14713.26470.940727.726661@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Duncan Richer writes: > Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery > Some degree of reversability > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Some degree of reversability > > A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still > available > for voting perform the action of repudiating it. > > A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the > author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they > would > usually loose in such an occurance. > > This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a > proposal is defeated. > " I'm not sure about this; I think people who make bad/hasty proposals should have to deal with the results. > Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery > Something missing in the rules? > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Making 105 useful > > For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable > by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation > changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. > " Seems reasonable. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery > Consider Phlebas This proposal strikes me as pointless. I will be voting against it. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery > Textual Convention > > Enact as a rule the following: > > " > A textual convention to make life easier > > Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, > however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained > along > with the rules. > > It may be considered part of game custom. > " A useful-sounding suggestion. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery > We'd like *some* leeway I like this one. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery > Reduce the lockdown further *shurg* you're being fussy again, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery > A wider definition of 'person' > > Enact as a rule: > > " > A wider definition of 'person' > > A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the > 'animate' attribute. > > The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as > described by the rules. > " Interesting... 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 jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 13:52:50 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sat Jul 22 12:52:50 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <14713.25655.339583.287253@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221252020.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > Duncan Richer writes: > > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > > As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. > Suchwise am I known as Wild Card. -- 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 jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 13:58:44 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sat Jul 22 12:58:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 In-Reply-To: <14713.26470.940727.726661@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221254590.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > Duncan Richer writes: > > Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery > > Some degree of reversability > > > > Enact the following as a rule: > > > > " > > Some degree of reversability > > > > A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still > > available > > for voting perform the action of repudiating it. > > > > A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the > > author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they > > would > > usually loose in such an occurance. > > > > This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a > > proposal is defeated. > > " > > I'm not sure about this; I think people who make bad/hasty proposals > should have to deal with the results. This would save some time if proposals can be shown to be broken, and reduce the chance of such proposals being voted in. -- 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 clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 14:57:14 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Sat Jul 22 13:57:14 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk>; from dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk on Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <20000722135713.A32314@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell <fx: creaking sounds as Clare finally wakes up and starts playing> > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: Before I accept/reject... > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT 212 deals with estabishing a winner when play cannot be continued, as explicitly permitted in 110, and so is not relevant to this CFJ. 110 permits changes to the way of winning the game *only* when considering situations in which play cannot be continued. So, a) would I be allowed to judge this statement "true (except as explicitly permitted by rule 110)"? I'm guessing not (208). b) would a judgement of "true" imply "true (except as explicitly permitted by rule 110)", as the rest of 110 clearly allows for changes to the way to win in a situation where play cannot be continued? (209) c) would a judgement of "true" be instantly overrule-able, for the reason above? I'm guessing b), but I'd hate to judge "true" and then find that everyone else thinks c) ;-) Thoughts? BTW, call me Paragon. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 16:02:27 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 22 15:02:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210813150.4926-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221500570.9498-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell > > Proposal: > > Amend rule 202 as follows: > the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" > should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". > > Rationale: > > The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since > the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the > last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those > proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker > votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting > against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the > five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. That is true, and if I was so inclined I could use it to my own unfair advantage. I've realised this, and so I have been voting on each proposal as soon as I go through the proposal and publish it, so that no-one else's votes can affect mine. If you are happy for me to continue doing this, and taking the luck of the draw with everyone else, then there's no need to vote this proposal in. Yours, Slakko self-interested (who isn't?) From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 20:15:02 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Sat Jul 22 19:15:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221252020.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221914270.2183-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > > > Duncan Richer writes: > > > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > > > > As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. > > > > Suchwise am I known as Wild Card. Furthermore, I am known as Acronym. (A very long story behind that one...) -- 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 Sun Jul 23 13:05:43 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 12:05:43 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 311 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231200230.29225-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer - Accepted <Creates Rule 311> Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Maydell, Pitt, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: mormegil Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Paragon, Sheppard Create a new Rule, labelled "Titles", with the following text: "Players may own Titles. They may only acquire and lose Titles as described by the Rules. Unique Titles are a special type of Title. If any Player acquires a Unique Title, all other Players who own that Title lose it. When a Player has a proposal accepted, and have not previously had a proposal accepted, they acquire the Title of Non-Newbie." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Score: Slakko: 0 => 10 +10: Proposal 311 accepted mormegil: 0 => 5 +5: Voted AGAINST Proposal 311 From clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 14:14:39 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Sun Jul 23 13:14:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk>; from dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk on Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <20000723131438.A3163@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell Well, as no-one seems to think anything about this at all, I'm going to go ahead and try it before my 3 days runs out ;-) > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: I accept the appointment. > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT True. Sorry guys, you're going to have to get rid of 110 first... -Paragon From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 15:50:08 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 14:50:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] New Player Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231449290.12634-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Ben Harris has asked to join. He has been subscribed to the mailing list, so this should be the first message he receives from the list. Welcome Ben! -- 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 Sun Jul 23 15:50:42 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 14:50:42 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 327 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231448110.12634-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 327 - Ben Harris Proposal: To amend rule 307 as follows: Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". Rationale: The first change is necessary to prevent duplicate pseudonyms. The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in a freely-available document and that control characters are disallowed. Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7 bit ASCII" includes control characters. From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 15:55:36 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sun Jul 23 14:55:36 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 327 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231448110.12634-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231454150.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 327 - Ben Harris > > Proposal: > > To amend rule 307 as follows: > > Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". > > Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from > the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". > > Rationale: > > The first change is necessary to prevent duplicate pseudonyms. > > The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in a > freely-available document and that control characters are disallowed. > Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7 bit ASCII" > includes control characters. > Sounds reasonable. Could you provide a uri for the ECMA-6 thingy? -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 16:01:24 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 15:01:24 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 327 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231454150.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231500080.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > The second change means that the character-set used is one defined in a > > freely-available document and that control characters are disallowed. > > Since ASCII is not so defined, I can't easily tell if "7 bit ASCII" > > includes control characters. > > > > Sounds reasonable. > > Could you provide a uri for the ECMA-6 thingy? The actual document can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.ecma.ch/ecma-st/Ecma-006.pdf Have a look around www.ecma.ch if you can't find a .pdf reader. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 16:29:53 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 15:29:53 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <20000723131438.A3163@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231521290.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell > > Well, as no-one seems to think anything about this at all, I'm > going to go ahead and try it before my 3 days runs out ;-) > > > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: > > I accept the appointment. You still had three days from this point in which to think about the Judgement, if you wanted to. Note the exact wording on Rule 207 - "within 3 days of accepting their appointment". > > BEGIN > > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > > of winning the game. > > ENDIT > > True. I'm really sorry about this - but I think I've discovered a flaw in your reasoning. Rule 105 specifies when a proposal is adopted, and that "all proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on". Rule 106 specified that adopted proposals have their rule changes put into effect. Both of these, courtesy of Rule 204, override Rule 110 in the event of a conflict, and so the proposal which would change the rules still gets adopted. Of course, as soon as it is adopted, Rule 110 stops it from having any effect, but that's a different issue. I may need to propose that this be overturned - if it is, and one of my up-and-coming props passes (you'll know which one), then I'll give you back the 10 points I get for the acceptance to cover your loss of 20. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 16:45:02 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 15:45:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231457110.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 328 - Slakko Oops - Probably Not For the Last Time Proposal: Create a new Rule entitled "Moose and Squirrel" containing the following quoted text: "Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both Titles. Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points. Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict." Rationale: This is designed to encourage people to chase the leader - if you are in second place you can catch up rather quickly. The names - well, I just like Rocky & Bullwinkle. The first sentence is necessary because Rule 311 doesn't affect people who had already had a proposal accepted at or before the time of its acceptance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 329 - Slakko Over Compensation Proposal: Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following quoted text: "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." Rationale: This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 330 - Slakko Rehabilitation of Offenders Proposal: Create a Rule, titled "Points Recovery", with the following quote-delimited text: "At the start of each calendar week, any player who has a negative number of points gains 10 points, or the number of points needed to increase their score to -1, whichever is smaller." Rationale: If players have a long run of bad proposals, they may feel that they have no chance of getting back into the game. This little compensation may keep their spirits up. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 16:54:27 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Sun Jul 23 15:54:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221914270.2183-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231553470.20847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Andrew Walkingshaw wrote: > Furthermore, I am known as Acronym. For my sins I can be referred to as Muppet. -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 23 19:13:43 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 18:13:43 2000 Subject: [Nomic]CFJ 2 (Dan Sheppard to Judge) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231721480.28905-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> CFJ 2 - Mike Pitt Statement: Proposal 327 is invalid as it contains two rule changes. Initiator's Reasoning: On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal: > To amend rule 307 as follows: > Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". > Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from > the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". Rule 104: A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, or amendment 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. I think this is two amendments to the rule and is thus two proposals. I'd have accepted it if it has just quoted the new full text. I'd have welcomed the chance to vote on the two parts. From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 00:05:03 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sun Jul 23 23:05:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:07:03 BST." <14713.25655.339583.287253@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13GTre-00027A-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Martin Read wrote: >Duncan Richer writes: >> But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > >As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. My Rule 307 pseudonym is "pm215", because it is "the only unambiguous way of refering to [me]"... Peter Maydell From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 09:42:21 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 08:42:21 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231457110.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007240838010.2416-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 328 - Slakko > Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8 points, > and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points. > Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points, > and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule > takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict." It is possible that this could then lead to a two horse race: the second placed player leapfrogging the leader both of them getting 12 for each proposal as opposed to the ten that the rest get. Also it reduces the risk for the leader while increasing it for the "Boris", which goes against the rationale. Or am I (as normal) wrong? The same desired effect could be achieved by reducing the points for both, or increasing the risk: making both more vulnerable. Say 5 points for the "Fearless Leader" and 8 for the "Boris", with penalties of 12 and 15? (Wouldn't amending 202 be easier as well?) Mike -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 09:52:22 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 08:52:22 2000 Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231609580.22374-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These are ideas that I'm thinking about forming into a proposal, but before doing so properly (if at all) I thought I'd get people's opinions. Wild Card suggested that the voting process is slow and we wish to encourage people to vote. I agree with him. The idea of giving points to people who vote on each proposal was suggested by Wild Card, but defeated. I supported the motive, but felt it wasn't the right way to do it. Other possibilities are: Encourage participation by awarding compensation points to anyone whose proposal takes the full week to resolve. 5 points seems an appropriate amount, but I can see arguments for reducing this sum for either succesful or rejected motions. (Rejected: reduce risk of proposals if other people can't be bothered to vote, encouraging participation, against don't want to reward failure. Accepted: The idea was good but it was slowed without good reason, have a bonus, against already rewarded.) Taking 1 point off of anyone who misses a proposal -- i.e. fails to vote on it inside the week. (there is the risk that this may encourage people to vote randomly rather than not at all.) Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. Any thoughts/Suggestions? Muppet/Mike Pitt -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 11:52:22 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Mon Jul 24 10:52:22 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:02:26 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221500570.9498-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13GeMO-0002OO-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: >> Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell >> The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since >> the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the >> last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those >> proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker >> votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting >> against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the >> five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. > >That is true, and if I was so inclined I could use it to my own unfair >advantage. I've realised this, and so I have been voting on each proposal >as soon as I go through the proposal and publish it, so that no-one else's >votes can affect mine. If you are happy for me to continue doing this, >and taking the luck of the draw with everyone else, then there's no need >to vote this proposal in. However, doing this means that you are casting your votes without the benefit of any discussion on the proposal, which I think is not something we want the rules to encourage. Also, the next Speaker might not be as honourable as you are, and therefore it would be better to close this loophole. I realise that my proposed change would put the Speaker at a disadvantage. However, the Speaker is generally going to be the person who won the previous game (Rule 110), so we might actually consider this a feature :-> This is also an interesting proposal in that it is trying to fix flaws in the Initial Ruleset. I think it's worth trying to do this just on general principles. Peter Maydell From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 12:36:06 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:36:06 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231457110.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241132110.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 329 - Slakko > Over Compensation > > Proposal: > > Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following quoted > text: > > "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, > provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer > with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift > does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." > > Rationale: > > This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered > to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win > the game. This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that Wild Card has some. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 12:36:08 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:36:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Points Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241121080.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> I hereby award myself ten points. Can anyone see a rule which prevents my doing this? I can't (so by 112 it's permitted), so I'll submit a proposal to introduce one. I recommend it be passed quickly before someone awards themselves 200 points and wins. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 12:43:12 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:43:12 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Points In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241121080.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241137210.19681-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > I hereby award myself ten points. > > Can anyone see a rule which prevents my doing this? I can't (so by 112 > it's permitted), so I'll submit a proposal to introduce one. I recommend > it be passed quickly before someone awards themselves 200 points and wins. By Rule 112, only those things which are "not otherwise explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules" are permitted. The gaining and losing of points is heavily regulated by the rules - Rule 202 specifies a number of ways to gain or lose points, and so do Rules 206 and 207. It depends on whether you interpret 112 to mean that you can do anything unless the rules say you can't (in which case, why put "or regulated" in there?) or whether you can do things, provided that the rules don't mention the issue. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 12:44:47 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:44:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231609580.22374-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241143480.19681-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > These are ideas that I'm thinking about forming into a proposal, but > before doing so properly (if at all) I thought I'd get people's opinions. > Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this > would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if > there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. This last one sounds like the most interesting of the ideas. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 12:47:08 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:47:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241132110.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241145120.19681-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 329 - Slakko > > Over Compensation > This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. > I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of > negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that > Wild Card has some. Has some points, or some negative points? Or maybe he owes a debt of points? I think that standard English usage for "some" includes the condition that it is more than zero, and hence that the rule only permits transfers of positive numbers of points between players anyway. Yours, Slakko From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 12:48:56 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:48:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Points In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241121080.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241143290.19695-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Similarly I hereby penalise Ben Harris 10 points. Better cut that out in the motion too. :-( -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 12:49:01 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:49:01 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 331-332 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241148040.19681-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 331 - Ben Harris Proposal: To introduce a new rule, entitled "Order of points", to read: Players may only lose and gain points as prescribed by the Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - Ben Harris Proposal: To transmute Rule 110. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 12:56:08 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Mon Jul 24 11:56:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241145120.19681-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241148300.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > > > Proposal 329 - Slakko > > > Over Compensation > > > This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. > > I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of > > negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that > > Wild Card has some. > > Has some points, or some negative points? I think I meant "has one", ie has a negative number of points. > Or maybe he owes a debt of points? To whom does he owe that debt? A debt with no creditor seems like a strange concept. > I think that standard English usage for "some" includes the > condition that it is more than zero, and hence that the rule only permits > transfers of positive numbers of points between players anyway. <ponder> I agree. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 13:02:56 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 12:02:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231457110.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241158550.19695-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Slakko wrote: > "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, > provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer > with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift > does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." Some thoughts: Maybe the agreement of the recipient should be required. (Especially considering the -ve points discussion). Maybe there should be a penalty for this action: say 1/2 points lost in transfer (1st point in every ten or part thereof would be less steep). Muppet -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 13:03:30 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 24 12:03:30 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241132110.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241202580.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > This doesn't seem to prevent the transfer of negative numbers of points. > I think such transfers should be explicitly banned. The existence of > negative numbers of points has already been demonstrated by the fact that > Wild Card has some. Interesting... I hereby transfer all my negative points to Ben Harris... -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 15:22:18 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 14:22:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 312 - 315 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241417240.4148-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 312 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Paragon, Slakko AGAINST: pm215, Wild Card, Harris Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 313 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 2/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Paragon AGAINST: pm215, Wild Card, Harris, Slakko Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: pm215, Harris, Muppet Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Paragon, pm215, Harris Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule "As ane fule kno" If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement (CFJ). ------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: Muppet: 0 => -40 -10: Proposal 312 rejected -10: Proposal 313 rejected -10: Proposal 314 rejected -10: Proposal 315 rejected From M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 16:27:44 2000 From: M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle) Date: Mon Jul 24 15:27:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231553470.20847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> from Mike Pitt at "Jul 23, 2000 03:54:25 pm" Message-ID: <E13Gitt-0002Ts-00@scorpius.star.bris.ac.uk> Mike Pitt wrote: > For my sins I can be referred to as Muppet. Ganymede, I. Martin From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 16:29:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 15:29:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 314, 315 - CORRECTED Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241528280.11162-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Apologies - I accidentally swapped around Paragon and Muppet's votes on 314 and 315. The actual results are below. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Muppet, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Paragon, pm215, Harris Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Muppet - Rejected Votes: 6/11 - passed quorum FOR: 3/6 - failed FOR: Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, AGAINST: pm215, Harris, Muppet Abstain: Acronym, Hardcastle, MacGregor, mormegil, Sheppard ------------------------------------------------------------- From clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 17:28:43 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Mon Jul 24 16:28:43 2000 Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231609580.22374-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk>; from mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk on Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:52:21AM +0100 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231609580.22374-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <20000724162841.A15759@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 08:52:21AM +0100, Mike Pitt wrote: > Encourage participation by awarding compensation points to anyone whose > proposal takes the full week to resolve. 5 points seems an appropriate > amount, but I can see arguments for reducing this sum for either succesful > or rejected motions. (Rejected: reduce risk of proposals if other people > can't be bothered to vote, encouraging participation, against don't want > to reward failure. Accepted: The idea was good but it was slowed without > good reason, have a bonus, against already rewarded.) This might be a good idea later, but at the moment it just changes the points awarded for a proposal passing/failing. > Taking 1 point off of anyone who misses a proposal -- i.e. fails to vote > on it inside the week. (there is the risk that this may encourage people > to vote randomly rather than not at all.) Hm. I think at this stage we have a reasonable number of active players and so are probably better off rewarding those who vote rather than penalising those who don't. This method would also penalise people for abstaining, which I think is a Bad Thing. On the other hand... > Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this > would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if > there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. ... this seems like a very good way of making sure people stay active. A small penalty, easily avoided, will encourage people to at least spend a few minutes voting even when they've got a busy week. With a per-proposal penalty, people suddenly attacked by work have no hope... -Paragon From M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 17:45:18 2000 From: M.Hardcastle at bristol.ac.uk (Martin Hardcastle) Date: Mon Jul 24 16:45:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic]D[r]aft Proposals In-Reply-To: <20000724162841.A15759@chiark.greenend.org.uk> from Clare Boothby at "Jul 24, 2000 04:28:41 pm" Message-ID: <E13GkPq-0002ai-00@scorpius.star.bris.ac.uk> > > Penalising players who vote on no proposals in a calendar week -- this > > would penalise people if the game ceased to progress as well (i.e. if > > there were no proposals.) Say by 5 points. > > ... this seems like a very good way of making sure people stay active. > A small penalty, easily avoided, will encourage people to at least spend > a few minutes voting even when they've got a busy week. I think this is good in principle, but some people do go away for a week or ten days at a time; we would need a means for a player to suspend themselves. Also it seems a bit odd to penalize everybody in the game if there are no proposals to vote on in any given week! Ganymede From clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 17:52:49 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Mon Jul 24 16:52:49 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231521290.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk>; from dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk on Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 03:29:51PM +0100 References: <20000723131438.A3163@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231521290.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <20000724165247.A17513@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 03:29:51PM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > You still had three days from this point in which to think about the > Judgement, if you wanted to. Note the exact wording on Rule 207 - "within > 3 days of accepting their appointment". This I know, but I wanted to see what would happen... > Rule 105 specifies when a proposal is adopted, and that "all proposals > made in the proper way shall be voted on". Rule 106 specified that > adopted proposals have their rule changes put into effect. Both of these, > courtesy of Rule 204, override Rule 110 in the event of a conflict, and so > the proposal which would change the rules still gets adopted. Of course, > as soon as it is adopted, Rule 110 stops it from having any effect, but > that's a different issue. Ah, but as soon as the offending proposal is adopted, we've changed the way of winning, as forbidden by 110, even if 109 and 110 immediately make the new way impossible to use. I'd say this was a matter to be decided in the spirit of the game, and that a judgement of "true" makes offending proposals invalid. I'm happy for you to put it to a vote though ;-) Hmm. Methinks we need more conditions on proposal validity in this game... > I may need to propose that this be overturned - if it is, and one of my > up-and-coming props passes (you'll know which one), then I'll give you > back the 10 points I get for the acceptance to cover your loss of 20. That's very kind of you :-) -Paragon From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 18:01:13 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:01:13 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241634250.17141-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> OK people seem to like the third idea, but some method of suspension is needed. So comments/corrections on: Proposal Enact the following as a rule: "Inactivity considered harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the speaker. While in Coventry the Player may not vote. Players cease to be in Coventry 2 days after emailing the Speaker to this effect, or at a fixed time stated in the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. " Rationale: It is considered a good idea to get people involved in the game and to keep the game active. In an attempt to do this a small penalty to people who remain inactive for a period of time is proposed. The time period should be such that some it is likely that activity will be possible, while ensuring that the penalty is not criplling should it be impossible to be involved due to external factors. It also has the side effect of encouraging some proposals every week to avoid the game stagnating. Coventry was used 'cos I can't spell abeisance. Players in Coventry have to have a penalty (hence may not vote) to avoid abuse. The fixed time allows "I'm off on holiday" type mails, wheras the second way out is for when you are snowed under. Comment to Ganymede: I think we wish to encourage proposals, and penalising everyone if none are made seems to be a good way to do this. -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 18:01:24 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:01:24 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <20000724165247.A17513@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241700420.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote: > Hmm. Methinks we need more conditions on proposal validity in this game... > ...we do? > -Paragon Hobb reference? Wild Card. -- 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 bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 18:04:39 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:04:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241634250.17141-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241703220.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any > proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. replace "fails to vote on any proposal" with "votes on no proposals". The former looks slightly ambiguous to me. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 18:09:50 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:09:50 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241703220.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241709170.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > > > the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any > > proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. > > replace "fails to vote on any proposal" with "votes on no proposals". The > former looks slightly ambiguous to me. > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have been any". -- 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 Mon Jul 24 18:30:59 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:30:59 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241709170.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241728490.21113-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have > been any". I think I prefer leaving the penalty in for when there are no proposals in the week. Am I in a minority here? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jul 24 18:34:13 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:34:13 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241728490.21113-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007241733351.3410-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have > > been any". > > I think I prefer leaving the penalty in for when there are no proposals in > the week. Am I in a minority here? I quite like that -- it makes the rule shorter, for one thing. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 19:01:56 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 18:01:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241728490.21113-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241801130.26698-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > replace with "fails to vote on at least one proposal, should there have > > been any". > > I think I prefer leaving the penalty in for when there are no proposals in > the week. Am I in a minority here? I think it makes sense - if everyone's penalised, then it doesn't change things much overall, and the method does make the rule simpler. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 19:04:06 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 18:04:06 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241634250.17141-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241802010.26698-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > OK people seem to like the third idea, but some method of suspension > is needed. So comments/corrections on: > > Proposal > > Enact the following as a rule: > > "Inactivity considered harmful > > Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the speaker. While in > Coventry the Player may not vote. Players cease to be in Coventry 2 days > after emailing the Speaker to this effect, or at a fixed time stated in > the initial email. Any player not in Coventry who fails to vote on any > proposal during a calender week is penalised 5 points. > " I think this might need a bit more clarification on the time in Coventry. Something along the lines perhaps of "Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry. Any player ... Yours, Slakko From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 19:22:07 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 24 18:22:07 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241802010.26698-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241810590.27703-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> It occurs to me a minimal time of one week might also be imposed on someone in Coventry. Currently the only valid reason to go to Coventry is to avoid a penalty invoked by being busy for a week. As it stands without this someone could enter every (start of Cal week - 1 hour) and leave every (start of Cal week +1 hour). Inactivity Considered Harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. Comments? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> * Geekhold (n): household of geeks. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 24 21:39:22 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 20:39:22 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 333 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241759230.26698-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 333 - Wild Card Chocolate Frogs 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. " From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 00:56:08 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 23:56:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Nomic Proposal In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241810590.27703-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007242355490.26190-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Inactivity Considered Harmful > > Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, > optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not > vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if > specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are > leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering > Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a > calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. > > > Comments? Great. Propose it. That's about all I can say. :-) Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 00:56:59 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 24 23:56:59 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Another casualty of Real Life Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007242356080.26190-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Duncan MacGregor has made it known to me (at pizza this evening) that he is no longer interested in playing, as he does not have the time to both read and contribute to the list. He does, however, wish to continue as an observer on the list. Yours, Slakko your friendly Speaker From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 10:26:47 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 25 09:26:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 316-325 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250909170.25829-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Summary of Results 316 - Accepted 317 - Rejected 318 - Rejected 319 - Rejected 320 - Accepted 321 - Accepted 322 - Rejected 323 - Rejected 324 - Accepted 325 - Accepted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted <Creates Rule 316> Some degree of reversability Votes: 7/10 - passed quorum FOR: 5/7 - passes FOR: mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Harris Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Some degree of reversability A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still available for voting perform the action of repudiating it. A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they would usually loose in such an occurance. This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a proposal is defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 317 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Speak up will you? Votes: 6/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/6 - fails FOR: Ganymede, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Muppet, Paragon, Harris Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Speak up will you? Rules may call for hearings to be held. If a hearing is called then one Player (by default the Speaker) is in charge of the hearing (and is called by default the Herald of the hearing). The hearing lasts four days. During this time all Players who don't have the Title "Disenfranchised" are entitled to mail the Herald once and once only with either an unambiguous indication that they are in favour of the hearing called, or an unambiguous indication that they are against it. The Herald is required at the end of the four days, to report whether those in favour or those against have the majority of the indications. If the majority are in favour then the hearing is said to have been Upheld, otherwise it is said to have been Defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Something missing in the rules? Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/7 - fails FOR: mormegil, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Making 105 useful For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Consider Phlebas Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/7 - fails FOR: Paragon, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Slakko, Harris Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule: " Consider Phlebas The game of Damage is illegal within the precincts of Chiark. (Note, this does not make it against the rules) " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted <Creates Rule 320> Textual Convention Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: <none> Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule the following: " A textual convention to make life easier Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained along with the rules. It may be considered part of game custom. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted We'd like *some* leeway Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Slakko Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 322 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Undecided? Poppycock! Votes: 6/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/6 - fails FOR: Slakko, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact the following as a rule: " Undecided? Poppycock! While a Judgement is 'undecided' and no Judge is assigned to that Judgement any Player who has not been a Judge on that Judgement, and who is neither the Player who incurred the CFJ nor any Player mentioned by name or psuedonym in the text of the CFJ, may assume the position of Judge for that CFJ by emailing the Players with a message of the form: 'CFJ### undecided? Poppycock! I'll decide it myself!' where '###' is replaced by the appropriate number. They then have three days to make Judgement on that CFJ. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Reduce the lockdown further Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/7 - fails FOR: Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Harris Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule: " Reduce the lockdown! There can never be more rules that are less mutable than Mutable rules than there are Mutable rules. Immutable rules are less mutable than Mutable rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery - Accepted <Creates Rule 324> A wider definition of 'person' Votes: 7/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/7 - passes FOR: Ganymede, mormegil, Paragon, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Muppet, Slakko Abstain: Acronym, pm215, Sheppard Enact as a rule: " A wider definition of 'person' A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the 'animate' attribute. The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as described by the rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 325 - Duncan Richer - Accepted <Creates Rule 325> Soft Upper Limit Votes: 6/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/6 - passes FOR: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, Harris AGAINST: Muppet Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede, pm215, Sheppard Create a new Rule, entitled "Slow Down and save the Speaker" with the following sentence as its text: It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have ten or more proposals under voting consideration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes Ganymede: 0 => 5 +5: voted NO on P316 Muppet: -40 => -30 +5: voted NO on P324 +5: voted NO on P325 Slakko: 10 => 30 +5: voted NO on P321 +5: voted NO on P324 +10: P325 accepted Wild Card: -40 => -50 +10: P316 accepted -10: P317 rejected -10: P318 rejected -10: P319 rejected +10: P320 accepted +10: P321 accepted -10: P322 rejected -10: P323 rejected +10: P324 accepted Ben Harris: 0 => 5 +5: voted NO on P316 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 10:29:35 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 25 09:29:35 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 334 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250928580.27616-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 334 - Muppet Enact the following as a rule: " Inactivity Considered Harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. " Rationale: It is considered a good idea to get people involved in the game and to keep the game active. In an attempt to do this a small penalty to people who remain inactive for a period of time is proposed. The time period should be such that some it is likely that activity will be possible, while ensuring that the penalty is not criplling should it be impossible to be involved due to external factors. It also has the side effect of encouraging some proposals every week to avoid the game stagnating. Some method to allow players to opt-out when they are on holiday, snowed under due to work or other reasons was needed, hence Coventry. Coventry was used 'cos I can't spell abeisance. Players in Coventry have to have a penalty (hence may not vote) to avoid abuse. The fixed time allows "I'm off on holiday" type mails, wheras the second way out is for when you are snowed under. Thanks to all those who helped with the phrasing. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 10:41:44 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 25 09:41:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250940450.28543-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 335 - Duncan Richer 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. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 12:17:33 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 25 11:17:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 3 (pm215 to Judge) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007251113590.4944-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Call for Judgement 3 - Muppet Statement: We currently have no defined n as per rule 110 Initiator's Reasoning: Rule 110 says the method of winning "may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method". Proposal 321 changed rule 203 from "The winner is the first player to achieve 200 points." to "The winner is the first player to achieve 200 points, and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player". This changed it from "achieving n points" to "achieving n points" plus a condition, which is another method. This means that by rule 109 rule 203 is wholly without effect. We thus have no n defined. I suggest we pass the motion transmuting rule 110 and fix this troublesome rule so we can have a winner (at some stage ;-) From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 15:49:39 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Jul 25 14:49:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250825530.22436-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Rationale: Currently it can take a long time to appoint a judge. Also people in the game may not wish to be appointed judges. An opt out or opt in mechanism would be useful, these are more or less equivalent depending on the number of Judicial Posts we create. People at the moment have no way to opt out of being nominated, although all they need do is reply saying "no", this might lead to long delays (3 days per person). I like four as it creates some competition, but I'd be open to suggestions as to why more or less might be better, or to a better way to do this. I originally wanted to do this in one rule but it got too unwieldy. Again if someone can suggest ways to reduce the verboisty/clarify any of it I'd be very happy. Judicial Posts There shall be 4 Judicial Posts that carry the unique titles "High Chief Justice", "Lord High Magistrate", "Judge In Ordinary" and "Supreme Invigilator". A holder of a Judicial Post can resign at any point by emailing the Speaker and may then no longer use the title. {I'm not at all attached to the titles, better suggestions are encouraged} Elected Judiciary A post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method as described in the rules. Should a Judicial Post become empty the Speaker shall as soon as possible email all players inviting Voters to nominate themselves for the post. A Voter may nominate himself by emailing the Speaker making the intention clear. After 2 days the Speaker shall email all players with a list of nominees for the Post. The nominee with most votes cast after 3 days is appointed. Player cast their vote by emailing the Speaker. Conflict of Interests Should a holder of a Judicial Post become Speaker he must resign his Judicial Post. Should a holder of a Judicial Post go to Coventry for more than two weeks he must resign his Judicial Post. Should a holder of a Judicial Post be appointed to another Judicial Post he must resign from all but one. Amend rule 206 to read When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker randomly selects a holder of a Judicial Post to be Judge. The Player selected has 2 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. If all the holders of Judicial Posts in the pool refuse appointment they must all resign their Judicial Posts. Finally: Don't you know who I am... er was? Anyone who leaves a Judicial Post gets the non-unique title "ex-Justice <nickname>". Where <nickname> was their pseudonym as per rule 307. {So if Wild Card resign from his hypothetical Judicial Post he gains the title "ex-Justice Wild Card".} Or "ex-<title> <nickname>"? (Where title was the Judicial Post) -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Guy sure looks like plant food to me! Audrey II From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jul 25 17:28:42 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Tue Jul 25 16:28:42 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Updated rules (with RCS history) Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007251625190.28494-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> In case anyone's curious, ~bjharris/nomic/rules.txt has the rules with all the so-far-posted amendments applied, and with an RCS file for good measure. -- 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 Tue Jul 25 21:04:20 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 25 20:04:20 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Updated rules (with RCS history) In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007251625190.28494-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007252002050.28643-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Ben Harris wrote: > In case anyone's curious, ~bjharris/nomic/rules.txt has the rules with all > the so-far-posted amendments applied, and with an RCS file for good > measure. Thanks. Sorry I haven't updated /u2/nomic/rules.html for the changes today yet. There are pages at /u2/nomic/index.html which I have linked to http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~dricher/Nomic/CN (makes it easier for me to go in and modify the stuff). The nomic group on chiark is writable by everyone on the mailing list, so Ben if you want to move things into the group directory then you can. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 22:31:39 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 25 21:31:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250825530.22436-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007252128470.5351-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Rationale: > > Currently it can take a long time to appoint a judge. Also people in the > game may not wish to be appointed judges. An opt out or opt in mechanism > would be useful, these are more or less equivalent depending on the number > of Judicial Posts we create. People at the moment have no way to opt out > of being nominated, although all they need do is reply saying "no", this > might lead to long delays (3 days per person). > > I like four as it creates some competition, but I'd be open to suggestions > as to why more or less might be better, or to a better way to do this. > > I originally wanted to do this in one rule but it got too unwieldy. Again > if someone can suggest ways to reduce the verboisty/clarify any of it I'd > be very happy. > > Judicial Posts > > There shall be 4 Judicial Posts that carry the unique titles "High Chief > Justice", "Lord High Magistrate", "Judge In Ordinary" and "Supreme > Invigilator". A holder of a Judicial Post can resign at any point by > emailing the Speaker and may then no longer use the title. > {I'm not at all attached to the titles, better suggestions are encouraged} > > Elected Judiciary > > A post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method > as described in the rules. Should a Judicial Post become empty the Speaker > shall as soon as possible email all players inviting Voters to nominate > themselves for the post. A Voter may nominate himself by emailing the > Speaker making the intention clear. After 2 days the Speaker shall email > all players with a list of nominees for the Post. The nominee with most > votes cast after 3 days is appointed. Player cast their vote by emailing > the Speaker. > > Conflict of Interests > > Should a holder of a Judicial Post become Speaker he must resign his > Judicial Post. Should a holder of a Judicial Post go to Coventry for more > than two weeks he must resign his Judicial Post. Should a holder of a > Judicial Post be appointed to another Judicial Post he must resign from > all but one. > > Amend rule 206 to read > > When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker randomly selects a holder of a > Judicial Post to be Judge. The Player selected has 2 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. If all the holders of Judicial Posts in the pool refuse appointment > they must all resign their Judicial Posts. > > Finally: > > Don't you know who I am... er was? > > Anyone who leaves a Judicial Post gets the non-unique title "ex-Justice > <nickname>". Where <nickname> was their pseudonym as per rule 307. {So if > Wild Card resign from his hypothetical Judicial Post he gains the title > "ex-Justice Wild Card".} > > Or "ex-<title> <nickname>"? (Where title was the Judicial Post) It's a nice idea in parts, but I'm uncomfortable with restricting all Judgements to only four people. The Justices as a new appeals process, perhaps (in which case we might want only 3 or so), but I think everyone should have the option of being able to Judge. How about There exists a list of players called the CFJ Opt-Out List. Any player may add their name to the list or remove their name from the list by notifying the Speaker. A second proposal would be to amend the Judgement selection rule so that the Speaker chooses at random a voter not on the CFJ Opt-Out List. Yours, Slakko From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 23:30:29 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:30:29 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Rule 107 clarification Message-ID: <E13HCIq-0003ic-00@lsd.world> 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." Dan. From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 23:30:34 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:30:34 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:41:42 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250940450.28543-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13HC7T-0003i6-00@lsd.world> > 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. Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be illegal is a badly formed proposal, as it proposes something contrary to 101, which takes precedence over all other rules, it proposes something which cannot happen. For example, in the same way that the proposal "Proposal pi-beans be written in Croatian" is badly formed. Rule 110 doesn't explicitly block any changed winning method being acted upon, it merely says that the way to win the game must not be changed (which it might be by adopting the another rule). Like saying "a program must not be modified so that it SEGFAULTS" rules such changes out of hand, but does not protect from SEGFAULTS (apart from prohibiting their introduction, this prohibition might be overrided by a higher precedence rule which means that one sneaks in). I say vote for the overruling to be overruled, dismiss 335. Dan. From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 23:30:39 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:30:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 333 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:39:21 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241759230.26698-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13HA5Y-0003gE-00@lsd.world> > Proposal 333 - Wild Card What happened to 331,332, or has my mailer lost them, or should I consider Mike's draft proposals as having these numbers? Dan. From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 23:30:52 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:30:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic]CFJ 2 (Dan Sheppard to Judge) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:13:42 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231721480.28905-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13HBpC-0003hZ-00@lsd.world> > CFJ 2 - Mike Pitt > > Statement: > > Proposal 327 is invalid as it contains two rule changes. > > Initiator's Reasoning: > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Proposal: > > To amend rule 307 as follows: > > Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". > > Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from > > the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". > > Rule 104: > A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, or amendment 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. > > I think this is two amendments to the rule and is thus two proposals. > I'd have accepted it if it has just quoted the new full text. I'd have > welcomed the chance to vote on the two parts. False. Text of judgement: I/ Here we are invoking part b of rule 104, the third list member "amendment". So, we are applying a rule change which is an amendment of a mutable rule A proposal is exactly one rule change, in this case exactly one amendment of a mutable rule. Amendation is not currently defined by the rules, and must therefore be established on the basis of precedent and custom, according to Rule 209: Judgements must accord with the rules. II/ On the subject of precedent, Proposal 321 appears the most directly relevant. Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. This proposal is clearly in two parts within a single rule. Whilst this proposal was rejected, no CFJ objection was raised during its discussion. It seems to me rational, and based upon this precedent (albeit limited, there is no -requirement- for a CFJ to be registered on an erroneous proposal), that the adjacency of words in an English sentence should not be relevant to taking a series of modifications as a single amendment, or multiple amendments. Consider for example, the two potential proposals there should be a blue balloon and there should be a balloon which is blue if we wished to modify this to a green frog, the first would require replacing an adjacent phrase, whereas the latter would require amending non-adjacent words. III/ So far (300-330,333-335), proposals 303,321,326,327 have been amendments. They have taken the form of single replacement text (303,326) and double replacement text (312,327). It has become conventional, since 301-310, to represent proposals in a particular way, for example specifying the entire rule for enactment (303-320,322-325,328-330,333-334) in some quotation form, to specify the simple fact of a transmutation request (301-302) and overturning request (335). As there have only been four proposed amendments, no clear custom has been established as it has in the case of enactment. Therefore, in absence of a certain custom, it must be seen as acceptable to state an amendment in any unambiguous form (Rule 112: Permissibility of the Unprohibited). The form of the proposal is clearly unambiguous. IV/ If proposal 327 had been worded differently, the two phrases being contested may have been adjacent, and so have been a single modification. As in II/, I judged that the adjacency or otherwise of words should not currently be distinguished from the point of view of determining a single amendment, the non-adjacency of the modifications within a rule should not be used as a criterion for distinguishing the modification. Further, according to III/ as no precedent has been set for the form of an amending proposal, there is no reason to reject one particular means of statement over another. The form where individual parts of a rule are modified in separate string modification notices to form a single amendment (as perhaps in the contested proposal 327) is supported by limited precedent (proposal 321) and is not expressly prohibited by the rules of the game, nor the customs of this game, in my judgement, nor the spirit of the game, in my judgement, and so is allowed. It is clear that a proposal containing a -single- substitution request may be reconstructed from the two phrases, and without restrictions on the form of an amendment, must be considered equivalent to such a proposal. Therefore, the grounds given are not sufficient to justify the proposal being seen as two modifications. V/ The spirit of the game is, in one light, for proposals to be suggested by players in the hope of their adoption, and that it is the role of all players eligible to vote to consider voting that proposal through, or otherwise. A player who considers proposing a series of modifications to a rule has in mind an amendment to the game-play, an alteration in the dynamic of the game. That player might consider parts of their goal worth achieving without other parts, or they may not. Within the rules (particularly 104) a player, in the spirit of the game, in my judgement, creates a proposal which they believe is best suited to their ends, be they for the benefit of the game or otherwise. It is for the voters to determine if the proposal is best suited for the ends of the game. In cases where uncertainty exists over the validity of a proposal (in terms of the rules, the custom, and the spirit) it is in the spirit of the game that a quorum of voters determine whether the proposal should be passed, not that of an individual judge. A judge is not entitled, under Rule 205, which sets out the role of a judge, to adjudicate on proposals, only on laws and their interpretation. A judge may only rule on proposals where laws directly affect the nature of proposals. As, with a sufficient majority of voters in favour of an action, an obstructing may be overturned, voters have within their power the ability to adopt a proposal despite judgement. Therefore, in cases where ambiguity or extreme doubt occur as to the validity of a proposal, it is in the spirit of the game, considering the relative assignment of powers set forth by the initial rule-set, appropriate for the proposal to be put to the vote, the individual voters considering the validity of this rule, or otherwise, when casting their vote. Rule 105 states that a proposal made properly shall be voted upon. Where there is a reasonable degree of doubt in the mind of a judge as to the invalidity of a proposal, it is, in my judgement, in the spirit of the game, appropriate that the proposal be seen as valid for the purposes of voting, leaving to the electorate the ultimate decision in accordance with the balance of power implicit in the initial and current rules. VI/ Rule 104 is clear as to the nature of an amendment, it is an amendment to a rule, not to the text of a rule, not particularly to the explicit format of a rule. Rule 101 states that players must always abide by the current ruleset in its explicit format this implies that the ruleset, and so the rules contained within them have other forms. The rules of a game may be expressed in many languages, character encodings, and so on, and still remain the rules of the game. An authoritative source of rules (the explicit ruleset) may have particular features and importance in the game, but never the less the rules have many forms. Rule 104, in light of 101, is clear that proposals are to the rule in abstract form, not to the explicit format of the rules, else this would have been specified in Rule 104. VII/ An amendment is, in my opinion, to be considered like this. An amendment comprises a single modification to the rule in abstract, a rule in abstract being a regulator of our game. If a single line of argument can be used by a proposer to suggest that an amendment is simple (not composite), for example "to achieve a certain end", then this, in the mind of the proposer, constitutes a single amendment. It is a matter for subsequent judgement as to whether a proposal is indeed simple, bearing in mind V which states that in the spirit of the game a judge should defer to the electorate in cases of a reasonable degree of doubt. In my judgement, in this case, is that the amendment could be constituted as a single amendment in abstract, as both apparent modifications extend and retract the range of allowed names in certain formats. The abstract goal of the proposer might have been to modify the boundary in this particular way, manifested as a number of textual changes. An abstract goal might be vague, `to make the game more interesting' `to open up future possibilities', but this does not invalidate that simple aim. All this is of course, within the bounds of rules, particularly 104 which requires that a proposal must refer to a single rule. VIII/ Should someone disagree with this judgement, or similar judgements, concerning the unity of an amendment they may seek to overturn the judgement, or campaign that the proposal be rejected. The rules do not currently stipulate the criteria which voters must use in the process of voting, accordingly Rule 112 allows for an individual to vote against a proposal on the grounds of their believe in its malformedness. It is my judgement that in the spirit of the game as a whole, given the initial balance of power between adjudicators and electorate that the latter method be used in preference by an individual, although their right to call for judgement remains. Should an individual wish to divide an ammending proposal, it being unitary in the mind of the proposer, but not in that of the objector, they should vote the proposal down, and then propose the appropriate separated proposals. Therefore, I judge that the amendment is simple, and so CFJ2 fails. Dan. From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 23:30:54 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:30:54 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Then the demons are really angels, freeing you. Message-ID: <E13HCG4-0003iU-00@lsd.world> 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. " From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 25 23:30:56 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:30:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Wake Message-ID: <E13HCLr-0003io-00@lsd.world> 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." From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 00:02:45 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Tue Jul 25 23:02:45 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Rule 107 clarification In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:31:52 +0200." <E13HCIq-0003ic-00@lsd.world> Message-ID: <E13HCt6-0003mZ-00@lsd.world> > 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." Sorry, the new bit of the proposal is that it's required that speaker inform people of numbers. I kind of got lost on the way, explaining what 107 was on about. I shall rephrase it and mail again. Dan. From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 01:09:32 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Wed Jul 26 00:09:32 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 3 (pm215 to Judge) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:17:31 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007251113590.4944-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13HDpF-00035c-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Call for Judgement 3 - Muppet > >Statement: >We currently have no defined n as per rule 110 > >Initiator's Reasoning: > >Rule 110 says the method of winning "may not be changed from achieving n >points to any other method". Proposal 321 changed rule 203 from "The >winner is the first player to achieve 200 points." to "The winner is the >first player to achieve 200 points, and to have at least 20 points more >than any other Player". This changed it from "achieving n points" to >"achieving n points" plus a condition, which is another method. This >means that by rule 109 rule 203 is wholly without effect. We thus have no >n defined. False. Reasoning: I/ Rule 110 does not prohibit a particular method of winning the game; it prohibits a *change* in the way to win the game. [Notice that the rule goes on to talk about enacting, amending and repealing various possible rules.] If such a change makes it into the ruleset (for example, by some other rule overriding rule 110) then rule 110 does not have anything to say about the new state of affairs. Therefore the new rule 203 does not conflict with rule 110 or with any other immutable rule, and so rule 203 remains in effect. If the intention had been for rule 110 to prohibit other methods of winning the game it would have been worded in a simpler fashion; for example, it might have said "the only way to win the game is to achieve n points". II/ Furthermore, rule 110 prohibits not just a change in the way of winning the game, but a change *from* a particular state of affairs, namely that the way to win the game is to achieve n points. However, the ruleset prior to the introduction of proposal 321 defined the way to win the game as: * achieve 200 points OR * call for judgment on a statement that the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, and have that statement judged to be true and not overruled (rule 212) Therefore the first sentence of rule 110 does not currently have any effect. It has been suggested that rule 212 is merely a rule establishing a winner when play cannot be continued. I do not believe that the text of the rule supports such an assertion. Rule 212 does not require that play is unable to be continued; it does not even require that anybody have attempted the action whose legality is uncertain. III/ In my opinion the first sentence of rule 110 is almost completely useless, and it should probably be removed from the initial ruleset if it is to be used for another game. -- pm215 From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 01:27:53 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Wed Jul 26 00:27:53 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Wake In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:34:59 +0200." <E13HCLr-0003io-00@lsd.world> Message-ID: <E13HE6u-00036n-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >Proposal of new rule I'd like to suggest that people who wish to submit proposals should always do this by e-mailing them directly to the speaker rather than simply sending them to this list. This avoids confusion and allows the speaker to allocate each proposal a unique number. Players wishing to solicit opinion on proposals they are drafting should clearly mark them as draft proposals. Peter Maydell From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 09:49:31 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Wed Jul 26 08:49:31 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007252128470.5351-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007260833270.23370-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Thank you for the judgements. I'm a bit clearer now. %-} On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > It's a nice idea in parts, but I'm uncomfortable with restricting all > Judgements to only four people. The Justices as a new appeals process, > perhaps (in which case we might want only 3 or so), but I think everyone > should have the option of being able to Judge. I'd happily increase the number (and it would be a mutable rule so changeable later as well. Hoepfully). I thought potential competition might be good, but if you are unhappy with the restriction. However if you dislike it then maybe some rules for "democratic elected titles" in the first instance might be fun to do/better, as well as doing something like the CFJ Opt-Out List. Does anyone want to write the opt out rule or shall I bash something out? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "Yeah... the thing is about your internet, you see, is that it's the perfect medium for disseminating bollocks." Builder 1, Underworld. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 10:21:02 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Wed Jul 26 09:21:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 336-338 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007260914410.25558-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Yes, I know you've seen these already, but according to the rules their voting period does not start until I have distributed them to all players. Yours, Slakko Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard 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 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 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." From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 10:53:46 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Wed Jul 26 09:53:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 336-338 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007260914410.25558-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007260927270.28642-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 336 - Dan Sheppard > *Then the demons are really angels, freeing you* Why? Out of interest. I'm not sure I like the idea of legislating about players motives. :-) > Proposal 337 - Dan Sheppard > I've got your number Misformed, lets vote it down as quickly as possible. (Unless Dan wishes to be the first to exercise rule 316.) -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "Yeah... the thing is about your internet, you see, is that it's the perfect medium for disseminating bollocks." Builder 1, Underworld. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Wed Jul 26 14:12:25 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Wed Jul 26 13:12:25 2000 Subject: [Nomic]In pursuit of uniqueness... Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007261310460.14749-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> ... I shall be known as "00:00:a4:00:06:04". -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 14:17:47 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Wed Jul 26 13:17:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals for Elected Positions Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007260932090.28891-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Made them a bit more generic. Comments on these two rules? Do people think they are a good idea? Draft Proposal 1: Elected Posts A Title may be an "Elected Post" (EP) according to explicit rules or game custom. An Elected Post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method as described in the rules. Should an Elected Post become empty the Speaker shall as soon as possible email all players inviting Voters to nominate themselves for the Elected Post. A Voter may nominate himself by emailing the Speaker making the intention clear. After 3 days the Speaker shall email all players with a list of nominees for the Elected Post. The nominee with most votes cast after 3 days or all votes are cast, whichever is sooner, is appointed. Player cast their vote by emailing the Speaker stating unambiguously their favoured candidate. Draft Proposal 2: Conflict of Interests Elected Posts may conflict with other Titles or game roles {such as Speaker}. The rules of the game define which EPs conflict in this way. Conflict is reflexive {this is correct I want the aRb => bRa relationship name} but need only be explicitly stated one way in the rules. If a player holds an EP and is elected to another EP that conflicts with it the player ceases to hold the former Title or game role. {Note as defined above the Player has to nominate themselves so they aren't going to be elected accidently} If it is impossible for a Player to resign from a Title or game role then they may not be nominated for any conflicting EP. -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "Yeah... the thing is about your internet, you see, is that it's the perfect medium for disseminating bollocks." Builder 1, Underworld. From dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 14:32:02 2000 From: dans at chiark.greenend.org.uk (dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Wed Jul 26 13:32:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal: Wake In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:27:40 BST." <E13HE6u-00036n-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <E13HQU7-0004It-00@lsd.world> > I'd like to suggest that people who wish to submit proposals > should always do this by e-mailing them directly to the speaker > rather than simply sending them to this list. This avoids confusion > and allows the speaker to allocate each proposal a unique number. This makes sense. I'll do this in future. Dan. From bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Wed Jul 26 14:39:05 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Wed Jul 26 13:39:05 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals for Elected Positions In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007260932090.28891-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007261333340.14749-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > Draft Proposal 1: > > Elected Posts > > A Title may be an "Elected Post" (EP) according to explicit rules or game > custom. An Elected Post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's > holder or other method as described in the rules. Should an Elected Post > become empty the Speaker shall as soon as possible email all players > inviting Voters to nominate themselves for the Elected Post. A Voter may > nominate himself by emailing the Speaker making the intention clear. After > 3 days the Speaker shall email all players with a list of nominees for the > Elected Post. The nominee with most votes cast after 3 days or all votes > are cast, whichever is sooner, is appointed. Player cast their vote by > emailing the Speaker stating unambiguously their favoured candidate. Replace "most votes cast" with "most votes cast in their favour". Replace "all votes are cast" with "all Players entitled to cast a vote have done so". Replace "Player cast" with "Players cast". > Draft Proposal 2: > > Conflict of Interests > > Elected Posts may conflict with other Titles or game roles {such as > Speaker}. Perhaps we should define "Speaker" to be a Title. > The rules of the game define which EPs conflict in this way. > Conflict is reflexive {this is correct I want the aRb => bRa relationship > name} YM "symmetric". Reflexive would be each Title conflicting with itself, which is silly. > but need only be explicitly stated one way in the rules. If a > player holds an EP and is elected to another EP that conflicts with it the > player ceases to hold the former Title or game role. {Note as defined > above the Player has to nominate themselves so they aren't going to be > elected accidently} If it is impossible for a Player to resign from a > Title or game role then they may not be nominated for any conflicting EP. s/player/Player/g s/rules/Rules/g s/EP/Elected Post/g -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 18:57:28 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:57:28 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 In-Reply-To: <E13HC7T-0003i6-00@lsd.world> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007261741260.12269-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > > 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. > > Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be illegal is a > badly formed proposal, as it proposes something contrary to 101, which takes > precedence over all other rules, it proposes something which cannot happen. Why can't it happen? Rule 101 can only prevent the proposal from being proper if some other rule says that it isn't proper - it's not an argument in and of itself. > For example, in the same way that the proposal "Proposal pi-beans be written > in Croatian" is badly formed. It is badly formed, but in a way different from a proposal which attempts to change the method of winning. Your example violates Rule 104 - it is a proposal which does not consist of exactly one proposed rule change. A proposal which amends Rule 203 so as to change the method of winning, and does nothing else, does not violate Rule 104. > Rule 110 doesn't explicitly block any changed winning method being acted upon, > it merely says that the way to win the game must not be changed (which it > might be by adopting the another rule). OK - here is my 64 point question - at what point during the process of a proposal being under voting consideration and then being adopted does Rule 110 kick in to prevent the proposal from having the effect it does? 1. You might claim that it renders any proposal which would change the winning method invalid. However, Rule 105 says that "all proposals made properly shall be voted on". Rule 110 does not explicitly indicate that a proposal to change the method of winning has not been made properly, and I don't believe it can (the use of "made" to me indicates that the issue of being made properly is about structure, not content). So if Rule 110 attempts to block the proposal from being voted on, Rule 105 overrules it (lower number in conflicting situation). 2. You might claim that it attempts to prevent the adoption of the rule change, if the proposal passes. In this case, Rule 110 is overriden by Rule 106, which states that "When a proposal is adopted, any rule changes it contains take effect." 3. Alternatively, you might say that it prevents proposals of this nature from ever being proposed. However, the rule only refers to changing of the rules, not attempts to change the rules. A proposal can't change the rules until it is adopted, and so I can't see that Rule 110 can have an effect to prevent this rule change from occurring. > Like saying "a program must not be modified so that it SEGFAULTS" rules such > changes out of hand, but does not protect from SEGFAULTS (apart from > prohibiting their introduction, this prohibition might be overrided by a > higher precedence rule which means that one sneaks in). I think that the higher precedence rules are allowing the changes to sneak in anyway. Vote FOR 335. Yours, Slakko This has been an unpaid political advertisement on behalf of the Overturn CFJ 1 campaign. From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 21:26:13 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Wed Jul 26 20:26:13 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:49:33 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250825530.22436-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13HEus-00038p-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Mike Pitt wrote: >Judicial Posts > >There shall be 4 Judicial Posts that carry the unique titles "High Chief >Justice", "Lord High Magistrate", "Judge In Ordinary" and "Supreme >Invigilator". A holder of a Judicial Post can resign at any point by >emailing the Speaker and may then no longer use the title. >{I'm not at all attached to the titles, better suggestions are encouraged} > >Elected Judiciary > >A post becomes empty due to the resignation of it's holder or other method >as described in the rules. I think we might be better off defining the generic concept of a Post as in this Draft Proposal: ===begin=== A Post is defined to be a Unique Title, generally with some accompanying rights and responsibilities stated when a particular Post is defined. Posts have all the attributes of Unique Titles and the following extra qualities: (a) The Unique Title may only be acquired or lost as described in this rule (b) 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. (c) The holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it clear that the holder wishes to resign their Post. In this case the holder loses the Unique Title. (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. (e) If a Post becomes empty, the Speaker should as soon as possible announce this fact, together with the circumstances under which the Post came to be empty, and request nominations for the Post. (f) Any Voter may then nominate themselves for a Post by emailing the Speaker and making their intention clear. (g) Two days after the Speaker first requested nominations, the Speaker should distribute a list of all nominees for the Post. This is known as Calling an Election. (h) During the three days after the Election is called, Voters may email the Speaker to vote for exactly one of the nominees. (i) At the end of the three days, or when all Voters have voted, the nominee with the most votes acquires the Unique Title and becomes the new holder of the Post. If two or more nominees achieved an equal number of votes, then the Speaker should cast a vote to break the tie. ===endit=== This allows: * other rules to define when a player is Hounded Out Of Office (eg if they go to Coventry for more than 2 weeks without resigning first) * other rules to define Posts [such as the Justices] and also to associate useful things like rights and responsibilities with those Posts. It's supposed to tie down the details of voting and the link between Post and Unique Title so that other rules can't disrupt them. Any thoughts? Do we want to impose a penalty for being Hounded Out Of Office? >Should a holder of a Judicial Post go to Coventry for more >than two weeks he must resign his Judicial Post. I don't think this is quite right. Consider a player who goes to Coventry for an indefinite period without resigning his post. We want to strip him of the Post, not ask him to resign. [Under the suggested rule above, this bit would say: "Should a holder of a Judicial Post be in Coventry for more than two weeks they are Hounded Out Of Office."] >When a CFJ is incurred, the Speaker randomly selects a holder of a >Judicial Post to be Judge. I agree with Slakko that we don't want to restrict judging to only four people. Peter Maydell From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 26 22:24:39 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Wed Jul 26 21:24:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:45:00 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231457110.13055-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13HXXS-0003Zj-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 328 - Slakko >"Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this >sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the >score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless >Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the >Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless >Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. >If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both >Titles. This rule would appear to suffer from a race condition! Suppose that there exists both a Fearless Leader (player Adam) and a Boris Badinov (player Bill). Consider what happens when Bill receives sufficient points to take his score above that of Adam. By the second sentence in the proposal, Bill acquires the Unique Title of Fearless Leader, and therefore Adam loses this title (by the rules governing Unique Titles). At this point two things might happen: (1) the third sentence of the proposal has its effect, and Adam gains the unique title of Boris Badinov (causing Bill to lose it). The two players have effectively swapped roles, which was presumably what the proposer had in mind. (2) The fourth sentence of the proposal has its effect, since Bill has both titles. He therefore loses both, and since there is therefore no Fearless Leader there will be no Boris Badinov either. [what happens next depends upon whether you consider that the second sentence of the proposal (i) kicks in only when a player gains the points that cause his score to rise above that of the other players, or (ii) that it effectively continuously monitors the players' scores. If you think (ii) then there is the possibility of an infinite loop with a player gaining both titles and immediately losing them and then immediately gaining them again. At that point we can proceed directly to rule 212 and the end of the game...] Rule 204 only defines procedures for resolution of conflicts between different rules. There is currently no way to resolve an internal conflict within a single rule. We should probably fix this... (my preference would be to define a Clause and rules for resolving conflicts between Clauses of a Rule. Then people could draft their rules as a collection of Clauses.) -- pm215 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Jul 27 01:17:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Jul 27 00:17:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 328-330 In-Reply-To: <E13HXXS-0003Zj-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007270010560.18695-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > Duncan Richer wrote: > >Proposal 328 - Slakko > >"Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this > >sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the > >score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless > >Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the > >Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless > >Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. > >If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both > >Titles. > > This rule would appear to suffer from a race condition! > (2) The fourth sentence of the proposal has its effect, since Bill > has both titles. He therefore loses both, and since there is therefore > no Fearless Leader there will be no Boris Badinov either. > [what happens next depends upon whether you consider that the second > sentence of the proposal (i) kicks in only when a player gains the points > that cause his score to rise above that of the other players, or > (ii) that it effectively continuously monitors the players' scores. > If you think (ii) then there is the possibility of an infinite loop > with a player gaining both titles and immediately losing them and > then immediately gaining them again. At that point we can proceed > directly to rule 212 and the end of the game...] I was assuming that condition (ii) would be the standard way of interpreting this rule. No-one can simultaneously qualify to acquire both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov - and if there is a conflict between the fourth sentence being applied and the earlier sentence being applied, under interpretation (ii) both end up with the same result, after some infinitesimal amount of time spent removing someone from both offices. The reason for assuming that condition (ii) applied was that the rule fails to mention the need for a change in scores. It therefore doesn't seem (at least in my opinion) to need to rely on other events happening for any of its clauses to take effect. > There is currently no way to resolve an internal conflict > within a single rule. We should probably fix this... > (my preference would be to define a Clause and rules for resolving > conflicts between Clauses of a Rule. Then people could draft their rules > as a collection of Clauses.) This isn't a bad idea, but it creates difficulties if someone accidentally fails to structure their rule as a series of Clauses. Given that, in most rules, later sentences act as modifiers for earlier ones (e.g. "A proposal must satisfy ... A proposal is invalid if ...") it might make sense simply for a rule to state that later sentences in a rule take precedence over earlier ones in the event of a conflict. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Jul 27 11:36:44 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Jul 27 10:36:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 339 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007271036240.4961-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 339 - mormegil 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." From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Jul 27 12:34:01 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Thu Jul 27 11:34:01 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals: In-Reply-To: <E13HEus-00038p-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007270828040.26492-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I'm not sure whether I prefer these to mine, but the proposal is certainly easier to read. On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > (a) The Unique Title may only be acquired or lost as described in this rule Urgle. Or elsewhere in the rules surely? This is just waiting for a rule to overrule it leading to all sorts of trouble... Lets nobble it quickly. s/in this rule/in the Rules and by game custom/ > (c) The holder of the Post may at any time email the Speaker, making it > clear that the holder wishes to resign their Post. In this case the > holder loses the Unique Title. What if we wish to have "non-resignable posts"? > (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. (OK, but I think this makes my comment about (a) above *more* important) Also do we need to specify that they lose the duties/privileges of the Post at this point? Probably not, but I'm not sure. > (f) Any Voter may then nominate themselves for a Post by emailing the > Speaker and making their intention clear. Maybe s/./, unless another nomination procedure is specified by the Rules for that Post./? > (g) Two days after the Speaker first requested nominations, the Speaker > should distribute a list of all nominees for the Post. This is > known as Calling an Election. > (h) During the three days after the Election is called, Voters may > email the Speaker to vote for exactly one of the nominees. s/Election is called/Calling an Election/ ? I think making the two periods equal might be a good idea -- 3 days means if it happens at 7pm on Friday those who don't check email over the weekend are not too badly disadvantaged. (I guess thats why it was chosen all over the place originally... ;-) > (i) At the end of the three days, or when all Voters have voted, > the nominee with the most votes acquires the Unique Title and > becomes the new holder of the Post. > If two or more nominees achieved an equal number of votes, then > the Speaker should cast a vote to break the tie. > ===endit=== s/Post/Elected Post/ -- we may wish to have other sorts of Posts? (Speaker appointed say?) > This allows: > * other rules to define when a player is Hounded Out Of Office > (eg if they go to Coventry for more than 2 weeks without resigning > first) Point. I sort of woolily thought of imposing resignation. > * other rules to define Posts [such as the Justices] and also to > associate useful things like rights and responsibilities with > those Posts. That why I moved to Elected Posts following Duncan's comments -- it seems people don't want an elected judiciary of 4. :-) > Any thoughts? Do we want to impose a penalty for being Hounded > Out Of Office? Not in this rule. Other rules may wish to do so depending on the post. > I agree with Slakko that we don't want to restrict judging to only > four people. Fair enough. What do other people think about the two proposals. I probably think that pm215's proposal is more solid. I still think we need some concept of Conflict of Interest, including the corrections made by "00:00:a4:00:06:04" do people think this is a good idea? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "I now find myself in the position of having to apologise to ice-cubes everywhere. I'm sorry. I didn't know. It won't happen again." Vivek D. From clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Jul 27 12:40:59 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Thu Jul 27 11:40:59 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 In-Reply-To: <E13HC7T-0003i6-00@lsd.world>; from dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk on Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 10:20:07PM +0200 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007250940450.28543-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <E13HC7T-0003i6-00@lsd.world> Message-ID: <20000727114055.A10396@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 10:20:07PM +0200, dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be illegal is a > badly formed proposal, as it proposes something contrary to 101, which takes > precedence over all other rules, it proposes something which cannot happen. > For example, in the same way that the proposal "Proposal pi-beans be written > in Croatian" is badly formed. Hurrah! Thankyou, Dan, that's more-or-less what I was trying to say, but I kept getting bogged down somewhere in the 100s ;-) > I say vote for the overruling to be overruled, dismiss 335. Join the cause! You know it makes sense ;-) -Paragon From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Jul 27 15:54:36 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Thu Jul 27 14:54:36 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Status of Rule 203 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007271452410.30653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> The ruling of CFJ 1, at least unless it becomes overruled, indicates proposals which change the method of winning cannot be adopted. CFJ 1 counts as explicit game custom, and hence Proposal 321 couldn't have actually been adopted, could it? So Rule 203 must still have the original wording, right? What's wrong with my logic here? -- 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 bjh21 at cam.ac.uk Thu Jul 27 16:21:28 2000 From: bjh21 at cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) Date: Thu Jul 27 15:21:28 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Status of Rule 203 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007271452410.30653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0007271459020.25540-100000@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > The ruling of CFJ 1, at least unless it becomes overruled, indicates > proposals which change the method of winning cannot be adopted. CFJ 1 > counts as explicit game custom, and hence Proposal 321 couldn't have > actually been adopted, could it? So Rule 203 must still have the original > wording, right? > What's wrong with my logic here? *ponder* I'm not sure. The issue is over whether 321 introduces "a different method of winning the game". To me, this means that there must be a method one could apply which would fail to win the game without 321 applied, but succeed with 321. Can you exhibit any such? If not, I claim that 321 doesn't introduce a new method of winning, and is hence able to be adopted. -- Ben Harris Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 09:52:45 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Jul 28 08:52:45 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 335 In-Reply-To: <20000727114055.A10396@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007271159490.12955-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Clare Boothby wrote agreeing with what Dan said...) > On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 10:20:07PM +0200, dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > > Surely a proposal which,if adopted, the resulting rule would be > > illegal is a But the resulting rule would not be illegal. The adoption of the rule would be illegal, but the rules about adoption supercede the rule that would be contradicted. (If I undesrstand, which lets be honest I probably don't.) Mike -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "I now find myself in the position of having to apologise to ice-cubes everywhere. I'm sorry. I didn't know. It won't happen again." Vivek D. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 10:03:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 28 09:03:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 326 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007280901510.20178-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 326 - pm215 - Rejected Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/8 - fails FOR: Muppet, pm215, Sheppard, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card Abstain: Acronym, Ganymede Proposal: Amend rule 202 as follows: the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". Rationale: The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 12:09:11 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Jul 28 11:09:11 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposal about Pseudonyms Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007281039260.28742-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I was bored at work so I wrote a new proposal. I think that maybe some people may wish to change their pseudonyms at some point. So the following is suggested. "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. If in the view of the person with the Unique Title of "Job of Policing Psuedonyms" decides the player has changed pseudonym too often he may Step In and force the Player to take a Pseudonym of his choice for one week after which the Player may change his Pseudonym normally. {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 Psuedonyms 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 Psuedonyms" can be granted by the Speaker at his whim and shall initially be held by the Speaker. {It may be changed to elected when we get that sorted out for example.} -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> "I think it's time now to win some prizes." Dennis Bergkamp, July 1997 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 16:12:36 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 28 15:12:36 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal Suggestion Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007281456240.14364-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal: Create a new Rule, entitled "Object Creation and Restrictions" with the following text: "Objects may only be created, manipulated and destroyed as described by the Rules. If a proposal is adopted which amends the Ruleset so as to define a new Object or type of Object, then (i) anything in the possession of players which purports to be that Object or type of Object is destroyed before the new rule takes effect. (ii) if the Ruleset claims that instances of that Object or class of Object exist, but none currently do, then the required number of instances will be created, and will be unowned." What do people think? We want something which regulates abstract entities which exist within the game, and we also want some simple method for setting these up. With this framework in place, Objects can easily be created by rules, without one classic scam being available. Suppose I put a proposal in the queue which would create the class of objects called Widgets, and that certain Widgets had certain properties. Without the rule above, between the submission of that proposal and its adoption anyone could create Widgets (as they aren't regulated) and then receive the benefits automatically. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 18:25:16 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 28 17:25:16 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 340 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007281724170.27790-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 340 - Slakko So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? 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. From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 23:28:47 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Fri Jul 28 22:28:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 340 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007281724170.27790-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007281724170.27790-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <14721.64270.452513.869237@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Duncan Richer writes: > Proposal 340 - Slakko > So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? Apparently, failing to post proposal 339 :-) (At least, I don't *think* I've bounced 'd' in VM...) 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 pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 28 23:57:26 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Fri Jul 28 22:57:26 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 340 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:28:46 BST." <14721.64270.452513.869237@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13II85-0004XM-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Martin Read wrote: >Duncan Richer writes: >> Proposal 340 - Slakko >> So What's This Mailing List For, Anyway? > >Apparently, failing to post proposal 339 :-) #Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:36:42 BST #To: nomic@chiark.greenend.org.uk #From: Duncan Richer <dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [...] #Proposal 339 - mormegil #Proposal of a New Rule #"Someone To Watch Over Me" IRMTI. -- pm215 From clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 29 14:48:48 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Sat Jul 29 13:48:48 2000 Subject: [Nomic] FYI Message-ID: <20000729134846.A18989@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I've submitted a proposal to Duncan which looks suspiciously like 104 but includes the possibility of renumbering rules. If this passes I intend to transmute it and 104 and repeal the latter, just so you all know what I'm planning... This has been a public service announcement intended to confuse the populace. Thankyou. -Paragon From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 29 15:00:11 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 29 14:00:11 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 341-343 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007291357540.18573-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 341 - Muppet 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 Repeal Rule 212 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 343 - Paragon 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)"} From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 29 15:11:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 29 14:11:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Nomenclature (307) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007291410040.20641-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> In accordance with Rules 305 and 307 I am required to choose a pseudonym for Dan Sheppard. Seeing as we may well now end up with the ability to change our pseudonyms, there doesn't appear to be any benefit in picking anything too silly. I therefore bestow upon him the pseudonym of Dan I hope this meets with your approval. Yours, Slakko From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 29 18:12:30 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sat Jul 29 17:12:30 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals to define Posts (second attempt) Message-ID: <E13IXpi-0004su-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Here are some hopefully slightly better formed draft proposals for rules to define Posts; comments? ===begin=== Draft Proposed Rule I (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. {This is a bit ropey if the R&R aren't defined explicitly as such; consider the responsibilities of the Speaker, which are scattered throughout the existing ruleset.} If a Post is Scrutinisable then any Player may request a Call For Judgement on a statement of the form "The current holder of <Post> 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. {Anything else? We can always add things later. Perhaps a Delegatable attribute so the holder can give the job to an assistant temporarily?} Draft Proposed Rule II (Elections, or, The Worst Form of Goverment Except All Those Other Forms) {This isn't part of Rule I because (a) it's complicated and (b) I don't want to risk all the uncontentious stuff about Posts being nullified if anybody decides Rule 109 applies to the stuff about Elections} If a Post is defined to have the Elected attribute, then when it is first created and at any point when it subsequently becomes empty an Election must be held. The following rules govern Elections: (a) When an Election is to be held the Speaker must as soon as possible publicly announce this fact and invite Players to nominate themselves for the Post. The Election is then said to be in the Nomination Phase. (b) The Nomination Phase lasts for three days. (c) During the Nomination Phase any Player may nominate themselves for the Post by emailing the Speaker and making their intention clear. (d) At the end of the Nomination Phase the Speaker must publicly announce the names of all Players who nominated themselves during the Nomination Phase: these are the Candidates. (e) If there are no Candidates then the Election is declared a Dismal Failure and the Post remains empty. While the Post remains empty any Player may trigger another Election by emailing the Speaker and declaring that they wish to hold the Post. Any Player who does this must then nominate themselves in the Nomination Phase of the resulting Election. {If it matters that this leaves the Post empty, then the Post should be defined to be Critical (see Rule I) so that the Speaker effectively gets the job. Or the rules could define something else, specific to that Post.} (f) If the Election is not a Dismal Failure then it moves into the Voting Phase. (g) The Voting Phase lasts for three days, or until all Voters entitled to cast a vote have done so. (h) During the Voting Phase Voters may email the Speaker to vote for a Candidate. Each Voter has exactly one vote in each Election. (i) At the end of the Voting Phase, the Candidate who had the most votes cast in his favour becomes the new holder of the Post. (j) If there is no single Candidate with the most votes, the Speaker must break the tie by casting a vote so as to cause a single Candidate to have the most votes. This Candidate then becomes the new holder of the Post. (k) The Speaker must publicly announce the result of the Election as soon as possible. {Does this really have to be this complicated?} Draft Proposed Rule III (The Speaker, or, But You Already Knew That) {I'm not strongly attached to this one.} The Speaker is defined to be a Post with the following qualities: (a) if the Post of Speaker ever becomes empty, the Player who last held the Post immediately becomes the holder again. If this is either (i) impossible or (ii) would result in the Post immediately becoming empty again or (iii) would cause some other infinite loop, then some randomly selected Player becomes the new holder of the Post. {This handles things like the possibility of the Speaker leaving the game.} (b) All Players except the Speaker have the non-unique Title of Voter. If a Player gains the Post of Speaker they first lose the Title of Voter. If this Rule disagrees in any aspect with Rule 102, then Rule 102 applies and the sections of this Rule which disgree have no effect. The remainder of this Rule remains in effect. {The intent here is to recast Rule 102 in terms of Titles and Posts. I would claim that this rule does not conflict with 102. We might find it cleaner to transmute 102 and amend it instead, though. The final paragraph is an attempt to avoid the entirety of the rule being declared void by Rule 109. Would this work?} ===endit=== I'll leave the Conflict of Interest aspect for now. -- pm215 From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 29 19:55:47 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sat Jul 29 18:55:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic]cvsweb rules Message-ID: <E13Iapp-000503-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> I've just put the current ruleset into cvs; this means that you can access it via http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~pmaydell/cvsweb/nomic and get revision histories, diffs and so on. hint: the only rule we have currently amended is 203, so that's the only one you will be able to get diffs of ATM :-> ( chiark is running quite an elderly version of cvsweb, so the Web interface is a bit ugly. This should improve if that package is ever upgraded...) Peter Maydell From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 30 04:16:15 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 30 03:16:15 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 334 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007300313520.8108-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 334 - Muppet - Accepted Votes: 10/10 - passes quorum FOR: 10/10 - passes FOR: Acronym, Dan, Ganymede, mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Enact the following as a rule: " Inactivity Considered Harmful Players may place themselves in Coventry by emailing the Speaker, optionally specifying a date of return. A Player in Coventry may not vote. A Player in Coventry leaves Coventry on the date of return (if specified), or two days after emailing the Speaker indicating they are leaving Coventry, in either case not less than 7 days after entering Coventry. Any player not in Coventry who votes on no proposals during a calender week is penalised 5 points at the start of the next. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Change: Muppet: -30 => -20 +10: P334 accepted From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 30 12:42:09 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 30 11:42:09 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Coventry Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007301141160.14102-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Ganymede has indicated that he is in Coventry until Monday the 7th of August. Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 30 16:13:46 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 30 15:13:46 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 327 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007301508560.26381-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 327 - 00:00:a4:00:06:04 - Accepted Amends Rule 307 Votes: 9/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/9 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, Dan Abstain: Acronym Proposal: To amend rule 307 as follows: Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym". Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from the ECMA-6 International Reference Version". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes: 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 5 => 15 +10: P327 accepted mormegil: 5 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P327 Dan: 0 => 5 +5: voted AGAINST P327 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 30 16:47:39 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 30 15:47:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 328-330 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007301539170.28062-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 328 - Slakko - Rejected Oops - Probably Not For the Last Time Votes: 8/10 - passed quorum FOR: 3/8 - fails FOR: Dan, Slakko, Wild Card AGAINST: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 Abstain: mormegil (formally), Acronym Proposal: Create a new Rule entitled "Moose and Squirrel" containing the following quoted text: "Slakko and Wild Card each receive the Title of Non-Newbie, and then this sentence is deleted from this rule. Whenever a player's score exceeds the score of all other players they acquire the Unique Title of Fearless Leader. If there is a Fearless Leader, and one player other than the Fearless Leader has more points than all players other than the Fearless Leader, that player acquires the Unique Title of Boris Badinov. If any player is both Fearless Leader and Boris Badinov, they lose both Titles. Whenever the Fearless Leader has a proposal accepted, they gain 8 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 8 points. Whenever Boris Badinov has a proposal accepted, they gain 12 points, and when they have a proposal rejected they lose 12 points. This rule takes precedence over Rule 202 in the event of a conflict." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 329 - Slakko - Accepted Over Compensation Creates Rule 329 Votes: 9/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/9 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Paragon, Slakko, Dan, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, Muppet, pm215 Abstain: Acronym Proposal: Create a new Rule, entitled "Point Transfer", with the following quoted text: "A player may unilaterally gift some of their points to another player, provided that (i) the player giving the gift does not finish the transfer with a negative number of points, and (ii) the player receiving the gift does not finish the transfer with more than 100 points." Rationale: This provides a way to reward players as appropriate for services rendered to other players. However, it cannot be scammed to enable a player to win the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 330 - Slakko - Accepted Rehabilitation of Offenders Creates Rule 330 Votes: 9/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/9 - passes FOR: mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, Dan, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: Ganymede, pm215 Abstain: Acronym Proposal: Create a Rule, titled "Points Recovery", with the following quote-delimited text: "At the start of each calendar week, any player who has a negative number of points gains 10 points, or the number of points needed to increase their score to -1, whichever is smaller." Rationale: If players have a long run of bad proposals, they may feel that they have no chance of getting back into the game. This little compensation may keep their spirits up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores Slakko: 30 => 40 -10: P328 rejected +10: P329 accepted +10: P330 accepted mormegil: 10 => 15 +5: voted AGAINST P329 Muppet: -20 => -15 +5: voted AGAINST P329 pm215: 0 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P329 +5: voted AGAINST P330 Ganymede: 5 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P330 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 30 23:16:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 30 22:16:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Draft Proposals to define Posts (second attempt) In-Reply-To: <E13IXpi-0004su-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007302156400.23519-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > Here are some hopefully slightly better formed draft proposals for > rules to define Posts; comments? > > ===begin=== > Draft Proposed Rule II > (Elections, or, The Worst Form of Goverment Except All Those Other Forms) Here's my attempt at simplification: If any Elected Post is empty, and an Election is not currently underway for that Post, then the Speaker must initiate an Election Publically, and In Public make a Call for Nominations. A Nomination Phase lasts for three days, or until at least one Nomination is received, whichever is longer. A Player Nominates themselves for the Post by emailing the Speaker to that end during the Nomination Phase. When the Nomination Phase ends, the Speaker shall list the names of all Players who have Nominated themselves (the Nominees). If there is exactly one Nominee, then they are Elected, i.e. they receive the Unique Title of the Post up for Election. Otherwise, the Election enters a Voting Phase. In the Voting Phase, each Voter may email the Speaker indicating which Nominee they will vote for. Each Voter has only one Vote in each Election. The Election Phase ends after three days, or after all Voters have voted, whichever comes first. If a single Nominee has received more votes than each other Nominee, then they are Elected. Otherwise, the Speaker chooses one of the Nominees with the equal largest number of votes to be Elected. The Speaker must announce In Public the result of any Election. Discussion: If the post remains empty, we may as well have the first person to want the post get it, rather than go through the rigmarole of an Election whenever someone wants to fill a long-standing vacancy. The last paragraph rephrases the Speaker's casting vote as a choice, but the effect is exactly the same. I think the "as soon as possible" text is unnecessary - with Rule III defining the Speaker as a Post, if we make the Post rule indicate that all responsibilities need to be performed within "a reasonable time", however we define it, then we can save ourselves a lot of repetition. > Draft Proposed Rule III > (The Speaker, or, But You Already Knew That) > > {I'm not strongly attached to this one.} > > The Speaker is defined to be a Post with the following qualities: > (a) if the Post of Speaker ever becomes empty, the Player who last > held the Post immediately becomes the holder again. If this > is either (i) impossible or (ii) would result in the Post immediately > becoming empty again or (iii) would cause some other infinite loop, > then some randomly selected Player becomes the new holder of the Post. > {This handles things like the possibility of the Speaker leaving > the game.} The Speaker is currently a mission-critical post. Having it randomised when the Speaker ceases to become Speaker is a little risky. How about The Post of Speaker exists. The Post of Speaker-Apparent exists. The Speaker may appoint any player to become the Speaker-Apparent, other than themself. If any other rule would require the Speaker to be removed from Office, then (i) if the Post of Speaker-Apparent is not empty, then the Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Apparent becomes Speaker. (ii) if the Post of Speaker-Apparent is empty, and the Speaker is still eligible to be Speaker, nothing happens. (iii) otherwise, the Speaker ceases to be Speaker as soon as a Voter declares In Public that they wish to be Speaker, at which point that Voter becomes Speaker. > (b) All Players except the Speaker have the non-unique Title of Voter. > If a Player gains the Post of Speaker they first lose the Title > of Voter. non-unique isn't necessary - Unique Titles have been distinguished already in the rules. Rule 102 already stops people being both V&S, so why not make (b) simply read "If the preceding paragraph would cause a player to be both Voter and Speaker, then they cease to be a Voter." This doesn't contradict Rule 102 - it explains the mechanism by which 102 is enforced. > > If this Rule disagrees in any aspect with Rule 102, then Rule 102 > applies and the sections of this Rule which disgree have no effect. > The remainder of this Rule remains in effect. > > {The intent here is to recast Rule 102 in terms of Titles and Posts. > I would claim that this rule does not conflict with 102. We might > find it cleaner to transmute 102 and amend it instead, though. > The final paragraph is an attempt to avoid the entirety of the rule > being declared void by Rule 109. Would this work?} > ===endit=== Yours, Slakko From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 30 23:27:17 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 30 22:27:17 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Draft Prop Pair Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007302217240.23519-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> An idea in two proposals: Joint Credit, Part the First Create a new Rule, entitled "Six Degrees of Paul Erd\H{o}s", with the following quoted text: "When a proposal is submitted, its author may also provide a list of pairs, each pair being a Player other than the author, and an integer between 1 and 5 inclusive, such that the sum of all such integers in the list is at most 10. Any Player in this list is a Co-Author, and the integer paired with a Co-Author is that Co-Author's Credit. Any proposal with which such a list is submitted is a Joint Proposal." Joint Credit, Part the Second Amend Rule 202 to read as follows: "When a non-Joint Proposal becomes adopted, those players who voted against it receive 5 points each, and its author also receives 10 points. When a Joint Proposal is adopted, those players who voted against it receive 7 points each, its author also receives 5 points, and each Co-Author additionally receives points equal to their Credit. When a Proposal becomes defeated, its author loses 10 points, and each Co-Author (if any) loses points equal to their Credit." Rationale: There's a lot of discussion going on between players over the form and nature of proposals at the moment - and it's a good thing. We need a way to further encourage collaboration - as currently only one person gains the points benefit of the proposal. I increased the bonus for dissenters on Joint Proposals, because they are presumably working against a larger coalition of support for the concepts. I would be submitting this as two proposals, because I believe that some fiddling should occur as regards gains/losses both to the main author and to contra-voters, and hence that Rule 202 needs to be amended. Even if this were not so, it makes sense to include the Co-Authors' points in that same rule. Yours, Slakko From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 31 11:56:08 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Mon Jul 31 10:56:08 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals 331-332 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:49:00 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007241148040.19681-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13J0Wj-0008A9-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 332 - Ben Harris > >Proposal: > >To transmute Rule 110. Incidentally, if this proposal is passed then the conflict between the first sentence of rule 110 and the rules about what constitutes a proper proposal becomes a mutable-immutable conflict, and rule 110 will be "wholly void and without effect". Peter Maydell From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 31 12:17:44 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 31 11:17:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 4 (Acronym to Judge) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007311116240.7599-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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." 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: (1) the rule is ignored for the purposes of determining what is legal in the situation which gave rise to the conflict. This seems unlikely to me, as in that case rule 109 would just have said that the mutable rule takes precedence (compare rule 204) (2) the rule is ignored while the conflict exists. This is the possibility advanced by the statement above. (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. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 31 15:02:20 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 31 14:02:20 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 331-332 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007311355350.21422-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 331 - 00:00:a4:00:06:04 - Accepted Creates Rule 331 Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 6/8 - passes FOR: Ganymede, Muppet, Paragon, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: mormegil, pm215 Abstain: Acronym, Dan Proposal: To introduce a new rule, entitled "Order of points", to read: Players may only lose and gain points as prescribed by the Rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 332 - 00:00:a4:00:06:04 - Accepted Votes: 8/10 - passes quorum FOR: 7/8 - passes FOR: mormegil, Muppet, Paragon, pm215, Slakko, Wild Card, 00:00:a4:00:06:04 AGAINST: Ganymede Abstain: Acronym, Dan Proposal: To transmute Rule 110. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to Scores: 00:00:a4:00:06:04: 15 => 35 +10: P331 accepted +10: P332 accepted mormegil: 15 => 20 +5: voted AGAINST P331 pm215: 10 => 15 +5: voted AGAINST P331 Ganymede: 10 => 15 +5: voted AGAINST P332 From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 14 12:17:18 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 14 11:17:18 2000 Subject: [Nomic]We can start the game anytime now. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007141115140.6820-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> OK, this should be getting out to the 10 people who indicated they wanted to play. Before we actually start, there is one question I would like to discuss. The initial rules of most Nomics indicate that they are open to anyone who wishes to play. I would suggest that, at the start, we restrict play in this game to people who hold chiark accounts. Of course the nature of Nomic makes it relatively easy to swap between these two positions, but it would be nice if we started in the one which had greater agreement. If anyone has any particularly strong opinions one way or the other, share them with the list. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Fri Jul 14 15:49:27 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 14 14:49:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Initial Ruleset Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007141436450.28345-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I was planning to start the game (with the exception of the clause I talked about in my previous message) with the Initial Ruleset as given on my page at http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/newstart.html and with myself as Speaker. Is this alright with people? If so, we may as well start the game as soon as possible - say an official start time of 6am BST tomorrow morning (so that everyone's asleep and I don't have to deal with a to-the-second deluge of initial proposals)? We can worry about setting up webpages to hold the ruleset and such in the next few days - there's no way that it can change much within the first week or so anyway.</famous_last_words> Yours, Duncan -- 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 Sat Jul 15 10:20:50 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 15 09:20:50 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery Why shouldn't the speaker vote? Transmute Rule 102 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery Immutability considered harmful Transmute Rule 104 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery More flexibility in proposal success Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery Quick Start Enact the following as a rule: " Quick Start The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the legal votes cast on it. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery Default Assumption Enact the following as a rule: " Wording Rules Easier Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which the rule was enacted. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery Lets have some property to play with Enact the following as a rule: " Property Claims Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic miles of land. The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery And you can call me Al Enact the following as a rule: " And you can call me Al Every Player, within a week of joining the game, may choose for themselves a pseudonym, which must be representable in 7 bit ASCII, unique, and not the same as the name of any Player other than themselves. If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the Speaker must choose one for them. If a Player has a pseudonym then that is the only unambiguous way of refering to that Player. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery Make it easy for the Speaker Enact the following as a rule: " Make it easy for the Speaker A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK NOMIC]'. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery What week is it? Enact the following as a rule: " What week is it? For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery Encourage Voting Enact the following as a rule: " Encourage Voting At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 points. " From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 15 15:29:51 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 15 14:29:51 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151425350.657-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery > Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > > Transmute Rule 102 I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > Quick Start > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Quick Start > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > legal votes cast on it. > " I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting around the two-thirds requirement? > " > Wording Rules Easier > > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > the rule was enacted. > " Nice concept - I'm surprised I haven't seen it around before. > Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery > And you can call me Al Welcome to the land of silly names. > A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker > if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK > NOMIC]'. " No - I don't like this at all. The mailing list is already set up to prepend [Nomic] to the subject line of all messages - I'm quite happy to have people just reply to those messages, redirecting the reply to me. 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 Sat Jul 15 19:43:41 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sat Jul 15 18:43:41 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151425350.657-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151841510.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery > > Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > > > > Transmute Rule 102 > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > Quick Start > > > > Enact the following as a rule: > > > > " > > Quick Start > > > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > > legal votes cast on it. > > " > I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why > couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting > around the two-thirds requirement? Good point - it's badly worded. OK - lets set some precident here... I hereby change my vote on this proposal to "against". -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 01:51:59 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 00:51:59 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007151841510.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160050210.21133-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? What conflicts? > > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > > Quick Start > > > > > I can't see why this one is necessarily going to be an improvement. Why > > couldn't you enact a rule which amends another rule, thereby getting > > around the two-thirds requirement? > > Good point - it's badly worded. > > OK - lets set some precident here... > > I hereby change my vote on this proposal to "against". Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. -- 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 Sun Jul 16 01:55:13 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sun Jul 16 00:55:13 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160050210.21133-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160054040.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? > > What conflicts? That's rule 204. > Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify > a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - > so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. > No - the rules specify how to vote, and that I'm only allowed one vote - they don't specify what happens if the Speaker recieves two votes from one player on an issue. -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 02:04:30 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 01:04:30 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Re: Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160054040.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160102550.22284-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > > > > > > I actually have some interesting thoughts on this one. Compare and > > > > contrast rules 102 and 204 (I think) and see what you come up with. > > > > > > The 'Resolving Conflicts' rule? Oops. Sorry, rule 201. > > Denied. The rules specify how you may vote. The rules fail to specify > > a way to change a vote. You vote by emailing the Speaker for or against - > > so clearly you're trying to vote twice, and this isn't allowed. > > > No - the rules specify how to vote, and that I'm only allowed one vote - > they don't specify what happens if the Speaker recieves two votes from one > player on an issue. But you've voted. You've only got one vote, so anything else which looks like a vote can't actually be one. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Sun Jul 16 10:53:29 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 09:53:29 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160951580.13813-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Create a new Rule, labelled "Titles", with the following text: "Players may own Titles. They may only acquire and lose Titles as described by the Rules. Unique Titles are a special type of Title. If any Player acquires a Unique Title, all other Players who own that Title lose it. When a Player has a proposal accepted, and have not previously had a proposal accepted, they acquire the Title of Non-Newbie." -- 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 Sun Jul 16 17:03:00 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Sun Jul 16 16:03:00 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:20:49 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13DjvO-00052L-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery >Why shouldn't the speaker vote? > >Transmute Rule 102 >Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery >Immutability considered harmful > >Transmute Rule 104 I'm against both these proposals because I think they are too sweeping. We should defer such significant changes to the rule set until we've worked with the current rules for a while and have a better idea of their strengths and weaknesses. Evolution, not revolution. >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery >More flexibility in proposal success > >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified >elsewhere in the rules the'. This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, the second one, or both? >Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery >Quick Start >The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the >legal votes cast on it. I think this also falls in the "too drastic" category. >Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery >Lets have some property to play with >Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic >miles of land. > >The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. Given that you haven't defined "land", this proposal could be construed as bringing the rule set into conflict with English law. Should we assume that we're playing the game in a parallel universe, or should we explicitly talk about "land on chiark"? >Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery [...] >If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the >Speaker must choose one for them. This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to proposals currently under discussion? >Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery >What week is it? >For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am >BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " Do you really want to use BST rather than GMT0BST or similar? Peter Maydell From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jul 16 17:08:52 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 16 16:08:52 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <E13DjvO-00052L-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007161606490.11324-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery > [...] > >If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the > >Speaker must choose one for them. > > This raises the question of how we deal with spelling and typing errors in > proposal text. Do we vote against the proposal as meaningless? Do we vote > for the proposal on the basis of what it obviously meant to say? Do we want > to introduce some sort of amendment system for suggesting alterations to > proposals currently under discussion? One way I have seen to deal with this in other Nomic games (I don't know if we'll want to go the same way, but it's an option) is a rule which states that any unambiguous misspelling is taken to mean the same as the word it was an unambiguous misspelling of. Another way (interestingly from the same game) is to have some non-proposal based method for fixing obvious misspellings and other grammatical kludges in the rules. Other ideas along these lines would be welcome. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Mon Jul 17 01:38:03 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 17 00:38:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <E13DjvO-00052L-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007170037050.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > >More flexibility in proposal success > > > >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > >elsewhere in the rules the'. > > This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word > 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, > the second one, or both? > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. -- 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 pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 10:58:47 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Mon Jul 17 09:58:47 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:38:02 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007170037050.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13E6jY-0005XZ-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> "Jonathan D. Amery" wrote: >On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >> >Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery >> >More flexibility in proposal success >> > >> >Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified >> >elsewhere in the rules the'. >> >> This proposal is not properly defined. There are two instances of the word >> 'The' in rule 201. Did the proponent intend to change the first one, >> the second one, or both? >> > > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. "Quorum is half of all active... The required number of votes... Each playr has exactly one... The prescribed voting period..." The second and fourth sentences start with 'The'. HTH! Peter Maydell From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 13:48:24 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Mon Jul 17 12:48:24 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <E13E6jY-0005XZ-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171246410.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > "Jonathan D. Amery" wrote: > > > > The word 'The' only appears once - the other has a lower case 't'. > > "Quorum is half of all active... > The required number of votes... > Each playr has exactly one... > The prescribed voting period..." > > The second and fourth sentences start with 'The'. > Oops. Oh, well - it works in both situations really. I think that the 'correct' interpretation is probably that both 'The's are replaced. Jonathan. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 14:56:03 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 17 13:56:03 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171352001.27780-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid chiark email account ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt Enact the following as a rule "As ane fule kno" If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement (CFJ). From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 17:37:56 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 17 16:37:56 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007150914140.6428-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171620240.9186-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > More flexibility in proposal success > > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > elsewhere in the rules the'. Having seen the discussion I think this should be voted down and a less ambiguous wording proposed. > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > Quick Start > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > legal votes cast on it. Why is it called Quick Start? Other people seem to think this is a bad thing. What sort of effect could it have? > Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > the rule was enacted. I think an unless otherwise stated is needed here, for example we may want to decide later in the game to award more than 125 square miles of land to newcomers to balance them out for starting late. Of course we could change this rule then, but I think rejecting it and including that change now would be a better course. > Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic > miles of land. > The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. This does give us something to play with, but do we really want to play Monopoly? > Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery > At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every > proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 > points. We should reduce the offered points. Encouragement may be good but 10 points is quite high (the reward for a succesful proposal). I'd say 5 is more reasonable. Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all proposals? For this reason I am against this as phrased, tho' I could be persuaded. End of discussion. I notice from the archives of Acka Nomic: > Congressional Voting Record > Mitchell Harding > Decision: Accepted > Each week the Speaker must send a message to all players which > contains the names and numbers of all proposals voted on in the past > week, and how each player and the speaker voted (yes, no, or abstain) on > each said proposal. This seems like a good idea. Would people support it's proposal? The Speaker is currently at liberty to so do if he desires. Could he do so until a motion like the above is explicitly enacted one way or the other? On an administrative point, how goes the web page? -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 17:54:30 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Mon Jul 17 16:54:30 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007160951580.13813-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171653160.13285-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jul 17 18:22:20 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Mon Jul 17 17:22:20 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171620240.9186-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171717540.15736-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were > I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all > proposals? As the rules stand, the first is not a legitimate type of vote, and therefore could not be counted as such. The second is an interesting question - whether an email in advance counts as sufficient, and could well be reason for a CFJ. > I notice from the archives of Acka Nomic: > > Congressional Voting Record > > Mitchell Harding > > Decision: Accepted > > Each week the Speaker must send a message to all players which > > contains the names and numbers of all proposals voted on in the past > > week, and how each player and the speaker voted (yes, no, or abstain) on > > each said proposal. > > This seems like a good idea. Would people support it's proposal? > > The Speaker is currently at liberty to so do if he desires. Could he do > so until a motion like the above is explicitly enacted one way or the > other? At the moment, I will post the results of each proposal, including who voted which way, as soon as is practicable after it is accepted or rejected. A weekly summary might be a good idea - depends on exactly how people want their information. > On an administrative point, how goes the web page? Visit http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~dricher/Nomic/CN/ to see what I've done so far. Don't just click on the link from the list of user's pages - that currently points elsewhere (I'll email Ian to get him to change it sometime soonish). Alternatively, you should be able to see it at ~dricher/public-html/Nomic/CN/index.html If and when a nomic group is established on chiark, I will endeavour to move the webpages there. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Mon Jul 17 21:56:53 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Mon Jul 17 20:56:53 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:56:01 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171352001.27780-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13EH0S-0005eB-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 312 - Mike Pitt >Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker at a valid >chiark email account >Proposal 313 - Mike Pitt >Votes only count as valid if they are emailed to the Speaker from a valid >chiark email account What do you consider the worth of these proposals to be? (As an aside, I think that it would be useful if each Proposal were accompanied by a Rationale, where the proposer advanced arguments in favour of it. I don't think we need a new rule to allow this (it is not expressly prohibited or regulated).) >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. >Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt >Enact the following as a rule >If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed >by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the >proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no >ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a >player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement >(CFJ). Unfortunately this is flawed, as you don't say what the result of asking for a CFJ would be. Presumably you want a successful appeal to the CFJ to result in the wording change being undone or the proposal declared invalid, or something, but you have to *say* this! Also, your proposal contains a grammatical mistake :-> In the phrase "the speaker may correct them", "them" can only logically refer to "the players", since both "a rule" and "a [...] mistake" are singular. Furthermore, strictly speaking changing "them" to "the error" would be resolving an ambiguity and changing the meaning... (Oh, and it should be "proposal's proposer".) Peter Maydell (aiming for Lord High Pedant status...) From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 01:23:39 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Tue Jul 18 00:23:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 301-310 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171620240.9186-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180020310.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery > > More flexibility in proposal success > > > > Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified > > elsewhere in the rules the'. > > Having seen the discussion I think this should be voted down and a less > ambiguous wording proposed. Nah... :) > > Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery > > Quick Start > > The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the > > legal votes cast on it. > > Why is it called Quick Start? So that rules get enacted quicker. I was intending to put a time-lapse clause in, but forgot... (oops) > Other people seem to think this is a bad thing. What sort of effect could > it have? > > > Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery > > Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining > > the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players > > when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which > > the rule was enacted. > > I think an unless otherwise stated is needed here, for example we may want > to decide later in the game to award more than 125 square miles of land to > newcomers to balance them out for starting late. Rules can always explicitly override it (Rule 204). > Of course we could change this rule then, but I think rejecting it and > including that change now would be a better course. And slow. > > Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic > > miles of land. > > The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. > > This does give us something to play with, but do we really want to play > Monopoly? Who says we're talking monopoly? <grins> > > Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery > > At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every > > proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 > > points. > We should reduce the offered points. Encouragement may be good but 10 > points is quite high (the reward for a succesful proposal). I'd say 5 is > more reasonable. I guess it depends how many points are floating around, really. > Would sending an explicit abstain be counted as a vote? What about (were > I to go on holiday) if I were to send in a request to vote for/against all > proposals? I think that that's agains the rules. -- 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 jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 01:24:44 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Tue Jul 18 00:24:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007171653160.13285-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180023530.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System > > Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. > Mr Speaker, do you accept this vote? It hasn't actually been emailed to *you*, but... -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 09:21:48 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:21:48 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 311 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180023530.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180821200.31818-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > > Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer > > > Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System > > > > Oh what the heck. I vote in favour. > > > Mr Speaker, do you accept this vote? > > It hasn't actually been emailed to *you*, but... It has - the fact that this got to me via the list is not something which the ruleset differentiates at the moment. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Tue Jul 18 09:31:33 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:31:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery Some degree of reversability Enact the following as a rule: " Some degree of reversability A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still available for voting perform the action of repudiating it. A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they would usually loose in such an occurance. This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a proposal is defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 317 - Jonathan Amery Speak up will you? Enact the following as a rule: " Speak up will you? Rules may call for hearings to be held. If a hearing is called then one Player (by default the Speaker) is in charge of the hearing (and is called by default the Herald of the hearing). The hearing lasts four days. During this time all Players who don't have the Title "Disenfranchised" are entitled to mail the Herald once and once only with either an unambiguous indication that they are in favour of the hearing called, or an unambiguous indication that they are against it. The Herald is required at the end of the four days, to report whether those in favour or those against have the majority of the indications. If the majority are in favour then the hearing is said to have been Upheld, otherwise it is said to have been Defeated. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery Something missing in the rules? Enact the following as a rule: " Making 105 useful For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery Consider Phlebas Enact as a rule: " Consider Phlebas The game of Damage is illegal within the precincts of Chiark. (Note, this does not make it against the rules) " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery Textual Convention Enact as a rule the following: " A textual convention to make life easier Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained along with the rules. It may be considered part of game custom. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery We'd like *some* leeway Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 322 - Jonathan Amery Undecided? Poppycock! Enact the following as a rule: " Undecided? Poppycock! While a Judgement is 'undecided' and no Judge is assigned to that Judgement any Player who has not been a Judge on that Judgement, and who is neither the Player who incurred the CFJ nor any Player mentioned by name or psuedonym in the text of the CFJ, may assume the position of Judge for that CFJ by emailing the Players with a message of the form: 'CFJ### undecided? Poppycock! I'll decide it myself!' where '###' is replaced by the appropriate number. They then have three days to make Judgement on that CFJ. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery Reduce the lockdown further Enact as a rule: " Reduce the lockdown! There can never be more rules that are less mutable than Mutable rules than there are Mutable rules. Immutable rules are less mutable than Mutable rules. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery A wider definition of 'person' Enact as a rule: " A wider definition of 'person' A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the 'animate' attribute. The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as described by the rules. " From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 09:37:17 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:37:17 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180835070.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 325 - Duncan Richer Soft Upper Limit Create a new Rule, entitled "Slow Down and save the Speaker" with the following sentence as its text: It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have ten or more proposals under voting consideration. From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 09:52:42 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Jul 18 08:52:42 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 In-Reply-To: <E13EH0S-0005eB-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180837280.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > What do you consider the worth of these proposals to be? > (As an aside, I think that it would be useful if each Proposal > were accompanied by a Rationale, where the proposer advanced > arguments in favour of it. I don't think we need a new rule > to allow this (it is not expressly prohibited or regulated).) The point is that at the moment there is nothing in the rules to say how votes may be cast, they could be sent by carrier pigeon or verbally transferred. The restriction to email from a valid chiark account is a method to ensure that email is sent to the speaker, making it easier for him (he would no longer have to remember that he was told on Tuesday by Fred that Fred voted for 356 and against 378). It is an attempt to make the speakers life easier. The restriction to a chiark acocunt is because we all have one and it prevents someone sending votes from multiple acocunts making accounting of the votes slightly harder. (As a dip GM I disliked the players who sent orders from multiple accounts as it made it hard to see NMRs /easily/, but I accept the situation here is different). The restriction "to" a valid chiark email account is to ensure the speaker remains part of the chiark community, with access to the required resources. > >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt > >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint > >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. > "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible > to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. The point being they were undefined and to see how it developed. As rule 110 vetoes any mutable rule win methods at the moment this is not unsafe. It will give us something else to play with. We don't define Land or what a Title may be either (tho' an example is given). The next round of proposals will certainly fix this. > >Proposal 315 - Mike Pitt > >Enact the following as a rule > >If a typo, grammatical or spelling mistake is made in a rule and observed > >by the players the speaker may correct them with the agreement of the > >proposals proposer. This is provided the meaning is not changed and no > >ambiguity is resolved. This has no effect on votes already cast. If a > >player feels the meaning was changed he may ask for a Call For Judgement > >(CFJ). > Unfortunately this is flawed, as you don't say what the result > of asking for a CFJ would be. Presumably you want a successful > appeal to the CFJ to result in the wording change being undone > or the proposal declared invalid, or something, but you have to > *say* this! Surely that would require a CFJ on the effect of the CFJ. If the change is ruled to break this rule it is clearly overruled by the rules and the change is overturned. :-| > Also, your proposal contains a grammatical mistake :-> > In the phrase "the speaker may correct them", "them" can only logically > refer to "the players", since both "a rule" and "a [...] mistake" are > singular. Furthermore, strictly speaking changing "them" to "the error" > would be resolving an ambiguity and changing the meaning... Oh well. Well we should vote it in so we have some idea of the expected custom and then correct the mistakes. (No I'm not convinced either) > (Oh, and it should be "proposal's proposer".) I blame my keyboard. No really... -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 10:05:04 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Tue Jul 18 09:05:04 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180835070.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180901420.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have > ten or more proposals under voting consideration. ... but it is not against the rules? People /can/ do whatever is not proper? The rules don't mention "proper". Or is this your intention? In which case surely just adopting it as game custom suffices? btw before I get corrected I just reread rule 108 and know you have to email the speaker -- the points about a single address are still valid IMO tho. Mike -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Tue Jul 18 14:06:24 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Tue Jul 18 13:06:24 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 325 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180901420.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007181305090.26842-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > It is not proper for a Player to submit a proposal if they currently have > > ten or more proposals under voting consideration. > > ... but it is not against the rules? People /can/ do whatever is not > proper? The rules don't mention "proper". Or is this your intention? In > which case surely just adopting it as game custom suffices? Actually, the rules talk about "all proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on", and "The proper way to submit a proposal is...". I thought, therefore, that if some condition meant that submitting proposals was not proper, then I didn't have to do anything about said submissions. -- 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 Thu Jul 20 23:50:16 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Thu Jul 20 22:50:16 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:31:31 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13FOCo-0006eQ-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Duncan Richer wrote: >Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery >Enact the following as a rule: >Making 105 useful > >For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable >by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation >changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. Are you aware that if adopted as a rule this would be (at least initially) useless? It would conflict with the immutable rule 105 and/or with rule 108 (which defines what voting is) and therefore by rule 109 would be "wholly void and without effect". [This is entirely sensible, since it would otherwise be possible to make amendments to immutable rules via the "back door"...] Peter Maydell From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 00:15:26 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Thu Jul 20 23:15:26 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 312 - 315 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:52:41 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180837280.1656-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13FObB-0006fP-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Mike Pitt wrote: [proposals 312 and 313] >The point is that at the moment there is nothing in the rules to say how >votes may be cast, they could be sent by carrier pigeon or verbally >transferred. The restriction to email from a valid chiark account is a >method to ensure that email is sent to the speaker, making it easier for >him (he would no longer have to remember that he was told on Tuesday by >Fred that Fred voted for 356 and against 378). It is an attempt to make >the speakers life easier. personally I'm dubious about this sort of thing being proposed by anybody other than the Speaker. Surely it's up to the Speaker to decide what would make his life easier; proposed by anybody else it's just an unnecessary restriction... >The restriction "to" a valid chiark email account is to ensure the speaker >remains part of the chiark community, with access to the required >resources. This is a rather better justification, although I don't think this is liable to be a problem in practice :-> >> >Proposal 314 - Mike Pitt >> >Each player shall be a member of a Faction. A Faction may obtain a joint >> >win by holding all Cabinet Posts and surviving a vote of confidence. >> "Cabinet Posts" are not defined. I'm not sure it would be sensible >> to have a ruleset referring to undefined entities or terms. > >The point being they were undefined and to see how it developed. As rule >110 vetoes any mutable rule win methods at the moment this is not >unsafe. True; I hadn't noticed rule 110. However, arguably rule 110 actually forbids the passing of rules defining other winning methods, rather than merely rendering such rules ineffectual. I think I'll request a Call For Judgement, just to see how that works :-> Peter Maydell From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 09:07:07 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:07:07 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Leaving of a Player Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210806300.4218-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> David McKnight told me last night that he doesn't have the time to continue. I am therefore going to remove him from the mailing lists and drop him from the list of Players. Yours, Duncan -- 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 Fri Jul 21 09:14:38 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:14:38 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210813150.4926-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell Proposal: Amend rule 202 as follows: the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". Rationale: The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 09:21:29 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:21:29 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: BEGIN Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal which would change the rules so as to define a different method of winning the game. ENDIT From mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 09:58:33 2000 From: mikepitt at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mike Pitt) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:58:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210853160.6847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at the moment. (That was my precedent anyway.) -- Mike Pitt <mikepitt@chiark.greenend.org.uk> It's easy to solve the halting problem with a shotgun. Larry Wall From pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 10:47:54 2000 From: pmaydell at chiark.greenend.org.uk (pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Date: Fri Jul 21 09:47:54 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:58:31 BST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210853160.6847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <E13FYT1-00072T-00@watchdragon.demon.co.uk> Mike Pitt wrote: >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: >> BEGIN >> Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game >> may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." >> This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal >> which would change the rules so as to define a different method >> of winning the game. >> ENDIT > >I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of >winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at >the moment. Rule 110 does not say "the way to win the game may not be any other method", it says "the way to win the game may not be *changed* to any other method". So rule 212 isn't affected because it is already in the ruleset. Alternatively, the existence of rule 212 means that the way to win is already something other than simply "achieving n points", and therefore the first sentence of rule 110 has no effect (and will not have any effect until or unless all other means of winning are removed from the ruleset). On the gripping hand, you might consider that since all the rules defining the validity of a proposal have lower numbers than 110, the statement in rule 110 is ineffectual (by rule 204) and making and voting in such a proposal is valid. Option 4 starts off like the third analysis, but observes that rule 204 is therefore conflicting with rule 110 (because it is trying to render it ineffectual) and that therefore you should ignore rule 204 because it is mutable (by rule 109). [Note that this is effectively saying that rule 204 has no power to resolve conflicts between immutable rules because it is not itself immutable. Furthermore, a strict reading of rule 109 "the mutable rule is wholly void and without effect" would effectively remove 204 from the ruleset as soon as you tried to apply it to an immutable-rule conflict -- rule 109 does not restrict itself in time or circumstances.] You decide... Peter Maydell From jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 18:50:14 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Fri Jul 21 17:50:14 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210853160.6847-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007211749510.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Mike Pitt wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > > BEGIN > > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > > of winning the game. > > ENDIT > > I'd observe rule 212 (Winning By Paradox) already provides a method of > winning other than n points, it merely has no effect as a way to win at > the moment. > I believe 212 establishes a way to win if play cannot proceed. -- 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 dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Jul 21 21:38:33 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Fri Jul 21 20:38:33 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Reminder Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007212037480.13688-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> The first set of proposals have results due at around 8 tomorrow morning - so those who wish to vote should probably do so ASAP. Yours, Duncan your friendly neighbourhood Speaker -- 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 Sat Jul 22 10:37:27 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 22 09:37:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Results of Proposals 301-310 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007220923200.14942-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Summary: 301 - Rejected 302 - Rejected 303 - Rejected 304 - Rejected 305 - Accepted 306 - Rejected 307 - Accepted 308 - Rejected 309 - Accepted 310 - Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 301 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Why shouldn't the speaker vote? Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/5 - fails FOR: Amery AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Transmute Rule 102 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 302 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected Immutability considered harmful Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 1/5 - fails FOR: Amery AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Transmute Rule 104 ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 303 - Jonathan Amery - Rejected More flexibility in proposal success Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Amend Rule 201 by replacing the word 'The' with the text 'Unless specified elsewhere in the rules the'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 304 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Quick Start Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Richer AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Quick Start The required number of votes for a proposal to enact a rule is half of the legal votes cast on it. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 305 - Jonathan Amery - accepted <Creates Rule 305> Default Assumption Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 5/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Maydell, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: <none> Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Wording Rules Easier Any rule which has an effect on a Player within some time of them joining the game, or on joining the game, affects Players who were already Players when the rule was enacted as if they joined the game at the point at which the rule was enacted. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 306 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Lets have some property to play with Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 3/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Property Claims Every Player, upon joining the game, gains the right to stake 125 cubic miles of land. The staking of land is only permitted as regulated in the rules. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 307 - Jonathan Amery - accepted <Creates Rule 307> And you can call me Al Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Maydell Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " And you can call me Al Every Player, within a week of joining the game, may choose for themselves a pseudonym, which must be representable in 7 bit ASCII, unique, and not the same as the name of any Player other than themselves. If a Player has not chosen a pseudonym by then end of this week then the Speaker must choose one for them. If a Player has a pseudonym then that is the only unambiguous way of refering to that Player. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 308 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Read AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Richer Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Make it easy for the Speaker Enact the following as a rule: " Make it easy for the Speaker A proposal or vote is only considered to have been emailed to the Speaker if the subject line contains the text (without quote marks) '[CHIARK NOMIC]'. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 309 - Jonathan Amery - accepted <Creates Rule 309> What week is it? Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Amery, Pitt, Read, Richer AGAINST: Maydell Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " What week is it? For the purposes of the game a calender week is considered to run from 6am BST on Saturday morning until 6am BST on the next Saturday morning. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 310 - Jonathan Amery - rejected Encourage Voting Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 2/5 - fails FOR: Amery, Richer AGAINST: Maydell, Pitt, Read Abstain: Boothby, Hardcastle, MacGregor, Sheppard, Walkingshaw Enact the following as a rule: " Encourage Voting At the end of each calender week each Player who legally voted on every proposal that ended its voting period within the previous week gains 10 points. " ------------------------------------------------------------- Score Changes Jonathan Amery: 0 => -40 -10: P301 rejected -10: P302 rejected -10: P303 rejected -10: P304 rejected +10: P305 accepted -10: P306 rejected +10: P307 accepted -10: P308 rejected +10: P309 accepted -10: P310 rejected Peter Maydell: 0 => 10 +5: voted AGAINST P307 +5: voted AGAINST P309 ------------------------------------------------------------- Yours, Duncan Richer Speaker From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 11:03:57 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 22 10:03:57 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221002450.17653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. Yours, Slakko Speaker From mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 11:07:04 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Sat Jul 22 10:07:04 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221002450.17653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221002450.17653-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <14713.25655.339583.287253@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Duncan Richer writes: > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. Yours, 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 mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 11:20:39 2000 From: mpread at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Martin Read) Date: Sat Jul 22 10:20:39 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007180827410.762-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <14713.26470.940727.726661@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Duncan Richer writes: > Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery > Some degree of reversability > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Some degree of reversability > > A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still > available > for voting perform the action of repudiating it. > > A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the > author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they > would > usually loose in such an occurance. > > This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a > proposal is defeated. > " I'm not sure about this; I think people who make bad/hasty proposals should have to deal with the results. > Proposal 318 - Jonathan Amery > Something missing in the rules? > > Enact the following as a rule: > > " > Making 105 useful > > For the purposes of Rule 105 (Adopting Proposals) any Player who is unable > by reason of the rules to vote is deemed to have voted until the situation > changes such that they are once again able to vote on that proposal. > " Seems reasonable. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 319 - Jonathan Amery > Consider Phlebas This proposal strikes me as pointless. I will be voting against it. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 320 - Jonathan Amery > Textual Convention > > Enact as a rule the following: > > " > A textual convention to make life easier > > Any text between brackets '{}' is considered not to be part of the rules, > however it is part of the text of the rules, and should be maintained > along > with the rules. > > It may be considered part of game custom. > " A useful-sounding suggestion. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 321 - Jonathan Amery > We'd like *some* leeway I like this one. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 323 - Jonathan Amery > Reduce the lockdown further *shurg* you're being fussy again, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Proposal 324 - Jonathan Amery > A wider definition of 'person' > > Enact as a rule: > > " > A wider definition of 'person' > > A person is either a natural person or an rule-described entity with the > 'animate' attribute. > > The animate attribute can only be given or removed from an entity as > described by the rules. > " Interesting... 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 jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 13:52:50 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sat Jul 22 12:52:50 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <14713.25655.339583.287253@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221252020.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > Duncan Richer writes: > > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > > As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. > Suchwise am I known as Wild Card. -- 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 jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 13:58:44 2000 From: jdamery at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan D. Amery) Date: Sat Jul 22 12:58:44 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposals 316-324 In-Reply-To: <14713.26470.940727.726661@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221254590.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > Duncan Richer writes: > > Proposal 316 - Jonathan Amery > > Some degree of reversability > > > > Enact the following as a rule: > > > > " > > Some degree of reversability > > > > A Player may at any point at which one of their proposals is still > > available > > for voting perform the action of repudiating it. > > > > A repudiated proposal is immediately deemed to be defeated, however the > > author of the proposal only looses half the number of points that they > > would > > usually loose in such an occurance. > > > > This rule takes precidence over any rule specifying what happens when a > > proposal is defeated. > > " > > I'm not sure about this; I think people who make bad/hasty proposals > should have to deal with the results. This would save some time if proposals can be shown to be broken, and reduce the chance of such proposals being voted in. -- 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 clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 14:57:14 2000 From: clareb at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Clare Boothby) Date: Sat Jul 22 13:57:14 2000 Subject: [Nomic] CFJ 1 (Clare Boothby to Judge) In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk>; from dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk on Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210820380.5581-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <20000722135713.A32314@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:21:26AM +0100, Duncan Richer wrote: > CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell <fx: creaking sounds as Clare finally wakes up and starts playing> > I request a Call For Judgment on the following statement: Before I accept/reject... > BEGIN > Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game > may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." > This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal > which would change the rules so as to define a different method > of winning the game. > ENDIT 212 deals with estabishing a winner when play cannot be continued, as explicitly permitted in 110, and so is not relevant to this CFJ. 110 permits changes to the way of winning the game *only* when considering situations in which play cannot be continued. So, a) would I be allowed to judge this statement "true (except as explicitly permitted by rule 110)"? I'm guessing not (208). b) would a judgement of "true" imply "true (except as explicitly permitted by rule 110)", as the rest of 110 clearly allows for changes to the way to win in a situation where play cannot be continued? (209) c) would a judgement of "true" be instantly overrule-able, for the reason above? I'm guessing b), but I'd hate to judge "true" and then find that everyone else thinks c) ;-) Thoughts? BTW, call me Paragon. From dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 16:02:27 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sat Jul 22 15:02:27 2000 Subject: [Nomic]Proposal 326 In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007210813150.4926-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221500570.9498-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: > Proposal 326 - Peter Maydell > > Proposal: > > Amend rule 202 as follows: > the text currently reading "those players who voted against it" > should be changed so that it reads "those Voters who voted against it". > > Rationale: > > The current rule set gives an inadvertent advantage to the Speaker. Since > the Speaker receives everybody's votes he could cast his own vote at the > last moment in order to maximise his own score. In particular, for those > proposals which are going to succeed regardless of which way the Speaker > votes, the Speaker can gain an automatic five points simply by voting > against the proposal.This proposal closes this loophole by restricting the > five point bonus to Voters -- that is, to all players except the Speaker. That is true, and if I was so inclined I could use it to my own unfair advantage. I've realised this, and so I have been voting on each proposal as soon as I go through the proposal and publish it, so that no-one else's votes can affect mine. If you are happy for me to continue doing this, and taking the luck of the draw with everyone else, then there's no need to vote this proposal in. Yours, Slakko self-interested (who isn't?) From andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jul 22 20:15:02 2000 From: andreww at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Walkingshaw) Date: Sat Jul 22 19:15:02 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Some people call me Space Cowboy In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221252020.19831-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007221914270.2183-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Jonathan D. Amery wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Martin Read wrote: > > > Duncan Richer writes: > > > But you guys can call me Slakko, as per Rule 307. > > > > As per Rule 307, you can call me mormegil. > > > > Suchwise am I known as Wild Card. Furthermore, I am known as Acronym. (A very long story behind that one...) -- 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 Sun Jul 23 13:05:43 2000 From: dricher at chiark.greenend.org.uk (Duncan Richer) Date: Sun Jul 23 12:05:43 2000 Subject: [Nomic] Result of Proposal 311 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007231200230.29225-100000@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Proposal 311 - Duncan Richer - Accepted <Creates Rule 311> Relics of an Outmoded Feudal System Votes: 5/10 - passes quorum FOR: 4/5 - passes FOR: Maydell, Pitt, Slakko, Wild Card