From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 00:18:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org) Date: Thu Sep 30 23:18:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] *CORRECTED* Summary 04/09/30 - My Votes+Comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1096582434.415c8522be895@base.mxtelecom.com> Quoting Jonathan David Amery : > ------ > Twice the fun; harf the harf! > > A proposed rules change may be described as harfy. > > A proposed rules change can only become harfy if: > a) No other proposed rules change is harfy. > b) The Harfharfer declares that it is harfy. > c) It was not proposed by the current Harfharfer. > > If a harfy rules change takes place then the following events happen: > a) The entity which proposed the rules change gains one chocolate biscuit. > b) The entity which proposed the rules change becomes the Harfharfer; > the previous Harfharfer ceases to be the Harfharfer. > c) If the rule change created a rule, then that rule may also be > described as harfy. > > If there is no harfy rules change for three days, but there exist > non-harfy proposed rules changes for that entire period, then the > Harfharfer is guilty of the Crime of Hogging the Harf. > > The standard punishment for the Crime of Hogging the Harf shall be > confiscation of two chocolate biscuits. > > Adam Biltcliffe becomes the Harfharfer; The Rule of Girls may be > described as harfy; and this paragraph is deleted from the rules. > -- > Proposer: Madeleine > Consent: adam, JJ, dok, Maz > Withheld: Mike, Carrie > Continue to withhold consent. I explicitly do not wish this rule to pass. > ------ > I propose changing the wording of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity named on > the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all other > entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent to that > proposal from each such entity and then posts a public Notice of Consensus > to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > > to: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity named on > the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all other > entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent to that > proposal from each such entity that will be affected differently to all > other such entities and all but at most one other such entity, and then > posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue > upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent: Madeleine, Maz, ahdok > +Aye: Mike > > ------ > > **** Proposals after this have times of Assumed Consent noted **** > > ------ > House of Cards > > A Pack of Cards has 42 cards; consisting of eight ranks; 78ATKQJ9; in > each of five suits; BFGKP; and two Jokers. > > The ranks have the following names: > > 7 Seven > 8 Six > A Ace > T Ten > K King > Q Queen > J Jack > 9 Nine > > The suits have the following names: > > B Bombs > F Fridges > G Guns > K Knives > P Poisons > > The Jokers are: > > The Umpire > The Cop > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 00:40:09 2004 > Consent: Adam, ahdok > Withheld: Mike > Keep withheld. It's not assassins nomic after all, even though we're all playing it. > ------ > The Rule of Names > > The Game shall have a Name. Until a name is chosen then any player > may propose Names. Any Name that recieves the explicit support of > more than half of the List of Voters, and strictly more support than > every other name will become the Name of the Game and any other Name > Proposals shall be dropped. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:09:16 2004 > Consent: Adam, ahdok +Aye: Mike > Withheld: Carrie > > ------ > Create a Rule as follows > > Dictionary Additions 1. > > Add the following definitions to the Dictionary, then remove this rule from > the ruleset: > C. = unit of Currency > triangle = unit of distance on the Board > The Grid = The Board > MiniTrue = the Ministry post 'Minister of Truth' > MiniFree = the Ministry post 'Minister of Freedom' > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, ahdok +Aye: Mike (sorry, don't remember this one at all) > Sociability > > Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same are > Friendly. > Any player whose location is at least 4 triangles from all other players > (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, ahdok +Aye: Mike (ditto) > ------ > ...I wandered expensively as a bird... > > 2. Any player may spend a unit of Currency from their BANK account at any > time to move their location one orthogonal unit on the Board, informing the > other players of this fact and their new location. > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, ahdok +Aye: Mike > ------ > Arbitration > > In the event of something having to be chosen arbitrarily then any > person who has to harf that thing may make the choice by whatever > means they deem appropriate. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:23 2004 > Withheld: Adam, Mike Keep Withheld. > > ------ > Hanging Chad > > All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:33 2004 > Consent: Adam, JJ, ahdok > Withheld: Mike > Keep withheld - the wording is too vague. I can have a _lot_ of positive, unique, integer numbers ;) > ------ > It's easier than learning your ABC > > Every player shall number their proposals. Proposal numbers shall be > of the form a.b; where a shall be the unique reference number of the > player, and b shall be a positive integer chosen such that: > > a) a.b is unique > b) b is strictly larger than every other b that that player has ever > used for a proposal number. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:27 2004 > Withheld: Adam, Mike Given I've withheld for the reference number one, got to keep withheld. > > ------ > Rule five. > > Once the stupid notice of consensus for now this rule is issued eventually, > new rules passed stand, providing, however, every fifth word (not including > words in the email title) is considered not ignored, to exist if the > Akanomic rule contains the word I "rule" in its title. Remember, This rule > only applies blindly to itself and rules not containing higher numbers than > three it. This affects itself immediately under the interpretation it > suddenly takes after every fifth written word, is removed. > -- > Proposer: ahdok > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:06:23 2004 > Withheld: Mike, Carrie Withheld. As the rule isn't in force yet, this is blatantly gobbledegook. > > ------ > Clerk of the Vatican > > The Ministry shall contain a post called the Clerk of the Vatican. The > duties of the Clerk of the Vatican shall include maintaining and making > publically available a list of entities who are willing to judge disputes > over the interpretation of the rules or gamestate. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok +Aye: Mike (I'm sure I voted in favour of this one earlier today) > > ------ > Judgement Procedure > > If a member of the List of Voters wishes to assert the validity of a claim > which refers solely to the rules or gamestate, that entity make invoke the > Judgement Procedure by publically claiming to be invoking the Judgement of > the Pope and supplying the statement whose validity is under question. The > invoking entity may also present an argument suporting the statement. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok +Aye: Mike (ditto) > ------ > White Smoke > > When an entity invokes the Judgement of the Pope, it shall be the duty of > the Clerk of the Vatican to select an entity to act as Pope in the > resolution of that claim. This selection shall be performed by uniform > random selection from the set of all entities which: > a) have informed the Clerk of the Vatican that they are willing to act as > Pope, and not subsequently retracted that statement > b) are not considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV > c) are not the entity invoking the Judgement of the Pope If this set is > empty, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to cause it to > cease being so. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok +Aye: Mike (ditto) > ------ > Papal Edicts > > When the Judgement of the Pope has been invoked and the Clerk of the > Vatican has selected an entity to act as Pope, the Pope may pass judgement > on the claim. > > Legal judgements shall be: > TRUE if the Pope believes the claim to be true with respect to all aspects > of the current state of the game > FALSE if the Pope believes the claim not to be true with respect to all > aspects of the current state of the game > Either TRUE or FALSE if the Pope believes the claim to be ambiguous with > respect to all aspects of the current state of the game, depending on the > Pope's beliefs about the original intent of the rules and the entities > which have acted on the game, which interpretation makes more sense and > which interpretation will lead to a more enjoyable game > AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD if the Pope believes that the invocation of > judgement was not correctly made or that it would be otherwise > inappropriate to pass judgement > > When the Pope rules a claim TRUE or FALSE, that ruling shall be used to > determine future interpretations of the rules and gamestate. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok +Aye: Mike (ditto) > ------ > Change every instance of the word "unambiguous" in the rules to "explicit". > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:02:08 2004 > Consent: Adam, ahdok > Withheld: Mike > Umm, I'll need to look at the ruleset totally again for that. Keep withheld for now, may revise. > ------ > Public Records > > If a member of the list of voters wishes a view expressed by them to > have an effect on the game, it must be recorded by sending an email to > the email list. The view shall be considered to have been expressed at > the time the email was sent, as recorded by the email list archives. If > a view has not been expressed in this manner, it may be ignored by > members of the list of voters at their leisure. > -- > Proposer: Stumo > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:10:24 2004 > Consent: Adam, ahdok +Aye: Mike > ------ > The Rule That Won't Exist For Long > > This rule overrides Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules. > > If ever this rule is in force, the following definitions shall be added to > the Definitions Dictionary: > > ENTITY - Anything having existence in the real (extranomic) world. RESON - > Any construction of the game which has existence in the gameworld defined > by the rules. THINGY - synonymous with RESON > > The following changes shall then be applied to the rules: > > All occurrences of the word 'entity' in Rule 1, Existence of the Game shall > be replaced with 'reson'. > > The sentence 'This list shall be known as the List of Voters' shall be > appended to Rule 3, List of Voters. > > The Rule That Won't Exist For Long shall be deleted from the rules. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 17:57:14 2004 > Consent: JJ, Stumo, ahdok +Aye: Mike > > Summary finished by Wild Card Thu Sep 30 22:47:17 BST 2004 > Voting finished by Mike Cripps Thu Sep 30 23:13:?? BST 2004 Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 00:54:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 23:54:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] *CORRECTED* Summary 04/09/30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm pretty sure I objected (read: withheld consent) to the following proposal: > ------ > I propose changing the wording of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity > named on the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all > other entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent > to that proposal from each such entity and then posts a public Notice of > Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus > of Opinion has been reached. > > to: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity > named on the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all > other entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent > to that proposal from each such entity that will be affected differently > to all other such entities and all but at most one other such entity, and > then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing > the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. -- Proposer: > JJ Consent: Madeleine, Maz, ahdok Withheld: Mike > ------ Also, Mike has now given his consent for all the proposals relating to the Pope and the Vatican. And does anyone else have anything to say about the legitimacy or otherwise of Stuart's Notices of Consensus for the banking rules? Whether or not they've passed will affect both the numbering of future additions to the ruleset and the amount of money in our BANK accounts. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 00:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 30 23:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] *CORRECTED* Summary 04/09/30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415C8ECB.1080701@cam.ac.uk> This drove mozilla wild when replying, it detected a -- (dash-dash-space) line half way through and decided everything after it was a signature and not included in the reply. So apologies for any weird formatting in my reply. Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Twice the fun; harf the harf! > > A proposed rules change may be described as harfy. > > A proposed rules change can only become harfy if: a) No other > proposed rules change is harfy. b) The Harfharfer declares that it is > harfy. c) It was not proposed by the current Harfharfer. > > If a harfy rules change takes place then the following events happen: > a) The entity which proposed the rules change gains one chocolate > biscuit. b) The entity which proposed the rules change becomes the > Harfharfer; the previous Harfharfer ceases to be the Harfharfer. c) > If the rule change created a rule, then that rule may also be > described as harfy. > > If there is no harfy rules change for three days, but there exist > non-harfy proposed rules changes for that entire period, then the > Harfharfer is guilty of the Crime of Hogging the Harf. > > The standard punishment for the Crime of Hogging the Harf shall be > confiscation of two chocolate biscuits. > > Adam Biltcliffe becomes the Harfharfer; The Rule of Girls may be > described as harfy; and this paragraph is deleted from the rules. -- > Proposer: Madeleine Consent: adam, JJ, dok, Maz Withheld: Mike, > Carrie Aye > I propose changing the wording of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity > named on the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to > all other entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous > consent to that proposal from each such entity and then posts a > public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue > upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. > > to: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity > named on the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to > all other entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous > consent to that proposal from each such entity that will be affected > differently to all other such entities and all but at most one other > such entity, and then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other > members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been > reached. -- Proposer: JJ Consent: Madeleine, Maz, ahdok Withheld: > Mike Nay ------ Hanging Chad Nay Rule five. Nay ------ Thats the Name of the Game The game shall > have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" -- Proposer: Carrie Consent > Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 Consent: Wild Card, Mike, Adam, > ahdok Withheld: Stumo I now grant consent, since everyone else seemed to prefer this one From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 00:58:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 30 23:58:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415C8F5B.5040702@cam.ac.uk> These have now passed: Notice of Consent: This is a notice of consent printed on Gold paper, to state that the following rule has been agreed: "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" Each member of the list of voters will have an associated account with The "Bank of Anarchic Neurotic Kleptomaniacs" (The BANK). This account consists of a non-negative integer of Currency. All accounts begin with balance zero. Balances will be looked after by the Chief Cashier, who should publish a breakdown of balances and transaction history for each day. The post of Chief Cashier will be a Ministry post, should this phrase have any meaning in the game. This is a notice of consent printed on green paper, to state that the following rule has been agreed: "A job? What's that then?" Each member of the list of voters will have their BANK accounts increased by one currency unit at midnight each night. This is a notice of consent printed on black paper (with off-black writing for those who care) to state that the following rule has been agreed: "Who's the banker in the black?" The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 01:04:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 00:04:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] a modest proposal Message-ID: Just to keep things exciting, a new rule proposal: ---------- Congratulations! Any player issuing a Notice of Consensus which results in the creation of a rule whose full name (as defined by Rule 6, The Rule of Structured Names) begins with the string "Rule 50" shall receive 50 units of Currency. ---------- EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 01:06:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Oct 1 00:06:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] a modest proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415C914D.7040108@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Just to keep things exciting, a new rule proposal: > > ---------- > Congratulations! > > Any player issuing a Notice of Consensus which results in the creation > of a rule whose full name (as defined by Rule 6, The Rule of Structured > Names) begins with the string "Rule 50" shall receive 50 units of > Currency. ---------- It'll keep things moving until about rule 47/48 when people will start waiting... Ah what the hell, it's only money. Aye From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 01:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 00:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: <415C8F5B.5040702@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <415C8F5B.5040702@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 30 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > These have now passed: > > Notice of Consent: This is a notice of consent printed on Gold paper, to > state that the following rule has been agreed: I really, really hate to have to mention this, but the rules do not refer to such entity as a 'notice of consent'. You probably meant 'notice of consensus', which is of course a name with an entirely different meaning. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 01:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Oct 1 00:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: <415C8F5B.5040702@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <415C8F5B.5040702@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415C92CB.5060206@cam.ac.uk> Sod it, I'm heading down the pub. Gah, pubs closed, except for scotland and I can't really make it there in time. Right. Stick this in your pipe and smoke it. Stuart Moore wrote: > These have now passed: > > Notice of Consensus: This is a notice of consent printed on Gold paper, to > state > that the following rule has been agreed: > > "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" > > Each member of the list of voters will have an associated account with > The "Bank of Anarchic Neurotic Kleptomaniacs" (The BANK). This account > consists of a non-negative integer of Currency. All accounts begin with > balance zero. Balances will be looked after by the Chief Cashier, who > should publish a breakdown of balances and transaction history for each > day. The post of Chief Cashier will be a Ministry post, should this > phrase have any meaning in the game. > > This is a notice of consensus printed on green paper, to state that the > following > rule has been agreed: > > "A job? What's that then?" > > Each member of the list of voters will have their BANK accounts > increased by one currency unit at midnight each night. > > This is a notice of consensus printed on black paper (with off-black > writing for > those who care) to state that the following rule has been agreed: > > "Who's the banker in the black?" > > The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore > From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 02:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 01:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] NoCs: five more rules Message-ID: This is a Notice of Consensus, printed upon white paper, to inform all players that the addition of the following rule has now achieved Consensus of Opinion via Assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: ---------- Insufficient Notices Any voting entity who creates a document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus which is not in fact valid shall be guilty of the crime of Taking Insufficient Notice. ---------- This is a Notice of Consensus, printed upon white paper, to inform all players that the addition of the following rule has now achieved Consensus of Opinion via Assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: ---------- Clerk of the Vatican The Ministry shall contain a post called the Clerk of the Vatican. The duties of the Clerk of the Vatican shall include maintaining and making publically available a list of entities who are willing to judge disputes over the interpretation of the rules or gamestate. ---------- This is a Notice of Consensus, printed upon white paper, to inform all players that the addition of the following rule has now achieved Consensus of Opinion via Assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: ---------- Judgement Procedure If a member of the List of Voters wishes to assert the validity of a claim which refers solely to the rules or gamestate, that entity make invoke the Judgement Procedure by publically claiming to be invoking the Judgement of the Pope and supplying the statement whose validity is under question. The invoking entity may also present an argument suporting the statement. ---------- This is a Notice of Consensus, printed upon white paper, to inform all players that the addition of the following rule has now achieved Consensus of Opinion via Assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: ---------- White Smoke When an entity invokes the Judgement of the Pope, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to select an entity to act as Pope in the resolution of that claim. This selection shall be performed by uniform random selection from the set of all entities which: a) have informed the Clerk of the Vatican that they are willing to act as Pope, and not subsequently retracted that statement b) are not considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV c) are not the entity invoking the Judgement of the Pope If this set is empty, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to cause it to cease being so. ---------- This is a Notice of Consensus, printed upon white paper, to inform all players that the addition of the following rule has now achieved Consensus of Opinion via Assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: ---------- Papal Edicts When the Judgement of the Pope has been invoked and the Clerk of the Vatican has selected an entity to act as Pope, the Pope may pass judgement on the claim. Legal judgements shall be: TRUE if the Pope believes the claim to be true with respect to all aspects of the current state of the game FALSE if the Pope believes the claim not to be true with respect to all aspects of the current state of the game Either TRUE or FALSE if the Pope believes the claim to be ambiguous with respect to all aspects of the current state of the game, depending on the Pope's beliefs about the original intent of the rules and the entities which have acted on the game, which interpretation makes more sense and which interpretation will lead to a more enjoyable game AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD if the Pope believes that the invocation of judgement was not correctly made or that it would be otherwise inappropriate to pass judgement When the Pope rules a claim TRUE or FALSE, that ruling shall be used to determine future interpretations of the rules and gamestate. ---------- EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 02:28:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 01:28:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] volunteers? Message-ID: Would anyone like to be Clerk of the Vatican? EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 10:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Oct 1 09:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] *CORRECTED* Summary 04/09/30 Message-ID: > >This is the corrected version... > >Any of these rules will pass by autoadoption if they have no withheld >consents: > >------ >The 'Exception that proves the' Rule: > >A rule may override another rule if and only if it mentions that rule by >name. The only exception is this rule, which overrides all others, >except those which mention it by name. >-- >Consent: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine, Stumo, Mike >Withheld: Carrie (based on uncertainty about the matter of rules merely >referencing others rather than explicitly overriding them) > >------ >The Rule of Self-Image > >The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". >-- >Consent: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin, Madeleine, Maz >Withheld: Carrie, Stumo > >------ >Twice the fun; harf the harf! > >A proposed rules change may be described as harfy. > >A proposed rules change can only become harfy if: >a) No other proposed rules change is harfy. >b) The Harfharfer declares that it is harfy. >c) It was not proposed by the current Harfharfer. > >If a harfy rules change takes place then the following events happen: >a) The entity which proposed the rules change gains one chocolate biscuit. >b) The entity which proposed the rules change becomes the Harfharfer; >the previous Harfharfer ceases to be the Harfharfer. >c) If the rule change created a rule, then that rule may also be >described as harfy. > >If there is no harfy rules change for three days, but there exist >non-harfy proposed rules changes for that entire period, then the >Harfharfer is guilty of the Crime of Hogging the Harf. > >The standard punishment for the Crime of Hogging the Harf shall be >confiscation of two chocolate biscuits. > >Adam Biltcliffe becomes the Harfharfer; The Rule of Girls may be >described as harfy; and this paragraph is deleted from the rules. >-- >Proposer: Madeleine >Consent: adam, JJ, dok, Maz >Withheld: Mike, Carrie > >------ >But I can't hear it! > >/* -- REM, Radio Song */ > >Any text in a rule between C-style comment delimiters; as demonstrated >above; has no rules effect, and exists only as a comment >-- >Proposer: Madeleine >Consent: JJ, Maz, Mike, ahdok >Withheld: adam > >------ >Bored Of Being Board > >There shall exist an infinite, 2-dimensional integer grid (a copy of >Z^2), henceforth known as The Board. The Board, and the location of >entities upon it, shall be considered part of the state of the game. If >at any point a member of the List of Voters lacks a location on The >Board, their location shall be set to (0,0). >-- >Proposer: Martin >Consent: JJ, Stumo, adam, Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Maz, Mike > >------ >Insufficient Notices > >Any voting entity who creates a document purporting to be a Notice of >Consensus which is not in fact valid shall be guilty of the crime of Taking >Insufficient Notice. >-- >Proposer: adam >Consent: Stumo, dok, JJ, Madeleine, Maz, Mike > >------ >I propose changing the wording of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > >A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity named >on >the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all other >entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent to that >proposal from each such entity and then posts a public Notice of Consensus >to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion >has >been reached. > >to: > >A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity named >on >the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all other >entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent to that >proposal from each such entity that will be affected differently to all >other such entities and all but at most one other such entity, and then >posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue >upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. >-- >Proposer: JJ >Consent: Madeleine, Maz, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ > >**** Proposals after this have times of Assumed Consent noted **** > >------ >House of Cards > >A Pack of Cards has 42 cards; consisting of eight ranks; 78ATKQJ9; in >each of five suits; BFGKP; and two Jokers. > >The ranks have the following names: > >7 Seven >8 Six >A Ace >T Ten >K King >Q Queen >J Jack >9 Nine > >The suits have the following names: > >B Bombs >F Fridges >G Guns >K Knives >P Poisons > >The Jokers are: > >The Umpire >The Cop >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 00:40:09 2004 >Consent: Adam, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > Nay. whether or not withheld consent means no, which I don't think it should, this is a no. >------ >The Rule of Names > >The Game shall have a Name. Until a name is chosen then any player >may propose Names. Any Name that recieves the explicit support of >more than half of the List of Voters, and strictly more support than >every other name will become the Name of the Game and any other Name >Proposals shall be dropped. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:09:16 2004 >Consent: Adam, ahdok >Withheld: Carrie, Mike > Aye >------ >Create a Rule as follows > >Dictionary Additions 1. > >Add the following definitions to the Dictionary, then remove this rule from >the ruleset: >C. = unit of Currency >triangle = unit of distance on the Board >The Grid = The Board >MiniTrue = the Ministry post 'Minister of Truth' >MiniFree = the Ministry post 'Minister of Freedom' >-- >Proposer: JJ >Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 >Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >Sociability > >Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same >are >Friendly. >Any player whose location is at least 4 triangles from all other players >(under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. >-- >Proposer: JJ >Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 >Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >...I wandered expensively as a bird... > >2. Any player may spend a unit of Currency from their BANK account at any >time to move their location one orthogonal unit on the Board, informing the >other players of this fact and their new location. >-- >Proposer: JJ >Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 >Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >Arbitration > >In the event of something having to be chosen arbitrarily then any >person who has to harf that thing may make the choice by whatever >means they deem appropriate. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:23 2004 >Withheld: Adam, Mike Nay, again on the word harf. I think I already said that. > >------ >Hanging Chad > >All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:33 2004 >Consent: Adam, JJ, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >It's easier than learning your ABC > >Every player shall number their proposals. Proposal numbers shall be >of the form a.b; where a shall be the unique reference number of the >player, and b shall be a positive integer chosen such that: > > a) a.b is unique > b) b is strictly larger than every other b that that player has ever >used for a proposal number. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:27 2004 >Withheld: Adam, Mike > >------ >Rule five. > >Once the stupid notice of consensus for now this rule is issued eventually, >new rules passed stand, providing, however, every fifth word (not including >words in the email title) is considered not ignored, to exist if the >Akanomic rule contains the word I "rule" in its title. Remember, This rule >only applies blindly to itself and rules not containing higher numbers than >three it. This affects itself immediately under the interpretation it >suddenly takes after every fifth written word, is removed. >-- >Proposer: ahdok >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:06:23 2004 >Withheld: Mike, Carrie > >------ >Clerk of the Vatican > >The Ministry shall contain a post called the Clerk of the Vatican. The >duties of the Clerk of the Vatican shall include maintaining and making >publically available a list of entities who are willing to judge disputes >over the interpretation of the rules or gamestate. >-- >Proposer: Adam >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 >Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >Judgement Procedure > >If a member of the List of Voters wishes to assert the validity of a claim >which refers solely to the rules or gamestate, that entity make invoke the >Judgement Procedure by publically claiming to be invoking the Judgement of >the Pope and supplying the statement whose validity is under question. The >invoking entity may also present an argument suporting the statement. >-- >Proposer: Adam >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 >Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >White Smoke > >When an entity invokes the Judgement of the Pope, it shall be the duty of >the Clerk of the Vatican to select an entity to act as Pope in the >resolution of that claim. This selection shall be performed by uniform >random selection from the set of all entities which: > a) have informed the Clerk of the Vatican that they are willing to act >as >Pope, and not subsequently retracted that statement > b) are not considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV > c) are not the entity invoking the Judgement of the Pope If this set is >empty, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to cause it to >cease being so. >-- >Proposer: Adam >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 >Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >Papal Edicts > >When the Judgement of the Pope has been invoked and the Clerk of the >Vatican has selected an entity to act as Pope, the Pope may pass judgement >on the claim. > >Legal judgements shall be: > TRUE if the Pope believes the claim to be true with respect to all >aspects >of the current state of the game > FALSE if the Pope believes the claim not to be true with respect to all >aspects of the current state of the game > Either TRUE or FALSE if the Pope believes the claim to be ambiguous with >respect to all aspects of the current state of the game, depending on the >Pope's beliefs about the original intent of the rules and the entities >which have acted on the game, which interpretation makes more sense and >which interpretation will lead to a more enjoyable game > AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD if the Pope believes that the invocation of >judgement was not correctly made or that it would be otherwise >inappropriate to pass judgement > >When the Pope rules a claim TRUE or FALSE, that ruling shall be used to >determine future interpretations of the rules and gamestate. >-- >Proposer: Adam >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 >Consent: JJ, Wild Card, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > >------ >Change every instance of the word "unambiguous" in the rules to "explicit". >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:02:08 2004 >Consent: Adam, ahdok >Withheld: Mike Not voting at this time, on the basis that I need to go right through the ruleset to check that. > >------ >Public Records > >If a member of the list of voters wishes a view expressed by them to >have an effect on the game, it must be recorded by sending an email to >the email list. The view shall be considered to have been expressed at >the time the email was sent, as recorded by the email list archives. If >a view has not been expressed in this manner, it may be ignored by >members of the list of voters at their leisure. >-- >Proposer: Stumo >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:10:24 2004 >Consent: Adam, ahdok >Withheld: Mike > Aye >------ >The Rule That Won't Exist For Long > >This rule overrides Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules. > >If ever this rule is in force, the following definitions shall be added to >the Definitions Dictionary: > >ENTITY - Anything having existence in the real (extranomic) world. RESON - >Any construction of the game which has existence in the gameworld defined >by the rules. THINGY - synonymous with RESON > >The following changes shall then be applied to the rules: > >All occurrences of the word 'entity' in Rule 1, Existence of the Game shall >be replaced with 'reson'. > >The sentence 'This list shall be known as the List of Voters' shall be >appended to Rule 3, List of Voters. > >The Rule That Won't Exist For Long shall be deleted from the rules. >-- >Proposer: Adam >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 17:57:14 2004 >Consent: JJ, Stumo, ahdok >Withheld: Mike This is redundant now, right? The effects have all been passed by Imperial Edict. I hence vote Nay, since I don't want This List... to be appended *again*. > >------ >Thats the Name of the Game > >The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" >-- >Proposer: Carrie >Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 >Consent: Wild Card, Mike, Adam, ahdok >Withheld: Stumo Aye, but I still prefer Terrapin Nomic. (Imperial Edict?) > >----- >Name that Game > >The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bowling for Buzzards" >-- >Proposer: Carrie >Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 >Consent: Stumo, Wild Card, ahdok >Withheld: Mike, Adam Nay > >----- >Thrid Time Lucky > >The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bobbing for Snapping Turtles" >-- >Proposer: Carrie >Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 >Consent: Wild Card, ahdok >Withheld: Stumo, Mike, Adam Nay > >----- >Community Chest > >There exists a class of object called Community Chest Cards. > >Community Chest Cards may be created at whim out of the ether as >required by the rules. > >When a Community Chest Card is played, it is destroyed. > >There exists a dictionary of Community Chest Card types, and their >actions. Initially this is empty. > >If a rule does not specify what type of Community Chest Card is >created then they are created at random; with an equal likelyhood of >each type. > >Unless otherwise specified by the rules the type of any Community >Chest Card is a secret, revealed only to the player who possesses it. > >Community Chest Card actions have the force of rule. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 16:17:13 2004 >Consent: Stumo, adam, Carrie, ahdok, Mike what the hell. Aye. > >------ >I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land > >The Duty of the Minister of Perspicuity shall be to keep a record of >important game events; viz to be a game historian. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Sun Oct 3 15:24:11 2004 >Consent: Adam, Mike, Stumo Aye, though I'd prefer a definition of important. > >------ >I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind > >Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. >-- >Proposer: Wild Card >Consent Assumed: Sun Oct 3 15:24:11 2004 >Consent: Adam, Mike, Stumo Fine. We really should get a committee election procedure up, rather than having to do it by rule. I would offer one, but I lack access in my room at the moment and hence don't have the time. JJ > >------ > >Summary finished by Wild Card Thu Sep 30 22:47:17 BST 2004 > > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 11:14:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Oct 1 10:14:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] a modest proposal Message-ID: > >Just to keep things exciting, a new rule proposal: > >---------- >Congratulations! > >Any player issuing a Notice of Consensus which results in the creation of a >rule whose full name (as defined by Rule 6, The Rule of Structured Names) >begins with the string "Rule 50" shall receive 50 units of Currency. >---------- Might as well say aye, I suspect this'll end up buggered around by Imperial Edict nearer the time though. I also hereby offer myself as an entity who is willing to be placed on the list to judge dispute, that is, I will serve as Pope if asked. I do not wish to be Clerk of the Vatican though. JJ > >EE > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 12:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 11:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] volunteers? In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Oct 2004 01:27:45 BST." References: Message-ID: > Would anyone like to be Clerk of the Vatican? > Oh, go on, I'll do it... WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 12:24:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 11:24:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of Judgement Message-ID: I call upon the Pope to judge the following claim: --- It is possible to unrevokably 'vote' against a proposal From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 12:27:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Oct 1 11:27:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notice of eligibility Message-ID: <415D30AA.9070804@mxtelecom.com> Dear God, I would like to be considered for the role of Pope. Please find my CV attached. Yours Faithfully, Mike Cripps From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 13:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 12:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] *CORRECTED* Summary 04/09/30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 1 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >------ > >The Rule That Won't Exist For Long > > > >This rule overrides Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules. > > > > If ever this rule is in force, the following definitions shall be added > > to the Definitions Dictionary: > > > > ENTITY - Anything having existence in the real (extranomic) world. > > RESON - Any construction of the game which has existence in the > > gameworld defined by the rules. THINGY - synonymous with RESON > > > >The following changes shall then be applied to the rules: > > > > All occurrences of the word 'entity' in Rule 1, Existence of the Game > > shall be replaced with 'reson'. > > > >The sentence 'This list shall be known as the List of Voters' shall be > >appended to Rule 3, List of Voters. > > > >The Rule That Won't Exist For Long shall be deleted from the rules. > >-- > >Proposer: Adam > >Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 17:57:14 2004 > >Consent: JJ, Stumo, ahdok > >Withheld: Mike > > This is redundant now, right? The effects have all been passed by > Imperial Edict. I hence vote Nay, since I don't want This List... to be > appended *again*. On the contrary, the only effect that has been passed is the change to Rule 3. I'd quite like to see the others go in, personally ... > >------ > >Thats the Name of the Game > > > >The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" > >-- > >Proposer: Carrie > >Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 > >Consent: Wild Card, Mike, Adam, ahdok > >Withheld: Stumo > > Aye, but I still prefer Terrapin Nomic. (Imperial Edict?) Unfortunately for you, I prefer Astronomic. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 13:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 12:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] a modest proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 1 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >Congratulations! > > Might as well say aye, I suspect this'll end up buggered around by > Imperial Edict nearer the time though. I'm hurt by your lack of faith. You don't think I'm capable of buggering this about without employing my Imperial powers? EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 13:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 12:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of Judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 1 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I call upon the Pope to judge the following claim: > > --- > It is possible to unrevokably 'vote' against a proposal Since there is no Clerk of the Vatican, I do not believe this invocation does anything. Unless anyone says anything to the contrary soon, I may appoint Wild Card Clerk of the Vatican by Edict, since we ought to have one and I suspect only the people checking the list fairly frequently are in a position to do it at the moment anyway. I also propose the following new rule: ---------- Court Records It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to keep a publically accessible record of past invocations of the Judgement of the Pope and their outcomes. ---------- EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 14:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Oct 1 13:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary 04/09/30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I note witheld means Nay. I am going to restate all my votes to make this clear. On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:47:48 +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Any of these rules will pass by autoadoption if they have no withheld > consents: > > ------ > The 'Exception that proves the' Rule: > > A rule may override another rule if and only if it mentions that rule by > name. The only exception is this rule, which overrides all others, > except those which mention it by name. > -- > Consent: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine, Stumo, Mike, Dunky > Withheld: Carrie (based on uncertainty about the matter of rules merely > referencing others rather than explicitly overriding them) No-one else sees this as a problem so I'll vote Aye. Which I believe I have done in another summary. > > ------ > The Rule of Self-Image > > The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > -- > Consent: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin, Madeleine, Maz, Dunky > Withheld: Carrie, Stumo > This is still a Nay. > ------ > Twice the fun; harf the harf! > > A proposed rules change may be described as harfy. > > A proposed rules change can only become harfy if: > a) No other proposed rules change is harfy. > b) The Harfharfer declares that it is harfy. > c) It was not proposed by the current Harfharfer. > > If a harfy rules change takes place then the following events happen: > a) The entity which proposed the rules change gains one chocolate biscuit. > b) The entity which proposed the rules change becomes the Harfharfer; > the previous Harfharfer ceases to be the Harfharfer. > c) If the rule change created a rule, then that rule may also be > described as harfy. > > If there is no harfy rules change for three days, but there exist > non-harfy proposed rules changes for that entire period, then the > Harfharfer is guilty of the Crime of Hogging the Harf. > > The standard punishment for the Crime of Hogging the Harf shall be > confiscation of two chocolate biscuits. > > Adam Biltcliffe becomes the Harfharfer; The Rule of Girls may be > described as harfy; and this paragraph is deleted from the rules. > -- > Proposer: Madeleine > Consent: adam, JJ, dok, Maz, Dunky > Withheld: Mike, Carrie > Also Nay > ------ > But I can't hear it! > > /* -- REM, Radio Song */ > > Any text in a rule between C-style comment delimiters; as demonstrated > above; has no rules effect, and exists only as a comment > -- > Proposer: Madeleine > Consent: JJ, Maz, Mike, Dunky > Withheld: adam, dok > Nay > ------ > Bored Of Being Board > > There shall exist an infinite, 2-dimensional integer grid (a copy of > Z^2), henceforth known as The Board. The Board, and the location of > entities upon it, shall be considered part of the state of the game. If > at any point a member of the List of Voters lacks a location on The > Board, their location shall be set to (0,0). > -- > Proposer: Martin > Consent: JJ, Stumo, adam, Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Maz, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > > ------ > Insufficient Notices > > Any voting entity who creates a document purporting to be a Notice of > Consensus which is not in fact valid shall be guilty of the crime of Taking > Insufficient Notice. > -- > Proposer: adam > Consent: Stumo, dok, JJ, Madeleine, Maz, Mike, Dunky > Aye > ------ > I propose changing the wording of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity named on > the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all other > entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent to that > proposal from each such entity and then posts a public Notice of Consensus > to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > > to: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when one entity named on > the List of Voters makes a proposal describing the issue to all other > entities named on the List of Voters, obtains unambiguous consent to that > proposal from each such entity that will be affected differently to all > other such entities and all but at most one other such entity, and then > posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue > upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent: Madeleine, Maz, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Nay > ------ > > **** Proposals after this have times of Assumed Consent noted **** > > ------ > House of Cards > > A Pack of Cards has 42 cards; consisting of eight ranks; 78ATKQJ9; in > each of five suits; BFGKP; and two Jokers. > > The ranks have the following names: > > 7 Seven > 8 Six > A Ace > T Ten > K King > Q Queen > J Jack > 9 Nine > > The suits have the following names: > > B Bombs > F Fridges > G Guns > K Knives > P Poisons > > The Jokers are: > > The Umpire > The Cop > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 00:40:09 2004 > Consent: Adam, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > The Rule of Names > > The Game shall have a Name. Until a name is chosen then any player > may propose Names. Any Name that recieves the explicit support of > more than half of the List of Voters, and strictly more support than > every other name will become the Name of the Game and any other Name > Proposals shall be dropped. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:09:16 2004 > Consent: Adam, Dunky > Withheld: Carrie, Mike > Nay > ------ > Create a Rule as follows > > Dictionary Additions 1. > > Add the following definitions to the Dictionary, then remove this rule from > the ruleset: > C. = unit of Currency > triangle = unit of distance on the Board > The Grid = The Board > MiniTrue = the Ministry post 'Minister of Truth' > MiniFree = the Ministry post 'Minister of Freedom' > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > > ------ > Sociability > > Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same are > Friendly. > Any player whose location is at least 4 triangles from all other players > (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > > ------ > ...I wandered expensively as a bird... > > 2. Any player may spend a unit of Currency from their BANK account at any > time to move their location one orthogonal unit on the Board, informing the > other players of this fact and their new location. > -- > Proposer: JJ > Consent Assumed: Thu Sep 30 23:53:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Carrie, Stumo, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > > ------ > Arbitration > > In the event of something having to be chosen arbitrarily then any > person who has to harf that thing may make the choice by whatever > means they deem appropriate. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:23 2004 > Withheld: Adam, Mike > Nay > ------ > Hanging Chad > > All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:33 2004 > Consent: Adam, JJ, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Nay > ------ > It's easier than learning your ABC > > Every player shall number their proposals. Proposal numbers shall be > of the form a.b; where a shall be the unique reference number of the > player, and b shall be a positive integer chosen such that: > > a) a.b is unique > b) b is strictly larger than every other b that that player has ever > used for a proposal number. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:00:27 2004 > Withheld: Adam, Mike > Nay > ------ > Rule five. > > Once the stupid notice of consensus for now this rule is issued eventually, > new rules passed stand, providing, however, every fifth word (not including > words in the email title) is considered not ignored, to exist if the > Akanomic rule contains the word I "rule" in its title. Remember, This rule > only applies blindly to itself and rules not containing higher numbers than > three it. This affects itself immediately under the interpretation it > suddenly takes after every fifth written word, is removed. > -- > Proposer: Dunky > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:06:23 2004 > Withheld: Mike, Carrie > Nay > ------ > Clerk of the Vatican > > The Ministry shall contain a post called the Clerk of the Vatican. The > duties of the Clerk of the Vatican shall include maintaining and making > publically available a list of entities who are willing to judge disputes > over the interpretation of the rules or gamestate. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > Judgement Procedure > > If a member of the List of Voters wishes to assert the validity of a claim > which refers solely to the rules or gamestate, that entity make invoke the > Judgement Procedure by publically claiming to be invoking the Judgement of > the Pope and supplying the statement whose validity is under question. The > invoking entity may also present an argument suporting the statement. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > White Smoke > > When an entity invokes the Judgement of the Pope, it shall be the duty of > the Clerk of the Vatican to select an entity to act as Pope in the > resolution of that claim. This selection shall be performed by uniform > random selection from the set of all entities which: > a) have informed the Clerk of the Vatican that they are willing to act as > Pope, and not subsequently retracted that statement > b) are not considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV > c) are not the entity invoking the Judgement of the Pope If this set is > empty, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Vatican to cause it to > cease being so. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > Papal Edicts > > When the Judgement of the Pope has been invoked and the Clerk of the > Vatican has selected an entity to act as Pope, the Pope may pass judgement > on the claim. > > Legal judgements shall be: > TRUE if the Pope believes the claim to be true with respect to all aspects > of the current state of the game > FALSE if the Pope believes the claim not to be true with respect to all > aspects of the current state of the game > Either TRUE or FALSE if the Pope believes the claim to be ambiguous with > respect to all aspects of the current state of the game, depending on the > Pope's beliefs about the original intent of the rules and the entities > which have acted on the game, which interpretation makes more sense and > which interpretation will lead to a more enjoyable game > AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD if the Pope believes that the invocation of > judgement was not correctly made or that it would be otherwise > inappropriate to pass judgement > > When the Pope rules a claim TRUE or FALSE, that ruling shall be used to > determine future interpretations of the rules and gamestate. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 00:25:09 2004 > Consent: JJ, Wild Card, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > Change every instance of the word "unambiguous" in the rules to "explicit". > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:02:08 2004 > Consent: Adam, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Nay > ------ > Public Records > > If a member of the list of voters wishes a view expressed by them to > have an effect on the game, it must be recorded by sending an email to > the email list. The view shall be considered to have been expressed at > the time the email was sent, as recorded by the email list archives. If > a view has not been expressed in this manner, it may be ignored by > members of the list of voters at their leisure. > -- > Proposer: Stumo > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 02:10:24 2004 > Consent: Adam, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > The Rule That Won't Exist For Long > > This rule overrides Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules. > > If ever this rule is in force, the following definitions shall be added to > the Definitions Dictionary: > > ENTITY - Anything having existence in the real (extranomic) world. RESON - > Any construction of the game which has existence in the gameworld defined > by the rules. THINGY - synonymous with RESON > > The following changes shall then be applied to the rules: > > All occurrences of the word 'entity' in Rule 1, Existence of the Game shall > be replaced with 'reson'. > > The sentence 'This list shall be known as the List of Voters' shall be > appended to Rule 3, List of Voters. > > The Rule That Won't Exist For Long shall be deleted from the rules. > -- > Proposer: Adam > Consent Assumed: Fri Oct 1 17:57:14 2004 > Consent: JJ, Stumo, Dunky > Withheld: Mike > Aye > ------ > Thats the Name of the Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" > -- > Proposer: Carrie > Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 > Consent: Wild Card, Mike, Adam, Dunky > Withheld: Stumo > > ----- > Name that Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bowling for Buzzards" > -- > Proposer: Carrie > Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 > Consent: Stumo, Wild Card, Dunky > Withheld: Mike, Adam > > ----- > Thrid Time Lucky > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bobbing for Snapping Turtles" > -- > Proposer: Carrie > Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 14:34:29 2004 > Consent: Wild Card, Dunky > Withheld: Stumo, Mike, Adam > > ----- > Community Chest > > There exists a class of object called Community Chest Cards. > > Community Chest Cards may be created at whim out of the ether as > required by the rules. > > When a Community Chest Card is played, it is destroyed. > > There exists a dictionary of Community Chest Card types, and their > actions. Initially this is empty. > > If a rule does not specify what type of Community Chest Card is > created then they are created at random; with an equal likelyhood of > each type. > > Unless otherwise specified by the rules the type of any Community > Chest Card is a secret, revealed only to the player who possesses it. > > Community Chest Card actions have the force of rule. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Sat Oct 2 16:17:13 2004 > Consent: Stumo, adam, Carrie, Dunky, Mike > > ------ > I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land > > The Duty of the Minister of Perspicuity shall be to keep a record of > important game events; viz to be a game historian. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Sun Oct 3 15:24:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Mike, Stumo > This seems really pointless but if you really want too... Aye > ------ > I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind > > Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. > -- > Proposer: Wild Card > Consent Assumed: Sun Oct 3 15:24:11 2004 > Consent: Adam, Mike, Stumo > Aye > ------ All done, Carrie > > Summary finished by Wild Card Thu Sep 30 22:47:17 BST 2004 > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 15:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Oct 1 14:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of Judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415D61BD.7030204@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Oct 1 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >> I call upon the Pope to judge the following claim: >> >> --- >> It is possible to unrevokably 'vote' against a proposal > > > Since there is no Clerk of the Vatican, I do not believe this invocation > does anything. > > Unless anyone says anything to the contrary soon, I may appoint Wild > Card Clerk of the Vatican by Edict, since we ought to have one and I > suspect only the people checking the list fairly frequently are in a > position to do it at the moment anyway. Yeah, sounds fair enough to me. Monitor soon! Monitor soon! Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 16:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 15:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of Judgement In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Oct 2004 12:56:57 BST." References: Message-ID: > On Oct 1 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > I call upon the Pope to judge the following claim: > > > > --- > > It is possible to unrevokably 'vote' against a proposal > > Since there is no Clerk of the Vatican, I do not believe this invocation > does anything. > There's nothing in the rules I can see that means that it does. Might just go into the prospective Clerk's "in tray". WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 18:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 1 17:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Imperial Proclamation #3 Message-ID: In the interests of expediency, Wild Card is hereby appointed Clerk of the Vatican, subject to review in a few days if anyone has issues with this undemocratic intervention. I will at some point proffer myself as a potential Pope, but not before Sunday as I am spending tomorrow in Birmingham. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 18:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 17:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of Judgement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:22:54 BST." References: Message-ID: > I call upon the Pope to judge the following claim: > > --- > It is possible to unrevokably 'vote' against a proposal > I declare Garath to be the Pope for this claim. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 18:47:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 17:47:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Imperial Proclamation #3 In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Oct 2004 17:21:46 BST." References: Message-ID: > In the interests of expediency, Wild Card is hereby appointed Clerk of the > Vatican, subject to review in a few days if anyone has issues with this > undemocratic intervention. > > I will at some point proffer myself as a potential Pope, but not before > Sunday as I am spending tomorrow in Birmingham. > Current Potential Popes are Garath and Scotsman. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 19:31:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Oct 1 18:31:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Coup Attempt Number 3 Message-ID: <415D9407.5070704@mxtelecom.com> 1) This is a Notice of Consensus printed on brown paper, to inform all players that the addition of the following rule has now acheived Consensus of Opinion via assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: ------- You say Tomato and I say Tomato There shall be a "Minister for Clarity" who shall be in charge of vetting all words proposed for submission to the dictionary. The Minister of Clarity shall be responsible for keeping the dictionary up to date, and may define the exact process for adding words to the dictionary. However, the Minister for Clarity shall not be permitted to propose any word for addition to the dictionary (to prevent abuse). -------- 2) I assign myself the pseudonym "The Minister of Clarity" 3) I define the process of adding a word to the dictionary to be "Give public notice of the word and definition to be added. If The Minister of Clarity deems it suitable it shall be added to the dictionary, with immediate effect" 4) I give public notice that I wish to define the word "hour" (plural=hours) as "1/72 of a second" 5) I (being "The Minister of Clarity") deem the definition of the word 'hour' suitable, and hereby add it to the dictionary. 6) I propose the following: -------- Change the wording of Rule 18 (Imperious Emperor) as follows: The name of the rule becomes "Imperious Emperors" The wording of the rule becomes "Mike Cripps and Jonathan Amery may make any change to the gamestate they desire by making a public declaration that they are doing so" --------- 7) By the time you read this, more than 72 "hours" (72 1/72s of a second) have passed since I proposed this, so I now post a notice of consensus: This is a Notice of Consensus printed on orange paper, to inform all players that the following proposal has now acheived Consensus of Opinion via assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: -------- Change the wording of Rule 18 (Imperious Emperor) as follows: The name of the rule becomes "Imperious Emperors" The wording of the rule becomes "Mike Cripps and Jonathan Amery may make any change to the gamestate they desire by making a public declaration that they are doing so" --------- 8) I publically announce, as Emperor, that all reference to 'Minister of' in the newly enacted rule ("You say Tomato and I say Tomato") be changed to "Minister for'. 9) I publically announce, as Emperor, that the definition of 'hours' in the dictionary shall be removed, effective now. That should do it, I think... Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 22:58:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 21:58:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Imperial Proclamation #3 In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Oct 2004 17:21:46 BST." References: Message-ID: > In the interests of expediency, Wild Card is hereby appointed Clerk of the > Vatican, subject to review in a few days if anyone has issues with this > undemocratic intervention. > I've created: http://www.pick.ucam.org/ucgi/~jdamery/astronomic/wiki?VaticanRecords Feel free to store other stuff on this wiki too; but regard it as "vaguely tested"... :) WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 1 23:12:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Oct 1 22:12:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Request for Judgement Message-ID: With my "personal hat" on I request that the following Claim be Judged: --- This mail of adam's did not constitute an "explicit lack of consent": http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talk/2004-September/000341.html --- I now put my "Clerk of the Vatican" hat on, and toss my coin... Heads: Mike Tails: Garath I get a heads. Mike is assigned as Pope for this query. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Oct 2 13:43:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Sat Oct 2 12:43:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Coup Attempt Number 3 In-Reply-To: <415D9407.5070704@mxtelecom.com> References: <415D9407.5070704@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <1096717307.2912.3.camel@mewo2> On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 18:29, Mike Cripps wrote: > ------- > You say Tomato and I say Tomato > There shall be a "Minister for Clarity" who shall be in charge of > vetting all words proposed for submission to the dictionary. The > Minister of Clarity shall be responsible for keeping the dictionary up > to date, and may define the exact process for adding words to the > dictionary. However, the Minister for Clarity shall not be permitted to > propose any word for addition to the dictionary (to prevent abuse). > -------- Unfortunately, the "Minister for Clarity" has not vetted your proposed submission. Therefore it doesn't take effect. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Oct 2 13:53:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Sat Oct 2 12:53:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Coup Attempt Number 3 In-Reply-To: <415D9407.5070704@mxtelecom.com> References: <415D9407.5070704@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <1096717908.2912.6.camel@mewo2> On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 18:29, Mike Cripps wrote: > 7) By the time you read this, more than 72 "hours" (72 1/72s of a > second) have passed since I proposed this, so I now post a notice of > consensus: > > This is a Notice of Consensus printed on orange paper, to inform all > players that the following proposal has now acheived Consensus of > Opinion via assumed Consent and will therefore take effect as of now: > > -------- > Change the wording of Rule 18 (Imperious Emperor) as follows: > The name of the rule becomes "Imperious Emperors" > The wording of the rule becomes "Mike Cripps and Jonathan Amery may make > any change to the gamestate they desire by making a public declaration > that they are doing so" > --------- This notice is invalid as it was issued before consent had been obtained (before 72 hours/1 second had passed). I now object to the proposal it mentioned. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Oct 2 21:46:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat Oct 2 20:46:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of judgement Message-ID: I hereby state that I am willing to act as Pope in matters of dispute resolution (not that it matters for the invocation I'm about to make, obviously. I note that we should maybe have a way of excluding other involved parties from passing judgement on an issue too, since although I trust everyone here to be reasonable in their judging of a claim, it seems mean if nothing else to potentially make someone judge their own actions invalid). First, I'd like to congratulate Mike on a very competent coup attempt. I certainly didn't intend for the Tomato rule to pass (although not because I saw the very cunning loophole embedded in it), but I admit that my email of Tue Sep 28 19:30:02 2004 is not sufficiently explicit in denying consent. However ... I would like to invoke the Judgement of the Pope in resolving the validity of the following claim: Adam Biltcliffe expressed an explicit lack of consent to the proposal by Mike Cripps to create a rule entitled 'You say Tomato and I say Tomato'. My reasoning is as follows: In the penultimate paragraph of my email of Mon Sep 27 21:16:01 2004, I made the statement 'I hereby object to all proposals to which I have not explicitly given consent'. I did not state that this applied only to proposals currently under consideration. I therefore assert that my intent was to object to *all* possible proposals unless I gave explicit consent to them, and therefore that my consent to a proposal can never be assumed unless given explicitly. Therefore there was not a Consensus of Opinion on the passing of the rule 'You say Tomato and I say Tomato', and in addition to not being Emperor, Mike Cripps is guilty of two counts of Taking Insufficient Notice. If I am in fact currently still Emperor, I hereby declare that before he wreaks any more havoc, Mike Cripps' shall be assigned the pseudonym 'Sneaky Git'. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Oct 2 22:00:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat Oct 2 21:00:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] a clarification Message-ID: Having just thought about this for a little longer, I'm pretty sure I'm still Emperor. I can't see any way it can be argued that Martin's objection to Mike's NoC for his amendment to Rule 18, Imperious Emperor was invalid, since the proposal and the NoC were clearly posted at the same time, less than one second apart. Therefore I believe that only the first six actions in Mike's email were legal (and so I vote an explicit no to his proposal to amend Rule 18 to make himself and Wild Card Emperors, just for safety's sake). This wouldn't make any difference, since he could just carry out the same coup again with the one-second delay inserted, except that I just changed his pseudonym as an afterthought to my last email, and he can't change it back. Now, before anyone else tries the same trick, I'll make the following declarations (copied and pasted from Mike's email, natch): 8) I publically announce, as Emperor, that all reference to 'Minister of' in the newly enacted rule ("You say Tomato and I say Tomato") be changed to "Minister for'. 9) I publically announce, as Emperor, that the definition of 'hours' in the dictionary shall be removed, effective now. Loophole fixed, n'est-ce pas? EE (still probably in power) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Oct 2 22:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Sat Oct 2 21:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Invocation of judgement In-Reply-To: Your message of "02 Oct 2004 20:45:18 BST." References: Message-ID: > Adam Biltcliffe expressed an explicit lack of consent to the proposal by > Mike Cripps to create a rule entitled 'You say Tomato and I say Tomato'. > Mike gets this one too; and I have to admit that the argument is quite convincing.... WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 02:31:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Wed Oct 6 01:31:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] NoC Message-ID: This is a Notice of Consensus for the following rule and is printed on girly pink paper. Thats the Name of the Game The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" Carrie From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 11:20:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Wed Oct 6 10:20:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Papal judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4163B89B.3060500@mxtelecom.com> The Pope rules TRUE - the email from Adam Biltcliffe on 27/9/04 at 21:15 does show sufficient proof of intent that you wished to explicitly object against all proposals unless otherwise stated. Mike Cripps is found guilty of two counts of Taking Insufficient Notice. Judgement Ends From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 13:45:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Oct 6 12:45:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] go again? Message-ID: I believe Mike's coup has now been resolved; since a lot of people seem to have been waiting for this before doing anything else to the game, I point out that the road is now clear again. The website (http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic ) should now be up-to-date with the current state of the game. I think there are also quite a few proposals which can now be passed via Assumed Consent. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 19:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Wed Oct 6 18:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] NoCs Message-ID: This is a Notice of Consensus for the following proposal, printed on mauve-coloured paper: > >Dictionary Additions 1. > >Add the following definitions to the Dictionary, then remove this rule from >the ruleset: >C.   =  unit of Currency >triangle  =  unit of distance on the Board >The Grid = The Board >MiniTrue = the Ministry post 'Minister of Truth' >MiniFree = the Ministry post 'Minister of Freedom' This is a Notice of Consensus for the following proposal, printed on orange-coloured paper: >Sociability > >Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same >are >Friendly. >Any player whose location is at least 4 triangles from all other players >(under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. >-- This is a Notice of Consensus for the following proposal, printed on Violet-coloured paper: >------ >...I wandered expensively as a bird... > >2. Any player may spend a unit of Currency from their BANK account at any >time to move their location one orthogonal unit on the Board, informing the >other players of this fact and their new location. >-- _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 20:05:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Wed Oct 6 19:05:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Judgement Message-ID: Judgement was called on the following statement: It is possible to irrevocably 'vote' against a proposal. The Pope rules TRUE, for the following reasons: a vote along the lines of 'No. This vote overrides all other votes I make, past, present and future' would be sufficient except in the case of a Yes vote with a similar condition, but that would be paradoxical and therefore ambiguous, and so would count as a Nay vote. Judgement ends _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 21:27:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 6 20:27:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I move to (1,0) Message-ID: <416446DB.1020308@cam.ac.uk> Haha From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 21:39:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 6 20:39:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Call for Judgement Message-ID: <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> I call for the Judgement of the Pope on the following statement: 'The person referred to in Rule 18 is not Adam Biltcliffe but is in fact the person who judges this statement. There is a rule "Stuart is rather too drunk" which states "Stuart Moore is the Grand Vizier, who may change the game state as he wishes by publically declaring so, and may only be overruled by the person referred to in rule 18. This rule takes precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules"' From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 6 22:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Oct 6 21:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Call for Judgement In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:38:23 BST." <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> References: <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: > I call for the Judgement of the Pope on the following statement: > > 'The person referred to in Rule 18 is not Adam Biltcliffe but is in fact > the person who judges this statement. There is a rule "Stuart is rather > too drunk" which states "Stuart Moore is the Grand Vizier, who may > change the game state as he wishes by publically declaring so, and may > only be overruled by the person referred to in rule 18. This rule takes > precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules"' > This CFJ is assigned to EmperorExplicivist WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Oct 7 00:58:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 6 23:58:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Call for Judgement In-Reply-To: References: <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41647824.3090309@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: >>I call for the Judgement of the Pope on the following statement: >> >>'The person referred to in Rule 18 is not Adam Biltcliffe but is in fact >>the person who judges this statement. There is a rule "Stuart is rather >>too drunk" which states "Stuart Moore is the Grand Vizier, who may >>change the game state as he wishes by publically declaring so, and may >>only be overruled by the person referred to in rule 18. This rule takes >>precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules"' >> > > This CFJ is assigned to EmperorExplicivist > > WC. Bugger. Oh well, he can create a contradiction here if he wants... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Oct 7 08:59:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Oct 7 07:59:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] [Fwd: Re: New subscription request to list Nomic-talk from orsonbradford@gmail.com] Message-ID: <4164E90E.3010004@cam.ac.uk> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060803020809030900070502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Someone wants to join. Any opinions? Do we let him on the list? --------------060803020809030900070502 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: New subscription request to list Nomic-talk from orsonbradford@gmail.com" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: New subscription request to list Nomic-talk from orsonbradford@gmail.com" Return-Path: Received: from ppsw-8-intramail.csi.cam.ac.uk ([192.168.128.138]) by cyrus-1.csi.private.cam.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.1.16-HERMES) with LMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:54:15 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.193]:1491 helo=mproxy.gmail.com) by ppsw-8.csi.cam.ac.uk (mx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.148]:25) with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CFPM1-0004ZB-3v (return-path ) for stjm2@cam.ac.uk; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:54:09 +0100 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 75so1377573rnk for ; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.165.18 with SMTP id n18mr1914815rne; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.92.54 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <75172e041006205458ab3cc7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:54:02 -0400 From: nosro Reply-To: nosro To: Stuart Moore Subject: Re: New subscription request to list Nomic-talk from orsonbradford@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4164785C.5030009@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20041006201701.8354.96938.Mailman@student.cusu.cam.ac.uk> <4164785C.5030009@cam.ac.uk> X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-SpamDetails: scanned, SpamAssassin (score=0.024, RCVD_BY_IP 0.02) Hello, Sorry, I didn't know if I could write anything in the subscription request. I am interested in Astronomic. I would like to observe for a while and perhaps join in -- if it is open for new players. I have some Nomic experience from Blognomic (blognomic.blogspot.com). Looking up one of our new players, WildCard, led me here. Orson Bradford --------------060803020809030900070502-- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Oct 7 09:59:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Thu Oct 7 08:59:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] [Fwd: Re: New subscription request to list Nomic-talk from orsonbradford@gmail.com] In-Reply-To: <4164E90E.3010004@cam.ac.uk> References: <4164E90E.3010004@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:58:22 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > Someone wants to join. Any opinions? Do we let him on the list? > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: nosro > To: Stuart Moore > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:54:02 -0400 > Subject: Re: New subscription request to list Nomic-talk from orsonbradford@gmail.com > Hello, > > Sorry, I didn't know if I could write anything in the subscription > request. I am interested in Astronomic. I would like to observe for a > while and perhaps join in -- if it is open for new players. > > I have some Nomic experience from Blognomic (blognomic.blogspot.com). > Looking up one of our new players, WildCard, led me here. > > Orson Bradford > > > I note we still don't have a way to let people join. Do we? Carrie From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Oct 7 11:44:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Oct 7 10:44:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Papal Judgement Message-ID: <41650FA3.9070708@mxtelecom.com> In response to ---- On Fri Oct 01 22:12:20 2004 WildCard? asked that the following claim be judged: This mail of adam's did not constitute an "explicit lack of consent": http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talk/2004-September/000341.html It was assigned reference number J1WC002 ---- I rule TRUE Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Oct 7 18:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Oct 7 17:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] NoCs Message-ID: This entire email is printed on palatinate[1] paper. This is a Notice of Consensus for: ------ I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land The Duty of the Minister of Perspicuity shall be to keep a record of important game events; viz to be a game historian. ------ This is also a Notice of Consensus for: ------ I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. ------ WC. [1] That is, in the purple of the University of Durham From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Oct 7 22:42:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Oct 7 21:42:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] new players Message-ID: I'm keen to let new players join in general, and certainly to let anyone who asks onto the mailing list. I do note as a general point, though, that this is a dangerous thing to start doing when players still have the ability to veto proposals by themselves, and I'd like to make yet another case for majority rule. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 8 12:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 8 11:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] conflict! Message-ID: I do think we need a better precedence heuristic for rules than "must override other rules explicitly by name". At the moment, I believe there is a conflict over whether Rule 28 can be removed from the ruleset, and so I shall attempt to initiate the conflict resolution procedure as defined in Rule 7, The Rule of Conflict. I seek the Pope's judgement on the following claim: A conflict exists in the rules between Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules, which states that a change to the rules may only take place when a Consensus of Opinion exists with respect to that change, and Rule 28, Dictionary Additions 1, which states that it should be removed from the ruleset as soon as the changes it describes have been applied. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 8 12:28:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Oct 8 11:28:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Judgement In-Reply-To: <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> References: <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Oct 6 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > I call for the Judgement of the Pope on the following statement: > > 'The person referred to in Rule 18 is not Adam Biltcliffe but is in fact > the person who judges this statement. There is a rule "Stuart is rather > too drunk" which states "Stuart Moore is the Grand Vizier, who may > change the game state as he wishes by publically declaring so, and may > only be overruled by the person referred to in rule 18. This rule takes > precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules"' Rule 24, Judgement Procedure states that the Judgement of the Pope may be invoked to determine 'the validity of a claim which refers solely to the rules or gamestate'. This claim makes reference to 'the person who judges this statement' which was a matter of neither the rules nor the gamestate at the time the claim was made. I therefore judge that this claim is not valid and so AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Oct 8 15:58:05 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Oct 8 14:58:05 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Judgement In-Reply-To: References: <416449AF.6030405@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41666D6D.9020205@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Oct 6 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> I call for the Judgement of the Pope on the following statement: >> >> 'The person referred to in Rule 18 is not Adam Biltcliffe but is in >> fact the person who judges this statement. There is a rule "Stuart is >> rather too drunk" which states "Stuart Moore is the Grand Vizier, who >> may change the game state as he wishes by publically declaring so, and >> may only be overruled by the person referred to in rule 18. This rule >> takes precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules"' > > > Rule 24, Judgement Procedure states that the Judgement of the Pope may > be invoked to determine 'the validity of a claim which refers solely to > the rules or gamestate'. This claim makes reference to 'the person who > judges this statement' which was a matter of neither the rules nor the > gamestate at the time the claim was made. I therefore judge that this > claim is not valid and so AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD. > Yay. I may not be the Grand Vizier, but I got the best judgement type... But I hope it also makes my point that the judgement procedure as it stands could allow an arbitary statement to be declared true on someone's whim, when it really ought to be false... I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Could a Judgement be invoked on "Judgement Foo is incorrect, and it's correct status should be..."? From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Oct 11 18:01:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Oct 11 17:01:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] displeasure Message-ID: Subjects, I can't help but note that we have yet to see any evidence of the Minister of Truth or the Chief Cashier performing any of their appointed duties. Should we expect to see anything any time soon? EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Oct 11 18:02:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Mon Oct 11 17:02:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] displeasure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416AAE9C.1050308@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Subjects, > > I can't help but note that we have yet to see any evidence of the > Minister of Truth or the Chief Cashier performing any of their appointed > duties. Should we expect to see anything any time soon? > > EE > I'm sick! But I'm Back In Business baby! Mike (Sneaky Git) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Oct 11 18:49:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Mon Oct 11 17:49:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] displeasure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416AB943.6090400@cam.ac.uk> Wot Mike said. I'll do something soon. I've got to run now, tomorrow should be doable. Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Subjects, > > I can't help but note that we have yet to see any evidence of the > Minister of Truth or the Chief Cashier performing any of their appointed > duties. Should we expect to see anything any time soon? > > EE > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 19 16:35:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Oct 19 15:35:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Bank Balances Message-ID: <41752610.1070307@cam.ac.uk> All players have a bank balance of 17C, with the exception of Stuart Moore who has a bank balance of 16C due to moving to (1,0) on 6/10/04 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 19 16:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Oct 19 15:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The founding fathers (and mother) Message-ID: <41752AE6.506@cam.ac.uk> This post contains a number of proposals. Proposal to create the rule "The founding fathers (and mother)" The list "The founding fathers (and mother)" contains the entities known as Adam Biltcliffe, Carrie Oliver, David Birch, John-Joseph Wilks, Jonathan Amery, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary, Mike Cripps and Stuart Moore Proposal to create the rule "The Power of Veto" The "Veto holders" is the intersection of "The Founding fathers (and mother)" with the "List of Voters". If this set is non-empty, and at least one third of its members state that they veto a given proposal before it has obtained a Consensus of Opinion, then that proposal will never be able to obtain a Consensus of Opinion. This overrides Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion. A veto must be explicitly stated for each proposal. It is possible to vote against a proposal without vetoing it, and to veto a proposal whilst voting either for or against a proposal. Once a veto has been stated, it cannot be withdrawn. --End of proposals-- The idea is to ensure that if the game is opened up to other players we still retain some control over it. Once this (or something else) had gone through, I'd be happy to allow us to move to a method of voting that allowed majority rule. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 19 17:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Tue Oct 19 16:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Bank Balances In-Reply-To: <41752610.1070307@cam.ac.uk> References: <41752610.1070307@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:34:56 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > All players have a bank balance of 17C, with the exception of Stuart > Moore who has a bank balance of 16C due to moving to (1,0) on 6/10/04 Ummm.... no. There is no grid, so you can't have moved. Carrie > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 19 17:05:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Oct 19 16:05:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Bank Balances In-Reply-To: References: <41752610.1070307@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41752D15.7020809@cam.ac.uk> Carrie Oliver wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:34:56 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > >>All players have a bank balance of 17C, with the exception of Stuart >>Moore who has a bank balance of 16C due to moving to (1,0) on 6/10/04 > > > Ummm.... no. There is no grid, so you can't have moved. > Yet rule 30 suggests I can... hmm From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 19 21:06:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Oct 19 20:06:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Bank Balances Message-ID: > >Carrie Oliver wrote: > >>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:34:56 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: >> >>>All players have a bank balance of 17C, with the exception of Stuart >>>Moore who has a bank balance of 16C due to moving to (1,0) on 6/10/04 >> >> >>Ummm.... no. There is no grid, so you can't have moved. >> > >Yet rule 30 suggests I can... > >hmm You can spend the money, but there's no effect without a grid. Monkey, feel like consensusing the Grid anytime? JJ > > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 19 21:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Oct 19 20:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The founding fathers (and mother) Message-ID: My own proposal, and a vote: Create the rule: "Elections" If there is ever a Ministry Post which is not occupied by an entity, then any member of the List of Voters may offer eirself as a candidate to fulfil that role. If within the next 24 hours no member of the List of Voters has expressed an explicit desire for it not to take place, and at least one member not the candidate has expressed consent, then the candidate shall take on the post. > >This post contains a number of proposals. > >Proposal to create the rule "The founding fathers (and mother)" > >The list "The founding fathers (and mother)" contains the entities known as >Adam Biltcliffe, Carrie Oliver, David Birch, John-Joseph Wilks, Jonathan >Amery, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary, Mike Cripps and Stuart Moore > > >Proposal to create the rule "The Power of Veto" > >The "Veto holders" is the intersection of "The Founding fathers (and >mother)" with the "List of Voters". If this set is non-empty, and at least >one third of its members state that they veto a given proposal before it >has obtained a Consensus of Opinion, then that proposal will never be able >to obtain a Consensus of Opinion. This overrides Rule 4, Consensus of >Opinion. > >A veto must be explicitly stated for each proposal. It is possible to vote >against a proposal without vetoing it, and to veto a proposal whilst voting >either for or against a proposal. Once a veto has been stated, it cannot be >withdrawn. > >--End of proposals-- > >The idea is to ensure that if the game is opened up to other players we >still retain some control over it. Once this (or something else) had gone >through, I'd be happy to allow us to move to a method of voting that >allowed majority rule. Sounds good. I'll vote aye to both of those at the moment. > >Stuart > > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 20 12:37:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Oct 20 11:37:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The founding fathers (and mother) In-Reply-To: <41752AE6.506@cam.ac.uk> References: <41752AE6.506@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Oct 19 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > This post contains a number of proposals. > > Proposal to create the rule "The founding fathers (and mother)" > > The list "The founding fathers (and mother)" contains the entities known > as Adam Biltcliffe, Carrie Oliver, David Birch, John-Joseph Wilks, > Jonathan Amery, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary, Mike Cripps and Stuart > Moore Aye to this. > Proposal to create the rule "The Power of Veto" > > The "Veto holders" is the intersection of "The Founding fathers (and > mother)" with the "List of Voters". If this set is non-empty, and at > least one third of its members state that they veto a given proposal > before it has obtained a Consensus of Opinion, then that proposal will > never be able to obtain a Consensus of Opinion. This overrides Rule 4, > Consensus of Opinion. > > A veto must be explicitly stated for each proposal. It is possible to > vote against a proposal without vetoing it, and to veto a proposal > whilst voting either for or against a proposal. Once a veto has been > stated, it cannot be withdrawn. I can't say I'm ultimately in favour of this; it feels as though it might hamper the future evolution of the game, although that's probably not something worth worrying about right now. Nonetheless, I'll say aye to it now in order to get things going and we can see about changing them later if we want. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 20 12:45:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Oct 20 11:45:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The founding fathers (and mother) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 19 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > My own proposal, and a vote: > > Create the rule: "Elections" > > If there is ever a Ministry Post which is not occupied by an entity, > then any member of the List of Voters may offer eirself as a candidate to > fulfil that role. If within the next 24 hours no member of the List of > Voters has expressed an explicit desire for it not to take place, and at > least one member not the candidate has expressed consent, then the > candidate shall take on the post. Aye, although 24 hours seems rather short. Can I suggest we also create a means for impeachment should it ever turn out to be necessary? It seems we have yet to hear anything from the Minister of Truth or the Minister of Perspicuity. Any possibility of reports soon? The Clerk of the Vatican also seems to be a bit behind; for example, I haven't yet seen the invocation I made in http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talk/2004-October/000441.html assigned to a Pope, nor has the last judgement I passed been added to the Records. Also, if this passes it will be the first actual instance of Spivak pronouns in the rules. Since they're not part of standard English, ought we to define them? EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 20 16:07:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 20 15:07:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The founding fathers (and mother) In-Reply-To: References: <41752AE6.506@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <417670FC.2060308@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Oct 19 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> This post contains a number of proposals. >> >> Proposal to create the rule "The founding fathers (and mother)" >> >> The list "The founding fathers (and mother)" contains the entities >> known as Adam Biltcliffe, Carrie Oliver, David Birch, John-Joseph >> Wilks, Jonathan Amery, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary, Mike Cripps and >> Stuart Moore > > > Aye to this. > >> Proposal to create the rule "The Power of Veto" >> >> The "Veto holders" is the intersection of "The Founding fathers (and >> mother)" with the "List of Voters". If this set is non-empty, and at >> least one third of its members state that they veto a given proposal >> before it has obtained a Consensus of Opinion, then that proposal will >> never be able to obtain a Consensus of Opinion. This overrides Rule 4, >> Consensus of Opinion. >> >> A veto must be explicitly stated for each proposal. It is possible to >> vote against a proposal without vetoing it, and to veto a proposal >> whilst voting either for or against a proposal. Once a veto has been >> stated, it cannot be withdrawn. > > > I can't say I'm ultimately in favour of this; it feels as though it > might hamper the future evolution of the game, although that's probably > not something worth worrying about right now. Nonetheless, I'll say aye > to it now in order to get things going and we can see about changing > them later if we want. Cheers. I take the point that it doesn't allow as much flexibility as some systems (e.g. simple majority) but it paves the way to allowing more flexibility than we already have (taking 3 people to veto rather than 1 is an improvement IMHO) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 26 17:08:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Oct 26 16:08:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] By the power of the Rule of Handles... Message-ID: <417E6840.40509@cam.ac.uk> By the power of the Rule of Handles, I declare my pseudonym to be "The Founding fathers (and mother)" From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Oct 26 17:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Oct 26 16:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The founding fathers (and mother) In-Reply-To: <41752AE6.506@cam.ac.uk> References: <41752AE6.506@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <417E6846.5000804@cam.ac.uk> This is a notice of consensus printed on a rather smug looking yellow piece of paper. The following proposal has passed: Proposal to create the rule "The Power of Veto" The "Veto holders" is the intersection of "The Founding fathers (and mother)" with the "List of Voters". If this set is non-empty, and at least one third of its members state that they veto a given proposal before it has obtained a Consensus of Opinion, then that proposal will never be able to obtain a Consensus of Opinion. This overrides Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion. A veto must be explicitly stated for each proposal. It is possible to vote against a proposal without vetoing it, and to veto a proposal whilst voting either for or against a proposal. Once a veto has been stated, it cannot be withdrawn. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 27 15:01:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 27 14:01:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Application to be Pope Message-ID: I wish to make it known that I am willing to act as Pope From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 27 15:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 27 14:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal Message-ID: Proposal for the creation of the rule "The Floberygibbut of Manchester (South) and his many taco shells, what?" If a player has a pseudonym in the List of Handles, they may chose to unset this name by paying 3C. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 27 15:15:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Oct 27 14:15:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 27 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Proposal for the creation of the rule "The Floberygibbut of Manchester > (South) and his many taco shells, what?" > > If a player has a pseudonym in the List of Handles, they may chose to > unset this name by paying 3C. No, no, no, no, no. We've seen too many uses of Malenkai's Loophole already. And I'd like pseudonyms to be persistent so that the bookkeeping makes sense. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 27 15:17:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 27 14:17:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Proposal for the creation of the rule "The Floberygibbut of Manchester > (South) and his many taco shells, what?" > > If a player has a pseudonym in the List of Handles, they may chose to unset > this name by paying 3C. I both vote for and veto this proposal, because I probably can... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 27 15:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Oct 27 14:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Proposal for the creation of the rule "The Floberygibbut of Manchester (South) and his many taco shells, what? No, really this time without the mistakes. Haha boom" If a player has a pseudonym in the List of Handles, they may chose to unset this pseudonym by paying 3C. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Oct 27 15:31:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Oct 27 14:31:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 27 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "The Floberygibbut of Manchester > (South) and his many taco shells, what? No, really this time without > the mistakes. Haha boom" > > If a player has a pseudonym in the List of Handles, they may chose to > unset this pseudonym by paying 3C. Still no. EE