From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 21:36:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 20:36:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Hello? Message-ID: Hello ... hello ... hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ... is there anybody home? From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 21:47:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 20:47:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I create Message-ID: Right. Since the list seems to be working, I hereby declare that I=20 acknowledge the authority of the rules of the game to define the behaviour= =20 of the game, and therefore that the game exists. The website for the game, at present, is: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic This mailing list will be initially= =20 used for communication, and messages can be broadcast to the other players= =20 by emailing them to: =09nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org The rules, at present, are as follows: 1. Existence of the Game These rules describe the behaviour of a Nomic=20 game. The game and all entities existing within it have a persistent state= =20 which can only change as described by the rules. 2. Mutability of the Rules The rules may change in the course of the game= =20 as specified here. A change to the rules must and may only take place when= =20 a Consensus of Opinion, as defined by the rules, exists with respect to=20 that particular change to the rules. 3. List of Voters The game shall contain a list of names which refer to=20 specific entities in the real (extranomic) world. At the start of the game,= =20 this list shall contain the names of Adam Biltcliffe, Carrie Oliver, David= =20 Birch, John-Joseph Wilks, Jonathan Amery, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester,=20 Michael Cripps and Stuart Moore. 4. Consensus of Opinion A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to=20 the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the= =20 change to all other entities named on the List of Voters and obtains=20 unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. Let the game begin! From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 21:58:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 20:58:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I create In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095882962.3599.3.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 20:46, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > 4. Consensus of Opinion A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to > the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the > change to all other entities named on the List of Voters and obtains > unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. > Can I propose that the phrase "change to the rules" be stripped of the unnecessarily specific "to the rules"? This would allow us to later use the same mechanism to deal with other changes which might arise. Note that this still does not allow such other changes to occur, as no provision is made for them under Mutability Of The Rules. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:02:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:02:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I create In-Reply-To: Message from Adam Biltcliffe of "22 Sep 2004 20:46:48 BST." References: Message-ID: > Let the game begin! I award myself a win condition. (just in case). J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I create In-Reply-To: <1095882962.3599.3.camel@mewo2> References: <1095882962.3599.3.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 20:46, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > 4. Consensus of Opinion A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change > > to the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters > > proposes the change to all other entities named on the List of Voters > > and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. > > Can I propose that the phrase "change to the rules" be stripped of the > unnecessarily specific "to the rules"? This would allow us to later use > the same mechanism to deal with other changes which might arise. Note > that this still does not allow such other changes to occur, as no > provision is made for them under Mutability Of The Rules. In that case I'd suggest changing it to the even more general phrasing 'a Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when ...' That way, we can use it just as effectively to agree that things shouldn't be changed, or anything else we fancy. Do you want this now, or shall we leave it until we've decided on any other changes that should be made to this rule (eg. adding passive consent)? I also note for the convenience of players and others that there is now a public archive of this mailing list at: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talk/ adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:09:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:09:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I create In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > Let the game begin! > > I award myself a win condition. > > (just in case). Excellent! What did you win? (Not this game, presumably, since by Rule 1 you can't change the state of the game except as dictated by the rules ...) Also, is Hermes webmail mangling my email? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:09:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:09:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Arbitration Message-ID: We need a system for resolving disputes about the state of play. What sort of thing would people like? Arbitrary dictatorship; randomly selected judge; algorithmically selected judge; referendum...? J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:17:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:17:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal Message-ID: I propose the following rule: 5. There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one entry for each player in the game. Initially the pseudonym entry in each pair will be unset. At any time a player with an unset pseudonym may set their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string isn't lexically equivilent to any game entity, player's real name or player's pseudonym. If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then their pseudonym and their real name may be used interchangably within the context of the game. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:20:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:20:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] I create In-Reply-To: References: <1095882962.3599.3.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <1095884299.3599.7.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:05, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > In that case I'd suggest changing it to the even more general phrasing 'a > Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists when ...' That way, we > can use it just as effectively to agree that things shouldn't be changed, > or anything else we fancy. Do you want this now, or shall we leave it until > we've decided on any other changes that should be made to this rule (eg. > adding passive consent)? How do you suggest altering the phrase "proposes the change"? "proposes the issue" just sounds odd. And yes, we should probably wait until we've decided on other changes; I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095884413.3599.9.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:11, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I propose the following rule: > > 5. There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one > entry for each player in the game. Initially the pseudonym entry in > each pair will be unset. At any time a player with an unset pseudonym > may set their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string > isn't lexically equivilent to any game entity, player's real name or > player's pseudonym. If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then > their pseudonym and their real name may be used interchangably within > the context of the game. > Give it a name so I don't have to remember what rule number it is and spell check it and I think that's fine. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Arbitration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > We need a system for resolving disputes about the state of play. I concur. > What sort of thing would people like? Arbitrary dictatorship; > randomly selected judge; algorithmically selected judge; > referendum...? I'm not particularly in favour of arbitrary dictatorship; Imperial Nomic looks quite fun, but it isn't the game I was intending to play. I don't particularly fancy doing everything by referendum; if we have to vote on resolution of ambiguities it feels no different from passing a new rule to resolve the issue, plus there's the issue of how the issue is broken down into possible standpoints for people to vote on. I'm in favour of disputes being resolved by a judge, with the option to appeal if the judge gets it patently wrong. I'd suggest any player can put him/her/it/eirself forward as a potential judge, and that someone have the duty of selecting a judge by whatever means from the pool of available judges. Alternatively, we could elect someone as arbitrator for all disputes on a weekly or fortnightly basis (or let it be determined by something else, such as score), with secondary and tertiary judges to handle appeals or rule on issues raised by the primary judge. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:30:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:30:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: <1095884413.3599.9.camel@mewo2> References: <1095884413.3599.9.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:11, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > I propose the following rule: > > > > 5. There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one > > entry for each player in the game. Initially the pseudonym entry in > > each pair will be unset. At any time a player with an unset pseudonym > > may set their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string > > isn't lexically equivilent to any game entity, player's real name or > > player's pseudonym. If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then > > their pseudonym and their real name may be used interchangably within > > the context of the game. > > Give it a name so I don't have to remember what rule number it is and > spell check it and I think that's fine. Rules probably ought to have names, but I'm happy for this one to go in as is and be assigned a name later if/when it becomes official that rules must have names. I suggest also that at some point there should be a rule allowing for the correction of unambiguous typos or spelling mistakes in the rules. I consent (unambiguously, I hope!) for this change to take place, both in the form it is presented here and in any other form which has an identical effect on the game but differs in nomenclature or spelling. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:38:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:38:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1095884413.3599.9.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <1095885355.3599.14.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:29, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > Rules probably ought to have names, but I'm happy for this one to go in as > is and be assigned a name later if/when it becomes official that rules must > have names. I suggest also that at some point there should be a rule > allowing for the correction of unambiguous typos or spelling mistakes in > the rules. > Sure. I propose the following rule: The Rule Of Names Each rule shall have a name, consisting of a string of alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation. These names shall be unique, up to case changes and changes to spacing. All rules, when referring to other rules, must use the name of the rule in question. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 22:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 21:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: <1095885355.3599.14.camel@mewo2> References: <1095885355.3599.14.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > I propose the following rule: > > The Rule Of Names > > Each rule shall have a name, consisting of a string of alphanumeric > characters, spaces and punctuation. These names shall be unique, up to > case changes and changes to spacing. All rules, when referring to other > rules, must use the name of the rule in question. I counter-propose the following rule: The Rule of Structured Names Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule when it is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in question. As part of the same proposal, I suggest that the names of all existing rules be modified so as to bring them into line with the Rule of Structured Names (becoming Rule 1, Existence of the Game and so forth). Sorry, but I feel it does help to add a sense of continuity to the ruleset if rules are numbered sequentially. We can arrange that all the rules are indexed alphabetically by name on the website, if you like. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:00:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:00:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1095885355.3599.14.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <1095886688.3599.18.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:55, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified > along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when > referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in question. This becomes a problem when one wishes to propose a set of rules which refer to each other. Unless you can guess precisely which numbers these rules are going to be assigned, you can't know their full name and thus can't refer to them. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: <1095886688.3599.18.camel@mewo2> References: <1095886688.3599.18.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 21:55, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be > > specified along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. > > All rules, when referring to other rules, must use the full name of the > > rule in question. > > This becomes a problem when one wishes to propose a set of rules which > refer to each other. Unless you can guess precisely which numbers these > rules are going to be assigned, you can't know their full name and thus > can't refer to them. Bah, I deleted the clause from that paragraph specifying that rules can legally be referred to by name only until they are added to the rules on the grounds that the rules wouldn't refer to them until that happened. Valid point, although I'm not sure that there are that many circumstances where rules need to refer to simultaneously-proposed rules explicitly; it seems it'd come up more often when you need to describe an exception to some rule added long ago. Note that I haven't objected to The Rule of Names yet (not that any such objection would have actual force in the game anyway); if you really want to try a game in which rules are referenced exclusively by name then I could probably be persuaded to give it a go. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: Message from Adam Biltcliffe of "22 Sep 2004 21:55:18 BST." References: <1095885355.3599.14.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: > On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > > > I propose the following rule: > > > > The Rule Of Names > > > > Each rule shall have a name, consisting of a string of alphanumeric > > characters, spaces and punctuation. These names shall be unique, up to > > case changes and changes to spacing. All rules, when referring to other > > rules, must use the name of the rule in question. > > I counter-propose the following rule: > > The Rule of Structured Names > > Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In > this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule when it > is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer > currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of > alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to > changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. > > X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified > along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when > referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in question. > > As part of the same proposal, I suggest that the names of all existing > rules be modified so as to bring them into line with the Rule of Structured > Names (becoming Rule 1, Existence of the Game and so forth). I propose the following modification to the above proposal: Add, after the words "rule in question", the following text: ,excepting the following case: While a rule is still a proposal, but has not yet been added to the rules it is permissable to then refer to it only as Y. When a rule has an X assigned the game state is modified such that all existing references to the rule have their references updated to represent the full name of the rule. In the event that a rule has either part X or part Y changed then the game state is modified such that all existing references to the rule are updated to the new form. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:18:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:18:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent Message-ID: For the avoidance of doubt; I consent to my two rules proposals (5 and 8); and to any one of the proposed names rules; but not more than one at once. J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 8 Message-ID: I propose the following: 8, The rule of assumed consent. It shall be assumed that a player consents to a game action if any one of the following has occured: a) They are currently "on holiday" if that term has any meaning in the game. b) They have made a game action at least one game day ago, and since the action under consideration. c) They made the game action itself. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > For the avoidance of doubt; I consent to my two rules proposals (5 > and 8); and to any one of the proposed names rules; but not more than > one at once. Just for the record, as I interpret what's currently known as Rule 4, you're not obliged to express consent to your own proposals. Also, I think giving rules numbers while they're still hypothetical is going to lead inevitably to confusion. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:25:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:25:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 22:18, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I propose the following: > > 8, The rule of assumed consent. > > It shall be assumed that a player consents to a game action if any > one of the following has occured: > > a) They are currently "on holiday" if that term has any meaning in > the game. > b) They have made a game action at least one game day ago, and since > the action under consideration. > c) They made the game action itself. > I don't like this. For starters, we haven't defined the term "game action". Secondly, condition b) is confusingly worded. I would prefer something simpler like: b) At least 48 hours have passed since the game action was put under consideration. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:28:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:28:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 8 In-Reply-To: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> References: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <1095888368.3599.24.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 22:23, Martin O'Leary wrote: > b) At least 48 hours have passed since the game action was put under > consideration. Er, add "and they have not expressed a view on the matter" to that. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:33:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:33:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I propose that point "b" below be reworded "they have made no game actions for at least 24 hours since the action under consideration." rather than the initial wording, as it is less ambiguous. I consent fully to Jon's proposal for pseudonyms, and propose that it me named "the rule of handles" or "the rule of a monarch deposed two days after coronation." whichever you prefer. As to the argument about the naming rules rule, I would like them to have some form of numbering, as this way, when there are many many rules, it'll be easy to find rules by number - and am fairly confident that should rules need to refer to other rules, they can be simultaneously introduced. However, I consent to whatever Adam and Martin agree on, so long as, again, the final result has no different affect on the gameplay than either of the current propositions. On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I propose the following: > > 8, The rule of assumed consent. > > It shall be assumed that a player consents to a game action if any > one of the following has occured: > > a) They are currently "on holiday" if that term has any meaning in > the game. > b) They have made a game action at least one game day ago, and since > the action under consideration. > c) They made the game action itself. > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:34:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:34:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I propose the following: > > 8, The rule of assumed consent. > > It shall be assumed that a player consents to a game action if any > one of the following has occured: > > a) They are currently "on holiday" if that term has any meaning in > the game. > b) They have made a game action at least one game day ago, and since > the action under consideration. > c) They made the game action itself. I have several objections: Firstly, this doesn't address the primary need for a rule of assumed consent (the case of a player who does nothing whatsoever) unless we add a rule which enables the other players to forcibly declare someone to be "on holiday". Secondly, the terms "player" and "game action" currently have no meaning. In the case of "player", this is probably as simple as changing it to "member of the List of Voters", but as to what constitutes a game action, I don't think that's currently well-defined at all. The only interpretation of your proposal which makes sense is that a game action is an action taken by a player intended to have an effect on the game, ie. one which takes place *outside* the game and therefore probably shouldn't be referred to as a 'game action'. There's also an implicit assumption that all game actions require consent, which I don't think is likely to be true in any definition. I'd prefer to see any rule aimed at adding passive consent do it either by altering Rule 4 to redefine the means of forming a Consensus of Opinion, or at least by being more explicit about what it actually applies to. The mechanic of "you lose your right to object if you do something else in the meantime" is an interesting one, since it encourages people to be prompt in their response to proposals. It might be useful, but I can potentially see it having the reverse effect if people want to discuss a proposal before voting on it and so are obliged to delay any other substantive actions so as not to lose their right to vote. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal 8 In-Reply-To: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> References: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 22:18, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > b) They have made a game action at least one game day ago, and since > > the action under consideration. > I would prefer something simpler like: > > b) At least 48 hours have passed since the game action was put under > consideration. I note that these clauses, even with Martin's subsequent amendment, have entirely different meanings. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 22 23:52:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 22:52:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals Message-ID: --- Remove all text after the word 'world.' from rule 3. --- --- The Rule of Autoadoption Any player may join the game providing that the following events have happened: 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. c) They wish to join the game. Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration at the time of their joining the game. --- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal Message-ID: Create the Definitions Dictionary, with the following content --- Dictionary, A list of {term, meaning} pairs. --- Create a rule, named 'Lexicography' with the following text --- There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary, which shall be kept up-to-date with all game terms. The definitions given in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of terms; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. --- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:03:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:03:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is this one proposal, or two? On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > --- > Remove all text after the word 'world.' from rule 3. > --- Aye, since the List of Voters now exists and the clause specifying its initial contents is redundant. > --- > The Rule of Autoadoption > > Any player may join the game providing that the following events have > happened: > > 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > c) They wish to join the game. > > Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not > needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > at the time of their joining the game. > --- This looks good to me, with the following changes: * Clarify what is meant by 'player' (eg. 'any real-world sentient entity may join the game ...') * Replace 'events have happened' with 'conditions are satisfied' (since 2 is not a condition) I also note that: Condition 1 should be eventually removed, and a rule should be added declaring that posting something to the mailing list is considered sufficient to make all other players aware of it. That way, people can play without being on the list if they really want to, but it's their own problem if they don't know what the hell is going on. Also, it seems to me that the last sentence does not conflict with my interpretation of Rule 4. This is good, since there is no way for one rule to override another and if it did the set of rules would become inconsistent ... we need to watch out for this. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:05:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:05:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Create the Definitions Dictionary, with the following content > --- > Dictionary, A list of {term, meaning} pairs. > --- > > Create a rule, named 'Lexicography' with the following text > --- > There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary, which > shall be kept up-to-date with all game terms. The definitions given > in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of > terms; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. > --- Sure, except you haven't specified how or by whom the Dictionary is kept up-to-date. Are game terms given definitions in the Dictionary automatically as soon as they acquire meaning in the game? If so, how are we supposed to know what those definitions are? If it's the responsibility of someone to add definitions to the dictionary, who? What happens if they don't? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:05:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:05:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: After much (okay, three seconds) thought, I have decided to re-propose the absenteeism rule as follows. (insert name or number here when the rule naming rule is sorted out.): 1. A voter is deemed to have consented to a proposal if they have not responded to said proposal for 24 hours since that proposal was made. 2.Responding to a proposal exempts a voter from this rule for that proposal. 3. A player is always assumed to have made a consenting vote for their own proposals. -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:08:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:08:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Arbitration In-Reply-To: References: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <4151F792.7010003@cam.ac.uk> Proposal: The Rule of Dispute Resolution If a member of the list of voters ("the disputer") disagrees with another member ("the disputee") on their interpretation of the current game state, the disputer may state publically that they dispute the game state, and explain what they believe the game state should be. All members of the list of voters may then vote. The time at which all members have been informed of the dispute is the "Start of the voting period" During the voting period, additional interpretations of the game state may be suggested and voted on as with the original interpretations. If within one week of the start of the voting period, one specific interpretation of the game state has votes from at least two thirds of the members of the list of voters, then that interpretation is accepted. Votes may be changed or withdrawn within the voting period. If one week after the start of the voting period this has not occurred, then "the disputer" and "the disputee" must select a member of the list of voters randomly, by drawing names from a hat or other process agreed between them. This member will rule on the current game state, and their decision cannot be disputed. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: Your message of "22 Sep 2004 23:02:21 BST." References: Message-ID: > Is this one proposal, or two? Two. > On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > --- > > Remove all text after the word 'world.' from rule 3. > > --- > > Aye, since the List of Voters now exists and the clause specifying its > initial contents is redundant. > Edited version: --- The Rule of Autoadoption Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. c) They wish to join the game. Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration at the time of their joining the game. J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:09:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:09:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal Message-ID: Create a rule, named 'Plausible Deniability', with the following text: --- Any person who has made a rules proposal may withdraw that proposal at any time. Once a proposal has been withdrawn it may not take effect. --- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > After much (okay, three seconds) thought, I have decided to re-propose > the absenteeism rule as follows. > > (insert name or number here when the rule naming rule is sorted out.): > 1. A voter is deemed to have consented to a proposal if they have not > responded to said proposal for 24 hours since that proposal was made. > 2.Responding to a proposal exempts a voter from this rule for that > proposal. 3. A player is always assumed to have made a consenting vote > for their own proposals. * 'proposal' isn't defined. Is it sufficiently clear that it refers to a proposal made for the purposes of forming a Consensus of Opinion? I wouldn't want someone to be deemed to have consented to, say, a marriage proposal. * 24 hours seems a bit short. What if they can't check email in that time? Is this intended just as an initial measure to get the ball rolling, or a long-term institution? * As Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion stands, a player has no right to vote on their own proposal, so clause 3 is meaningless. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:14:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:14:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I disagree entirely with this. It provides too much power to someone who proposes something that they then decide they don't like. I would much prefer someone who proposes a rule to be deemed to be voting for it, and for them to be able to do nothing about it... that way, if everyone else agrees they're stuck with it... and, more importantly it forces people to think about their proposals. On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Create a rule, named 'Plausible Deniability', with the following text: > --- > Any person who has made a rules proposal may withdraw that proposal at > any time. Once a proposal has been withdrawn it may not take effect. > --- > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:14:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:14:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4151F923.4070201@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > --- > Remove all text after the word 'world.' from rule 3. > --- > > --- > The Rule of Autoadoption > > Any player may join the game providing that the following events have > happened: > > 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > c) They wish to join the game. > > Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not > needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > at the time of their joining the game. I would like the last sentence to be stronger. They shouldn't have any part to play in proposals or other game votes that occurred before their joining (e.g. with my dispute rule, once a dispute has been called you can't sign people up to make sure your way of thinking gets the votes) I'm not sure how best to phrase it though Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stumo's proposal. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: there's a problem in that if people are voting between two gamestates, one of which is the disputee's (for an example.) and the other of which is from a third porty, then that third party could be chosen randomly to rule on the game state. Also... for example... Adam and Jon dispute the game state, and pick from a hat myself to rule on the current gamestate. I rule that I win... and no-one can dispute this? I like this... but only if I get picked randomly out of a hat... a hat that can contain my name many many times, I add. ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:32:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:32:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stumo's proposal. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4151FD04.90206@cam.ac.uk> David (Birch) wrote: > there's a problem in that if people are voting between two gamestates, > one of which is the disputee's (for an example.) and the other of which > is from a third porty, then that third party could be chosen randomly to > rule on the game state. That was intentional - the idea is to encourage people to agree on something (hence the week long thing) but if not risk that they might not get it their way. > > Also... for example... Adam and Jon dispute the game state, and pick > from a hat myself to rule on the current gamestate. I rule that I win... > and no-one can dispute this? That should probably be corrected, perhaps "by selecting one of the gamestates proposed" - although then everyone proposes they win as a state. Perhaps they have to pick between the two gamestates that have got the most votes so far. Also I should probably make it that a player can only have be voteing for zero or one interpretation at a point in time. > > I like this... but only if I get picked randomly out of a hat... a hat > that can contain my name many many times, I add. > > ---------- > dtb26@cam.ac.uk > phone number 07906 638541 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 00:37:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:37:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Arbitration In-Reply-To: <4151F792.7010003@cam.ac.uk> References: <1095888181.3599.22.camel@mewo2> <4151F792.7010003@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > The Rule of Dispute Resolution > > If a member of the list of voters ("the disputer") disagrees with > another member ("the disputee") on their interpretation of the current > game state, the disputer may state publically that they dispute the game > state, and explain what they believe the game state should be. All > members of the list of voters may then vote. The time at which all > members have been informed of the dispute is the "Start of the voting > period" > > During the voting period, additional interpretations of the game state > may be suggested and voted on as with the original interpretations. > > If within one week of the start of the voting period, one specific > interpretation of the game state has votes from at least two thirds of > the members of the list of voters, then that interpretation is accepted. > > Votes may be changed or withdrawn within the voting period. > > If one week after the start of the voting period this has not occurred, > then "the disputer" and "the disputee" must select a member of the list > of voters randomly, by drawing names from a hat or other process agreed > between them. This member will rule on the current game state, and their > decision cannot be disputed. Ok, for once, I don't have any trivialities to nitpick ... but I don't like this rule. I think the assumption that any dispute over the gamestate is between two people is wrong; far more likely is that it's between one person and everyone else, or two complete halves of the set of players. I think it's awkward to require disputes to take up to a week to be resolved, especially if the disputed claim is one such as "I have won the game" or "the game is in a massively different state to what everyone believes". I think requiring a two-thirds majority of the entire list of voters is dangerous, since I'd prefer it if the game were accessible to players who don't want to commit themselves to too much. I'm unhappy about the possibility of any arbitrary member of the list of voters being selected to make possibly momentuous decisions on the game state, for the same reason. I don't want to end up taking too many ideas from past Nomics, but the Call-For-Judgement system has a lot of appeal. (Essentially, any player may present a statement which they wish to have ruled true or false, a willing player is selected [randomly or algorithmically] as judge, and then the judge passes judgement on the issue, with any player able to appeal the decision if it appears to have been made on a flawed basis). I also quite like the idea that we could elect someone as arbitrator every week or fortnight and that person would take the role of judge in resolving disputes, or alternatively that there is some property of the game that determines the judge. Also, I think your proposal requires a lot of book-keeping. This is something that needs to be addressed if and when we formalise the system for voting on rule changes, and I think it also needs to be addressed in any long-term dispute resolution rule. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:39:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:39:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stumo's proposal. In-Reply-To: <4151FD04.90206@cam.ac.uk> References: <4151FD04.90206@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1095892616.3599.27.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 23:30, Stuart Moore wrote: > Also I should probably make it that a player can only have be voteing > for zero or one interpretation at a point in time. I don't like this for the same reason I don't like most electoral systems, viz Arrow's Theorem and all that. Also, dispute resolution systems are nasty ugly hacks. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:39:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:39:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Edited version: > > --- > The Rule of Autoadoption > > Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters > may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: > > 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > c) They wish to join the game. > > Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not > needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > at the time of their joining the game. I consent. I wonder if anyone's keeping track of these? Oh, also, now we need to define which entities are elegible to be members of the List of Voters. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:43:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:43:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Create a rule, named 'Plausible Deniability', with the following text: > --- > Any person who has made a rules proposal may withdraw that proposal at > any time. Once a proposal has been withdrawn it may not take effect. > --- I don't have a problem with this, although ahdok has already objected. However, I note that this rule, if passed, would definitely be in contradiction with Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion, and hence it should not be passed until we have a way for one rule to override another. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: <4151F923.4070201@cam.ac.uk> References: <4151F923.4070201@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > I would like the last sentence to be stronger. They shouldn't have any > part to play in proposals or other game votes that occurred before their > joining (e.g. with my dispute rule, once a dispute has been called you > can't sign people up to make sure your way of thinking gets the votes) I think this is something that has to be addressed for each case in which it might be relevant. For example, if you wanted your dispute resolution rule to work the way you suggest, it should specify that the votes are cast by 'entities which were on the List of Voters at the time the dispute was called'. I don't think there's any saner way to do it; the rule covering joining the game can't be expected to deal with every possible rule that might refer to the List of Voters. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:51:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:51:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095893336.3599.34.camel@mewo2> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 23:06, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > The Rule of Autoadoption > > Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters > may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: > > 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > c) They wish to join the game. > > Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not > needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > at the time of their joining the game. > A proposal: --- A Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men? All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of Voters states "I do not believe is a lizardman from Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a lizardman from Antares IV. --- Basically, this stops us from being invaded. All new players need an existing player to let them in. This proposal is obviously contingent on some variant of The Rule Of Autoadoption being brought into force. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 00:52:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Wed Sep 22 23:52:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals Message-ID: Okay, I'm going to try to do this all in one mail so as not to clutter things up too much. The following proposals appear to be around (in no particular order): 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of Voters, since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. On this I vote Aye. 2. The Rule of Autoadoption. I reserve my vote on this, pending discussion on whether we really want people to be able to arbitrarily join without the notification or consent of any of the current players, which I suggest may not be a good idea. Perhaps a simple majority of the game consenting? 3. The Rule of Nicknames: I vote aye to this in the current form. 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned during proposals included. Aye. 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The proposal was made at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least one message to the mailing list during that time. c) They have not explicitly expressed that they do not consent for that change to enter the gamestate. 6: The Law of Lexicography Aye. We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :) 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution Nay, I'm afraid, I don't think the game has time for that sort of process, and a majority of that form is unlikely to work nicely. We do need something to do this, but I'm not sure that's the way. A random selection of judge might work better, or the player on the lowest number of points, should we ever get a points system. 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. Aye. I also propose the following: N. The Existence of the Committee. There shall exist a Committee, which shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be assigned a member of the List of Players, and a list of duties which the member holding that Post shall perform. The list of Posts follows: Note that this explicitly does not define either any Posts, or the method by which they can be assigned to Players. But I suspect that we're going to want to assign someone to keep the rules uptodate, and someone for the Definition Dictionary, and so on, and this is a first building block towards that, with plenty of space for other sorts of posts as well. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:01:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:01:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stumo's proposal. In-Reply-To: <1095892616.3599.27.camel@mewo2> References: <1095892616.3599.27.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 23:30, Stuart Moore wrote: > > > Also I should probably make it that a player can only have be voteing > > for zero or one interpretation at a point in time. > > I don't like this for the same reason I don't like most electoral > systems, viz Arrow's Theorem and all that. Also, dispute resolution > systems are nasty ugly hacks. Does this mean that you're opposed to adding any kind of dispute resolution system to the game? Because if so, I admire your purism, but I will bet you a reasonable amount of money or alcohol that it turns out we need one. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:05:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:05:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stumo's proposal. In-Reply-To: References: <1095892616.3599.27.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <1095894225.3599.38.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:00, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 22 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > > I don't like this for the same reason I don't like most electoral > > systems, viz Arrow's Theorem and all that. Also, dispute resolution > > systems are nasty ugly hacks. > > Does this mean that you're opposed to adding any kind of dispute resolution > system to the game? Because if so, I admire your purism, but I will bet you > a reasonable amount of money or alcohol that it turns out we need one. I don't like the idea of one, although I see why one might be necessary. More importantly, I don't like any implementation that's been suggested so far. It's quite possible that there doesn't exist an implementation which I would like. However, I'm going to veto this proposal, in the hope that someone will come up with something more elegant and equitable. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:10:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:10:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415205FA.40309@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > Okay, I'm going to try to do this all in one mail so as not to clutter > things up too much. > > The following proposals appear to be around (in no particular order): > > 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of > Voters, since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. > On this I vote Aye. Aye > > 2. The Rule of Autoadoption. > I reserve my vote on this, pending discussion on whether we really want > people to be able to arbitrarily join without the notification or > consent of any of the current players, which I suggest may not be a good > idea. Perhaps a simple majority of the game consenting? I'm not sure. Seems reasonable > > 3. The Rule of Nicknames: > I vote aye to this in the current form. That would be the form Jon Amery originally posted it in? > > 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned > during proposals included. > Aye. I vote aye to the version in the post 22/09/2004 22:07 > > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: > I counterpropose this rule in the following form: > A player shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed change to the > Rules if all of the following hold: a) The proposal was made at least 48 > hours ago. b) They have sent at least one message to the mailing list > during that time. c) They have not explicitly expressed that they do not > consent for that change to enter the gamestate. I'm not certain - possibly. Does explicitly mean they have to have referred to that by name, or could I say "for the moment I vote against any impending changes other than those I have explicitly voted for, but I will review this later" > > 6: The Law of Lexicography > Aye. > We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :) Aye - it will be useful to be able to give "player" a sensible definition > > 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution > Nay, I'm afraid, I don't think the game has time for that sort of > process, and a majority of that form is unlikely to work nicely. We do > need something to do this, but I'm not sure that's the way. A random > selection of judge might work better, or the player on the lowest number > of points, should we ever get a points system. Fair enough, people seem to be against the idea behind the rule. What exactly are the alternative proposals? > > 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. > Aye. Nay. > > I also propose the following: > > N. The Existence of the Committee. > There shall exist a Committee, which shall contain a number of Posts. > Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be assigned a member of > the List of Players, and a list of duties which the member holding that > Post shall perform. The list of Posts follows: I reserve judgement for the moment I seem to remember why this worked well in a newsgroup - threading made it a lot easier to see who was talking about what and count all the votes that had been made. I believe it's possible for Mailman to link this to the newsgroup, shall we try that? From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:10:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:10:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consents Message-ID: I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and to A Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. I note that we still require: * A definition of which entities are eligible to be members of the List of Voters * Some means of allowing rules to override parts of other rules * A way to resolve the situation if the rules are found to be contradictory or ambiguous adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:11:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:11:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Names: In-Reply-To: <1095894225.3599.38.camel@mewo2> References: <1095894225.3599.38.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: Martin said the rules don't have interesting enough names. I propose the following names for the rules we already have: Rule 1. The "why-the-hell-are-we-doing-this" rule. Rule 2. The "what-the-hell-is-going-on-here" rule. Rule 3. The Blacklist rule (note, the list of vocers should be separated and renamed the pinklist. This does not affect the actual rules of the game.) Rule 4. The rule least likely to be used. I'll come up with something a little more interesting when it's not 12:00 midnight. -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:17:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:17:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: <415205FA.40309@cam.ac.uk> References: <415205FA.40309@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1095894890.3599.41.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:08, Stuart Moore wrote: > I seem to remember why this worked well in a newsgroup - threading made > it a lot easier to see who was talking about what and count all the > votes that had been made. I believe it's possible for Mailman to link > this to the newsgroup, shall we try that? Or you could just use a mail client with threading. And personally, I don't think it worked well on the newsgroup, although that was mostly because we introduced rules giving points for successful proposals. Also, our initial ruleset was full of cruft. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:09, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > * A definition of which entities are eligible to be members of the List of > Voters * Some means of allowing rules to override parts of other rules * A > way to resolve the situation if the rules are found to be contradictory or > ambiguous To the second point, I propose: --- 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. --- How does that suit? Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:22:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:22:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 22 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > The following proposals appear to be around (in no particular order): Here are my current standings and opinions on each of them, since we seem to have something approaching a summary going: > 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of > Voters, since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. On this I > vote Aye. Yep, I've already given consent to this. > 2. The Rule of Autoadoption. I reserve my vote on this, pending > discussion on whether we really want people to be able to arbitrarily > join without the notification or consent of any of the current players, > which I suggest may not be a good idea. Perhaps a simple majority of the > game consenting? I don't consider this to be a particularly likely problem, which is why I consented to this proposal anyway, but I feel that Martin's proposal that before a player can join an existing member must assert that they are not a lizardman from Antares IV handles the situation perfectly. > 3. The Rule of Nicknames: > I vote aye to this in the current form. > > 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned > during proposals included. Aye. Yep, yep. > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the > following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed > change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The proposal was > made at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least one message to the > mailing list during that time. c) They have not explicitly expressed that > they do not consent for that change to enter the gamestate. I object to your counterproposal on the grounds that it still doesn't address the primary objective of introducing assumed consent, namely that it should allow a way for the game to progress in the face of complete inactivity on the part of one or more players. > 6: The Law of Lexicography > Aye. > We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :) I'm not giving consent to this, but I will happily do so to any version which makes it clear how updates are to be made (unless I don't like it, of course). > 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution Nay, I'm afraid, I don't think the > game has time for that sort of process, and a majority of that form is > unlikely to work nicely. We do need something to do this, but I'm not > sure that's the way. A random selection of judge might work better, or > the player on the lowest number of points, should we ever get a points > system. I also decline to give consent. > 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. > Aye. Refusing to pass comment until it could be introduced without creating inconsistency in the rules. > I also propose the following: > > N. The Existence of the Committee. There shall exist a Committee, which > shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, > which can be assigned a member of the List of Players, and a list of > duties which the member holding that Post shall perform. The list of > Posts follows: In essence, I approve. However, I prsent the following (short) list of objections: * There is no List of Players, only a List of Voters. If people think the two should be synonymous, fine, but right now we're still open to the possibility that there can be a separate list of people who want to interact with the game in other ways but not vote, or people who want to vote but nothing else. * I feel the phrase 'duties which the member holding that Post shall perform' is dangerous. The rules have no mandate over the behaviour of any entity which exists in the real world; specifically, the rules cannot require a player to do something without allowing for the possibility that they do not. I'd suggest changing this to 'duties which the member holding that Post is expected to perform', and later we can introduce a rule allowing us to impeach them or something if they don't * The sentence 'The list of Posts follows' should be removed, since it does not. I'd prefer for later rules to just say "The Committee shall contain the Post of Librarian" rather than go back and modify this rule every time we want to add something to the Committee. * Let's have a more exciting name than 'committee'. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:23:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:23:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415208E1.1010300@cam.ac.uk> Proposal: Twelve impossible things before breakfast The game is deemed to have ended when it is impossible for the game state to change at any point in the future. The person who made the last change to the game state will be declared the winner. For the purposes of this rule, if the last game action is a Consensus of Opinion, then the member of the list of voters who proposed the rule will be deemed to have changed the game state and therefore won the game - not the last person to vote on that Consensus of opinion. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:26:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:26:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: <415205FA.40309@cam.ac.uk> References: <415205FA.40309@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > I seem to remember why this worked well in a newsgroup - threading made > it a lot easier to see who was talking about what and count all the > votes that had been made. I believe it's possible for Mailman to link > this to the newsgroup, shall we try that? I note that, as long as people are sensible with which messages they actually reply to, the nomic-talk archive will give you a threaded view of all messages posted to the list in a given month. http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talk/2004-September/thread.html adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:28:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:28:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Names: In-Reply-To: References: <1095894225.3599.38.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > Rule 1. The "why-the-hell-are-we-doing-this" rule. Rule 2. The > "what-the-hell-is-going-on-here" rule. Rule 3. The Blacklist rule (note, > the list of vocers should be separated and renamed the pinklist. This > does not affect the actual rules of the game.) Rule 4. The rule least > likely to be used. I'm not particularly in favour of any of these, although I would be happy to see the List of Voters be renamed the Pinklist. I also feel that at a later date it might be worthwhile to create a rule which allows for the rewarding of players who create rules with interesting or amusing names. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:30:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:30:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: <1095894890.3599.41.camel@mewo2> References: <1095894890.3599.41.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:08, Stuart Moore wrote: > > I seem to remember why this worked well in a newsgroup - threading made > > it a lot easier to see who was talking about what and count all the > > votes that had been made. I believe it's possible for Mailman to link > > this to the newsgroup, shall we try that? > > Or you could just use a mail client with threading. And personally, I > don't think it worked well on the newsgroup, although that was mostly > because we introduced rules giving points for successful proposals. > Also, our initial ruleset was full of cruft. It seems points for proposals is a staple of Suber rulesets. Most nomics seem to get around this by devaluing the possession of points, rather than restricting the means of acquiring them, which seems fine. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:38:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:38:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Lizards Message-ID: > >I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and to A >Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. I suggest rewording these two in the following form: A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards? All extranomic entities not currently on the List of Voters are considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV, until and unless a member of the List of Voters states publicly to the entire List that they do not believe that entity to be a lizardman from Antares IV, at which point that entity is no longer considered to be a lizardman from Antares IV. An entity is eligible to be a member of the List of Voters providing that they satisfy the following: 1) They are a member of the extranomic species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. 2) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. 3) They are not dead. Any entity which is eligible to join the List of Voters may do so, by making a post to the mailing list stating their desire to do so, after which they shall be added to the List and shall be considered to have full status in the game from the time at which they are added. There should be a corresponding change to Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion, appending the text 'at the time of proposal'. >I note that we still require: > >* A definition of which entities are eligible to be members of the List of >Voters * Some means of allowing rules to override parts of other rules * A >way to resolve the situation if the rules are found to be contradictory or >ambiguous This attempts to deal with the first point, the others are still needed. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:41:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:41:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: <415208E1.1010300@cam.ac.uk> References: <415208E1.1010300@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Proposal: Twelve impossible things before breakfast > The game is deemed to have ended when it is impossible for the game > state to change at any point in the future. The person who made the last > change to the game state will be declared the winner. > > For the purposes of this rule, if the last game action is a Consensus of > Opinion, then the member of the list of voters who proposed the rule > will be deemed to have changed the game state and therefore won the game > - not the last person to vote on that Consensus of opinion. Egad, no. If we want to encourage creativity, the last thing we want is for players to make rules which cause the game to stagnate. Also, under this rule a valid winning strategy is for me to murder all of the other players and then remove myself from the game. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:42:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:42:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Lizards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095896414.3599.49.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:36, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > > > >I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and to A > >Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. > > I suggest rewording these two in the following form: > > A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards? I think this is an attempt to shoehorn two rules into one. I would like to keep things separate, so that rules can be replaced more easily, should we so wish. It's good software design. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:43:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:43:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: References: <415208E1.1010300@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41520DFA.7010102@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 23 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> Proposal: Twelve impossible things before breakfast >> The game is deemed to have ended when it is impossible for the game >> state to change at any point in the future. The person who made the >> last change to the game state will be declared the winner. >> >> For the purposes of this rule, if the last game action is a Consensus >> of Opinion, then the member of the list of voters who proposed the >> rule will be deemed to have changed the game state and therefore won >> the game - not the last person to vote on that Consensus of opinion. > > > Egad, no. If we want to encourage creativity, the last thing we want is > for players to make rules which cause the game to stagnate. Fair enough, it doesn't need to be the unique way of winning > > Also, under this rule a valid winning strategy is for me to murder all > of the other players and then remove myself from the game. I really really hope this needs no answer. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:44:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:44:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consents In-Reply-To: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > --- > 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. > --- I'll consent to this proposal. Although I note that a rule only has to mention another rule to be allowed to override it, not state that it is overriding it, which could lead to some amusing loopholes ... adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:44:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:44:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Lizards In-Reply-To: <1095896414.3599.49.camel@mewo2> References: <1095896414.3599.49.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <41520E33.8090702@cam.ac.uk> Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:36, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >>>I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and to A >>>Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. >> >>I suggest rewording these two in the following form: >> >>A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards? > > > I think this is an attempt to shoehorn two rules into one. I would like > to keep things separate, so that rules can be replaced more easily, > should we so wish. It's good software design. I agree with Martin's point here, but think JJ's ideas were good. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: <41520DFA.7010102@cam.ac.uk> References: <415208E1.1010300@cam.ac.uk> <41520DFA.7010102@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1095896695.3599.52.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:42, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> For the purposes of this rule, if the last game action is a Consensus > >> of Opinion, then the member of the list of voters who proposed the > >> rule will be deemed to have changed the game state and therefore won > >> the game - not the last person to vote on that Consensus of opinion. > > > > > > Egad, no. If we want to encourage creativity, the last thing we want is > > for players to make rules which cause the game to stagnate. > > Fair enough, it doesn't need to be the unique way of winning I'd like to keep winning conditions out of it for now. The last thing we (read "I") want is for the game to end early, or get too competitive too fast. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:51:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:51:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Lizards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and to A > >Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. > > I suggest rewording these two in the following form: > > A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards? All extranomic entities > not currently on the List of Voters are considered to be lizardmen from > Antares IV, until and unless a member of the List of Voters states > publicly to the entire List that they do not believe that entity to be a > lizardman from Antares IV, at which point that entity is no longer > considered to be a lizardman from Antares IV. An entity is eligible to be > a member of the List of Voters providing that they satisfy the following: > 1) They are a member of the extranomic species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. 2) > They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. 3) They are not dead. Any > entity which is eligible to join the List of Voters may do so, by making > a post to the mailing list stating their desire to do so, after which > they shall be added to the List and shall be considered to have full > status in the game from the time at which they are added. > > There should be a corresponding change to Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion, > appending the text 'at the time of proposal'. I will consent for the changes described by either 'A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards?' or the pair of proposals 'The Rule of Autoadoption' and 'A Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?', but not both, to be applied to the rules. I do, however, note that your proposal defines every single entity in our universe with the exception of the nine people on the List of Voters to be a lizardman from Antares IV, including, for example, the planet Earth, the nomic-talk mailing list or your own head (which is not explicitly named on the List of Voters, although it is a part of something which is). adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:53:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:53:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: <1095896695.3599.52.camel@mewo2> References: <1095896695.3599.52.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > I'd like to keep winning conditions out of it for now. The last thing we > (read "I") want is for the game to end early, or get too competitive too > fast. I submit that someone being declared the winner does not necessarily mean that the game has to end. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Exception that proves the rule In-Reply-To: References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > >> --- >> 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. >> --- > > > I'll consent to this proposal. Although I note that a rule only has to > mention another rule to be allowed to override it, not state that it is > overriding it, which could lead to some amusing loopholes ... > I also consent, and suggest the following as a partner: The "dissapeared in a puff of logic" Rule If a change to the rules is about to be, or has been, made under the "Mutability of the Rules" rule, and someone can demonstrate that this interacts with existing rules to give contradictory behaviour, then the rules do not change and the change becomes "pending". If at some point in the future a "pending" rule change does not have contradictory behaviour, it becomes part of the ruleset. This explicitly overrides the "Mutability of the Rules" rule. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: References: <1095896695.3599.52.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <415210E6.90800@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > >> I'd like to keep winning conditions out of it for now. The last thing we >> (read "I") want is for the game to end early, or get too competitive too >> fast. > > > I submit that someone being declared the winner does not necessarily > mean that the game has to end. > I propose that I just lost "The Game" From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 01:58:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:58:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Lizards Message-ID: > >Martin O'Leary wrote: > >>On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:36, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: >> >>>>I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and to A >>>>Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. >>> >>>I suggest rewording these two in the following form: >>> >>>A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards? >> >> >>I think this is an attempt to shoehorn two rules into one. I would like >>to keep things separate, so that rules can be replaced more easily, >>should we so wish. It's good software design. Whereas I wrote that precisely because they looked like two parts of the same rule, since neither made much, if any sense, without the other. Hmmm. I'll give consent for the other method if you really want it that way, but I was trying to clean things up a bit. JJ > >I agree with Martin's point here, but think JJ's ideas were good. > >Stuart > _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 23 01:59:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 00:59:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals Message-ID: > >Here are my current standings and opinions on each of them, since we seem >to have something approaching a summary going: > >>1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of Voters, >>since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. On this I vote Aye. > >Yep, I've already given consent to this. > >>2. The Rule of Autoadoption. I reserve my vote on this, pending discussion >>on whether we really want people to be able to arbitrarily join without >>the notification or consent of any of the current players, which I suggest >>may not be a good idea. Perhaps a simple majority of the game consenting? > >I don't consider this to be a particularly likely problem, which is why I >consented to this proposal anyway, but I feel that Martin's proposal that >before a player can join an existing member must assert that they are not a >lizardman from Antares IV handles the situation perfectly. > >>3. The Rule of Nicknames: >>I vote aye to this in the current form. >> >>4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned >>during proposals included. Aye. > >Yep, yep. > >>5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the >>following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed >>change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The proposal was made >>at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least one message to the >>mailing list during that time. c) They have not explicitly expressed that >>they do not consent for that change to enter the gamestate. > >I object to your counterproposal on the grounds that it still doesn't >address the primary objective of introducing assumed consent, namely that >it should allow a way for the game to progress in the face of complete >inactivity on the part of one or more players. Oh, good point, it was supposed to, I must have gotten confused somewhere in there. How about changing that to at least 24 hours ago with a message posted during that, or 72 hours without? > >>6: The Law of Lexicography >>Aye. >>We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :) > >I'm not giving consent to this, but I will happily do so to any version >which makes it clear how updates are to be made (unless I don't like it, of >course). > >>7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution Nay, I'm afraid, I don't think the game >>has time for that sort of process, and a majority of that form is unlikely >>to work nicely. We do need something to do this, but I'm not sure that's >>the way. A random selection of judge might work better, or the player on >>the lowest number of points, should we ever get a points system. > >I also decline to give consent. > >>8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. >>Aye. > >Refusing to pass comment until it could be introduced without creating >inconsistency in the rules. This could be solved by changing Rule 4 to read: A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. The entity proposing the change is considered to have given consent, though e may retract eir consent, in which case the change shall no longer be under consideration. > >>I also propose the following: >> >>N. The Existence of the Committee. There shall exist a Committee, which >>shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which >>can be assigned a member of the List of Players, and a list of duties >>which the member holding that Post shall perform. The list of Posts >>follows: > >In essence, I approve. However, I prsent the following (short) list of >objections: > >* There is no List of Players, only a List of Voters. If people think the >two should be synonymous, fine, but right now we're still open to the >possibility that there can be a separate list of people who want to >interact with the game in other ways but not vote, or people who want to >vote but nothing else. That was just a misremembering, it should read List of Voters. > >* I feel the phrase 'duties which the member holding that Post shall >perform' is dangerous. The rules have no mandate over the behaviour of any >entity which exists in the real world; specifically, the rules cannot >require a player to do something without allowing for the possibility that >they do not. I'd suggest changing this to 'duties which the member holding >that Post is expected to perform', and later we can introduce a rule >allowing us to impeach them or something if they don't. good call. > >* The sentence 'The list of Posts follows' should be removed, since it does >not. I'd prefer for later rules to just say "The Committee shall contain >the Post of Librarian" rather than go back and modify this rule every time >we want to add something to the Committee. OK > >* Let's have a more exciting name than 'committee'. Yes, but I'm still failing to think of one. I think it'll be best thought of twinned with a good name for the game itself, I'm just drawing blanks. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:03:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:03:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095897681.3599.63.camel@mewo2> JJ's handy-dandy Summary-O-Stuff: > The following proposals appear to be around (in no particular order): > > 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of Voters, > since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. Aye, although I see no reason to do so, other than one of neatness. > 2. The Rule of Autoadoption. Aye, although I'd quite like to see A Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men? ratified at the same time. > 3. The Rule of Nicknames: Did I miss something, or is this just a name for Jon's proposed rule which starts "5. There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs"? I vote aye to that. > 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned during > proposals included. Aye, with reservations. > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: > I counterpropose this rule in the following form: > A player shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed change to the Rules > if all of the following hold: a) The proposal was made at least 48 hours > ago. b) They have sent at least one message to the mailing list during that > time. c) They have not explicitly expressed that they do not consent for > that change to enter the gamestate. As Adam has pointed out, this doesn't solve the main problem the rule was meant to solve. I'd urge people to consider my modification to the original proposal (message of 22:23, 22 Jan). > 6: The Law of Lexicography Aye, I suppose. > 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution As I've already said, nay. > 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. Aye, on the assumption that this cannot change anything once a rule has already been accepted. > N. The Existence of the Committee. > There shall exist a Committee, which shall contain a number of Posts. Each > Post shall consist of a Title, which can be assigned a member of the List of > Players, and a list of duties which the member holding that Post shall > perform. The list of Posts follows: I have the same reservations as Adam on this. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:05:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:05:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Lizards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415212FC.50305@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> >> Martin O'Leary wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 00:36, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: >>> >>>>> I give consent to the second form of The Rule of Autoadoption and >>>>> to A Planet? Where Lizards Evolved From Men?. >>>> >>>> >>>> I suggest rewording these two in the following form: >>>> >>>> A Planet? Where Players evolved from Lizards? >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this is an attempt to shoehorn two rules into one. I would like >>> to keep things separate, so that rules can be replaced more easily, >>> should we so wish. It's good software design. > > > Whereas I wrote that precisely because they looked like two parts of the > same rule, since neither made much, if any sense, without the other. > Hmmm. I'll give consent for the other method if you really want it that > way, but I was trying to clean things up a bit. As I understand the system, the proposal may make many rules, so you have all or none, but they are then separate and so can be changed later if we wish. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:05:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:05:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Exception that proves the rule Message-ID: >>>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. >>>--- >> >> >>I'll consent to this proposal. Although I note that a rule only has to >>mention another rule to be allowed to override it, not state that it is >>overriding it, which could lead to some amusing loopholes ... >> I consent too, that sounds like fun :) > > >I also consent, and suggest the following as a partner: > >The "dissapeared in a puff of logic" Rule > >If a change to the rules is about to be, or has been, made under the >"Mutability of the Rules" rule, and someone can demonstrate that this >interacts with existing rules to give contradictory behaviour, then the >rules do not change and the change becomes "pending". If at some point in >the future a "pending" rule change does not have contradictory behaviour, >it becomes part of the ruleset. This explicitly overrides the "Mutability >of the Rules" rule. I'm not sure the wording of that is quite tight enough, I think it should be more like '...demonstrate that the addition of this rule to the current ruleset would either cause a paradox in the ruleset, or allow an action to be taken which would have paradoxical result, then the rules do not change...' Then you need to explicitly add "pending" rules to the ruleset one at a time, to ensure that you can't end up adding two pending ones simultaneously, neither of which conflicts with the previous set but which conflict with each other. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals Message-ID: I would like to propose three changes, each of which creates a new rule: ============================================== Rule of Self-Image The game shall have a name, which will be "Terrapin Nomic". ============================================== Rule of Conflict If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of Deviousness. ============================================== And There Shall Be No Lizardmen Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability to see the truth until it was too late. ============================================== adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:12:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:12:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Exception that proves the rule In-Reply-To: <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > The "dissapeared in a puff of logic" Rule > > If a change to the rules is about to be, or has been, made under the > "Mutability of the Rules" rule, and someone can demonstrate that this > interacts with existing rules to give contradictory behaviour, then the > rules do not change and the change becomes "pending". If at some point > in the future a "pending" rule change does not have contradictory > behaviour, it becomes part of the ruleset. This explicitly overrides the > "Mutability of the Rules" rule. Too unpredictable. As written, if I can demonstrate that a change made a month ago caused the rules to become inconsistent, either that change is immediately retracted, even if it no longer makes sense for this to happen and possibly invalidating other changes that have occured in the meantime, or the rule is retroactively removed from existence, which makes it a bloody nightmare to know what the state of the game actually is. Also, you haven't explained a procedure for declaring that a rule change has been made pending, and someone will have to be saddled with the responsibility of checking the list of pending rules every time the rules change to see if any of them can now be enforced. See my recent post for my suggestion for dealing with contradictions. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:16:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:16:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the > >> following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a > >> proposed change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The > >> proposal was made at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least > >> one message to the mailing list during that time. c) They have not > >> explicitly expressed that they do not consent for that change to enter > >> the gamestate. > > > > I object to your counterproposal on the grounds that it still doesn't > > address the primary objective of introducing assumed consent, namely > > that it should allow a way for the game to progress in the face of > > complete inactivity on the part of one or more players. > > Oh, good point, it was supposed to, I must have gotten confused > somewhere in there. How about changing that to at least 24 hours ago with > a message posted during that, or 72 hours without? I think this could potentially become very confusing, allowing the posting of unassociated messages to have an effect on the acceptance of a proposal. Can we not just make it 72 hours and eliminate clause b? > >>8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. > >>Aye. > > > >Refusing to pass comment until it could be introduced without creating > >inconsistency in the rules. > > This could be solved by changing Rule 4 to read: A Consensus of Opinion > on a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named on the > List of Voters proposes the change to all entities named on the List of > Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such > entity. The entity proposing the change is considered to have given > consent, though e may retract eir consent, in which case the change shall > no longer be under consideration. Or alternatively, just by stating that it overrides Consensus of Opinion, once Martin's rule is passed (which I hope it will be). > >* Let's have a more exciting name than 'committee'. > > Yes, but I'm still failing to think of one. I think it'll be best > thought of twinned with a good name for the game itself, I'm just drawing > blanks. I recommend "The Defenders of the Earth". adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:21:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:21:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415216BD.6070202@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to propose three changes, each of which creates a new rule: > > ============================================== > Rule of Self-Image > > The game shall have a name, which will be "Terrapin Nomic". I'm sure we can do better than that. I'd go for "What happens when too many geeks have too much time" but I admit this isn't very snappy. > ============================================== > Rule of Conflict > > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or > more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which > of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that > Judgement Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict > Resolution Roadmap. > > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to > the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR > has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the > rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have > effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to > address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be > guilty of the crime of Deviousness. Sounds good. We could end up with someone initiating a Judgement Procedure and then buggering off, but hey. I give consent > ============================================== > And There Shall Be No Lizardmen > > Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to > be immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing > itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is > encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their > pathetic inability to see the truth until it was too late. I consent > ============================================== > From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:22:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:22:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095898817.3599.67.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 01:05, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Rule of Self-Image Aye, but I'll retract it if someone comes up with something better. > Rule of Conflict Aye, as it looks like we're going to have to have a rule of this sort, and this is as good as I can hope for. > And There Shall Be No Lizardmen Aye. Aye. Aye. Also, bonus marks for a rule name not of the form [The] Rule Of X. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:25:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:25:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals Message-ID: > >I would like to propose three changes, each of which creates a new rule: > >============================================== >Rule of Self-Image > >The game shall have a name, which will be "Terrapin Nomic". Sounds good. Suggest a committee name of "The Great Council of the Elder Turtles" to go with this. >============================================== >Rule of Conflict > >If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or >more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of >them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement >Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. > >A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to the >rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has >been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any >changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects other >than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not be >applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of >Deviousness. Like it. Although obviously we will want to define a Judgement procedure *before* we actually need one, it can and probably should wait until the rules flesh out a bit more. I am slightly worried about the possibility of having a conflict such that all possible resolutions of that conflict change other things as well, although it's possible such cannot actually exist. >============================================== And There Shall Be No >Lizardmen > >Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be >immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself >to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to >use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability >to see the truth until it was too late. >============================================== Might as well have a rule to allow somebody to remove themselves from the game, sounds like a good way to do it. So, in summary, aye to all 3. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 23 02:30:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:30:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals In-Reply-To: <415216BD.6070202@cam.ac.uk> References: <415216BD.6070202@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Sounds good. We could end up with someone initiating a Judgement > Procedure and then buggering off, but hey. I give consent The rule intentionally states that the entity who initiated the Judgement Procedure to determine the existence of a conflict *may* create a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. If e does not, nothing happens. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals In-Reply-To: <1095898817.3599.67.camel@mewo2> References: <1095898817.3599.67.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > > Rule of Conflict > > Aye, as it looks like we're going to have to have a rule of this sort, > and this is as good as I can hope for. Well, if you're careful about not allowing contradictions into the ruleset, as you said we all should be, it need never be invoked. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:44:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:44:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake Message-ID: I propose the following change to the rules: ========== Alter the text of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. 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 and then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. ========== As such, we make people responsible for tracking the acceptance of their own proposals and declaring them to have passed. This also makes it possible for voters to veto their own proposal, simply by declining to post a Notice of Consensus. As it was, we had the possibility that everyone could consent to a proposal, but no-one might notice, and the proposal would technically come into efect despite no-one having had the faintest clue that it had done so. One more new-rule proposal before I go to bed, just for fun: ========== Rule of Girls Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. ========== adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals Message-ID: > >On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> >> 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the >> >>following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a >> >>proposed change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The >> >>proposal was made at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least >> one >>message to the mailing list during that time. c) They have not >> >>explicitly expressed that they do not consent for that change to enter >> >>the gamestate. >> > >> > I object to your counterproposal on the grounds that it still doesn't > >>address the primary objective of introducing assumed consent, namely > >>that it should allow a way for the game to progress in the face of > >>complete inactivity on the part of one or more players. >> >>Oh, good point, it was supposed to, I must have gotten confused somewhere >>in there. How about changing that to at least 24 hours ago with a message >>posted during that, or 72 hours without? > >I think this could potentially become very confusing, allowing the posting >of unassociated messages to have an effect on the acceptance of a proposal. >Can we not just make it 72 hours and eliminate clause b? yes, fine. I was just hoping to keep things moving a little faster than that, but once we get past the start that may well turn out to be plenty fast enough anyway, so it'll do. I consent to your revision. > >> >>8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. >> >>Aye. >> > >> >Refusing to pass comment until it could be introduced without creating >> >inconsistency in the rules. >> >>This could be solved by changing Rule 4 to read: A Consensus of Opinion on >>a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named on the List >>of Voters proposes the change to all entities named on the List of Voters >>and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. The >>entity proposing the change is considered to have given consent, though e >>may retract eir consent, in which case the change shall no longer be under >>consideration. > >Or alternatively, just by stating that it overrides Consensus of Opinion, >once Martin's rule is passed (which I hope it will be). Yes, much nicer. I don't think I'd read that proposal when I first mentioned this. > >> >* Let's have a more exciting name than 'committee'. >> >>Yes, but I'm still failing to think of one. I think it'll be best thought >>of twinned with a good name for the game itself, I'm just drawing blanks. > >I recommend "The Defenders of the Earth". See my response to your 'Three Proposals' JJ _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:47:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:47:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41521CDA.2040509@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I propose the following change to the rules: > > ========== > Alter the text of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when > one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other > entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to > that change from each such entity. > > 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 and then posts a public Notice of > Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus > of Opinion has been reached. ========== I Consent > > As such, we make people responsible for tracking the acceptance of their > own proposals and declaring them to have passed. This also makes it > possible for voters to veto their own proposal, simply by declining to > post a Notice of Consensus. As it was, we had the possibility that > everyone could consent to a proposal, but no-one might notice, and the > proposal would technically come into efect despite no-one having had the > faintest clue that it had done so. > > One more new-rule proposal before I go to bed, just for fun: > ========== > Rule of Girls > > Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any > electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only > deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed > on. ========== > Right... erm, I'll get back to you > adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 02:50:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:50:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > yes, fine. I was just hoping to keep things moving a little faster than > that, but once we get past the start that may well turn out to be plenty > fast enough anyway, so it'll do. I consent to your revision. The game *will* slow down. Things will be easier when slightly fewer of the pending proposals depend upon one another and there's a better system for keeping track of proposals. Also, I'd like to keep the game in a state where one can at least keen vague track of it without having to check email every few hours in case an important decision goes by. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 02:58:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 01:58:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake Message-ID: > >I propose the following change to the rules: > >========== >Alter the text of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > >A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one >entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other >entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to >that change from each such entity. > >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 and then posts a public Notice of Consensus >to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion >has been reached. ========== > >As such, we make people responsible for tracking the acceptance of their >own proposals and declaring them to have passed. This also makes it >possible for voters to veto their own proposal, simply by declining to post >a Notice of Consensus. As it was, we had the possibility that everyone >could consent to a proposal, but no-one might notice, and the proposal >would technically come into efect despite no-one having had the faintest >clue that it had done so. Nice plan, it makes that work quite nicely, and allows vetos without doing anything boring like coming out and saying so :) Aye, but are we sure we actually *want* this to be reworded so as not to apply to rules specifically, rather than creating slightly different methods for other things? We're likely to want the ability for players to do something without having to obtain concensus from all others at some point. > >One more new-rule proposal before I go to bed, just for fun: >========== >Rule of Girls > >Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any >electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed >to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. >========== Oh, why not. Aye. _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 03:45:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 02:45:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095903811.3599.69.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 01:43, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I propose the following change to the rules: Aye and aye. Now I'm going to bed. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 09:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 08:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal Message-ID: The numbering of dragons is a serious matter All objects in the game shall have a reference number. Reference numbers shall be unique over the lifetime of the game. Any object without a Reference number shall be assigned one. By default the Reference number assigned shall be the smallest unused positive integer (excepting zero). From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 09:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 08:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - timing Message-ID: And the clock struck thirteen A game action is any single change of the game state. Game actions are atomic (that is that nothing else can occur during one), simple (they consist of a single change to the game state) and take an infinitesimal amount of game time. Thus events always occur in sequence, never simultaneously. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 10:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 09:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > Aye, but are we > sure we actually *want* this to be reworded so as not to apply to rules > specifically, rather than creating slightly different methods for other > things? We're likely to want the ability for players to do something > without having to obtain concensus from all others at some point. Then all we have to do is not require Consensus of Opinion to exist for those actions. It's a mechanic which can be applied to anything the rules choose to apply it to, but it doesn't purport to have any influence over the rest of the rules except where they choose to require it. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 10:46:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 09:46:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - timing Message-ID: >And the clock struck thirteen > >A game action is any single change of the game state. > >Game actions are atomic (that is that nothing else can occur during >one), simple (they consist of a single change to the game state) and >take an infinitesimal amount of game time. > >Thus events always occur in sequence, never simultaneously. Nah, that seems to make things far too uncomplicated, and disallows the possibility that we might want or need two things to happen at once. Also, I don't think that 'a single change to the gamestate' is necessarily well defined. Is that a single word change in the rules? A single character? A single 'update state' (and if so, what's the point of this rule?). A player making some sort of action with Entities not yet defined? That would need clarification a lot further if we were to have something of this sort, I think. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 23 10:49:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 09:49:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal Message-ID: > >The numbering of dragons is a serious matter > >All objects in the game shall have a reference number. Reference >numbers shall be unique over the lifetime of the game. Any object >without a Reference number shall be assigned one. By default the >Reference number assigned shall be the smallest unused positive >integer (excepting zero). That's going to get horribly confused with the numbering of Rules. Perhaps start objects at 1000 or so, or give them non-integral numbers. And what's an object? JJ _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:21:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:21:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415293D5.7060306@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I propose the following change to the rules: > > ========== > Alter the text of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when > one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other > entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to > that change from each such entity. > > 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 and then posts a public Notice of > Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus > of Opinion has been reached. ========== > Aye > ========== > Rule of Girls > > Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any > electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only > deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed > on. ========== > > adam Aye Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:21:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:21:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4152942B.8060906@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to propose three changes, each of which creates a new rule: > > ============================================== > Rule of Self-Image > > The game shall have a name, which will be "Terrapin Nomic". > ============================================== Aye > Rule of Conflict > > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or > more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which > of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that > Judgement Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict > Resolution Roadmap. > > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to > the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR > has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the > rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have > effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to > address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be > guilty of the crime of Deviousness. > ============================================== Aye And There Shall Be No > Lizardmen > > Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to > be immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing > itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is > encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their > pathetic inability to see the truth until it was too late. > ============================================== > Aye, as a mechanism for allowing people to leave the game it's good, and fun. Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:27:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:27:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - timing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >And the clock struck thirteen > > > >A game action is any single change of the game state. > > > >Game actions are atomic (that is that nothing else can occur during > >one), simple (they consist of a single change to the game state) and > >take an infinitesimal amount of game time. > > > >Thus events always occur in sequence, never simultaneously. > > Nah, that seems to make things far too uncomplicated, and disallows the > possibility that we might want or need two things to happen at once. > Also, I don't think that 'a single change to the gamestate' is > necessarily well defined. Is that a single word change in the rules? A > single character? A single 'update state' (and if so, what's the point of > this rule?). A player making some sort of action with Entities not yet > defined? That would need clarification a lot further if we were to have > something of this sort, I think. I approve of the intent of this rule, but I agree with most of JJ's objections. I also don't like the term 'game action' referring to any change in the game state; I think 'action' implies that there is an actor, whereas this seems to also cover any changes which might happen by themselves. If you want a term for this, I suggest 'game transition'. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:29:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:29:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >The numbering of dragons is a serious matter > > > >All objects in the game shall have a reference number. Reference > >numbers shall be unique over the lifetime of the game. Any object > >without a Reference number shall be assigned one. By default the > >Reference number assigned shall be the smallest unused positive > >integer (excepting zero). > > That's going to get horribly confused with the numbering of Rules. > Perhaps start objects at 1000 or so, or give them non-integral numbers. > And what's an object? All good objections, particularly the last one. There's no definition of what's an 'object in the game' - does it refer only to things with no extranomic reality? Any objects, such as players, who might interact with the game? Do you intend for, eg, the List of Voters to have a reference number? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:40:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:40:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Numbering Message-ID: Proposal: Create a Rule named as follows: ==========On the Numbering of Proposals Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. This would hopefully make it easier to find and respond to and refer to all the proposals. Proposals from before this rule is introduced could be back-numbered 0, -1, -2 if desired, or we could start from a different number if desired. Basic concept, really. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 23 11:41:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:41:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] [Nomic] Message-ID: Proposal: Create a Rule named as follows: ==========On the Numbering of Proposals Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. This would hopefully make it easier to find and respond to and refer to all the proposals. Proposals from before this rule is introduced could be back-numbered 0, -1, -2 if desired, or we could start from a different number if desired. Basic concept, really. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 23 11:50:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:50:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] [Nomic] Message-ID: Oooh, how did I manage that? Sorry, folks. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:51:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:51:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Numbering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > ==========On the Numbering of Proposals Each proposal shall be numbered > by its proposer. These numbers shall be sequential integers beginning > from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. Counter-proposals to a > proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. What happens if two people compose messages to the list at the same time and end up duplicating a proposal number? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:52:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:52:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] 100! Message-ID: I believe this to be the hundredth post to the nomic-talk mailing list. Yay me! It's also the fortieth post made by me; of the other sixty, Martin is in the lead with 17, followed by Jonathan, Stuart and JJ, who have all made 12. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 11:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 10:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] 100! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I believe this to be the hundredth post to the nomic-talk mailing list. > Yay me! Except no, because JJ sent off a quick reply to his double-post while I was writing this. Dammit. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 12:20:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 23 11:20:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4152A287.5010204@mxtelecom.com> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: >> >> Here are my current standings and opinions on each of them, since we >> seem to have something approaching a summary going: >> >>> 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of >>> Voters, since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. On this >>> I vote Aye. >> >> Aye >> >>> 2. The Rule of Autoadoption. I reserve my vote on this, pending >>> discussion on whether we really want people to be able to arbitrarily >>> join without the notification or consent of any of the current >>> players, which I suggest may not be a good idea. Perhaps a simple >>> majority of the game consenting? >> >> Has this been subsumed? >> >>> 3. The Rule of Nicknames: >>> I vote aye to this in the current form. >>> Aye >>> 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned >>> during proposals included. Aye. >> Aye >> >>> 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the >>> following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a >>> proposed change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The >>> proposal was made at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least >>> one message to the mailing list during that time. c) They have not >>> explicitly expressed that they do not consent for that change to >>> enter the gamestate. >> Nay, for reasons stated by someone else. >>> 6: The Law of Lexicography >>> Aye. >>> We can argue about who has to keep it up to date later :) >> Aye. >> >>> 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution Nay, I'm afraid, I don't think the >>> game has time for that sort of process, and a majority of that form >>> is unlikely to work nicely. We do need something to do this, but I'm >>> not sure that's the way. A random selection of judge might work >>> better, or the player on the lowest number of points, should we ever >>> get a points system. >> >> Nay. >> >>> 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. >>> Aye. >> Nay, once a proposal is introduced it should remain unless demonstrated to cause a contradiction or paradox. >>> I also propose the following: >>> >>> N. The Existence of the Committee. There shall exist a Committee, >>> which shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a >>> Title, which can be assigned a member of the List of Players, and a >>> list of duties which the member holding that Post shall perform. The >>> list of Posts follows: >> >> >> In essence, I approve. However, I prsent the following (short) list of >> objections: >> >> * There is no List of Players, only a List of Voters. If people think >> the two should be synonymous, fine, but right now we're still open to >> the possibility that there can be a separate list of people who want >> to interact with the game in other ways but not vote, or people who >> want to vote but nothing else. > > I agree with this analysis. Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 12:44:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 23 11:44:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals: "Keeping up with the Nomeses" and "I'm Not A Window Cleaner" Message-ID: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> ...as opposed to the Joneses, obviously. Anyhoo, I'm getting confused with this - poor threading, poor topicing of details... so: I propose: ---- Keeping up with the Nomeses There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by someone who is to investigate an automatic on-line method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent (which ought to be less confusing than at present). This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such a body is created. ---- and ---- I'm Not A Window Cleaner The Entity Mike Cripps shall be the first Data Integrity Consultant ---- Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 13:33:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (M.M. Lester) Date: Thu Sep 23 12:33:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals: "Keeping up with the Nomeses" and "I'm Not A Window Cleaner" In-Reply-To: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> References: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: > ---- > Keeping up with the Nomeses > > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by > someone who is to investigate an automatic on-line method of storing and > cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent (which ought to be less > confusing than at present). This role can later be incorporated into a > Committee post if such a body is created. > ---- I like the idea, although I doubt anyone will actually do anything useful in this position. Do we have a concept of a "role" within the game? I think "present" should be replaced with something like "the time when this rule comes into force" so that we don't require continual improvement. > ---- > I'm Not A Window Cleaner > > The Entity Mike Cripps shall be the first Data Integrity Consultant > ---- > I agree. I propose the following: --- When I'm Cleaning Windows Mike Cripps shall be the second Data Integrity Consultant. --- --- First Postman gets the Sack The first Data Integrity Consultant shall hold the role of Data Integrity Consultant for a period not exceeding the time that elapsed or elapses between the proposal that there should be a Data Integrity Consultant being made and that proposal being accepted. --- Both these proposals are on orange paper. I agree to the Rule of Girls and the rule about posting a Notice of Consent. Maz. (Woo, FIRST POST!!!) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 14:18:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:18:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: <1095897681.3599.63.camel@mewo2> References: <1095897681.3599.63.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: > Stealing Martin's email using JJ's handy-dandy Summary-O-Stuff: > > > The following proposals appear to be around (in no particular order): > > > > 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, The List of > > Voters, since it is no longer necessary now the game exists. > Aye, although I see no reason to do so, other than one of neatness. > > > 2. The Rule of Autoadoption. > I have no problem with this, although JJ's reservations about allowing > random idiots in is valid, maybe a vetting process would need putting in > as well (or a way of removing voters we really don't like.) > > > 3. The Rule of Nicknames: > Sounds fine to me. > > > 4. The Rule of Structured Names, with the proviso for rules mentioned > > during proposals included. > If I remember what this was, I might have reservations, but I'm fine > with it if it does what I think it does. > > > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent: I counterpropose this rule in the > > following form: A player shall be deemed to have consented to a > > proposed change to the Rules if all of the following hold: a) The > > proposal was made at least 48 hours ago. b) They have sent at least one > > message to the mailing list during that time. c) They have not > > explicitly expressed that they do not consent for that change to enter > > the gamestate. Rather than attempt to modify JJ's proposal into what mine says... why not simply ratify mine instead? -- okay, I said 24 hours, but I didn't want to argue with that particularly. Anyway, I don't really care who's wordnig we use, so long as it does what I said, or what martin says JJ's proposal should say. > > 6: The Law of Lexicography Do we really need this? - I'll sheep if everyone else votes yes. > > 7: The Rule of Dispute Resolution Unless Stumo fixes the errors I pointed out to him I'll vote nay. > > > 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. As I said before, Nope. I don't like this. If you propose a rule, you should be stuck with it (preferably in the way that I phrased the rule of assumed consent.) > > > N. The Existence of the Committee. There shall exist a Committee, > > which shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a > > Title, which can be assigned a member of the List of Players, and a > > list of duties which the member holding that Post shall perform. The > > list of Posts follows: > No thanks. This makes all the players different in fairly immutable ways. > David _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 14:29:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:29:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Complete annihilation In-Reply-To: <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: I agree in full with martin's "exception that proves the" rule. I don't agree with stumo's Puff of logic rule, nicely named though it is, because it entirely prevents paradoxes, and I counter propose the following rule. The "complete annihilation" rule. Any voter discovering a paradox within the rules may suggest a "patch" under rule 2. "mutability of the rules." i.e. a rule which is put in play for the specific purpose of resolving this paradox by whatever means are necessary. This rule and the "mutability of the rules" rule override any and all rules causing said paradox until such a time as a valid patch is ratified by the other players. Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament having destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever. On Sep 23 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > > > >> --- > >> 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. --- > > > > > > I'll consent to this proposal. Although I note that a rule only has to > > mention another rule to be allowed to override it, not state that it is > > overriding it, which could lead to some amusing loopholes ... > > > > > I also consent, and suggest the following as a partner: > > The "disappeared in a puff of logic" Rule > > If a change to the rules is about to be, or has been, made under the > "Mutability of the Rules" rule, and someone can demonstrate that this > interacts with existing rules to give contradictory behaviour, then the > rules do not change and the change becomes "pending". If at some point > in the future a "pending" rule change does not have contradictory > behaviour, it becomes part of the ruleset. This explicitly overrides the > "Mutability of the Rules" rule. > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 14:43:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:43:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals: "Keeping up with the Nomeses" and "I'm Not A Window Cleaner" In-Reply-To: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> References: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4152C4AF.7040006@cam.ac.uk> Mike Cripps wrote: > ...as opposed to the Joneses, obviously. > > Anyhoo, I'm getting confused with this - poor threading, poor topicing > of details... so: > > I propose: > ---- > Keeping up with the Nomeses > > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled > by someone who is to investigate an automatic on-line method of storing > and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent (which ought to > be less confusing than at present). This role can later be incorporated > into a Committee post if such a body is created. > ---- > > and > > ---- > I'm Not A Window Cleaner > > The Entity Mike Cripps shall be the first Data Integrity Consultant > ---- > > Mike > > It's a good idea, I was wondering about doing some kind of script that did this. Mike, do you mind if I have a quick play to put stuff together (I presume while you're at work you can't do much) Oh, and consent to both the above rules > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 14:50:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:50:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Three proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree to all three of these rules, and modify my complete annihilation proposal to read as follows: "Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament having destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever." On Sep 23 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to propose three changes, each of which creates a new rule: > > ============================================== > Rule of Self-Image > > The game shall have a name, which will be "Terrapin Nomic". > ============================================== > Rule of Conflict > > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or > more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which > of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement > Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution > Roadmap. > > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to > the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR > has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the > rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have > effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to > address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty > of the crime of Deviousness. > ============================================== And There Shall Be No > Lizardmen > > Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to > be immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing > itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is > encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their > pathetic inability to see the truth until it was too late. > ============================================== > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 14:55:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:55:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals: "Keeping up with the Nomeses" and "I'm Not A Window Cleaner" In-Reply-To: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> References: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: I consent to both, assuming that when they are actually ratified, that Mike actually fills the post via some mechanism that JJ is complaining about a lack of. On Sep 23 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > ...as opposed to the Joneses, obviously. > > Anyhoo, I'm getting confused with this - poor threading, poor topicing > of details... so: > > I propose: > ---- > Keeping up with the Nomeses > > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled > by someone who is to investigate an automatic on-line method of storing > and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent (which ought to > be less confusing than at present). This role can later be incorporated > into a Committee post if such a body is created. > ---- > > and > > ---- > I'm Not A Window Cleaner > > The Entity Mike Cripps shall be the first Data Integrity Consultant > ---- > > Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 14:55:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (M.M. Lester) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:55:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal votes In-Reply-To: References: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: Removal of text after "world" in Rule 3 - I agree I suppose. Rule of Nicknames or whatever it was called - yes. Rule of Structured Names - yes. Law of Lexicography - yes. I see the potential for fun here. Rule of Plausible Deniability - no. Existence of the Committee - maybe. I withhold judgement for the moment. "Exception that Proves the" Rule - yes, sounds fun. Rule of (Assumed) Consent - I will vote in favour of exactly one of these, but there are so many to choose from! I haven't decided which I favour yet. A Planet? Where Lizards Evolved from Men? - yes. The Rule of Autoadaption - yes. Maz. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 14:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 13:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] and for sanity's sake In-Reply-To: <41521CDA.2040509@cam.ac.uk> References: <41521CDA.2040509@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: I consent to both. > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > I propose the following change to the rules: > > > > ========== > > Alter the text of Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion from: > > > > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when > > one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other > > entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to > > that change from each such entity. > > > > 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 and then posts a public > > Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which > > Consensus of Opinion has been reached. ========== > > I Consent > > > > > As such, we make people responsible for tracking the acceptance of > > their own proposals and declaring them to have passed. This also makes > > it possible for voters to veto their own proposal, simply by declining > > to post a Notice of Consensus. As it was, we had the possibility that > > everyone could consent to a proposal, but no-one might notice, and the > > proposal would technically come into efect despite no-one having had > > the faintest clue that it had done so. > > > > One more new-rule proposal before I go to bed, just for fun: > > ========== > > Rule of Girls > > > > Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. > > Any electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only > > deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed > > on. ========== > > > > Right... erm, I'll get back to you > > > adam > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nomic-talk mailing list > > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 15:12:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 14:12:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: <4152A287.5010204@mxtelecom.com> References: <4152A287.5010204@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > >>> 8. The Rule of Plausible Deniability. > >>> Aye. > >> > > Nay, once a proposal is introduced it should remain unless demonstrated > to cause a contradiction or paradox. Um, I was understanding this to mean that a proposal can be retracted by the original proposer *before* it's passed into the rules. Was this what you were referring to? Of course, pass my amendment to Rule 4 and it becomes redundant anyway. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 15:15:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 14:15:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals: "Keeping up with the Nomeses" and "I'm Not A Window Cleaner" In-Reply-To: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> References: <4152A847.7030100@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > I propose: > ---- > Keeping up with the Nomeses > > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled > by someone who is to investigate an automatic on-line method of storing > and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent (which ought to > be less confusing than at present). This role can later be incorporated > into a Committee post if such a body is created. > ---- Looks good to me, but the proposal process hasn't really been formalised by the rules yet anyway, and I'm wondering whether we should get the details down in writing before we start appointing people to track administrivia. On the other hand, the Data Integrity Consultant could get craking right away and eir role could be redefined later if the process is changed. Thoughts? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 15:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 14:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Complete annihilation In-Reply-To: References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > The "complete annihilation" rule. > > Any voter discovering a paradox within the rules may suggest a "patch" > under rule 2. "mutability of the rules." i.e. a rule which is put in play > for the specific purpose of resolving this paradox by whatever means are > necessary. This rule and the "mutability of the rules" rule override any > and all rules causing said paradox until such a time as a valid patch is > ratified by the other players. Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to > exist simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament > having destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever. I note that I've already proposed this rule, except the references are to middle eastern politics rather than chrononauts. Also, I'm not consenting to any rule which requires something to be ratified by all the other players. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 16:19:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (M.M. Lester) Date: Thu Sep 23 15:19:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Winning the game In-Reply-To: <415210E6.90800@cam.ac.uk> References: <1095896695.3599.52.camel@mewo2> <415210E6.90800@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > I propose that I just lost "The Game" > I agree with Stumo's proposal that he lost "The Game". Maz. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 16:35:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 15:35:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 Message-ID: The following proposals appear to exist, in these forms, and I believe these to be the votes people have cast on them, though I'm not bothering to list ones completely rewritten or with more than a couple of Nays. 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, List of Voters. Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok Nays: 2: Create a rule called the Rule of Handles, with the following text: There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one entry for each member of the List of Voters.  Initially the pseudonym entry in each pair will be unset.  At any time a player with an unset pseudonym may set their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string isn't lexically equivalent to any game entity, player's real name or player's pseudonym.  If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then their pseudonym and their real name may be used interchangably within the context of the game. This List shall be called the List of Handles. Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Martin, dok, Stumo, adam 3. Create a rule called the Rule of Structured Names, with the following text: Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule when it is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in question, excepting the following case: Where a rule is still a proposal, it may be referred to only by its alphanumeric designator Y. If that rule is then adopted, the gamestate shall be modified so that all references to that rule reference the full name instead. When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing rules shall be modified to bring them into line with this format. Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok Nays: 4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one the following form: The Rule of Autoadoption: Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. c) They wish to join the game. Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game.  Their consent is not needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration at the time of their joining the game. A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of Voters states "I do not believe is a lizardman from Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a lizardman from Antares IV. Ayes: Martin, adam, Maz, JJ 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent The current form of this is as follows: A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if the following are true: The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't explicitly expressed a lack of consent. Ayes: Maz, JJ 6: The Law of Lexicography There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary, which shall be kept up-to-date with all game terms.  The definitions given in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of terms; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin Not well enough defined: JJ, adam 7:The Existence of the Council There shall exist the Great Council of the Elder Turtles, which shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be assigned a member of the List of Voters, and a list of duties which the member holding that Post should perform. Failure on the part of that member to perform these duties shall make them guilty of the crime of (This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) Aye: JJ Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin Nay: ahdok (But surely we're going to need some way to assign things to people? ed.) 8: 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. Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok 9: Alter the text of Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion from: A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. 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 and then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin, Maz 10: Create a rule as follows, called the Rule of Girls: Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. Ayes: dok, JJ, adam, Mike, Martin, Maz 11: The Rule of Self-Image The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin 12: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text: If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of Deviousness. Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin 13: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the following text: Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability to see the truth until it was too late. Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin 14: The Law of Total Annihilation "Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament having destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever." Ayes: dok Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined, especially whether you want it to be only within the rules) 15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following text: There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by a member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an automatic on-line method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent.  This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such a body is created. Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok 16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first holder of the role of Data Integrity Consultant, and shall be immediately appointed to that role if it exists when this rule is passed, assuming in both cases that the entity Mike Cripps is a member of the List of Voters Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok 17: I propose that I just lost "The Game" Ayes: Stumo, Maz, JJ 18: On the Numbering of Proposals Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. Nay: adam (on the basis that two proposals may be cross-posted with the same number. Workaround counterproposals are invited) _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 23 16:38:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 15:38:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Complete annihilation In-Reply-To: References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: I've later removed all text before "should thirteen paradoxes..." since your proposal has more of a "damn bureaucrats" feel to it than mine does. I still want to be able to annihilate the universe. On Sep 23 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 23 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > > > The "complete annihilation" rule. > > > > Any voter discovering a paradox within the rules may suggest a "patch" > > under rule 2. "mutability of the rules." i.e. a rule which is put in > > play for the specific purpose of resolving this paradox by whatever > > means are necessary. This rule and the "mutability of the rules" rule > > override any and all rules causing said paradox until such a time as a > > valid patch is ratified by the other players. Should thirteen paradoxes > > be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the > > voters must lament having destroyed the universe by trying to be too > > clever. > > I note that I've already proposed this rule, except the references are to > middle eastern politics rather than chrononauts. Also, I'm not consenting > to any rule which requires something to be ratified by all the other > players. > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 16:53:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Thu Sep 23 15:53:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Okay, this seems to be the easiest way for me to respond to all that has happened so far... On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:33:45 +0100, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > The following proposals appear to exist, in these forms, and I believe these > to be the votes people have cast on them, though I'm not bothering to list > ones completely rewritten or with more than a couple of Nays. > > 1. Remove all text after the word 'world' from Rule 3, List of Voters. > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok > Nays: > Aye > 2: Create a rule called the Rule of Handles, with the following text: > There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one > entry for each member of the List of Voters. Initially the pseudonym entry > in > each pair will be unset. At any time a player with an unset pseudonym > may set their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string > isn't lexically equivalent to any game entity, player's real name or > player's pseudonym. If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then > their pseudonym and their real name may be used interchangably within > the context of the game. This List shall be called the List of Handles. > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Martin, dok, Stumo, adam Aye > > 3. Create a rule called the Rule of Structured Names, with the following > text: > Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In > this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule when it > is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer > currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of > alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to > changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. > > X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified > along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when > referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in question, > excepting the following case: Where a rule is still a proposal, it may be > referred to only by its alphanumeric designator Y. If that rule is then > adopted, the gamestate shall be modified so that all references to that rule > reference the full name instead. > When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing rules shall > be modified to bring them into line with this format. > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok > Nays: Aye > > 4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one the > following form: > The Rule of Autoadoption: > > Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters > may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: > 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > c) They wish to join the game. > Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not > needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > at the time of their joining the game. > > A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? > All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be > all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall be > considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of > Voters states "I do not believe is a lizardman from > Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of the > entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a lizardman > from Antares IV. > > Ayes: Martin, adam, Maz, JJ > Aye (I like this rule, its fun) > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent > The current form of this is as follows: > A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if > the following are true: > The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't > explicitly expressed a lack of consent. > Ayes: Maz, JJ Aye (In the interst of keeping the game moving, people are unlikly to forget to object, only to give their consent) > > 6: The Law of Lexicography > There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary, which > shall be kept up-to-date with all game terms. The definitions given > in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of > terms; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. > > Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin > Not well enough defined: JJ, adam > Hmmm... I quite like this rule as I tend to get confused by terms and a dictinary would help alot. But I see lots of problems with the way this rule is defined so I shall join the "Not well enough defined" list, though I agree with the idea. > 7:The Existence of the Council > There shall exist the Great Council of the Elder Turtles, which shall > contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be > assigned a member of the List of Voters, and a list of duties which the > member holding that Post should perform. Failure on the part of that member > to perform these duties shall make them guilty of the crime of > > (This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) > > Aye: JJ > Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin > Nay: ahdok (But surely we're going to need some way to assign things to > people? ed.) > Aye > 8: 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. > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok > Was there not an objection along the lines of: this allows a rule to override another by mentioning it even though this maynot be necessary? If this is reworded to cover this I shall agree > 9: Alter the text of Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion from: > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one > entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other entities > named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change > from each such entity. > 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 and then posts a public Notice of Consensus > to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin, Maz > Aye > 10: Create a rule as follows, called the Rule of Girls: > Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any > electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed to > be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. > > Ayes: dok, JJ, adam, Mike, Martin, Maz > Aye, aye, aye. I totally agree with this. > 11: The Rule of Self-Image > The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > > Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin Nay, I don't like that name. Although I might be persuade to change my mind if nothing better comes along. > > 12: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text: > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or more > rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of them > should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement Procedure > may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to the > rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has > been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any > changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects other > than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not be > applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of > Deviousness. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin > Aye > 13: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the following > text: > Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be > immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself > to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to > use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability to > see the truth until it was too late. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin > Aye > 14: The Law of Total Annihilation > "Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic > game ends, and the voters must lament having destroyed the universe by > trying to be too clever." > > Ayes: dok > Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined, > especially whether you want it to be only within the rules) Aye. > > 15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following > text: > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by a > member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an automatic on-line > method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent. > This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such a body is > created. > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok > Aye (as long as its not me, to be fair I would be of little use in that role) > 16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner > The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first holder of the role of Data > Integrity Consultant, and shall be immediately appointed to that role if it > exists when this rule is passed, assuming in both cases that the entity Mike > Cripps is a member of the List of Voters > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok > Aye > 17: I propose that I just lost "The Game" > Ayes: Stumo, Maz, JJ > Aye > 18: On the Numbering of Proposals > Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be > sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. > Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. > > Nay: adam (on the basis that two proposals may be cross-posted with the same > number. Workaround counterproposals are invited) > > Nay. Couldn't there be someone on the concil (if this come into being) those role it is to number the rules? Okay, that should do it. Luv Carrie _________________________________________________________________ > It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 16:54:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 15:54:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:33:45 BST." References: Message-ID: > 6: The Law of Lexicography > There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary, which > shall be kept up-to-date with all game terms.  The definitions given > in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of > terms; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. > > Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin > Not well enough defined: JJ, adam How about: There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary.  The definitions given in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. > 7:The Existence of the Council > There shall exist the Great Council of the Elder Turtles, which shall > contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be > assigned a member of the List of Voters, and a list of duties which the > member holding that Post should perform. Failure on the part of that member > to perform these duties shall make them guilty of the crime of > > (This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) > > Aye: JJ > Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin > Nay: ahdok (But surely we're going to need some way to assign things to > people? ed.) The crime of what? > 8: 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. > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok Aye, but what if two rules disagree, and neither overrules? > 9: Alter the text of Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion from: > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one > entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other entities > named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change > from each such entity. > 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 and then posts a public Notice of Consensus > to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin, Maz Aye > 10: Create a rule as follows, called the Rule of Girls: > Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any > electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed to > be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. > > Ayes: dok, JJ, adam, Mike, Martin, Maz Aye, why not? > 11: The Rule of Self-Image > The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > > Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin Couldn't you come up with something more interesting? Aye. > 12: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text: > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or more > rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of them > should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement Procedure > may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to the > rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has > been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any > changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects other > than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not be > applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of > Deviousness. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin Aye > 13: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the following > text: > Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be > immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself > to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to > use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability to > see the truth until it was too late. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin Aye :) > 14: The Law of Total Annihilation > "Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic > game ends, and the voters must lament having destroyed the universe by > trying to be too clever." > > Ayes: dok > Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined, > especially whether you want it to be only within the rules) Aye > 15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following > text: > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by a > member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an automatic on-line > method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent.  > This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such a body is > created. > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok Aye > > 16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner > The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first holder of the role of Data > Integrity Consultant, and shall be immediately appointed to that role if it > exists when this rule is passed, assuming in both cases that the entity Mike > Cripps is a member of the List of Voters > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok Aye > 17: I propose that I just lost "The Game" > Ayes: Stumo, Maz, JJ Aye > 18: On the Numbering of Proposals > Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be > sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. > Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. > > Nay: adam (on the basis that two proposals may be cross-posted with the same > number. Workaround counterproposals are invited) > Nay, ditto. J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 16:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 15:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Missing votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I vote the following, which are missing my vote: 4 (both parts) - The law of Lizardmen, and a planet where lizards evolve from men. - Yay 5. The rule of assumed Consent. (I realise now that this is a very simple wording which accomplishes our goal.) - yay 6. Lexicography Not well enough defined. 7. I only voted nay because of the way it was worded, I prefer this, but half of it is missing. I'll withhold my vote for now. 14. I propose the phrase "in the rules" be added after the word "paradoxes" to stop JJ nitpicking. "paradox" is defined by knowing the english language. 17. I agree. 18. Nay, we're numbering rules anyway. > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 17:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 16:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:48:09 BST." References: Message-ID: Oh, and 'Aye' to 4, as well... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 17:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 16:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Aye... Feathers... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I propose the following two rules: 19: A lemon? Already? The entity known as "Carrie" shall redefine the meanings of "aye" and "nay" as she sees fit at midnight each day. Entities have the right to request the meanings of "yay" and "nay" from Carrie, and in return, she has the right to set simple tasks (such as "deliver this plank") that must be accomplished before said information is given. Should Carrie give contradictory information to different players, she shall be defined to be guilty of the crime of "extreme naughtiness" for 24 hours starting at the point of discovery of the deception. (note: Voters do not, of course, need to use these particular words to vote unambiguously, and may instead use "urk" and "whoopee!" or any other such words, so long as their intent is clear.) 20: The Feathers rule. Any player found quilty of the crime of "extreme naughtiness" is punishable by the punishment of tickling, and may be punished by any voter. The punishment may be administered at any time during the period that the person guilty of extreme naughtiness is defined to be guilty for. _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 17:22:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (M.M. Lester) Date: Thu Sep 23 16:22:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1870869256-584279598-1095952887=:2352 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE More votes. > 11: The Rule of Self-Image > The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > > Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin Yes. > 12: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text: > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or m= ore=20 > rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of th= em=20 > should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement Procedu= re=20 > may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to th= e=20 > rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has = been=20 > presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any=20 > changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects oth= er=20 > than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not = be=20 > applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of=20 > Deviousness. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin > Yes. > 13: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the followi= ng=20 > text: > Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be= =20 > immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itse= lf=20 > to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged t= o=20 > use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability= to=20 > see the truth until it was too late. > > Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin Yes. > 15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following t= ext: > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled b= y a=20 > member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an automatic on-line= =20 > method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consen= t.=A0=20 > This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such a body = is=20 > created. > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok > Yes. > > 16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner > The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first holder of the role of Data=20 > Integrity Consultant, and shall be immediately appointed to that role if = it=20 > exists when this rule is passed, assuming in both cases that the entity M= ike=20 > Cripps is a member of the List of Voters > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok Yes. > 18: On the Numbering of Proposals > Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be= =20 > sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this ru= le.=20 > Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. > > Nay: adam (on the basis that two proposals may be cross-posted with the s= ame=20 > number. Workaround counterproposals are invited) > No. Maz. --1870869256-584279598-1095952887=:2352-- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 17:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 23 16:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Aye... Feathers... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4152E9CE.1090607@mxtelecom.com> David (Birch) wrote: > I propose the following two rules: > > 19: A lemon? Already? > > The entity known as "Carrie" shall redefine the meanings of "aye" and > "nay" as she sees fit at midnight each day. Entities have the right to > request the meanings of "yay" and "nay" from Carrie, and in return, she > has the right to set simple tasks (such as "deliver this plank") that > must be accomplished before said information is given. Should Carrie > give contradictory information to different players, she shall be > defined to be guilty of the crime of "extreme naughtiness" for 24 hours > starting at the point of discovery of the deception. > > (note: Voters do not, of course, need to use these particular words to > vote unambiguously, and may instead use "urk" and "whoopee!" or any > other such words, so long as their intent is clear.) Vote Nay > > 20: The Feathers rule. Any player found quilty of the crime of "extreme > naughtiness" is punishable by the punishment of tickling, and may be > punished by any voter. The punishment may be administered at any time > during the period that the person guilty of extreme naughtiness is > defined to be guilty for. > > Nay - unworkable (I'm in London...) > _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Thu Sep 23 17:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 16:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Aye... Feathers... In-Reply-To: <4152E9CE.1090607@mxtelecom.com> References: <4152E9CE.1090607@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: I've fixed the typo, and added "Oliver" to teh entity "Carrie" and point out to Scotsman that 1) Any voter may tickle Carrie as her punishment, and this is workable as she's in the same place as Adam often (And she'll all be in Cam soon enough.) - AND that you can tickle Carrie through the internet with varying effect. I also point out that the lemon proposal doesn't affect the gamestate other than to force people to say something other than "aye" - which is hardly a grievous crime. :) > David (Birch) wrote: > > I propose the following two rules: > > > > 19: A lemon? Already? > > > > The entity known as "Carrie Oliver" shall redefine the meanings of > > "aye" and "nay" as she sees fit at midnight each day. Entities have the > > right to request the meanings of "aye" and "nay" from "Carrie Oliver", > > and in return, she has the right to set simple tasks (such as "deliver > > this plank") that must be accomplished before said information is > > given. Should Carrie give contradictory information to different > > players, she shall be defined to be guilty of the crime of "extreme > > naughtiness" for 24 hours starting at the point of discovery of the > > deception. > > > > (note: Voters do not, of course, need to use these particular words to > > vote unambiguously, and may instead use "urk" and "whoopee!" or any > > other such words, so long as their intent is clear.) > > > > > 20: The Feathers rule. Any player found quilty of the crime of "extreme > > naughtiness" is punishable by the punishment of tickling, and may be > > punished by any voter. The punishment may be administered at any time > > during the period that the person guilty of extreme naughtiness is > > defined to be guilty for. > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> Nomic-talk mailing list > >> Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > >> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 18:01:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 17:01:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary Message-ID: The following have been added to the ruleset, and should be updated onto the website ASAP: All text after the word 'world' should be removed from Rule 3, List of Voters. The first 4 Rules should be updated to the format 'Rule X, Y' 'Rule 5, The Rule of Handles' should be added, with the following text: There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one entry for each member of the List of Voters.  Initially the pseudonym entry in each pair will be unset.  At any time a player with an unset pseudonym may set their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string isn't lexically equivalent to any game entity, player's real name or player's pseudonym.  If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then their pseudonym and their real name may be used interchangably within the context of the game. This List shall be called the List of Handles. 'Rule 6, The Rule of Structured Names' should be added, with the following text: Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule when it is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in question, excepting the following case: Where a rule is still a proposal, it may be referred to only by its alphanumeric designator Y. If that rule is then adopted, the gamestate shall be modified so that all references to that rule reference the full name instead. When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing rules shall be modified to bring them into line with this format. Alter the text of Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion from: A Consensus of Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other entities named on the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from each such entity. 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 and then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. Therefore, the following proposals have received unanimous support and are awaiting Notice of Consensus before they can be passed into the ruleset: >12: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text: >If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or >more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of >them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement >Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to >the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR >has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. >Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects >other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will >not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime >of Deviousness. > >13: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the following >text: >Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be >immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself >to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to >use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability >to see the truth until it was too late. > >Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin > I believe those are both adam's proposals. >4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one >the following form: >The Rule of Autoadoption: > >Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters >may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: >1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). >2) They are not already in the List of Voters. >3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: >a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. >b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. >c) They wish to join the game. >Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of >Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game.  Their consent is not >needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration >at the time of their joining the game. > >A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? >All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be >all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall >be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of >Voters states "I do not believe is a lizardman from >Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of >the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a >lizardman from Antares IV. > >Ayes: Martin, adam, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine, dok > > >5. The Rule of Assumed Consent >The current form of this is as follows: >A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if >the following are true: >The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't >explicitly expressed a lack of consent. >Ayes: Maz, JJ, Carrie, dok > >6: The Law of Lexicography (reworded There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary.  The definitions given in the Definitions Dictionary superceed the usual English meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. > >Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin, JJ >Not yet responded to the change: adam, Carrie, dok > >7:The Existence of the Council >There shall exist the Great Council of the Elder Turtles, which shall >contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be >assigned a member of the List of Voters, and a list of duties which the >member holding that Post should perform. Failure on the part of that member >to perform these duties shall make them guilty of the crime of Uselessness > >(This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) > >Aye: JJ, dok, Carrie >Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin, Madeleine > >8: 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. > >Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine Withheld: Carrie (based on uncertainty about the matter of rules merely referencing others rather than explicitly overriding them) > > >10: Create a rule as follows, called the Rule of Girls: >Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any >electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed >to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. > >Ayes: dok, JJ, adam, Mike, Martin, Maz, Carrie, Madeleine > >11: The Rule of Self-Image >The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > >Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin, Madeleine, Maz Nay: Carrie > > >14: The Law of Total Annihilation >"Should thirteen paradoxes in the rules be discovered to exist >simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament having >destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever." > >Ayes: dok, Carrie, Madeleine >Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined) > > >15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following >text: >There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by >a member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an automatic on-line >method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and >Consent.  This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such >a body is created. > >Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok, Carrie, Madeleine, Maz > > >16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner >The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first holder of the role of Data >Integrity Consultant, and shall be immediately appointed to that role if it >exists when this rule is passed, assuming in both cases that the entity >Mike Cripps is a member of the List of Voters > >Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok, Carrie, Madeleine, Maz > >17: I propose that I just lost "The Game" >Ayes: Stumo, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine > 18: A lemon? Already? The member of the List of Voters "Carrie Oliver" shall redefine the meanings of "aye" and "nay" as she sees fit at midnight each day. Members of the List of Voters have the right to request the meanings of "yay" and "nay" from Carrie Oliver, and in return, she has the right to set simple tasks (such as "deliver this plank") that must be accomplished before said information is given. Should Carrie Olvier give contradictory information to different members of the List of Voters, she shall be guilty of the crime of "Extreme Naughtiness" for 24 hours starting at the point of discovery of the deception. (note: Voters do not, of course, need to use these particular words to vote unambiguously, and may instead use "urk" and "whoopee!" or any other such words, so long as their intent is clear.) Proposer: dok Aye: JJ Nay: Mike 19: The Feathers rule. Any player found quilty of the crime of "Extreme Naughtiness" is punishable by the punishment of tickling, and may be punished by any member of the List of Voters. The punishment may be administered at any time during the period that the person guilty of extreme naughtiness is defined to be guilty for. No member of the List of Voters may punish the guilty party more than once during the same period of guilt. Proposer: dok Aye: JJ Nay: Mike _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 18:12:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 17:12:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent Message-ID: I propose changing the text of Rule 4, Concensus 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 *all but one* of those entities, and then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. Discuss. _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 18:36:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 17:36:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Complete annihilation In-Reply-To: References: <1095895213.3599.46.camel@mewo2> <4152109B.3040705@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > I've later removed all text before "should thirteen paradoxes..." since > your proposal has more of a "damn bureaucrats" feel to it than mine does. > I still want to be able to annihilate the universe. Annihilating the universe is good, but I'd be sad if it caused the game to end. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 18:39:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 17:39:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:10:30 BST." References: Message-ID: > I propose changing the text of Rule 4, Concensus 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 *all but one* of those entities, and then posts a public > Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which > Consensus of Opinion has been reached. > > > Discuss. 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 at least all but one of those entities, and then posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 18:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 17:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality Message-ID: No finality In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur: a) They are recognised to have won the game. b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule. c) A new rule is created with the following text: --- 0, No fun here It is not possible to win the game. This rule takes precidence over all other rules. --- d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes. e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not change rule 0. f) Gameplay resumes. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 19:21:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Thu Sep 23 18:21:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:10:30 +0100, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > I propose changing the text of Rule 4, Concensus 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 *all but one* of those entities, and then posts a public > Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which > Consensus of Opinion has been reached. > > Discuss. > > Nay. I disagree. We have passed quite a few rules without this, I really don't feel it is necessary. _________________________________________________________________ > Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! > http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 21:29:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 23 20:29:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: JJ: We agreed earlier that any word not defined in the game has it's=20 meaning from the english language. If you want me to, I will define=20 "paradox" to have the meaning it does it the OED... I'll also add to that= =20 list "list, that, to, add, also, the, in, does, it, meaning, have, define,= =20 will, I, me, want, you, if, language, english, from, meaning, is, has,=20 game, defined, not, word, any, agreed, earlier, we, and and happy." Happy? On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > The following have been added to the ruleset, and should be updated onto= =20 > the website ASAP: >=20 > All text after the word 'world' should be removed from Rule 3, List of=20 > Voters. >=20 > The first 4 Rules should be updated to the format 'Rule X, Y' >=20 > 'Rule 5, The Rule of Handles' should be added, with the following text:= =20 > There shall be a list of {real name, pseudonym} pairs; with one entry for= =20 > each member of the List of Voters.=A0 Initially the pseudonym entry in ea= ch=20 > pair will be unset.=A0 At any time a player with an unset pseudonym may s= et=20 > their pseudonym to any legal string, provided that that string isn't=20 > lexically equivalent to any game entity, player's real name or player's= =20 > pseudonym.=A0 If a player has a non-null pseudonym set then their pseudon= ym=20 > and their real name may be used interchangably within the context of the= =20 > game. This List shall be called the List of Handles. >=20 > 'Rule 6, The Rule of Structured Names' should be added, with the=20 > following text: Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form= =20 > 'Rule X, Y'. In this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to= =20 > the rule when it is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the=20 > largest integer currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any=20 > string of alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is=20 > distinct up to changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule= =20 > in the rules. X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y=20 > must be specified along with the text of the rule when it is first=20 > proposed. All rules, when referring to other rules, must use the full=20 > name of the rule in question, excepting the following case: Where a rule= =20 > is still a proposal, it may be referred to only by its alphanumeric=20 > designator Y. If that rule is then adopted, the gamestate shall be=20 > modified so that all references to that rule reference the full name=20 > instead. When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing= =20 > rules shall be modified to bring them into line with this format. >=20 > Alter the text of Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion from: A Consensus of=20 > Opinion on a particular change to the rules exists when one entity named= =20 > on the List of Voters proposes the change to all other entities named on= =20 > the List of Voters and obtains unambiguous consent to that change from=20 > each such entity. to: A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists= =20 > when one entity named on the List of Voters makes a proposal describing= =20 > the issue to all other entities named on the List of Voters, obtains=20 > unambiguous consent to that proposal from each such entity and then posts= =20 > a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue=20 > upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. >=20 > Therefore, the following proposals have received unanimous support and=20 > are awaiting Notice of Consensus before they can be passed into the=20 > ruleset: >=20 > > 12: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text:= =20 > > If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or= =20 > > more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules=20 > > which of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that= =20 > > Judgement Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict=20 > > Resolution Roadmap. > > A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes=20 > > to the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a= =20 > > CRR has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on=20 > > the rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which= =20 > > have effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created= =20 > > to address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be= =20 > > guilty of the crime of Deviousness. >=20 > > > > 13: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the=20 > > following text: Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may= =20 > > cause itself to be immediately removed from the List of Voters by=20 > > publically announcing itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The=20 > > entity in question is encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the=20 > > puny humans for their pathetic inability to see the truth until it was= =20 > > too late. > > > >Ayes: JJ, dok, adam, Mike, Stumo, Martin > > >=20 > I believe those are both adam's proposals. >=20 >=20 >=20 > >4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one= =20 > >the following form: > >The Rule of Autoadoption: > > > >Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters > >may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: > >1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > >2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > >3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > >a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > >b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > >c) They wish to join the game. > >Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > >Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game.=A0 Their consent is not > >needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > >at the time of their joining the game. > > > > A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? All entities eligible to be= =20 > > members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be all living extranomic=20 > > entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall be considered to be= =20 > > lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of Voters states= =20 > > "I do not believe is a lizardman from Antares IV",=20 > > where "" is to be replaced with the name of the entity= =20 > > in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a lizardman=20 > > from Antares IV. > > > >Ayes: Martin, adam, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine, dok > > > > > > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent The current form of this is as follows:= =20 > > A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal= =20 > > if the following are true: The proposal was suggested more than 72=20 > > hours ago, and they haven't explicitly expressed a lack of consent.=20 > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Carrie, dok > > > >6: The Law of Lexicography (reworded > There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary.=A0 The > definitions given in the Definitions Dictionary superceed the usual > English meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are > overriden by explicit rules wording. > > > >Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin, JJ > >Not yet responded to the change: adam, Carrie, dok > > > > 7:The Existence of the Council There shall exist the Great Council of= =20 > > the Elder Turtles, which shall contain a number of Posts. Each Post=20 > > shall consist of a Title, which can be assigned a member of the List of= =20 > > Voters, and a list of duties which the member holding that Post should= =20 > > perform. Failure on the part of that member to perform these duties=20 > > shall make them guilty of the crime of Uselessness > > > >(This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) > > > >Aye: JJ, dok, Carrie > >Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin, Madeleine > > > >8: 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. > > > >Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine > Withheld: Carrie (based on uncertainty about the matter of rules merely= =20 > referencing others rather than explicitly overriding them) > > >=20 > > > > 10: Create a rule as follows, called the Rule of Girls: Notices of=20 > > Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any=20 > > electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only=20 > > deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed= =20 > > on. > > > >Ayes: dok, JJ, adam, Mike, Martin, Maz, Carrie, Madeleine > > > >11: The Rule of Self-Image > >The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > > > >Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin, Madeleine, Maz > Nay: Carrie > > > > >=20 > >14: The Law of Total Annihilation > >"Should thirteen paradoxes in the rules be discovered to exist=20 > >simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament having= =20 > >destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever." > > > >Ayes: dok, Carrie, Madeleine > >Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined) > > > > > > 15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following= =20 > > text: There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be= =20 > > filled by a member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an=20 > > automatic on-line method of storing and cataloguing Proposals,=20 > > Counter-Proposals and Consent.=A0 This role can later be incorporated= =20 > > into a Committee post if such a body is created. > > > >Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok, Carrie, Madeleine, Maz > > > > > > 16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first= =20 > > holder of the role of Data Integrity Consultant, and shall be=20 > > immediately appointed to that role if it exists when this rule is=20 > > passed, assuming in both cases that the entity Mike Cripps is a member= =20 > > of the List of Voters > > > >Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok, Carrie, Madeleine, Maz > > > >17: I propose that I just lost "The Game" > >Ayes: Stumo, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine > > >=20 > 18: A lemon? Already? The member of the List of Voters "Carrie Oliver"=20 > shall redefine the meanings of "aye" and "nay" as she sees fit at=20 > midnight each day. Members of the List of Voters have the right to=20 > request the meanings of "yay" and "nay" from Carrie Oliver, and in=20 > return, she has the right to set simple tasks (such as "deliver this=20 > plank") that must be accomplished before said information is given.=20 > Should Carrie Olvier give contradictory information to different members= =20 > of the List of Voters, she shall be guilty of the crime of "Extreme=20 > Naughtiness" for 24 hours starting at the point of discovery of the=20 > deception. >=20 > (note: Voters do not, of course, need to use these particular words to=20 > vote unambiguously, and may instead use "urk" and "whoopee!" or any other= =20 > such words, so long as their intent is clear.) >=20 > Proposer: dok > Aye: JJ > Nay: Mike >=20 > 19: The Feathers rule. Any player found quilty of the crime of "Extreme= =20 > Naughtiness" is punishable by the punishment of tickling, and may be=20 > punished by any member of the List of Voters. The punishment may be=20 > administered at any time during the period that the person guilty of=20 > extreme naughtiness is defined to be guilty for. No member of the List of= =20 > Voters may punish the guilty party more than once during the same period= =20 > of guilt. >=20 > Proposer: dok > Aye: JJ > Nay: Mike >=20 > _________________________________________________________________=20 > Express yourself with cool new emoticons=20 > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk >=20 --=20 ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 21:50:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 20:50:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095968901.2560.2.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:33, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > The following proposals appear to exist, in these forms, and I believe these > to be the votes people have cast on them, though I'm not bothering to list > ones completely rewritten or with more than a couple of Nays. > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent > The current form of this is as follows: > A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if > the following are true: > The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't > explicitly expressed a lack of consent. > Ayes: Maz, JJ Aye. > 7:The Existence of the Council > There shall exist the Great Council of the Elder Turtles, which shall > contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which can be > assigned a member of the List of Voters, and a list of duties which the > member holding that Post should perform. Failure on the part of that member > to perform these duties shall make them guilty of the crime of > > (This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) > > Aye: JJ > Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin > Nay: ahdok (But surely we're going to need some way to assign things to > people? ed.) Oh, make it an aye. > 14: The Law of Total Annihilation > "Should thirteen paradoxes be discovered to exist simultaneously, the nomic > game ends, and the voters must lament having destroyed the universe by > trying to be too clever." > > Ayes: dok > Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined, > especially whether you want it to be only within the rules) Nay. I don't want the game to end. > 15: Create a rule named Keeping Up With the Nomeses, with the following > text: > There shall be a role entitled "Data Integrity Consultant" to be filled by a > member of the List of Voters, who is to investigate an automatic on-line > method of storing and cataloguing Proposals, Counter-Proposals and Consent. > This role can later be incorporated into a Committee post if such a body is > created. > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok Aye. > 16: I'm Not a Window Cleaner > The entity Mike Cripps shall be the first holder of the role of Data > Integrity Consultant, and shall be immediately appointed to that role if it > exists when this rule is passed, assuming in both cases that the entity Mike > Cripps is a member of the List of Voters > > Ayes: JJ, Mike, Stumo, dok Aye. > 18: On the Numbering of Proposals > Each proposal shall be numbered by its proposer. These numbers shall be > sequential integers beginning from 1 for the first proposal after this rule. > Counter-proposals to a proposal N should be numbered Na, Nb, Nc etc. > > Nay: adam (on the basis that two proposals may be cross-posted with the same > number. Workaround counterproposals are invited) Nay, on the same grounds. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 21:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 20:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1095969185.2560.6.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:52, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > 8: 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. > > > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok > > > > Was there not an objection along the lines of: this allows a rule to > override another by mentioning it even though this maynot be > necessary? If this is reworded to cover this I shall agree I don't think this was an objection, so much as an observation. I hope it's clear that simply mentioning a rule doesn't make it no longer valid. You also have to state something which is contrary to the rule mentioned. So random mentions of rules won't have any effect. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:12:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:12:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: <1095969185.2560.6.camel@mewo2> References: <1095969185.2560.6.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:53:05 +0100, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:52, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > 8: 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. > > > > > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok > > > > > > > Was there not an objection along the lines of: this allows a rule to > > override another by mentioning it even though this maynot be > > necessary? If this is reworded to cover this I shall agree > > I don't think this was an objection, so much as an observation. I hope > it's clear that simply mentioning a rule doesn't make it no longer > valid. You also have to state something which is contrary to the rule > mentioned. So random mentions of rules won't have any effect. > > Martin > Seeing as you have all been so bloody picky about the phrasing of the rules so far should this be made clearer? 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 Thu Sep 23 22:26:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:26:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- But I can't hear it! Message-ID: 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. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:26:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:26:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! Message-ID: 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. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:28:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:28:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:25:27 BST." References: Message-ID: > Twice the fun; harf the harf! > A description of the word "harf" can be found here: http://www.sonic.net/~meuller4/jenny/nomic/axiom/harf.html J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: <1095969185.2560.6.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: <1095970540.2560.10.camel@mewo2> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 21:11, Carrie Oliver wrote: > Seeing as you have all been so bloody picky about the phrasing of the > rules so far should this be made clearer? If you like, although I thought it was clear enough. Proposal: === I Can't Believe It's Not 'The "Exception Which Proves The" Rule'! A rule takes precedence over another rule if and only if it mentions that rule by name. The only exception is this rule, which takes precedence over all others, except those which mention it by name. === Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:32:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:32:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415332C7.70403@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: >>Twice the fun; harf the harf! >> > > A description of the word "harf" can be found here: > > http://www.sonic.net/~meuller4/jenny/nomic/axiom/harf.html > No it can't... Where do the chocolate biscuits come from? From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:39:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:39:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41533442.9040805@cam.ac.uk> Hmm, not bad I suppose. Aye Jonathan David Amery wrote: > No finality > > In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur: > > a) They are recognised to have won the game. > b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule. > c) A new rule is created with the following text: > --- > 0, No fun here > > It is not possible to win the game. This rule takes precidence over > all other rules. > --- > d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes. > e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won > the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the > purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not > change rule 0. > f) Gameplay resumes. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 22:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: <1095970540.2560.10.camel@mewo2> References: <1095969185.2560.6.camel@mewo2> <1095970540.2560.10.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:27:53 +0100, Martin O'Leary wrote: > On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 21:11, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > Seeing as you have all been so bloody picky about the phrasing of the > > rules so far should this be made clearer? > > If you like, although I thought it was clear enough. > > Proposal: > === > I Can't Believe It's Not 'The "Exception Which Proves The" Rule'! > > A rule takes precedence over another rule if and only if it mentions > that rule by name. The only exception is this rule, which takes > precedence over all others, except those which mention it by name. > === > > Martin > > Is that actually any different? Fine, fine. I say aye. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 23 22:42:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:42:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance Message-ID: Spooky Action At A Distance A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is entwined with another existing proposed rules change. A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance Message-ID: ((Note to the mailinglistmaintainer -- please reject the copy I sent from the wrong account!)) Spooky Action At A Distance A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is entwined with another existing proposed rules change. A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 23 22:53:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 21:53:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: Message from Stuart Moore of "Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:32:07 BST." <415332C7.70403@cam.ac.uk> References: <415332C7.70403@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > >>Twice the fun; harf the harf! > >> > > > > A description of the word "harf" can be found here: > > > > http://www.sonic.net/~meuller4/jenny/nomic/axiom/harf.html > > > > No it can't... > Obviously that should be: http://www.sonic.net/~mueller4/jenny/nomic/axiom/harf.html ^^ > Where do the chocolate biscuits come from? > The ether. J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Pseudonym Message-ID: I assign myself the pseudonym "Wild Card". From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] consent to consent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent > The current form of this is as follows: > A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if > the following are true: > The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't > explicitly expressed a lack of consent. > Ayes: Maz, JJ Add me to that list. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:16:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:16:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary. The > definitions given in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual > english meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are > overriden by explicit rules wording. Looks good to me. > Aye, but what if two rules disagree, and neither overrules? Then there's a conflict - see my proposal on Conflict Resolution Roadmaps. > > 11: The Rule of Self-Image > > The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". > > > > Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin > > Couldn't you come up with something more interesting? Aye. Feel free to suggest a change. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:18:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:18:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > I propose changing the text of Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion from: I approve in principle of not requiring unanimity on all decisions, but I'm not sure your proposal is the right way to go about it - apart from anything else, I believe it's ambiguous as to whether a consensus exists if all of the players consent. I was going to suggest a complete rewrite of the voting procedure earlier today, but seeing that rules had actually started to get passed, I decided it wasn't as urgent as I'd felt. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:21:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:21:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41534C23.6080707@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: >> 4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking >> one the following form: >> The Rule of Autoadoption: >> >> Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters >> may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: >> 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). >> 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. >> 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: >> a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. >> b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. >> c) They wish to join the game. >> Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of >> Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not >> needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration >> at the time of their joining the game. >> >> A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? >> All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall >> be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) >> shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of >> the List Of Voters states "I do not believe is a >> lizardman from >> Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name >> of the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is >> a lizardman from Antares IV. >> >> Ayes: Martin, adam, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine, dok Aye >> >> >> 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent >> The current form of this is as follows: >> A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal >> if the following are true: >> The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't >> explicitly expressed a lack of consent. >> Ayes: Maz, JJ, Carrie, dok Aye >> >> 7:The Existence of the Council >> There shall exist the Great Council of the Elder Turtles, which shall >> contain a number of Posts. Each Post shall consist of a Title, which >> can be assigned a member of the List of Voters, and a list of duties >> which the member holding that Post should perform. Failure on the part >> of that member to perform these duties shall make them guilty of the >> crime of Uselessness >> >> (This proposal has been reworded to remove some of the objections) >> >> Aye: JJ, dok, Carrie >> Withheld: Maz, Stumo, Martin, Madeleine Aye >> >> 8: 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. >> >> Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine Aye >> 10: Create a rule as follows, called the Rule of Girls: >> Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. >> Any electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only >> deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is >> printed on. >> >> Ayes: dok, JJ, adam, Mike, Martin, Maz, Carrie, Madeleine Aye >> >> 11: The Rule of Self-Image >> The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". >> >> Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin, Madeleine, Maz > > Nay: Carrie Nay, there are far better names. >> >> > >> 14: The Law of Total Annihilation >> "Should thirteen paradoxes in the rules be discovered to exist >> simultaneously, the nomic game ends, and the voters must lament having >> destroyed the universe by trying to be too clever." >> >> Ayes: dok, Carrie, Madeleine >> Nay: JJ (pending description of how a paradox is actually defined) Aye > > 18: A lemon? Already? > The member of the List of Voters "Carrie Oliver" shall redefine the > meanings of "aye" and "nay" as she sees fit at midnight each day. > Members of the List of Voters have the right to request the meanings of > "yay" and "nay" from Carrie Oliver, and in return, she has the right to > set simple tasks (such as "deliver this plank") that must be > accomplished before said information is given. Should Carrie Olvier give > contradictory information to different members of the List of Voters, > she shall be guilty of the crime of "Extreme Naughtiness" for 24 hours > starting at the point of discovery of the deception. > > (note: Voters do not, of course, need to use these particular words to > vote unambiguously, and may instead use "urk" and "whoopee!" or any > other such words, so long as their intent is clear.) > > Proposer: dok > Aye: JJ > Nay: Mike Nay > > 19: The Feathers rule. > Any player found quilty of the crime of "Extreme Naughtiness" is > punishable by the punishment of tickling, and may be punished by any > member of the List of Voters. The punishment may be administered at any > time during the period that the person guilty of extreme naughtiness is > defined to be guilty for. No member of the List of Voters may punish the > guilty party more than once during the same period of guilt. > > Proposer: dok > Aye: JJ > Nay: Mike Nay From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:21:05 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:21:05 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: [On removal of requirement of unanimity] > Nay. I disagree. We have passed quite a few rules without this, I > really don't feel it is necessary. I'd like to go on the record as stating that I do feel it would be good to eventually move away from allowing a single dissenter to block passage of a new rule that's overwhelmingly accepted by the other players. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > JJ: We agreed earlier that any word not defined in the game has it's > meaning from the english language. Really? Seems a reasonable interpretation, but I don't see it in the rules. Want to make that official? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:24:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:24:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:53:05 +0100, Martin O'Leary > wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:52, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > > 8: 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. > > > > > > Was there not an objection along the lines of: this allows a rule to > > > override another by mentioning it even though this maynot be > > > necessary? If this is reworded to cover this I shall agree > > > > I don't think this was an objection, so much as an observation. I hope > > it's clear that simply mentioning a rule doesn't make it no longer > > valid. You also have to state something which is contrary to the rule > > mentioned. So random mentions of rules won't have any effect. > > Seeing as you have all been so bloody picky about the phrasing of the > rules so far should this be made clearer? Personally, I think it's clear as is, but if you'd like to propose an alternative phrasing which is clearer, by all means do so. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:25:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:25:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Twice the fun; harf the harf! Yes, why not? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:26:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:26:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:42:12 BST." References: Message-ID: > ((Note to the mailinglistmaintainer -- please reject the copy I sent > from the wrong account!)) > Spooky Action At A Distance > > A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is > entwined with another existing proposed rules change. > > A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in > favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has > already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. > Add to the bottom of this proposed rule: This rule overrides "Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion". From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- But I can't hear it! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. I object on the grounds of blatant abuse of the semicolon. Also, in what circumstances do you feel it's useful to have non-authoritative text kept in a rule? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:28:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:28:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: <1095970540.2560.10.camel@mewo2> References: <1095970540.2560.10.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > Proposal: > === > I Can't Believe It's Not 'The "Exception Which Proves The" Rule'! > > A rule takes precedence over another rule if and only if it mentions > that rule by name. The only exception is this rule, which takes > precedence over all others, except those which mention it by name. I think I prefer the first phrasing. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- But I can't hear it! In-Reply-To: Your message of "23 Sep 2004 23:26:01 BST." References: Message-ID: > On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > 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. > > I object on the grounds of blatant abuse of the semicolon. Bah, you can't do that without suggesting a fixed phrasing... > Also, in what circumstances do you feel it's useful to have > non-authoritative text kept in a rule? Like above, examples, references to source materials, implementation notes ("/* if we ever create a judgement system, then support will be needed here */"), etc. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:32:05 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:32:05 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan Amery wrote: > Spooky Action At A Distance > > A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is > entwined with another existing proposed rules change. > > A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in > favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has > already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. Nice try. But it seems that I can use this rule to declare my proposal entwined with another proposed rules change that has already passed, and then have it pass automatically. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:34:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:34:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance In-Reply-To: Your message of "23 Sep 2004 23:31:31 BST." References: Message-ID: > Nice try. But it seems that I can use this rule to declare my proposal > entwined with another proposed rules change that has already passed, and > then have it pass automatically. > *not* pass, automatically. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:37:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:37:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Madeleine's proposals Message-ID: >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. Oh, why not, even if it is a blatant rip from Ackanomic. >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. Aye, I've already chafed that I can't do that. >((Note to the mailinglistmaintainer -- please reject the copy I sent >   from the wrong account!)) >Spooky Action At A Distance > >A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is >entwined with another existing proposed rules change. > >A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in >favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has >already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. This Rule overrides Rule 4, >Consensus of Opinion. > No, even with the override added (which we aren't allowed to do yet, are we?), I still don't like the abuses inherent in twinning far too many proposals with each other. No finality In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur: a) They are recognised to have won the game. b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule. c) A new rule is created with the following text: --- 0, No fun here It is not possible to win the game.  This rule takes precidence over all other rules. --- d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes. e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not change rule 0. f) Gameplay resumes. Aye, we can always change it if we do want to allow things to end. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 24 00:37:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:37:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > Nice try. But it seems that I can use this rule to declare my proposal > > entwined with another proposed rules change that has already passed, > > and then have it pass automatically. > > > *not* pass, automatically. Ah, sorry, misread that. In that case, I consent to this rule, with the added clause that has it override Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > No finality > > In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur: > > a) They are recognised to have won the game. > b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule. > c) A new rule is created with the following text: > --- > 0, No fun here > > It is not possible to win the game. This rule takes precidence over > all other rules. > --- > d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes. > e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won > the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the > purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not > change rule 0. > f) Gameplay resumes. This seems to be about the right spirit, but the implementation is flawed. Specifically, Rule 0, if created as above, would not be permitted to override any rules which state that it is possible to win the game, since it doesn't name them explicitly, and so a contradiction would be created. I suggest a simpler proposal along the lines of "If a player wins, they . Winning the game does not cause the game to end." adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of Consensus Message-ID: Both of the following notices are printed on green paper, although the rules do not currently mandate this. ========== NOTICE OF CONSENSUS It has been agreed by the explicit consent of all entities currently named on the List of Voters that the following proposal shall be put into effect: Create a rule named The Rule of Conflict with the following text: If a Judgement Procedure as defined by the rules determines that two or more rules are in conflict and that it it not clear from the rules which of them should take precedence, the entity which initiated that Judgement Procedure may create and publically present a Conflict Resolution Roadmap. A Conflict Resolution Roadmap is a document which describes changes to the rules intended solely to remove the conflict in question. Once a CRR has been presented, the changes it describes will take effect on the rules. Any changes described by a Conflict Resolution Roadmap which have effects other than to resolve the conflict the Roadmap was created to address will not be applied and the creator of the Roadmap will be guilty of the crime of Deviousness. ========== ========== NOTICE OF CONSENSUS The following proposal, having been agreed upon by all members of the List of Voters, shall now come into effect: Create a rule named And There Shall Be No Lizardmen, with the following text: Any entity which is a member of the List of Voters may cause itself to be immediately removed from the List of Voters by publically announcing itself to be a lizardman from Antares IV. The entity in question is encouraged to use this opportunity to mock the puny humans for their pathetic inability to see the truth until it was too late. ========== There we go, folks, rules 7 and 8. Share and enjoy. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality In-Reply-To: Your message of "23 Sep 2004 23:39:57 BST." References: Message-ID: > This seems to be about the right spirit, but the implementation is flawed. > Specifically, Rule 0, if created as above, would not be permitted to > override any rules which state that it is possible to win the game, since > it doesn't name them explicitly, and so a contradiction would be created. I > suggest a simpler proposal along the lines of "If a player wins, they recognised in some glorious way>. Winning the game does not cause the game > to end." > Something like Rule 0 is needed to stop infinite-win-cycles (caused one of those by mistake once in .nomic...). WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 00:52:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:52:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality Message-ID: > >On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >>No finality >> >>In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur: >> >>a) They are recognised to have won the game. >>b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule. >>c) A new rule is created with the following text: >>--- >>0, No fun here >> >>It is not possible to win the game. This rule takes precidence over >>all other rules. >>--- >>d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes. >>e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won >>the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the >>purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not >>change rule 0. >>f) Gameplay resumes. > >This seems to be about the right spirit, but the implementation is flawed. >Specifically, Rule 0, if created as above, would not be permitted to >override any rules which state that it is possible to win the game, since >it doesn't name them explicitly, and so a contradiction would be created. I >suggest a simpler proposal along the lines of "If a player wins, they recognised in some glorious way>. Winning the game does not cause the game >to end." > Good point, and nice, simple plan to solve it. I suggest recognising them with the title 'Grand High Muck-a-Muck of the Kingdom', and the ability to rescind one rule, of their choice, when they win, requiring that this still leave the game in a winnable state. And possibly creating a rule that the same player cannot win twice in succession, to prevent nasty looping things. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 24 00:58:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 23 23:58:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > Good point, and nice, simple plan to solve it. > I suggest recognising them with the title 'Grand High Muck-a-Muck of the > Kingdom', and the ability to rescind one rule, of their choice, when they > win, requiring that this still leave the game in a winnable state. I think we should just be careful with winning conditions, and any winning condition which allows someone to win on the basis of score, etc., should include a clauce causing the scores to be reset when someone wins. If we allow wins by paradox, we should allow the winner to make any changes to the game they desire, provided that they resolve the paradox and do not immediately win again once the play resumes. This is not, as yet, a formal proposal. > And possibly creating a rule that the same player cannot win twice in > succession, to prevent nasty looping things. Nah. If the same player can win twice in succession for two entirely unrelated reasons, more power to 'em. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 01:03:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Sep 24 00:03:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality Message-ID: > >On Sep 23 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >>Good point, and nice, simple plan to solve it. >>I suggest recognising them with the title 'Grand High Muck-a-Muck of the >>Kingdom', and the ability to rescind one rule, of their choice, when they >>win, requiring that this still leave the game in a winnable state. > >I think we should just be careful with winning conditions, and any winning >condition which allows someone to win on the basis of score, etc., should >include a clauce causing the scores to be reset when someone wins. If we >allow wins by paradox, we should allow the winner to make any changes to >the game they desire, provided that they resolve the paradox and do not >immediately win again once the play resumes. Yes > >This is not, as yet, a formal proposal. > >>And possibly creating a rule that the same player cannot win twice in >>succession, to prevent nasty looping things. > >Nah. If the same player can win twice in succession for two entirely >unrelated reasons, more power to 'em. Oh, if they're unrelated, then absolutely, that was just the first hack I thought of to solve the situation. I suggest that the best way to do this is probably to make one of the consequences of someone winning to be removal of the rule under which they won. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 01:15:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 00:15:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > Oh, if they're unrelated, then absolutely, that was just the first hack > I thought of to solve the situation. I suggest that the best way to do > this is probably to make one of the consequences of someone winning to be > removal of the rule under which they won. Dangerous. I wouldn't trust the rules enough to be certain that someone couldn't at least semi-justifiably use this to somehow delete Rule 1 or something. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 01:20:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 00:20:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notice of Consensus: Rule of Girls Message-ID: I'm tempted not to mention this, in order to establish some sort of precedent for the effect rules can have on their own adoption, but since we don't have any sort of judgement procedure in place yet, I'd better not do anything too contentious. Therefore, the following notice is printed on pink paper. ========== NOTICE OF CONSENSUS The following rule has been agreed upon by all entities named by the List of Voters, and shall therefore be added to the set of rules: Rule of Girls Notices of Consensus are considered to be printed on coloured paper. Any electronic document purporting to be a Notice of Consensus is only deemed to be so if it clearly describes what colour paper it is printed on. ========== adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 02:15:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Martin O'Leary) Date: Fri Sep 24 01:15:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The Grid Message-ID: <1095984771.4148.8.camel@mewo2> A proposal to give some substance to the game. === 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). === Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 02:25:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Sep 24 01:25:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The Grid Message-ID: > >A proposal to give some substance to the game. > >=== >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). >=== Aye JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 24 03:21:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 02:21:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The Grid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41537675.4080207@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> >> A proposal to give some substance to the game. >> >> === >> 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). >> === > > Aye > Aye From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 03:59:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 02:59:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: The Database of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM Message-ID: <41537F5A.4000707@cam.ac.uk> This complies of the following rules: The Database of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM While a player is attempting to gain a consensus of opinion, they enter it into the Proposals section of the AutoNomic, as well as sending a copy to the email list. Members of the List of Voters who have changed the AutoNomic to display them as "For" a proposal have given unambiguous consent to it. The Rules section of the AutoNomic should be updated to reflect changes in game state. This shall be the responsibility of whichever entity made the action that changed the game state, or The BOFH if they are not available. --- The BOFH The BOFH is Stuart Moore --- [End of proposal] The 2nd rule is to get round the fact that we don't have a committee at the moment. Basically I think the AutoNomic script is now working well, it's at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic/nomic.cgi Everyone has an account on it now, log in using the email address you are subscribed with. All actions are logged and can be traced back to you. Your password is stored encrypted on the machine. Proposals cannot be edited, a new one must be created and the old one deleted. This is deliberate so votes can't transfer over to a new version. Rules can be edited. I will put a "Guest Account" in at some point so spectators can view. If you want to fiddle with the script to test it, use http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~stjm2/nomic.cgi instead to avoid mucking up the rules I've put in. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 04:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 03:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Keep up at the back Message-ID: <41538288.4040700@cam.ac.uk> Proposal to make the following rule: "Keep up at the back" At noon every Sunday, the Member of the List of Voters who has issued the fewest "Notice of Consensus" in the previous week has their pseudonym in the "List of Handles" changed to "Slowcoach". In the event of a tie for the fewest "Notice of Consensus" in a week, all those tieing must declare publically "I'm not slow". The remaining member when all others tieing have declared "I'm not slow" has their pseudonym changed to "Slowcoach". If another member of the List of Voters had "Slowcoach" as a pseudonym, their pseudonym is now null. [End of Proposal] This does little at the moment, but other rules can refer to the Slowcoach as we get moving. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 04:15:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 03:15:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Passwords Message-ID: <415382FB.3050509@cam.ac.uk> I forgot to mention - everyone's password is set to "pass" at the moment. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 10:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 09:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The Grid In-Reply-To: <1095984771.4148.8.camel@mewo2> References: <1095984771.4148.8.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Martin O'Leary wrote: > === > 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). > === I consent. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 10:37:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 09:37:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: The Database of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM In-Reply-To: <41537F5A.4000707@cam.ac.uk> References: <41537F5A.4000707@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > This complies of the following rules: > > The Database of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM > While a player is attempting to gain a consensus of opinion, they enter > it into the Proposals section of the AutoNomic, as well as sending a > copy to the email list. > > Members of the List of Voters who have changed the AutoNomic to display > them as "For" a proposal have given unambiguous consent to it. > > The Rules section of the AutoNomic should be updated to reflect changes > in game state. This shall be the responsibility of whichever entity made > the action that changed the game state, or The BOFH if they are not > available. > --- > The BOFH > The BOFH is Stuart Moore > --- Ok, the more minor objection first: this rule isn't clear enough. "They enter it into the Proposals section of the AutoNomic" - so what happens if they don't? We can't say "players must do this", or the rules cease to have meaning as soon as someone doesn't do what the rules say they must. (I see the rules of a Nomic game as being descriptive, not prescriptive - that is, they don't mandate any actions which must be taken by extranomic entities, they only say what occurs when extranomic entities *do* take actions which might affect the game.) Secondly, I don't want to see the game give actual authority to any kind of computer program. I recognise that it may be a useful tool for keeping track of things, but I suggest that the folowing would be a better paradigm of operation: players use the AutoNomic, if they wish to, to track who has consented to their own proposals. If instead they wish to use another method, that's fine. Players are, as ever, responsible for issuing their own Notices of Consensus once they determine by their means of choice that all voters have given consent. See upcoming proposals. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 10:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 09:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Keep up at the back In-Reply-To: <41538288.4040700@cam.ac.uk> References: <41538288.4040700@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Proposal to make the following rule: > > "Keep up at the back" I object to this proposal. First, I don't think anyone should have pseudonym changes forced upon them. Secondly, it seems as though you're intending to penalise players with a low involvement in the game, which isn't something I want to see, since I'd like the game to be open to players who don't necessarily want to have a high commitment to it. Thirdly, special rules referring to the Slowcoach wouldn't be interesting, since by definition the Slowcoach is a player with low involvement in the game. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 10:50:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 09:50:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) Message-ID: I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which create new rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: ---------- The Party Knows Best The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- ---------- Minister of Truth The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- ---------- Minister of Freedom The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules of the game. ---------- ---------- Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. ---------- ---------- Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. ---------- ---------- Adam Lives Underground Anyway The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. ---------- There you have it. I've made two nominations for Minister of Truth, since Mike was the first to suggest he'd like to fulfil that role, but Stumo has an exciting computer program to do it for him, and has also nominated himself for a similar role. I suggest I should be Minister of Freedom since I'm doing it anyway and it may as well be official. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 11:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 10:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- Simplification Message-ID: I think either of these produce a better and simpler wording... Proposal the first: ==== Change Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion to read: --- A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists if: a) one entity named on the List of Voters (the proposer) makes a proposal describing the issue to all other entities named on the List of Voters. b) either: i) All other entities on the List of Voters unambiguously consent to the proposal. ii) 72 hours have passed since the most recent version of the proposal and no entity on the List of Voters has vetoed it. c) The proposer posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. --- ==== Proposal the second (with one-off wording): ==== Change Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion to read: --- A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists if: a) one entity named on the List of Voters (the proposer) makes a proposal describing the issue to all other entities named on the List of Voters. b) either: i) All other entities on the List of Voters unambiguously consent to the proposal. ii) 72 hours have passed since the most recent version of the proposal and no more than one entity on the List of Voters has vetoed it. c) The proposer posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has been reached. --- ==== From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 11:59:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 10:59:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- Simplification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4153EFD5.8060802@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I think either of these produce a better and simpler wording... > > Proposal the first: > ==== > Change Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion to read: > --- > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists if: > a) one entity named on the List of Voters (the proposer) makes > a proposal describing the issue to all other entities named on > the List of Voters. > b) either: > i) All other entities on the List of Voters unambiguously consent > to the proposal. > ii) 72 hours have passed since the most recent version of the > proposal and no entity on the List of Voters has vetoed it. > c) The proposer posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other > members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > --- Aye > ==== > > Proposal the second (with one-off wording): > ==== > Change Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion to read: > --- > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists if: > a) one entity named on the List of Voters (the proposer) makes > a proposal describing the issue to all other entities named on > the List of Voters. > b) either: > i) All other entities on the List of Voters unambiguously consent > to the proposal. > ii) 72 hours have passed since the most recent version of the > proposal and no more than one entity on the List of Voters has > vetoed it. > c) The proposer posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other > members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > --- > ==== Nay From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: My Head Hurts Message-ID: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> I propose: At no time shall there be more 'active proposals' (defined as "proposals waiting for entities on the List of Voters to vote on them, and not yet passed or annulled) than number of entities on the List of Voters. Suggestions? Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:17:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:17:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: My Head Hurts In-Reply-To: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> References: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4153F3DF.2040804@cam.ac.uk> Mike Cripps wrote: > I propose: > > At no time shall there be more 'active proposals' (defined as "proposals > waiting for entities on the List of Voters to vote on them, and not yet > passed or annulled) than number of entities on the List of Voters. > > Suggestions? > > Mike > > 1) Do we have a formal procedure to annul a proposal yet? 2) Are you saying no more proposals can be made? 3) Since this doesn't equate to "one each", it'll end up with people coming up with better ideas and not being able to put them forward. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: My Head Hurts In-Reply-To: <4153F3DF.2040804@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> <4153F3DF.2040804@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4153F454.3010701@mxtelecom.com> Stuart Moore wrote: > Mike Cripps wrote: > >> I propose: >> >> At no time shall there be more 'active proposals' (defined as >> "proposals waiting for entities on the List of Voters to vote on them, >> and not yet passed or annulled) than number of entities on the List of >> Voters. >> >> Suggestions? >> >> Mike >> >> > > 1) Do we have a formal procedure to annul a proposal yet? > 2) Are you saying no more proposals can be made? > 3) Since this doesn't equate to "one each", it'll end up with people > coming up with better ideas and not being able to put them forward. > 1) Sorry, by 'annul' I meant 'vetoed' but couldn't think of the word. 2) no? 3) then veto the original ones or vote on them damn it! ;) Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Back Here Again Message-ID: Back Here Again http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the official Periodic Table for the game. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:34:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:34:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Back Here Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4153F7D2.1010408@mxtelecom.com> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Back Here Again > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the > official Periodic Table for the game. > Aye! From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:35:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:35:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Back Here Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4153F844.7090506@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Back Here Again > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the > official Periodic Table for the game. > Aye I'm Standing, Standing, Standing Standing on a Podium (A podium, a podium) For Twenty Minutes or so... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 12:43:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:43:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23 Sep 2004 23:20:31 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 23 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > [On removal of requirement of unanimity] > > > Nay. I disagree. We have passed quite a few rules without this, I > > really don't feel it is necessary. > > I'd like to go on the record as stating that I do feel it would be good to > eventually move away from allowing a single dissenter to block passage of a > new rule that's overwhelmingly accepted by the other players. > > adam > > Well, maybe if a lot more player join but at the moment I really don't think its an issue 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 Fri Sep 24 12:59:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 11:59:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money Message-ID: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> How's this for an idea (each rule is a separate proposal, although without the first they make little sense) Proposal the creation of the rule "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. --- Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. --- Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" --- On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by 1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. --- I'm not sure what we'll do with them yet. I was thinking about being able to spend money to get a consensus of opinion, if people haven't all agreed, but I haven't got a method I'm happy with From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:00:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:00:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4153FE19.8030705@mxtelecom.com> 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. > Nay Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:03:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:03:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Keep up at the back In-Reply-To: References: <41538288.4040700@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 24 Sep 2004 09:39:23 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > > > Proposal to make the following rule: > > > > "Keep up at the back" > > I object to this proposal. First, I don't think anyone should have > pseudonym changes forced upon them. Secondly, it seems as though you're > intending to penalise players with a low involvement in the game, which > isn't something I want to see, since I'd like the game to be open to > players who don't necessarily want to have a high commitment to it. > Thirdly, special rules referring to the Slowcoach wouldn't be interesting, > since by definition the Slowcoach is a player with low involvement in the > game. > > adam > I disagree too. I don't intend to propose many rules so I don't see why I should be punished for this. Nay 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 Fri Sep 24 13:11:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:11:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:58:34 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > How's this for an idea (each rule is a separate proposal, although > without the first they make little sense) > > Proposal the creation of the rule "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. > --- > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. > --- > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > --- > On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list > of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by > 1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. > --- > > I'm not sure what we'll do with them yet. I was thinking about being > able to spend money to get a consensus of opinion, if people haven't all > agreed, but I haven't got a method I'm happy with Nay. This once again seems biased toward people who submit many proposals. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 24 13:12:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:12:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: <4153FE19.8030705@mxtelecom.com> References: <4153FE19.8030705@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:59:37 +0100, Mike Cripps wrote: > 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. > > > Nay > > Mike > Nay on two accounts: 1. I don't understand it 2. its not original 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 Fri Sep 24 13:12:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:12:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- Simplification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:42:03 +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I think either of these produce a better and simpler wording... > > Proposal the first: > ==== > Change Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion to read: > --- > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists if: > a) one entity named on the List of Voters (the proposer) makes > a proposal describing the issue to all other entities named on > the List of Voters. > b) either: > i) All other entities on the List of Voters unambiguously consent > to the proposal. > ii) 72 hours have passed since the most recent version of the > proposal and no entity on the List of Voters has vetoed it. > c) The proposer posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other > members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > --- > ==== Aye > > Proposal the second (with one-off wording): > ==== > Change Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion to read: > --- > A Consensus of Opinion on a particular issue exists if: > a) one entity named on the List of Voters (the proposer) makes > a proposal describing the issue to all other entities named on > the List of Voters. > b) either: > i) All other entities on the List of Voters unambiguously consent > to the proposal. > ii) 72 hours have passed since the most recent version of the > proposal and no more than one entity on the List of Voters has > vetoed it. > c) The proposer posts a public Notice of Consensus to the other > members detailing the issue upon which Consensus of Opinion has > been reached. > --- > ==== > Nay 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 Fri Sep 24 13:14:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:14:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4154011F.2040509@cam.ac.uk> Carrie Oliver wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:58:34 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > >>How's this for an idea (each rule is a separate proposal, although >>without the first they make little sense) >> >>Proposal the creation of the rule "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. >>--- >> >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. >>--- >> >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" >>--- >>On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list >>of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by >>1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. >>--- >> >>I'm not sure what we'll do with them yet. I was thinking about being >>able to spend money to get a consensus of opinion, if people haven't all >>agreed, but I haven't got a method I'm happy with > > > Nay. This once again seems biased toward people who submit many proposals. > > It's possible to go for the first two without having the 3rd, if you think money should be independent of the number of proposals From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:14:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:14:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 Sep 2004 09:49:12 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which create new > rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: > > ---------- > The Party Knows Best > > The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to > extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that > role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is > encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- Aye. I guess I should also take back my consent for JJ's proposal of a committee if I am supporting this. > > ---------- > Minister of Truth > > The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all players > a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which consensus > has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the List of > Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- > Aye > ---------- > Minister of Freedom > > The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all > players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules of > the game. ---------- > Aye > ---------- > Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner > > The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. > ---------- > Aye > ---------- > Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner > > The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. > ---------- > Nay > ---------- > Adam Lives Underground Anyway > > The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. > ---------- > You are? Well I don't see any evidence of it. Prove it to me and I may say aye. > There you have it. I've made two nominations for Minister of Truth, since > Mike was the first to suggest he'd like to fulfil that role, but Stumo has > an exciting computer program to do it for him, and has also nominated > himself for a similar role. I suggest I should be Minister of Freedom since > I'm doing it anyway and it may as well be official. > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 24 13:16:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:16:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The Grid In-Reply-To: <1095984771.4148.8.camel@mewo2> References: <1095984771.4148.8.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:12:51 +0100, Martin O'Leary wrote: > A proposal to give some substance to the game. > > === > 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). > === > > Martin > Aye > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 24 13:17:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:17:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <4154011F.2040509@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <4154011F.2040509@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:12:31 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:58:34 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > > > >>How's this for an idea (each rule is a separate proposal, although > >>without the first they make little sense) > >> > >>Proposal the creation of the rule "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. > >>--- > >> > >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. > >>--- > >> > >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > >>--- > >>On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list > >>of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by > >>1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. > >>--- > >> > >>I'm not sure what we'll do with them yet. I was thinking about being > >>able to spend money to get a consensus of opinion, if people haven't all > >>agreed, but I haven't got a method I'm happy with > > > > > > Nay. This once again seems biased toward people who submit many proposals. > > > > > > It's possible to go for the first two without having the 3rd, if you > think money should be independent of the number of proposals > > Oh, true. Hmmmm... lets see. Aye to the first 2. Nay to the last. 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 Fri Sep 24 13:18:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:18:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Spooky Action At A Distance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:25:12 +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > ((Note to the mailinglistmaintainer -- please reject the copy I sent > > from the wrong account!)) > > Spooky Action At A Distance > > > > A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is > > entwined with another existing proposed rules change. > > > > A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in > > favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has > > already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. > > > > Add to the bottom of this proposed rule: > > This rule overrides "Rule 4, Concensus of Opinion". > > Nay > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 24 13:18:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:18:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- But I can't hear it! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:24:49 +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. Nay > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 24 13:22:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:22:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415402F9.90505@cam.ac.uk> Stuart Moore wrote: > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > --- > On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list > of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by > 1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. > --- > It has been pointed out that as this is currently worded, all players would find their balance increased (not just the one who made the proposal). Not quite what I originally intended, but since it's there might as well leave it in. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The Grid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:15:02 BST." References: <1095984771.4148.8.camel@mewo2> Message-ID: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:12:51 +0100, Martin O'Leary wrote: > > A proposal to give some substance to the game. > > > > === > > 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). > > === > > > > Martin > > > > Aye > Aye-aye! From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:32:03 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:32:03 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:12:31 BST." <4154011F.2040509@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <4154011F.2040509@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: > Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:58:34 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > > > >>How's this for an idea (each rule is a separate proposal, although > >>without the first they make little sense) > >> > >>Proposal the creation of the rule "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. > >>--- > >> > >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. > >>--- > >> > >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > >>--- > >>On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list > >>of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by > >>1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. > >>--- > >> > >>I'm not sure what we'll do with them yet. I was thinking about being > >>able to spend money to get a consensus of opinion, if people haven't all > >>agreed, but I haven't got a method I'm happy with > > > > > > Nay. This once again seems biased toward people who submit many proposals. > > > > > > It's possible to go for the first two without having the 3rd, if you > think money should be independent of the number of proposals > Aye to all three. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:32:06 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:32:06 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:10:52 BST." References: <4153FE19.8030705@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: > Nay on two accounts: 1. I don't understand it 2. its not original > If we only do original things then we'll get nothing done... :) WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:32:08 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:32:08 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:13:43 BST." References: Message-ID: > > The Party Knows Best > > Minister of Truth > > Minister of Freedom > > Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner > > Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner > > Adam Lives Underground Anyway Aye to all of these. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:35:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:35:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4154060D.10708@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which create > new rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: > > ---------- > The Party Knows Best > > The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to > extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that > role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is > encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- Aye > > ---------- > Minister of Truth > > The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all > players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which > consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the > List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- > > ---------- Aye > Minister of Freedom > > The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all > players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules > of the game. ---------- > Aye > ---------- > Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner > > The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. > ---------- > Aye > ---------- > Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner > > The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. > ---------- > Nay > ---------- > Adam Lives Underground Anyway > > The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. > ---------- > Aye From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 13:35:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:35:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41540646.1010104@cam.ac.uk> Aye to all, but when one of the "Window Cleaner" ones becomes a rule, I remove my consent to the other one. Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which create > new rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: > > ---------- > The Party Knows Best > > The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to > extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that > role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is > encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- > > ---------- > Minister of Truth > > The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all > players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which > consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the > List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- > > ---------- > Minister of Freedom > > The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all > players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules > of the game. ---------- > > ---------- > Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner > > The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. > ---------- > > ---------- > Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner > > The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. > ---------- > > ---------- > Adam Lives Underground Anyway > > The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. > ---------- > > There you have it. I've made two nominations for Minister of Truth, > since Mike was the first to suggest he'd like to fulfil that role, but > Stumo has an exciting computer program to do it for him, and has also > nominated himself for a similar role. I suggest I should be Minister of > Freedom since I'm doing it anyway and it may as well be official. > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 24 13:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 12:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Twice the fun; harf the harf! In-Reply-To: References: <4153FE19.8030705@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:23:12 +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > Nay on two accounts: 1. I don't understand it 2. its not original > > > If we only do original things then we'll get nothing done... :) > > WC. > I agree but this is just taking it too far. Sowwy 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 Fri Sep 24 15:11:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Fri Sep 24 14:11:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: No finality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You could just have rule 0 overrule the rule that lets you overrule things, by name, and then "all other rules" wouldn't need naming. On Sep 23 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 23 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > No finality > > > > In the event of someone winning the game then the following occur: > > > > a) They are recognised to have won the game. > > b) All gameplay stops, except as mandated by this rule. > > c) A new rule is created with the following text: > > --- > > 0, No fun here > > > > It is not possible to win the game. This rule takes precidence over > > all other rules. > > --- > > d) If it is possible for play to proceed then gameplay resumes. > > e) If it is not possible for play to proceed then the player who won > > the game may make whatever changes they wish to the rules for the > > purpose of allowing gameplay to continue; except that they may not > > change rule 0. > > f) Gameplay resumes. > > This seems to be about the right spirit, but the implementation is > flawed. Specifically, Rule 0, if created as above, would not be permitted > to override any rules which state that it is possible to win the game, > since it doesn't name them explicitly, and so a contradiction would be > created. I suggest a simpler proposal along the lines of "If a player > wins, they . Winning the game does > not cause the game to end." > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 15:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Fri Sep 24 14:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Catching up on votes. Message-ID: "But I can't hear it" - Nay. I'd be inclined to agree if you'd used html comments though. "Twice the fun - Harf the half" - Yay, and I counterpropose that Mike is guilty of the crime of boringusness. "Spooky action at a distance" - You -could- just put in the two proposals taht the other proposals cannot be passed as port of the proposal. However this is easier. Abstain. I consent to the grid, but would prefer the rule to be called "the grid" than "bored of being board." "The database of doom" - No thanks. I think we -should- do as you say, but I don't think it should be in the rules. "Keep up at the back" - Mike has nayed every proposal I've made so far, which demonstrates how easy it currently is for someone to force this on someone else :) I nay this one. I vote "yay" to all six proposals adam made in his email about ministers, and therefore have no part in deciding who cleans my windows. I vote Aye to The wild card's first rewording proposal for rule 4. I vote nay for "my head hurts" - at one point yesterday we had 18 proposals, and also if one person makes six simultaneous proposals (*coughAdamcough*) that basically stops everyone else doing things. It also slows down the game. Big nay here. Although my head does hurt. I'll vote yay for the periodic hable. After all, I have it as a wallpaper on my machine, and have easy access to it. The file can be found at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~dtb26/periodic.bmp (<2.4 meg) I vote yay to all three proposals about BANK accounts, and point out to carrie that at the moment when a proposal is passed, ALL players have their accounts multiplied by 1.2 and rounded up... therefore it's completely unbiased. I have updated Stumo's autonomic with the votes I've made, for the proposals that are actually there. -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:19:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:19:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? Message-ID: I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. I'd like them to be passed as a group. "The whole world in your hand" Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so long as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, for example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters may claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however may not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. "The contents of vault 37A" One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence will be removed from the rules. "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number of any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of instances of that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim they have a monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) and cause the "monopolies commission effect" having the following effect: The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance and community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a card at random. 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that entity. All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim to have, and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a monopoly is owned on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses that entity other than the monopoly holder. In the case that the target now owns more than two monopolies they must decide to abandon monopolies until they have two or less. 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are pooled, and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all players can posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the largest even split possible is created, and the remaining instances are given to the voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the grid" exist, they are given to the player furthest from the target on the grid. The target is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it is assumed to have a negative effect. -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41542D47.3090309@mxtelecom.com> David (Birch) wrote: > > I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. > I'd like them to be passed as a group. > > "The whole world in your hand" > > Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so long > as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, for > example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters may > claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however may > not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. > Aye > "The contents of vault 37A" > > One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there > ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter > submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The > vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of > possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry > exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is > passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence > will be removed from the rules. > > "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number of > any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of instances > of that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim they have a > monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) and cause > the "monopolies commission effect" having the following effect: > > The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance > and community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a > card at random. > > 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an > extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their > extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that entity. > All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim to have, > and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a monopoly is owned > on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses that entity other than > the monopoly holder. In the case that the target now owns more than two > monopolies they must decide to abandon monopolies until they have two or > less. > > 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an > extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are > pooled, and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all > players can posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the > largest even split possible is created, and the remaining instances are > given to the voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the > grid" exist, they are given to the player furthest from the target on > the grid. The target is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) > > 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it > is assumed to have a negative effect. > > > Nay, and hence the whole lot fails, sorry ;) I do want to vote in favour of you, honest! Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:23:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:23:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those wondering why "go to mayfair" etc is a negative effect, there are only three instances that this card can be drawn. 1) you own mayfair - BAD: Someone else drawing this card would have had to give you lots of money, but you've removed it from the draw pile. 2) someone else owns mayfair - BAD: it probbally has a hotel on it. 3) No-one owns mayfair - GOOD: however it ha been proven that this never happens. On Sep 24 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > > I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. > I'd like them to be passed as a group. > > "The whole world in your hand" > > Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so long > as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, for > example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters may > claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however may > not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. > > "The contents of vault 37A" > > One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there > ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter > submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The > vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of > possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry > exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is > passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence > will be removed from the rules. > > "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number of > any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of instances of > that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim they have a > monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) and cause the > "monopolies commission effect" having the following effect: > > The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance and > community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a card at > random. > > 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an > extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their > extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that entity. > All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim to have, > and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a monopoly is owned > on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses that entity other than > the monopoly holder. In the case that the target now owns more than two > monopolies they must decide to abandon monopolies until they have two or > less. > > 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an > extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are pooled, > and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all players can > posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the largest even > split possible is created, and the remaining instances are given to the > voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the grid" exist, they > are given to the player furthest from the target on the grid. The target > is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) > > 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it > is assumed to have a negative effect. > > > > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:26:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:26:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? In-Reply-To: <41542D47.3090309@mxtelecom.com> References: <41542D47.3090309@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: Apologies for forgetting my line breaks. "the contents of vault 7A" and "Monopoly!" are different proposals. On Sep 24 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > David (Birch) wrote: > > > > I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. > > I'd like them to be passed as a group. > > > > "The whole world in your hand" > > > > Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so > > long as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, > > for example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters > > may claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however > > may not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. > > > > Aye > > > "The contents of vault 37A" > > > > One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there > > ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter > > submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The > > vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of > > possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry > > exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is > > passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence > > will be removed from the rules. > > > > "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number > > of any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of > > instances of that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim > > they have a monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) > > and cause the "monopolies commission effect" having the following > > effect: > > > > The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance > > and community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a > > card at random. > > > > 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an > > extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their > > extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that > > entity. All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim > > to have, and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a > > monopoly is owned on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses > > that entity other than the monopoly holder. In the case that the target > > now owns more than two monopolies they must decide to abandon > > monopolies until they have two or less. > > > > 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an > > extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are > > pooled, and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all > > players can posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the > > largest even split possible is created, and the remaining instances are > > given to the voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the > > grid" exist, they are given to the player furthest from the target on > > the grid. The target is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) > > > > 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it > > is assumed to have a negative effect. > > > > > > > > Nay, and hence the whole lot fails, sorry ;) > > I do want to vote in favour of you, honest! > > Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:26:05 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:26:05 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41542E57.40000@cam.ac.uk> I am not sure I understand - I can just say I am in possession of 101 beer tankards, and then have a monopoly of them? Nay as they currently stand, but I'd be interested in a modified version David (Birch) wrote: > > I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. > I'd like them to be passed as a group. > > "The whole world in your hand" > > Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so long > as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, for > example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters may > claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however may > not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. > > "The contents of vault 37A" > > One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there > ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter > submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The > vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of > possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry > exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is > passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence > will be removed from the rules. > > "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number of > any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of instances > of that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim they have a > monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) and cause > the "monopolies commission effect" having the following effect: > > The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance > and community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a > card at random. > > 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an > extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their > extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that entity. > All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim to have, > and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a monopoly is owned > on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses that entity other than > the monopoly holder. In the case that the target now owns more than two > monopolies they must decide to abandon monopolies until they have two or > less. > > 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an > extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are > pooled, and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all > players can posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the > largest even split possible is created, and the remaining instances are > given to the voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the > grid" exist, they are given to the player furthest from the target on > the grid. The target is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) > > 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it > is assumed to have a negative effect. > > > From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:30:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:30:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? In-Reply-To: <41542E57.40000@cam.ac.uk> References: <41542E57.40000@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: Yes, although you may only have two monopolies, and have to pass the monopoly board test. Maybe there should be two addendums, that you can't go for the same monopoly twice, and that you can't claim a monopoly yourself, someone else has to call it. On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > I am not sure I understand - I can just say I am in possession of 101 > beer tankards, and then have a monopoly of them? > > Nay as they currently stand, but I'd be interested in a modified version > > David (Birch) wrote: > > > > > I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. > > I'd like them to be passed as a group. > > > > "The whole world in your hand" > > > > Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so > > long as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, > > for example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters > > may claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however > > may not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. > > > > "The contents of vault 37A" > > > > One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there > > ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter > > submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The > > vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of > > possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry > > exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is > > passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence > > will be removed from the rules. > > > > "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number > > of any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of > > instances of that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim > > they have a monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) > > and cause the "monopolies commission effect" having the following > > effect: > > > > The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance > > and community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a > > card at random. > > > > 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an > > extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their > > extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that > > entity. All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim > > to have, and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a > > monopoly is owned on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses > > that entity other than the monopoly holder. In the case that the target > > now owns more than two monopolies they must decide to abandon > > monopolies until they have two or less. > > > > 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an > > extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are > > pooled, and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all > > players can posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the > > largest even split possible is created, and the remaining instances are > > given to the voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the > > grid" exist, they are given to the player furthest from the target on > > the grid. The target is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) > > > > 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it > > is assumed to have a negative effect. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:54:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:54:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415434EF.6080307@mxtelecom.com> > 3. Create a rule called the Rule of Structured Names, with the following > text: > Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In > this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule when it > is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer > currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of > alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to > changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. > > X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified > along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, when > referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in > question, excepting the following case: Where a rule is still a > proposal, it may be referred to only by its alphanumeric designator Y. > If that rule is then adopted, the gamestate shall be modified so that > all references to that rule reference the full name instead. > When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing rules > shall be modified to bring them into line with this format. > > Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok > Nays: Aye > > 4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one > the following form: > The Rule of Autoadoption: > > Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters > may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: > 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). > 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. > 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: > a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. > b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. > c) They wish to join the game. > Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of > Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not > needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration > at the time of their joining the game. > > A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? > All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall > be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) > shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of > the List Of Voters states "I do not believe is a > lizardman from > Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of > the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a > lizardman from Antares IV. > > Ayes: Martin, adam, Maz, JJ > > Aye From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: <415434EF.6080307@mxtelecom.com> References: <415434EF.6080307@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <41543522.2070706@mxtelecom.com> Mike Cripps wrote: >> 3. Create a rule called the Rule of Structured Names, with the >> following text: >> Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In >> this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule >> when it >> is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer >> currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of >> alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to >> changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. >> >> X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified >> along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, >> when >> referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in >> question, excepting the following case: Where a rule is still a >> proposal, it may be referred to only by its alphanumeric designator Y. >> If that rule is then adopted, the gamestate shall be modified so that >> all references to that rule reference the full name instead. >> When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing rules >> shall be modified to bring them into line with this format. >> >> Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok >> Nays: > > > Aye > Oops From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 16:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 15:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary of Proposals 2 In-Reply-To: <415434EF.6080307@mxtelecom.com> References: <415434EF.6080307@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4154356B.8080701@cam.ac.uk> Mike Cripps wrote: >> 3. Create a rule called the Rule of Structured Names, with the >> following text: >> Each rule shall have a name that is a string of the form 'Rule X, Y'. In >> this string, X stands for an integer which is assigned to the rule >> when it >> is added to the ruleset and is one greater than the largest integer >> currently assigned to any rule. Y shall stand for any string of >> alphanumeric characters, spaces and punctuation which is distinct up to >> changes to case and spacing from the Y of any other rule in the rules. >> >> X is assigned only when a rule is added to the rules; Y must be specified >> along with the text of the rule when it is first proposed. All rules, >> when >> referring to other rules, must use the full name of the rule in >> question, excepting the following case: Where a rule is still a >> proposal, it may be referred to only by its alphanumeric designator Y. >> If that rule is then adopted, the gamestate shall be modified so that >> all references to that rule reference the full name instead. >> When this rule is brought into effect, the names of all existing rules >> shall be modified to bring them into line with this format. >> >> Ayes: Maz, JJ, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, adam, Martin, dok >> Nays: > > > Aye Thanks Mike. We thought you already had, and this is now one of the rules ;) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] chartreuse-coloured Message-ID: This is a chartreuse-coloured Notice of Consensus: ==== Rule 10, The Law of Lizardmen. Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. c) They wish to join the game. Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration at the time of their joining the game. All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of Voters states "I do not believe " is to be replaced with the name of the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a lizardman from Antares IV. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:03:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:03:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] A monopoly? In-Reply-To: <41542E57.40000@cam.ac.uk> References: <41542E57.40000@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:25:27 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > I am not sure I understand - I can just say I am in possession of 101 > beer tankards, and then have a monopoly of them? > > Nay as they currently stand, but I'd be interested in a modified version > > > > David (Birch) wrote: > > > > > I propose the following rules. These rules are counter-entwined... i.e. > > I'd like them to be passed as a group. > > > > "The whole world in your hand" > > > > Any voter may claim to be in possession of any extranomic entity so long > > as they mention it by name. These claims need not be unique, so, for > > example, all players may claim to possess the crown jewels. voters may > > claim to posses as many extranomic entities that they want, however may > > not claim to posses any entity currently named in the nomic rules. > > > > "The contents of vault 37A" > > > > One voter shall be appointed to the role of "vaultmaster" Should there > > ever be no vaultmaster, a new one may be appointed by any voter > > submitting a proposal to appoint one from the list of voters. The > > vaultmaster's duty shall be to make available to all voters a list of > > possessions currently being claimed by each voter. Should the ministry > > exist, the vaultmaster shall be a ministry position. When this rule is > > passed, David Birch shall be appointed Vaultmaster, and this sentence > > will be removed from the rules. > > > > "Monopoly!" If any voter claims to be in possession of a large number of > > any extranomic entity, (defined to be 100 + the sum total of instances > > of that entity claimed by other voters,) any voter may claim they have a > > monopoly on that entity, (known hereafter as the "target",) and cause > > the "monopolies commission effect" having the following effect: > > > > The target must find an extranomic monopoly set, with complete chance > > and community chest packs. They chose one of these packs, and draw a > > card at random. > > > > 1.) If that card would have a positive effect on a player within an > > extranomic game of monopoly, the target creates a "monopoly" on their > > extranomic entity, and may claim to posses all instances of that entity. > > All other players lose any instances of that entity they claim to have, > > and the vaultmaster shall publish to all voters that a monopoly is owned > > on that entity. No voter may then claim to posses that entity other than > > the monopoly holder. In the case that the target now owns more than two > > monopolies they must decide to abandon monopolies until they have two or > > less. > > > > 2.) If the card would have a negative effect on a player within an > > extranomic game of monopoly, all the instances of that entity are > > pooled, and split evenly among all voters. In the case that not all > > players can posses an equal number of instances of that entity, the > > largest even split possible is created, and the remaining instances are > > given to the voter furthest from target geographically. (Should "the > > grid" exist, they are given to the player furthest from the target on > > the grid. The target is also moved to the position 0,0 on the grid.) > > > > 3. If the card drawn has an unknown effect (such as "go to Mayfair") it > > is assumed to have a negative effect. > > > > > > Dave I'm with stumo on this one. I think they're really good ideas but possibly need reworking a little. 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 Fri Sep 24 17:10:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:10:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: My Head Hurts In-Reply-To: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> References: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > I propose: > > At no time shall there be more 'active proposals' (defined as "proposals > waiting for entities on the List of Voters to vote on them, and not yet > passed or annulled) than number of entities on the List of Voters. Nay - firstly, this conflicts as it is with Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion, which states that a Consensus of Opinion exists whenever a change is proposed and agreed by all voting entities. Secondly, I don't particularly like it -- can we see whether things get any more or less confusing when we have someone whose job it is to keep a list of active proposals? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:12:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:12:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Back Here Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Back Here Again > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the > official Periodic Table for the game. Aye, why not? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:14:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:14:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: My Head Hurts In-Reply-To: References: <4153F2DD.3050800@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4154398D.4020901@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 24 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > >> I propose: >> >> At no time shall there be more 'active proposals' (defined as >> "proposals waiting for entities on the List of Voters to vote on them, >> and not yet passed or annulled) than number of entities on the List of >> Voters. > > > Nay - firstly, this conflicts as it is with Rule 4, Consensus of > Opinion, which states that a Consensus of Opinion exists whenever a > change is proposed and agreed by all voting entities. Secondly, I don't > particularly like it -- can we see whether things get any more or less > confusing when we have someone whose job it is to keep a list of active > proposals? > On that subject, people can add active proposals into the autonomic system. Please do, it'll make life a lot easier if we can use an automated system to some extent... At the moment I've done it so that I can't update the voting status to reflect votes people have made in an email, but not on it. So if anyone fancies going there and registering their votes to my proposals, I'd be most appreciative. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:20:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:20:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > ---------- > > Adam Lives Underground Anyway > > > > The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. > > ---------- > > You are? Well I don't see any evidence of it. Prove it to me and I may > say aye. I am what? If you mean living underground, dammit, I've been rumbled. If you mean keeping the list of rules up to date, the list of rules at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic is being maintained by me and updated as frequently as possible. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Proposal the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" > Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" Reserving judgement for now. I approve of the idea of currency or some sort of resource to carry out game transactions with, but this looks like a bookkeeping nightmare. How were you thinking it ought to be tracked? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:27:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:27:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41543CAC.7030803@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 24 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > >> > ---------- >> > Adam Lives Underground Anyway >> > > The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. >> > ---------- >> >> You are? Well I don't see any evidence of it. Prove it to me and I may >> say aye. > > > I am what? If you mean living underground, dammit, I've been rumbled. If > you mean keeping the list of rules up to date, the list of rules at > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic is being maintained by me and updated as > frequently as possible. > Although it's not up to date at the time of writing... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:30:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:30:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> Proposal the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >> Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >> Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > > > Reserving judgement for now. I approve of the idea of currency or some > sort of resource to carry out game transactions with, but this looks > like a bookkeeping nightmare. How were you thinking it ought to be tracked? > Personally I'd add it into the autonomic system - that could certainly do the update each night at midnight automatically, and there could be a button for "multiply by 1.2" together with someone authorised to push it... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:33:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:33:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> Stuart Moore wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: >> >>> Proposal the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >>> Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >>> Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" >> >> >> >> Reserving judgement for now. I approve of the idea of currency or some >> sort of resource to carry out game transactions with, but this looks >> like a bookkeeping nightmare. How were you thinking it ought to be >> tracked? >> > > Personally I'd add it into the autonomic system - that could certainly > do the update each night at midnight automatically, and there could be a > button for "multiply by 1.2" together with someone authorised to push it... > > I worry about making the AutoNomic too specific - you're going to have to examine rules _very_ carefully to determine allowable actions. I suggest just using the AutoNomic to keep track of Proposals and the ilk. At least, that's what the system I'm thinking of shall do ;) Mike - the real Minister of Truth From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:36:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:36:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: <41543CAC.7030803@cam.ac.uk> References: <41543CAC.7030803@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > I am what? If you mean living underground, dammit, I've been rumbled. > > If you mean keeping the list of rules up to date, the list of rules at > > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic is being maintained by me and updated as > > frequently as possible. > > Although it's not up to date at the time of writing... I'm at work! adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:36:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:36:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <41543ED1.90404@cam.ac.uk> Mike Cripps wrote: > Stuart Moore wrote: > >> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: >> >>> On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: >>> >>>> Proposal the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >>>> Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >>>> Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Reserving judgement for now. I approve of the idea of currency or >>> some sort of resource to carry out game transactions with, but this >>> looks like a bookkeeping nightmare. How were you thinking it ought to >>> be tracked? >>> >> >> Personally I'd add it into the autonomic system - that could certainly >> do the update each night at midnight automatically, and there could be >> a button for "multiply by 1.2" together with someone authorised to >> push it... >> >> > I worry about making the AutoNomic too specific - you're going to have > to examine rules _very_ carefully to determine allowable actions. I > suggest just using the AutoNomic to keep track of Proposals and the ilk. > > At least, that's what the system I'm thinking of shall do ;) > > Mike - the real Minister of Truth It doesn't attempt to check an action is allowable. But it does record who did what, so if someone plays silly buggers we can find out who and reset it to the correct state. For something like a bank balance, something like that is ideal for keeping records, especially if there is a simple regular time based income. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:40:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:40:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > I worry about making the AutoNomic too specific - you're going to have > to examine rules _very_ carefully to determine allowable actions. I > suggest just using the AutoNomic to keep track of Proposals and the ilk. > > At least, that's what the system I'm thinking of shall do ;) "Players who try to go beyond text processing and actually put some Nomic bookkeeping in a program are warned that the complexities are subtle. First, such a program should be as easy to modify as the rules of the game, or else the difficulty of changing it will put an unwanted brake on play. Moreover, it is very easy inadvertently to give the program decisions to make that are not actually clerical and that belong to the players, that is, to change Nomic without realizing it. This is true even of the most deceptively simple decisions such as renumbering rules after amendment, computing scores, and deciding who plays next. For the same reasons, mere word processing can introduce distortions. Decisions necessary to write a program or edit text may require a precision not explicit in the rule as written, in which case the programmer usurps the power of the game Judge if she simply chooses a reading of the rule. In any case, the game Judge should be the final arbiter of all questions and decisions, even those made by a program, unless of course a rule has changed the role of the Judge." -- Peter Suber (inventor of Nomic) That said, Suber had some silly ideas. But I'm with him on this one. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 17:47:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 16:47:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4154415B.8060107@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > That said, Suber had some silly ideas. But I'm with him on this one. > Which is why I went the other way - it's more of a quick route to find out what's going on, instead of looking through many emails (now 240) - you can do illegal stuff with it, just as you can make declarations within an email that break the rules. I think when it comes to keeping track of numbers a computer will work well, as long as it doesn't do any (non-trivial) updating without human input. I could possibly get it to email a balance sheet each evening, saying who had what and what transactions had happened that day. Then people could scrutinise and if someone had entered something wrong, we correct it by hand. Otherwise as you say there's a lot of book keeping to do. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 18:00:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 17:00:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <4154415B.8060107@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <41543D40.5010303@cam.ac.uk> <41543DDE.4000508@mxtelecom.com> <4154415B.8060107@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Which is why I went the other way - it's more of a quick route to find > out what's going on, instead of looking through many emails (now 240) - > you can do illegal stuff with it, just as you can make declarations > within an email that break the rules. I think we're diverging on a fundamental point here, which may or may not be the cause of our disagreement. You *can't* make declarations within an email that break the rules, because the rules do not have authority over you. The rules only dictate the behaviour of the game, not the behaviour of the players. I can post an email to the mailing list saying "I win" -- this won't have any effect on the game at all, because the rules do not define anything which happens as a result of a player claiming to have won. But it's not against the rules for me to do so. I don't want to have to rely on a computer program to tell me what the state of the game is. If someone wants to volunteer to track financial transactions, and decides to use a computer program to do so, fine. But if we all end up just relying on a computer to do it, things will get forgotten or misunderstood because people aren't paying attention to the rules. > I could possibly get it to email a balance sheet each evening, saying > who had what and what transactions had happened that day. Then people > could scrutinise and if someone had entered something wrong, we correct > it by hand. Some sort of transaction history would certainly be a requirement. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 18:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Fri Sep 24 17:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] autonomic query Message-ID: Wild Card posted the Notice of Consensus for the Law of Lizardmen at 16:02 today, according to the mailing list archive, which is when it officially became part of the ruleset. But AutoNomic gives its time of creation as 14:57. How come? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 18:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Sep 24 17:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] autonomic query In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41544670.3090405@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Wild Card posted the Notice of Consensus for the Law of Lizardmen at > 16:02 today, according to the mailing list archive, which is when it > officially became part of the ruleset. But AutoNomic gives its time of > creation as 14:57. How come? > Odd, I put it in manually, and according to the logs it went in at 16:04. The "Time" field is automatically filled with the time you load the page, I think I just put it into a page that had been open an hour at that point and forgot to check the time thing. I'll update now. Possibly I should leave the time field blank by default, and then it enters the time you submit the script if you haven't set it to something else. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 18:42:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Sep 24 17:42:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Back Here Again Message-ID: > >On Sep 24 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >>Back Here Again >> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the >>official Periodic Table for the game. > >Aye, why not? > >adam Aye JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sep 24 18:42:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Sep 24 17:42:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money Message-ID: > >On Sep 24 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >>Proposal the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > >Reserving judgement for now. I approve of the idea of currency or some sort >of resource to carry out game transactions with, but this looks like a >bookkeeping nightmare. How were you thinking it ought to be tracked? > I'm with you on that point, so I'd be happy for the first rule, that just creates the BANK accounts for each player (although why should it be non-negative currency?) to go through, but not the others as yet. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 24 18:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Fri Sep 24 17:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) Message-ID: > >Aye to all, but when one of the "Window Cleaner" ones becomes a rule, I >remove my consent to the other one. Ditto. This seems to make my Council proposal obsolete, I just don't think I have any way to retract it do I? JJ > >Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >>I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which create new >>rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: >> >>---------- >>The Party Knows Best >> >>The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to >>extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that >>role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is >>encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- >> >>---------- >>Minister of Truth >> >>The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all >>players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which >>consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the >>List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- >> >>---------- >>Minister of Freedom >> >>The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all >>players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules of >>the game. ---------- >> >>---------- >>Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner >> >>The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. >>---------- >> >>---------- >>Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner >> >>The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. >>---------- >> >>---------- >>Adam Lives Underground Anyway >> >>The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. >>---------- >> >>There you have it. I've made two nominations for Minister of Truth, since >>Mike was the first to suggest he'd like to fulfil that role, but Stumo has >>an exciting computer program to do it for him, and has also nominated >>himself for a similar role. I suggest I should be Minister of Freedom >>since I'm doing it anyway and it may as well be official. >> >>adam >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Nomic-talk mailing list >>Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >>http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Sep 24 22:54:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 21:54:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 Sep 2004 16:19:05 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 24 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > > ---------- > > > Adam Lives Underground Anyway > > > > > > The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. > > > ---------- > > > > You are? Well I don't see any evidence of it. Prove it to me and I may > > say aye. > > I am what? If you mean living underground, dammit, I've been rumbled. If > you mean keeping the list of rules up to date, the list of rules at > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic is being maintained by me and updated as > frequently as possible. > > > > adam > Having discussed this on the phone with you and been reminded of the exsistance of said site I shall now say aye. 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 Fri Sep 24 22:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Sep 24 21:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Back Here Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:41:00 +0100, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > > > > >On Sep 24 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > >>Back Here Again > >> > >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the > >>official Periodic Table for the game. > > > >Aye, why not? > > > >adam > > Aye > > JJ > > Aye _________________________________________________________________ > Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! > http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Sep 25 02:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sat Sep 25 01:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4154B631.2080002@cam.ac.uk> Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > Having discussed this on the phone with you and been reminded of the > exsistance of said site I shall now say aye. See, they admit it! They're talking to each other and plotting their next move! They want to overthrow the rules, and have anarchy! I bet he is a fishmonger too. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Sep 25 19:40:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sat Sep 25 18:40:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4155AD63.3020109@cam.ac.uk> Summary: Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, JJ Against: No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan Against: No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" For: Stuart, Jonathan Against: Carrie, No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ To try to work round peoples issues, I am going to change the first proposal and introduce another proposal. Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. --- Proposal for the creation of the rule "Who's the banker in the black?" --- The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore --- My proposed method of recording balances and transaction history would be to have a script that partially kept track of things for me and would send out an email to the list for me. How automated it was would depend on what we were using money for at that point-the more complicated, the less likely it could be fully automated of course. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Sep 25 20:03:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Sat Sep 25 19:03:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money Message-ID: > >Summary: > >Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, JJ >Against: >No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary >Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike > >Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan >Against: >No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary >Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ > >Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" >For: Stuart, Jonathan >Against: Carrie, >No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary >Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ > >To try to work round peoples issues, I am going to change the first >proposal and introduce another proposal. > >Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. Aye, but I still don't see the point in not allowing negative amounts (i.e. players in debt). I would prefer to see the word 'non-negative' removed from the rule. >--- > >Proposal for the creation of the rule "Who's the banker in the black?" >--- >The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore >--- > >My proposed method of recording balances and transaction history would be >to have a script that partially kept track of things for me and would send >out an email to the list for me. How automated it was would depend on what >we were using money for at that point-the more complicated, the less likely >it could be fully automated of course. > >Stuart > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sat Sep 25 20:41:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sat Sep 25 19:41:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4155BBA6.3080305@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> >> Summary: >> >> Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >> For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, JJ >> Against: >> No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary >> Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike >> >> Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >> For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan >> Against: >> No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary >> Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ >> >> Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" >> For: Stuart, Jonathan >> Against: Carrie, >> No comment: David, Martin Lester, Martin O'Leary >> Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ >> >> To try to work round peoples issues, I am going to change the first >> proposal and introduce another proposal. >> >> Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. > > > Aye, but I still don't see the point in not allowing negative amounts > (i.e. players in debt). I would prefer to see the word 'non-negative' > removed from the rule. I'd prefer some method of borrowing money from somewhere else - insisting on non-negative balances makes it easier to avoid loopholes where people can buy as much as they want of (whatever) and have a vastly negative balance. Is your Aye to making me the Chief Cashier as well? BTW - Technically this is a new proposal so Carrie and Jonathan ought to state whether they agree with this one. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 02:12:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (M.E.W. O'Leary) Date: Sun Sep 26 01:12:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff Message-ID: I'm visiting Abi at the moment and don't really have time to sit down and go through all the details of proposals. However, I trust people to raise the same objections I would. Therefore I'm voting aye to all proposals made since my last post. On another issue, I believe the last notice of Consensus is invalid, as I never voted in favour of it. The rules which I voted in favour of were substantially equivalent to what was passed, but I think this is a dangerous precedent to be setting. I'd like to know people's opinions on this. Martin From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 02:18:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sun Sep 26 01:18:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41560A8C.4030301@cam.ac.uk> M.E.W. O'Leary wrote: > I'm visiting Abi at the moment and don't really have time to sit down > and go through all the details of proposals. However, I trust people to > raise the same objections I would. Therefore I'm voting aye to all > proposals made since my last post. Excellent > > On another issue, I believe the last notice of Consensus is invalid, as > I never voted in favour of it. The rules which I voted in favour of were > substantially equivalent to what was passed, but I think this is a > dangerous precedent to be setting. I'd like to know people's opinions on > this. > My opinion is we don't have a consensus of opinion and therefore it is not in fact a rule at present. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 12:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sun Sep 26 11:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 26 2004, M.E.W. O'Leary wrote: > I'm visiting Abi at the moment and don't really have time to sit down > and go through all the details of proposals. However, I trust people to > raise the same objections I would. Therefore I'm voting aye to all > proposals made since my last post. Excellent! Only Maz to respond and the Ministry can come into existence. > On another issue, I believe the last notice of Consensus is invalid, as I > never voted in favour of it. The rules which I voted in favour of were > substantially equivalent to what was passed, but I think this is a > dangerous precedent to be setting. I'd like to know people's opinions on > this. If you didn't vote in favour of the proposal, it can't be a Consensus of Opinion. I'll remove the rule in question from the web page. If it's 'substantially equivalent' to the rules you were in favour of, do you want to vote in favour of it now (so Wild Card can issue another NoC and we can put it back), or do you have specific objections? I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to address: - Make sure proposals and revisions thereof are sufficiently distinct that this confusion can't arise so easily - Eliminate the need for unanimity (although I know people are against this) - Give proposals a time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is definitely known after a particular point I also propose the following new rule: ========== 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. ========== adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 13:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sun Sep 26 12:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4156A695.2080009@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to address: > > - Make sure proposals and revisions thereof are sufficiently distinct > that this confusion can't arise so easily Agreed. The Autonomic is one way to do this, as you cannot edit an existing proposal, you must add a new one and delete the old one > - Eliminate the need for > unanimity (although I know people are against this) I want to see where the game goes in the mean time-especially since we're going to be coming up and so probably without net access at various points over the next few weeks, so it might be better to wait until everyone was up in Cam and established > - Give proposals a > time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is definitely known after a > particular point I like the idea, but see my comment above-once we're back in Cam, this'll be far more reliable. Until I know I have a good network connection I'd vote against. > > I also propose the following new rule: > > ========== > 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. ========== > Aye From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 18:07:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Sun Sep 26 17:07:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Change your vote to "no" - it doesn't retcart the proposal, but it means it can't be passed. (Oh, if I voted yes on that, which I don't think I did, I change it to no.) On Sep 24 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > > > > >Aye to all, but when one of the "Window Cleaner" ones becomes a rule, I > >remove my consent to the other one. > > Ditto. This seems to make my Council proposal obsolete, I just don't > think I have any way to retract it do I? > > JJ > > > >Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > >> I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which create > >> new rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: > >> > >>---------- > >>The Party Knows Best > >> > >> The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to > >> extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and > >> that role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that > >> entity is encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. > >> ---------- > >> > >>---------- > >>Minister of Truth > >> > >> The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all > >> players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon > >> which consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members > >> of the List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- > >> > >>---------- > >>Minister of Freedom > >> > >> The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all > >> players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules > >> of the game. ---------- > >> > >>---------- > >>Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner > >> > >>The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. > >>---------- > >> > >>---------- > >>Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner > >> > >>The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. > >>---------- > >> > >>---------- > >>Adam Lives Underground Anyway > >> > >>The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. > >>---------- > >> > >> There you have it. I've made two nominations for Minister of Truth, > >> since Mike was the first to suggest he'd like to fulfil that role, but > >> Stumo has an exciting computer program to do it for him, and has also > >> nominated himself for a similar role. I suggest I should be Minister > >> of Freedom since I'm doing it anyway and it may as well be official. > >> > >>adam > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Nomic-talk mailing list > >>Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > >>http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Nomic-talk mailing list > >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > > _________________________________________________________________ > Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 18:11:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Sun Sep 26 17:11:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aye to taking insufficient notice. I suggest perhaps that each proposal be followed by a letter (A), and that each revision be updated with a new letter (O, E, U, etc. (or whatever.)) - and that a vote must specify which letter it refers to, or say something making it clear that it's voting for (X and all rules that have the same intent) or whatever. This is not a proposal, as it is not worded as one, but something to consider. On Sep 26 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 26 2004, M.E.W. O'Leary wrote: > > > I'm visiting Abi at the moment and don't really have time to sit down > > and go through all the details of proposals. However, I trust people to > > raise the same objections I would. Therefore I'm voting aye to all > > proposals made since my last post. > > Excellent! Only Maz to respond and the Ministry can come into existence. > > > On another issue, I believe the last notice of Consensus is invalid, > > as I never voted in favour of it. The rules which I voted in favour of > > were substantially equivalent to what was passed, but I think this is a > > dangerous precedent to be setting. I'd like to know people's opinions > > on this. > > If you didn't vote in favour of the proposal, it can't be a Consensus of > Opinion. I'll remove the rule in question from the web page. If it's > 'substantially equivalent' to the rules you were in favour of, do you > want to vote in favour of it now (so Wild Card can issue another NoC and > we can put it back), or do you have specific objections? > > I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to > address: > > - Make sure proposals and revisions thereof are sufficiently distinct > that this confusion can't arise so easily - Eliminate the need for > unanimity (although I know people are against this) - Give proposals a > time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is definitely known after a > particular point > > I also propose the following new rule: > > ========== > 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. ========== > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 18:41:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Sun Sep 26 17:41:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal) Message-ID: > >Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> >>I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to >>address: >> >>- Make sure proposals and revisions thereof are sufficiently distinct that >>this confusion can't arise so easily > >Agreed. The Autonomic is one way to do this, as you cannot edit an existing >proposal, you must add a new one and delete the old one Agreed, but once again, I'm not prepared to accept anything on the Autonomic as canonical, so that's irrelevant. > >>- Eliminate the need for unanimity (although I know people are against >>this) > >I want to see where the game goes in the mean time-especially since we're >going to be coming up and so probably without net access at various points >over the next few weeks, so it might be better to wait until everyone was >up in Cam and established I'm in favour, and I'm curious to know what other solutions to the potential problem of two people hugely disagreeing on what should happen to the game, and therefore stalling it completely, the people against removing unanimity have come up with. > >>- Give proposals a time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is definitely >>known after a particular point > >I like the idea, but see my comment above-once we're back in Cam, this'll >be far more reliable. Until I know I have a good network connection I'd >vote against. That's done by the Rule of Assumed Consent, isn't it? > >> >>I also propose the following new rule: >> >>========== >>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. ========== >> > >Aye Aye _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 19:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Sun Sep 26 18:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Oy, that's unfair! Message-ID: Oy, that's unfair! No rule may discriminate between players except on the basis of in-game factors. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 19:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Sun Sep 26 18:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] More Proposals Message-ID: 1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same are Friendly. Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. Just something so that we can refer to such categories later if that becomes interesting. 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. 3. This one's the biggie. Half the point of proposing this is just to get real discussion going on the subject: 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. The effect of this would be to require that a proposal passes if it is voted for by all but one player, except if that player is discriminated against by it (by name of Ministry post or other suchlike. JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Sep 26 20:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Sun Sep 26 19:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff Message-ID: (a) I say "yes" too all outstanding proposals. (b) I assert that my NoC was entirely valid, and hence that rule should be in the ruleset. (I'm not sure that I actually believe this; but someone has to at some point; the rules are rather fuzzy here). From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Sep 26 21:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Sun Sep 26 20:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff Message-ID: > >(a) I say "yes" too all outstanding proposals. Yay! > >(b) I assert that my NoC was entirely valid, and hence that rule >should be in the ruleset. >(I'm not sure that I actually believe this; but someone has to at some > point; the rules are rather fuzzy here). > There was no agreed consensus since Martin didn't vote for your proposal, and hence the rule couldn't possibly have been correct. It doesn't matter whether you issued what you thought was a notice of consensus, it wasn't one, so there is no rule. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 00:08:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sun Sep 26 23:08:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41573DBB.7010202@cam.ac.uk> David (Birch) wrote: > Change your vote to "no" - it doesn't retcart the proposal, but it means > it can't be passed. (Oh, if I voted yes on that, which I don't think I > did, I change it to no.) This is certainly true for anyone except the proposer. For the proposer himself, I'm not so sure > > On Sep 24 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> >> > >> >Aye to all, but when one of the "Window Cleaner" ones becomes a rule, >> I >remove my consent to the other one.> >> Ditto. This seems to make my Council proposal obsolete, I just don't >> think I have any way to retract it do I? >> >> JJ >> > >> >Adam Biltcliffe wrote: >> > >> >> I would like to make the following six proposals, all of which >> create >> new rules and two of which are mutually contradictory: >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>The Party Knows Best >> >> >> >> The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names >> to >> extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, >> and >> that role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then >> that >> entity is encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that >> duty. >> ---------- >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>Minister of Truth >> >> >> >> The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all >> >> players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon >> >> which consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all >> members >> of the List of Voters with respect to those proposals. >> ---------- >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>Minister of Freedom >> >> >> >> The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to >> all >> players a reasonably current summary of the current state of >> the rules >> of the game. ---------- >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner >> >> >> >>The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. >> >>---------- >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner >> >> >> >>The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. >> >>---------- >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>Adam Lives Underground Anyway >> >> >> >>The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. >> >>---------- >> >> >> >> There you have it. I've made two nominations for Minister of Truth, >> >> since Mike was the first to suggest he'd like to fulfil that role, >> but >> Stumo has an exciting computer program to do it for him, and >> has also >> nominated himself for a similar role. I suggest I should >> be Minister >> of Freedom since I'm doing it anyway and it may as well >> be official. >> >> >> >>adam >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>Nomic-talk mailing list >> >>Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >> >>http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Nomic-talk mailing list >> >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >> >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends >> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Sep 27 00:14:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sun Sep 26 23:14:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] More Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41573F0E.9000804@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > 1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the > same are Friendly. > Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players > (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. > > > Just something so that we can refer to such categories later if that > becomes interesting. > > > 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. > > Aye to both of the above. > > 3. This one's the biggie. Half the point of proposing this is just to > get real discussion going on the subject: > > 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. > > > The effect of this would be to require that a proposal passes if it is > voted for by all but one player, except if that player is discriminated > against by it (by name of Ministry post or other suchlike. > Nice idea, but a little awkward, as you can argue discrimination in many ways. E.g. we introduce an interest rate on the bank accounts, I have the least money in mine so benefit least, am I discriminated against? What if the situation is such that everyone except me has enough money to do but I don't? There are some rules where discrimination is clear, and others where it'd be difficult to argue discrimination. But there's a grey area From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 00:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sun Sep 26 23:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money: Summary (2) In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41574053.7090803@cam.ac.uk> Updated Summary: Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" (Version 2, see 18:39 25/09) For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary Against: No comment: David, Martin Lester, Carrie, Adam, Mike Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary Against: No comment: David, Martin Lester, Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" For: Stuart, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary Against: Carrie, No comment: David, Martin Lester, Reserving Judgement: Adam, Mike, JJ "Who's the banker in the black?" For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary Against: No Comment: David, Martin Lester, Carrie, Adam, Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 00:59:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Sun Sep 26 23:59:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] New Summary (please vote) Message-ID: >>4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one >>the following form: >>The Rule of Autoadoption: >> >>Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters >>may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: >>1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). >>2) They are not already in the List of Voters. >>3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: >>a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. >>b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. >>c) They wish to join the game. >>Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of >>Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game.  Their consent is not >>needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration >>at the time of their joining the game. >> >>A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? >>All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be >>all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall >>be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List >>Of Voters states "I do not believe is a lizardman from >>Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of >>the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a >>lizardman from Antares IV. >> >>Ayes: adam, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Stumo, Mike (awaiting Martin's verdict on this wording of it) >> >> >>5. The Rule of Assumed Consent >>The current form of this is as follows: >>A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if >>the following are true: >>The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't >>explicitly expressed a lack of consent. >>Ayes: Maz, JJ, Carrie, dok, Martin, adam, Stumo, Madeleine >> >>6: The Law of Lexicography (reworded >There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary.  The >definitions given in the Definitions Dictionary superceed the usual >English meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are >overriden by explicit rules wording. >> >>Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin, JJ, adam >>Not yet responded to the change: Carrie, dok >> >>8: 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. >> >>Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine, Stumo >Withheld: Carrie (based on uncertainty about the matter of rules merely >referencing others rather than explicitly overriding them) >> >> >>11: The Rule of Self-Image >>The game shall have a name, which shall be "Terrapin Nomic". >> >>Ayes: JJ, adam, dok, Mike, Martin, Madeleine, Maz >Nay: Carrie, Stumo suggest something else then dammit! >> >> 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 Aye: adam, JJ, dok Nay: 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 Aye: JJ Nay: adam, dok Spooky Action At A Distance A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is entwined with another existing proposed rules change. A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. This rule overrides Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion. Proposer: Madeleine Aye: adam Nay: JJ, Carrie 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 Aye: JJ, Stumo, adam, Carrie, Madeleine, dok The Party Knows Best The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- Prop: adam Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, Mike, Stumo, dok, JJ, Martin ---------- Minister of Truth The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- Prop: adam Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, Mike, Stumo, dok, JJ, Martin ---------- Minister of Freedom The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules of the game. ---------- Prop: adam Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, Mike, Stumo, dok, JJ, Martin ---------- Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. ---------- Prop: adam Aye: Carrie, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, dok, JJ, Martin ---------- Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner The Minister of Truth shall be Stuart Moore. ---------- Prop: adam Aye: Madeleine, JJ, Stumo, dok, Martin Nay: Carrie, Mike, ---------- Adam Lives Underground Anyway The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. ---------- Prop: adam Aye: Madeleine, Mike, Stumo, dok, JJ, Carrie, Martin http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the official Periodic Table for the game. Prop: Madeleine Aye: Mike, Stumo, dok, adam, JJ, Carrie, Martin Proposal the creation of the rule "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. --- Prop: Stumo Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, dok, JJ, Martin Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. --- Prop: Stumo Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Martin, JJ Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" --- On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by 1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. --- Prop: Stumo Aye: Madeleine, dok, Martin Nay: Carrie, JJ 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. ========== Prop: adam Aye: Stumo, dok, JJ, Madeleine Oy, that's unfair! No rule may discriminate between players except on the basis of in-game factors. Prop: Madeleine Nay: JJ Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. --- Prop: Stumo Aye: JJ, Martin, Madeleine Proposal for the creation of the rule "Who's the banker in the black?" --- The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore --- Prop: Stumo Aye: JJ, Martin, Madeleine 1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same are Friendly. Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. Prop: JJ Aye: Madeleine, Stumo 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. Prop: JJ Aye: Madeleine, Stumo 3. This one's the biggie. Half the point of proposing this is just to get real discussion going on the subject: 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. Prop: JJ Aye: Madeleine _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 01:06:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Mon Sep 27 00:06:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] New Summary (please vote) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41574B4F.7060604@cam.ac.uk> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > > Proposal the creation of the rule "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. > --- > Prop: Stumo > Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, dok, JJ, Martin > Note I consider this version of the proposal withdrawn in favour of the later one which mentions the Cashier, but as I read the rules I have no official way of doing so From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 01:35:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (M.M. Lester) Date: Mon Sep 27 00:35:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] New Summary (please vote) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maz's brief list of votes: > > Twice the fun; harf the harf! > Yes. Sounds entertaining. > But I can't hear it! > Yes. > > Spooky Action At A Distance > No. > > > Bored Of Being Board > I like the sound of that. Yes. > > The Party Knows Best > Yes. > > ---------- > Minister of Truth > Yes. > > ---------- > Minister of Freedom > Yes. > > > ---------- > Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner > Yes. > > ---------- > Stumo Is Possibly A Window Cleaner > No. > > Adam Lives Underground Anyway > Yes. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the > official Periodic Table for the game. > *chuckle* Yes. > > Proposal the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" > --- Yes. > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" > --- Yes. > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > --- Yes. > > Insufficient Notices > Yes. > Oy, that's unfair! > No. I think what constitutes discrimination based upon extra-nomic factors needs to be better defined. > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" > --- Yes. > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Who's the banker in the black?" > --- Yes. > > 1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the same > are Friendly. > Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players (under a > Euclidean metric) is a Loner. > Yes. > > 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. > Yes. > > 3. This one's the biggie. Half the point of proposing this is just to get > real discussion going on the subject: > > 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. > > Prop: JJ > Aye: Madeleine > Yes. Maz. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 01:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 00:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- House of Cards Message-ID: 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 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 03:47:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 02:47:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notice of Consent -- Back Here Again In-Reply-To: Message from Jonathan David Amery of "Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:24:59 BST." Message-ID: This is an Lu-coloured Notice of Consent; the following Rule has been Consented to: ---- Back Here Again http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/lookaroundyou/periodic.shtml is the official Periodic Table for the game. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 10:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Mon Sep 27 09:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] New Summary (please vote) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4157D5C0.3020009@mxtelecom.com> John-Joseph Wilks wrote: >>> 4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking >>> one the following form: >>> The Rule of Autoadoption: >>> >>> Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters >>> may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: >>> 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). >>> 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. >>> 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: >>> a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. >>> b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. >>> c) They wish to join the game. >>> Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of >>> Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not >>> needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration >>> at the time of their joining the game. >>> >>> A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? >>> All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which >>> shall be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens >>> Sapiens) shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a >>> member of the List Of Voters states "I do not believe >> entity> is a lizardman from >>> Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name >>> of the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters >>> is a lizardman from Antares IV. >>> >>> Ayes: adam, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Stumo, Mike > > > (awaiting Martin's verdict on this wording of it) > >>> >>> >>> 5. The Rule of Assumed Consent >>> The current form of this is as follows: >>> A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a >>> proposal if the following are true: >>> The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't >>> explicitly expressed a lack of consent. >>> Ayes: Maz, JJ, Carrie, dok, Martin, adam, Stumo, Madeleine + Aye: Mike > > >>> >>> 6: The Law of Lexicography (reworded >> >> There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary. The >> definitions given in the Definitions Dictionary superceed the usual >> English meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are >> overriden by explicit rules wording. >> >>> >>> Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin, JJ, adam >>> Not yet responded to the change: Carrie, dok >>> > >>> 8: 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. >>> >>> Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine, Stumo +Aye: Mike >> >> Withheld: Carrie (based on uncertainty about the matter of rules >> merely referencing others rather than explicitly overriding them) >> >>> > >>> > 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 > Aye: JJ > Nay: adam, dok > +Aye: Mike > > > Spooky Action At A Distance > > A voter may declare that a rules change that they have proposed is > entwined with another existing proposed rules change. > > A rules change cannot be considered to have a Consensus of Opinion in > favour of it if any rules changed that it has been entwined with has > already recieved a Consensus of Opinion. This rule overrides Rule 4, > Consensus of Opinion. > > Proposer: Madeleine > Aye: adam > Nay: JJ, Carrie > +Nay: Mike > > 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 > Aye: JJ, Stumo, adam, Carrie, Madeleine, dok > +Aye: Mike > > Proposal the creation of the rule "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. > --- > Prop: Stumo > Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, dok, JJ, Martin > +Aye: Mike > > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. > --- > Prop: Stumo > Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Martin, JJ +Aye: Mike > > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > --- > On distribution of a valid Notice of Consensus, each member of the list > of voters shall have the contents of their BANK account multiplied by > 1.2 and rounded up to an integer amount. > --- > Prop: Stumo > Aye: Madeleine, dok, Martin > Nay: Carrie, JJ +Nay: 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. ========== > > Prop: adam > Aye: Stumo, dok, JJ, Madeleine > +Aye: Mike > > Oy, that's unfair! > > No rule may discriminate between players except on the basis of > in-game factors. > > Prop: Madeleine > Nay: JJ > > +Nay: Mike > > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. > --- > Prop: Stumo > Aye: JJ, Martin, Madeleine Ummm, this was ^^ too. Still Aye, though. > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Who's the banker in the black?" > --- > The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore > --- > Prop: Stumo > Aye: JJ, Martin, Madeleine +Aye: Mike > > > > 1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the > same are Friendly. > Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players > (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. > > Prop: JJ > Aye: Madeleine, Stumo +Aye: Mike > > > > > 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. > > Prop: JJ > Aye: Madeleine, Stumo +Aye: Mike > > > > 3. This one's the biggie. Half the point of proposing this is just to > get real discussion going on the subject: > > 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. > > Prop: JJ > Aye: Madeleine +Nay: Mike everyone will be treated differently by almost every rule - either preferentially or negatively by the rule. Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 12:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Mon Sep 27 11:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notice of Consensus: The Rule of Assumed Consent Message-ID: This is a lilac-coloured Notice of Consensus for the following rule to be added to the ruleset The Rule of Assumed Consent: A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if the following are true: The proposal was suggested more than 72 hours ago, and they haven't explicitly expressed a lack of consent. >>>>8: 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. >>>> >>>>Ayes: Maz, JJ, Martin, adam, dok, Madeleine, Stumo, Carrie > >+Aye: Mike > is awaiting Notice of Consensus from whoever proposed it. >>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 >>Aye: JJ, Stumo, adam, Carrie, Madeleine, dok >> > >+Aye: Mike is awaiting Notice of Consensus from Martin 5 of the 6 proposals adam made simultaneously are also awaiting Notice of Consensus from him. >John-Joseph Wilks wrote: >>>>4. The Law of Lizardmen. This is a pair of linked suggestions taking one >>>>the following form: >>>>The Rule of Autoadoption: >>>> >>>>Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters >>>>may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: >>>>1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). >>>>2) They are not already in the List of Voters. >>>>3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: >>>>a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. >>>>b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. >>>>c) They wish to join the game. >>>>Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of >>>>Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not >>>>needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration >>>>at the time of their joining the game. >>>> >>>>A Planet? Where Lizards evolved from Men? >>>>All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall >>>>be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) >>>>shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of >>>>the List Of Voters states "I do not believe is a >>>>lizardman from >>>>Antares IV", where "" is to be replaced with the name of >>>>the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a >>>>lizardman from Antares IV. >>>> >>>>Ayes: adam, Maz, JJ, Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Stumo, Mike >> >> >>(awaiting Martin's verdict on this wording of it) >> >>>> >>>> >>>>6: The Law of Lexicography (reworded >>> >>>There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary. The >>>definitions given in the Definitions Dictionary superceed the usual >>>English meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are >>>overriden by explicit rules wording. >>> >>>> >>>>Ayes: Maz, Mike, Madeleine, Stumo, Martin, JJ, adam >>>>Not yet responded to the change: Carrie, dok >>>> >>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 >>Aye: JJ >>Nay: adam, dok >> > >+Aye: Mike > > >> >> >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. >>--- >>Prop: Stumo >>Aye: Carrie, Madeleine, dok, Martin, JJ > >+Aye: 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. ========== >> >>Prop: adam >> Aye: Stumo, dok, JJ, Madeleine >> > >+Aye: Mike > >> >>Oy, that's unfair! >> >>No rule may discriminate between players except on the basis of >>in-game factors. >> >>Prop: Madeleine >>Nay: JJ >+Nay: Mike > >> >> >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "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. >>--- >>Prop: Stumo >>Aye: JJ, Martin, Madeleine, Mike >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Who's the banker in the black?" >>--- >>The Chief Cashier will be Stuart Moore >>--- >>Prop: Stumo >>Aye: JJ, Martin, Madeleine > >+Aye: Mike > >> >> >> >>1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the >>same are Friendly. >>Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players >>(under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. >> >>Prop: JJ >>Aye: Madeleine, Stumo > >+Aye: Mike > >> >> >> >> >>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. >> >>Prop: JJ >>Aye: Madeleine, Stumo > >+Aye: Mike > >> >> >> >>3. This one's the biggie. Half the point of proposing this is just to get >>real discussion going on the subject: >> >>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. >> >>Prop: JJ >>Aye: Madeleine > >+Nay: Mike > >everyone will be treated differently by almost every rule - either >preferentially or negatively by the rule. > >Mike _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Sep 27 13:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 12:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] chartreuse-coloured Message-ID: This is a chartreuse-coloured Notice of Consensus: ==== Rule 10, The Law of Lizardmen. Any entities which are elegible to be members of the List of Voters may join the game providing that the following conditions are satisfied: 1) They have subscribed to the mailing list (if there is one). 2) They are not already in the List of Voters. 3) They have made a post to the mailing list declaring that: a) All of 1-3 are satisfied. b) They are not a lizardman from Antares IV. c) They wish to join the game. Once these events have happened then they are added to the List of Voters, and are deemed to have joined the game. Their consent is not needed on any issues that require consent that are under consideration at the time of their joining the game. All entities eligible to be members of the List Of Voters (Which shall be all living extranomic entities of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens) shall be considered to be lizardmen from Antares IV until a member of the List Of Voters states "I do not believe " is to be replaced with the name of the entity in question. No existing member of the List Of Voters is a lizardman from Antares IV. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 13:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 12:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Consensus - Lexicography Message-ID: This is a light goldenrod yellow coloured Notice of Consent for the Law of Lexicography which has achieved assumed Consent, and shall be added into the rules: ---- The Law of Lexicography There shall be a dictionary, called the Definitions Dictionary. The definitions given in the definitions dictionary superceed the usual english meaning of terms for the purposes of the game; but are overriden by explicit rules wording. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 18:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 17:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion Message-ID: Should I advertise us on http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/ ? Proposal: ---- 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 will become the Name of the Game and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 18:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Mon Sep 27 17:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Should I advertise us on http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/ ? Nay > > Proposal: > ---- > 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 will become the Name of the Game > and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. > Nay - this doesn't preclude the name of the game changing at a later date. (One can propose more name proposals after the name is picked). Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 18:39:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 17:39:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:12:11 BST." <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> References: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > Proposal: > > ---- > > 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 will become the Name of the Game > > and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. > > > > Nay - this doesn't preclude the name of the game changing at a later > date. (One can propose more name proposals after the name is picked). "Until a name is chosen"... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 18:42:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Mon Sep 27 17:42:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <415842B5.1060706@mxtelecom.com> Jonathan David Amery wrote: >>Jonathan David Amery wrote: >> >> >>>Proposal: >>>---- >>>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 will become the Name of the Game >>>and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. >>> >> >>Nay - this doesn't preclude the name of the game changing at a later >>date. (One can propose more name proposals after the name is picked). > > > "Until a name is chosen"... > Hmmm. OK. What if two names both get more-than-half support? Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 21:15:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 20:15:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 26 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > >>I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to > >>address: > > >> - Give proposals a time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is > >> definitely known after a particular point > > That's done by the Rule of Assumed Consent, isn't it? No. If a proposal *doesn't* get consensus, it floats around forever, and potentially could be resurrected at any time by everyone giving consent to it. I believe this would be confusing and a bad thing, so I want proposals to die if they fail to be voted in within some time limit. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 21:23:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 20:23:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: <41573DBB.7010202@cam.ac.uk> References: <41573DBB.7010202@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 26 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > David (Birch) wrote: > > Change your vote to "no" - it doesn't retcart the proposal, but it > > means it can't be passed. (Oh, if I voted yes on that, which I don't > > think I did, I change it to no.) > > This is certainly true for anyone except the proposer. For the proposer > himself, I'm not so sure Nup. The proposer technically has no say on eir own proposal, but since e is the only one who can issue a Notice of Consensus on it, e actually has the ability to prevent it passing anyway. However, for anyone else, there is *no* way to retract your vote. Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion simply says you have to obtain consent from each voting entity. It says nothing about this consent being invalidated by later retractions. (I note that this is another point in which your interpretation of the rules in implementing the AutoNomic appears to differ from what they actually say.) adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 22:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 21:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal) In-Reply-To: Your message of "27 Sep 2004 20:14:17 BST." References: Message-ID: > On Sep 26 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > > > >Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > > > >>I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to > > >>address: > > > > >> - Give proposals a time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is > > >> definitely known after a particular point > > > > That's done by the Rule of Assumed Consent, isn't it? > > No. If a proposal *doesn't* get consensus, it floats around forever, and > potentially could be resurrected at any time by everyone giving consent to > it. I believe this would be confusing and a bad thing, so I want proposals > to die if they fail to be voted in within some time limit. > In case anyone thinks that this is unlikely; this actually happened to the US... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-Seventh_Amendment WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 22:10:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 21:10:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Should I advertise us on http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/ ? I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I'd wait until a) we have a rule which allows us to add new players, b) we don't require unanimity for all changes (since otherwise one player can stall the game indefinitely). adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 22:16:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 21:16:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] some opinions Message-ID: My stance on all outstanding issues upon which I have not yet passed comment: I oppose both of Wild Card's proposed 'simplification' changes to Rule 4 on the grounds that with the passing of Assumed Consent, it's no different to the current situation, and I'd still like to actually alter Rule 4 soon enough that I don't see the point. I consent to Dave's proposed rule "The whole world in your hand". I note, however, that if we're going to make this have any effect on the game, we should introduce disadvantages to laying claim to a large number of extranomic entities, so that people don't just grab every single thing they can get. I'm treating the other two rules proposed in that email as separate, and will address them both separately: I object to "Monopoly!" for a number of reasons. The easiest one is that it violates the principle of not requiring actions to be taken by extranomic entities. I don't object to "The contents of vault 37A" in principle, but I must object in practice. The wording of the second sentence appears to have an unintended effect, in that I take the literal interpretation to be that if there is no vaultmaster, anyone who submits a proposal to appoint one can then immediately make the appointment themselves without input from any other voter. I reaffirm my consent for "the Law of Lizardmen", since even though I believe the original NoC was invalid, I still think it should be in the rules. Can it now be passed under Assumed Consent? I consent to the proposed version of "Screw You, Anti Capitalists" which mentions the Chief Cashier, and object to the other one. I also consent to "Who's the banker in the black?" and "A job? What's that then?" but object to "Bureaucrats (Inc)". I object to "Oy, that's unfair!" at the moment since it would invalidate rules such as "The Minister of Truth shall be ...", but I agree that this issue should probably be addressed. I would consent to JJ's two proposed rules about distances and moving on the board, but they don't appear to have names, so I must regretfully object. I object to JJ's proposed change to Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion, since I feel it is dangerously vague about what entails being 'affected differently'. I think something concrete would be better, and we should possibly look into adding rules for election of Ministry positions so that we can dispense with rules such as "Mike shall be ..." and implement something more akin to Wild Card's proposal. I consent to 'House of Cards' and 'The Rule of Names'. Since the rule of assumed consent has now passed, to avoid confusion later, I hereby object to all proposals to which I have not explicitly given consent. Notices of Consensus for my five passed proposals are coming up. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Sep 27 22:34:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 21:34:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] There exists a Ministry (NoC x 5) Message-ID: ---------- This is a Notice of Consensus, printed on red paper, heralding the addition of the following rule to the ruleset: The Party Knows Best The game shall contain a Ministry which is a mapping of role names to extranomic entities. If a role has a duty defined by the rules, and that role is currently occupied by an extranomic entity, then that entity is encouraged to perform the tasks specified by that duty. ---------- ---------- This is a Notice of Consensus, printed on orange paper, which heralds the addition of the following rule to the ruleset: Minister of Truth The duty of the Minister of Truth shall be to make available to all players a reasonably current summary of the current proposals upon which consensus has not been reached, and the standings of all members of the List of Voters with respect to those proposals. ---------- ---------- This Notice of Consensus, printed on yellow paper, is heralding the addition of the following rule to the ruleset: Minister of Freedom The duty of the Minister of Freedom shall be to make available to all players a reasonably current summary of the current state of the rules of the game. ---------- ---------- This, printed on green paper, is a Notice of Consensus which heralds the addition to the ruleset of the following rule: Mike Is Not A Window Cleaner The Minister of Truth shall be Mike Cripps. ---------- ---------- The addition to the ruleset of the following rule is heralded by this Notice of Consensus, which is printed on purple paper with white spots: Adam Lives Underground Anyway The Minister of Freedom shall be Adam Biltcliffe. ---------- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Threadsplit. Message-ID: I'm borrowing terminology from Acka here; since we haven't invented any. I declare Threadsplit on the game state. The problem is the Rule of Assumed Consent. "...and they haven't explicitly expressed a lack of consent." On Sunday, in http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talc/2004-September/000247.html MEWO said "I believe [The NoC for Lizardmen] is invalid, as I never voted in favour of it." So, there are a number of different ways of interpreting the gamestate; which I call 'threads'. Thread A: Assertion: MEWO is incorrect, and his prior vote for an earlier version of the proposal did count. Conclusions: Wild Card's original NoC was correct; his subsequent one was superfluous (noise); the rules should include the rule of Lizardmen as Rule 10. Thread B: Assertion: MEWO was correct. However, his mail does not constitute explicitly expressing a lack of consent. Conclusions: Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was correct; the rules should include the rule of Lizardmen as Rule 12. Thread C: Assertion: MEWO was correct. Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing a lack of consent, but did not constitute explicitly stating that he was opposed either. Conclusions: Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of Lizardmen; should MEWO later consent then Wild Card could validly post an NoC for the Rule of Autoadoption. Thread D: Assertion: MEWO was correct. Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing a lack of consent, in the process constituting opposition. Conclusions: Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of Lizardmen; The Rule of Lizardmen can't be adopted in it's current form. Unfortunately, we have no way of deciding between these threads... WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Cripps of "Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:41:25 BST." <415842B5.1060706@mxtelecom.com> References: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> <415842B5.1060706@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >>Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Proposal: > >>>---- > >>>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 will become the Name of the Game > >>>and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. > >>> > >> > >>Nay - this doesn't preclude the name of the game changing at a later > >>date. (One can propose more name proposals after the name is picked). > > > > > > "Until a name is chosen"... > > > > Hmmm. OK. What if two names both get more-than-half support? > OK, recognising that this version will never get passed; and all that; a new Proposal... Proposal: ---- 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. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:23:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:23:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five. Message-ID: I propose the following rule: Rule five. Once the notice of consensus for this rule is issued, all rules with higher numbers than this rule stand, but every fifth word (starting at the title of the rule) is not considered to exist. This rule does not affect any proposal under consideration at the time the notice of consensus is passed, and any rule passed from one of these proposals is put into the ruleset above this rule, the number of this rule being changed accordingly. I also wish the following term be added to the dictionary, (If there is any confusion) Word: A word is any string of characters, including exclusively the commonly recognised twenty-six letters of the english alphabet, and the two symbols "-" and "'" (we may wish to define the terms "foreign word" and "1337 word" later.) -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:29:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:29:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:08:10 BST." References: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> <415842B5.1060706@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: > > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > >>Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>Proposal: > > >>>---- > > >>>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 will become the Name of the Game > > >>>and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. > > >>> > > >> > > >>Nay - this doesn't preclude the name of the game changing at a later > > >>date. (One can propose more name proposals after the name is picked). > > > > > > > > > "Until a name is chosen"... > > > > > > > Hmmm. OK. What if two names both get more-than-half support? > > > OK, recognising that this version will never get passed; and all > that; a new Proposal... > For the avoidence of ambiguity; I claim here that I will never issue a Notice of Consent for it... :) J. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:29:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:29:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five. In-Reply-To: Your message of "27 Sep 2004 23:22:36 BST." References: Message-ID: > > I propose the following rule: Rule five. > > Once the notice of consensus for this rule is issued, all rules with higher > numbers than this rule stand, but every fifth word (starting at the title > of the rule) is not considered to exist. This rule does not affect any > proposal under consideration at the time the notice of consensus is passed, > and any rule passed from one of these proposals is put into the ruleset > above this rule, the number of this rule being changed accordingly. > > I also wish the following term be added to the dictionary, (If there is any > confusion) > > Word: A word is any string of characters, including exclusively the > commonly recognised twenty-six letters of the english alphabet, and the two > symbols "-" and "'" (we may wish to define the terms "foreign word" and > "1337 word" later.) > I explicitly state my lack of consent to this, but I do not explicitly state that I will never state my consent to this. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:39:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:39:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Threadsplit. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:01:36 BST." References: Message-ID: > So, there are a number of different ways of interpreting the > gamestate; which I call 'threads'. I note for the case of disambiguation: Thread A is the model I was using when I posted the original NoC. Thread B is the model I was using when I posted the second NoC. Thread C is the model that I've had suggested to me by Garath, adam and 'dok. Thread D includes the "no implies this will never pass" model that I've observed being applied during gameplay. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:41:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:41:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> <415842B5.1060706@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 27 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. Aye to this as well. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:43:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:43:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > I propose the following rule: Rule five. > > Once the notice of consensus for this rule is issued, all rules with > higher numbers than this rule stand, but every fifth word (starting at > the title of the rule) is not considered to exist. This rule does not > affect any proposal under consideration at the time the notice of > consensus is passed, and any rule passed from one of these proposals is > put into the ruleset above this rule, the number of this rule being > changed accordingly. I feel this would be briefly amusing but would quickly get confusing and irritating, so I dissent. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:44:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:44:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I explicitly state my lack of consent to this, but I do not explicitly > state that I will never state my consent to this. Even if you did, there's nothing to stop you going back on your word ... adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 00:53:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:53:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (Re)Proposals Message-ID: 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' Due to muppetry, I failed to give the following two names, so I'm re-proposing them with names, which theoretically requires new voting on them as well. 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. Prop: JJ ...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. Prop: JJ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Sep 28 00:55:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Sep 27 23:55:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Threadsplit. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I'm borrowing terminology from Acka here; since we haven't invented > any. And we *really* need that judgement procedure, but I've heard people criticise the way I'd like it done. Might make another proposal for it anyway, since I'm down to only two outstanding, one of which I never intend to issue notice on anyway ;) > Thread A: > Assertion: > MEWO is incorrect, and his prior vote for an earlier version of the > proposal did count. We all seem to agree that this isn't the case, although I can't find the email where he did give consent to an alternate form of the rule at the moment. > Thread B: > Assertion: > MEWO was correct. However, his mail does not constitute explicitly > expressing a lack of consent. > Conclusions: > Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was > correct; the rules should include the rule of Lizardmen as Rule 12. This is the interpretation I'm currently leaning towards. I think it comes down to the interpretation of the word 'express'; if one understands it to mean something distinct from 'note the existence of', Martin has not expressed explicit lack of consent, he's merely pointed out that he didn't consent. > Thread C: > Assertion: > MEWO was correct. Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing > a lack of consent, but did not constitute explicitly stating that > he was opposed either. > Conclusions: > Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was > also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of > Lizardmen; should MEWO later consent then Wild Card could > validly post an NoC for the Rule of Autoadoption. This is also a possibility, if you take the alternate interpretation of the Rule of Assumed Consent. > Thread D: > Assertion: > MEWO was correct. Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing > a lack of consent, in the process constituting opposition. > Conclusions: > Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was > also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of > Lizardmen; The Rule of Lizardmen can't be adopted in it's current > form. I know Wild Card is aware of this, but I should point out for the sake of others watching that the rules do not recognise the existence of opposition to a rule. Saying "I absolutely swear that I will never ever vote for this rule" is not functionally different to saying "I'm not consenting to this for now, let's see what happens"; in either case, declaring consent for it at any later time is equivalent to voting in favour originally. I'd really like to hear Martin's opinions on the threadsplit. Anyone know when we can expect to hear from him again? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:00:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:00:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- It's easier than learning your ABC Message-ID: 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. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:00:08 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:00:08 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Arbitration Message-ID: 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. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:00:12 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:00:12 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Hanging Chad Message-ID: Hanging Chad All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:11:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:11:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 Message-ID: > I propose the following rule to replace my earlier proposal: 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. -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:16:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:16:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Hanging Chad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I disagree. If I took the reference number 7, someone other than you could make that their handle, meaning a reference to a player could be ambiguous. Also, it's boring. On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Hanging Chad > > All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:25:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:25:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this Message-ID: I would like to propose some more rules, since we're getting to the point where it would be really nice to be able to resolve disputes. Here are four separate new-rule proposals, since people might want to plug-and-play with parts of this: ---------- 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. ---------- ---------- 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. ---------- ---------- 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. ---------- ---------- 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. ---------- adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:33:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:33:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > > I propose the following rule to replace my earlier proposal: > > 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. Comprehending this is making my mind hurt. I see the intent, but is there not an awkward issue with the fact that this rule as it stands it a load of gobbledegook, which is only resolved if the rule is considered to apply to itself in the form obtained by applying it to itself? In other words, it's a reverse paradox. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:38:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:38:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4158A442.6080407@cam.ac.uk> David (Birch) wrote: > > I propose the following rule: Rule five. > > Once the notice of consensus for this rule is issued, all rules with > higher numbers than this rule stand, but every fifth word (starting at > the title of the rule) is not considered to exist. This rule does not > affect any proposal under consideration at the time the notice of > consensus is passed, and any rule passed from one of these proposals is > put into the ruleset above this rule, the number of this rule being > changed accordingly. > > I also wish the following term be added to the dictionary, (If there is > any confusion) > > Word: A word is any string of characters, including exclusively the > commonly recognised twenty-six letters of the english alphabet, and the > two symbols "-" and "'" (we may wish to define the terms "foreign word" > and "1337 word" later.) > I'm going to have a look through later to work out exactly what form of silly buggers he expects this to cause.... From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:40:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:40:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 28 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > > > 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. I'm also worried at the phrase "this rule only applies to itself and rules containing higher numbers then it" - does this mean that if we revise, say, Rule 1 to incidentally mention the number five, it's suddenly struck by this rule? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:43:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:43:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this Message-ID: yes, we really do. > >I would like to propose some more rules, since we're getting to the point >where it would be really nice to be able to resolve disputes. Here are four >separate new-rule proposals, since people might want to plug-and-play with >parts of this: > >---------- >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. ---------- > 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. >---------- Couple of points on this one. I think 'rules and/or gamestate' is clearer than just or. Make is a typo for may, I presume. And I'm not sure whether all such disputes can plausibly be resolved into a single 'statement whose validity is under question'. So I'm voting Nay for the moment, but I look forward to the rule in general > >---------- >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. ---------- Aye, although I'd prefer more definition in how and when the Clerk is to cause it to cease being so, and preferably what happens if they don't. > >---------- >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. ---------- Aye. It might also be worth recording judgements made in a publicly viewable place, therefore, what do you think? JJ > >adam > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:44:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:44:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: References: <41573DBB.7010202@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4158A58F.9030009@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 26 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> David (Birch) wrote: >> > Change your vote to "no" - it doesn't retcart the proposal, but it > >> means it can't be passed. (Oh, if I voted yes on that, which I don't > >> think I did, I change it to no.) >> >> This is certainly true for anyone except the proposer. For the >> proposer himself, I'm not so sure > > > Nup. The proposer technically has no say on eir own proposal, but since > e is the only one who can issue a Notice of Consensus on it, e actually > has the ability to prevent it passing anyway. However, for anyone else, > there is *no* way to retract your vote. Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion > simply says you have to obtain consent from each voting entity. It says > nothing about this consent being invalidated by later retractions. (I > note that this is another point in which your interpretation of the > rules in implementing the AutoNomic appears to differ from what they > actually say.) As I understand it, and I believe someone else suggested this on IRC, the phrase "obtains unambiguous consent" gives leway since by posting "I consent" and then "I do not consent", unambiguous consent has not been obtained. However I also see your interpretation as a valid one. Possibly this should be clarified. Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:44:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:44:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Hanging Chad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Hanging Chad > > All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. Consent, but I point out that this rule doesn't actually allow said numbers to be assigned, it only dictates what they can be ... adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:45:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:45:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (Re)Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 27 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: Dictionary Additions 1 Sociability ...I wandered expensively as a bird... Aye to all three. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- It's easier than learning your ABC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. Objection - you haven't said what happens if players don't number their proposals. If the intention is "they don't count", then this rule conflicts with Rule 4, Consensus of Opinion, which claims that they do count, and you probably need to explicitly override it. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:48:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:48:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Arbitration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. I dissent, since the word 'harf' has enough unrelated meanings that I'm not actually certain what this rule intends. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:54:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:54:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >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. ---------- > > Couple of points on this one. I think 'rules and/or gamestate' is > clearer than just or. Make is a typo for may, I presume. And I'm not sure > whether all such disputes can plausibly be resolved into a single > 'statement whose validity is under question'. So I'm voting Nay for the > moment, but I look forward to the rule in general Can you give an example of a dispute which can't be sensibly resolved into a statement whose validity is under question, but could be sensibly resolved using this procedure if this requirement were rephrased? I'm not asserting that such statements don't exist, I'm just wondering how you'd like to see them accommodated. > >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. ---------- > > Aye, although I'd prefer more definition in how and when the Clerk is to > cause it to cease being so, and preferably what happens if they don't. The definition of 'duty' in the rules is 'is encouraged to do that thing'. I believe all the rules in this proposal group continue to be well-behaved if someone fails to perform their duty, although obviously it will piss people off. There should possibly be some sort of disincentive for neglecting one's duty added at some point. > It might also be worth recording judgements made in a publicly viewable > place, therefore, what do you think? Quite so. Adding it to the Clerk of the Vatican's mandate seems the obvious solution. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 01:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 00:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals (Creation of the Ministry) In-Reply-To: <4158A58F.9030009@cam.ac.uk> References: <41573DBB.7010202@cam.ac.uk> <4158A58F.9030009@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > However I also see your interpretation as a valid one. > Possibly this should be clarified. Yes! Destroy rule 4! adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 02:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4158AB81.1090105@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > I would like to propose some more rules, since we're getting to the > point where it would be really nice to be able to resolve disputes. Here > are four separate new-rule proposals, since people might want to > plug-and-play with parts of this: > > ---------- > 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. ---------- > > ---------- > 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. ---------- > > ---------- > 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. ---------- > a) allows me to say I'm willing to act as pope, then retract, but not to then say I'm willing again. I'm generally happy with the concept, but being picky is what the game is about > ---------- > 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. ---------- > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 28 02:18:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:18:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Append this to the rule to fix that error: "this affects itself immediately under the interpretation it suddenly takes after every fifth written word, is removed." On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > On Sep 28 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I'm also worried at the phrase "this rule only applies to itself and > rules containing higher numbers then it" - does this mean that if we > revise, say, Rule 1 to incidentally mention the number five, it's > suddenly struck by this rule? > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 02:21:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:21:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- Hanging Chad Message-ID: > >On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >>Hanging Chad >> >>All players shall have unique, positive, integer, reference numbers. > >Consent, but I point out that this rule doesn't actually allow said numbers >to be assigned, it only dictates what they can be ... Aye on both counts :) JJ > >adam > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 02:21:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:21:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I could argue that no earlier rules contain large numbers, so we could just not revise them in that way. However, If you're still bothered by it, I'll revise that into the wording after collating objections. I'd quite like to pass this. it's fun to play with. On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 28 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > On Sep 28 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I'm also worried at the phrase "this rule only applies to itself and > rules containing higher numbers then it" - does this mean that if we > revise, say, Rule 1 to incidentally mention the number five, it's > suddenly struck by this rule? > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 02:23:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:23:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this In-Reply-To: <4158AB81.1090105@cam.ac.uk> References: <4158AB81.1090105@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > a) have informed the Clerk of the Vatican that they are willing to act > > as Pope, and not subsequently retracted that statement > > a) allows me to say I'm willing to act as pope, then retract, but not to > then say I'm willing again. I'm generally happy with the concept, but > being picky is what the game is about I'd say that this is ambiguous at best (it depends on whether you bind the statement of willingness inside or outside the existential quantifier), but I can rephrase it if you like. I'll issue an alternative proposed phrasing for this rule once I see whether anyone else has objections. Any opinions on the other three proposed rules in that email? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 02:25:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:25:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, David (Birch) wrote: > Well, I could argue that no earlier rules contain large numbers, so we > could just not revise them in that way. However, If you're still bothered > by it, I'll revise that into the wording after collating objections. I'd > quite like to pass this. it's fun to play with. If you're revising it, you could just making the numbering condition apply specifically to the rule number rather than any number contained in the rule. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 02:54:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 01:54:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: It's broke, so lets fix it. Message-ID: <4158B622.60307@cam.ac.uk> Following some discussion on IRC, the general consensus was we have some holes that need patching. Proposal to reword the Rule of Assumed Consent Change the text of "The Rule of Assumed Consent" to read: A member of the list of voters shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if the following are true: - The proposal was suggested more then 72 hours ago - The member has not explicitly voted against the proposal Proposal to ensure everything is on the email list: Create the rule: 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. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 03:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 02:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- No more ambiguity! Message-ID: Change every instance of the word "unambiguous" in the rules to "explicit". From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 03:02:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 02:02:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this In-Reply-To: Your message of "28 Sep 2004 00:23:59 BST." References: Message-ID: > Clerk of the Vatican > Judgement Procedure > White Smoke > Papal Edicts I unambiguously consent to these. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 03:02:06 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 02:02:06 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... Message-ID: I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters. Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is. Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 does not apply. I create a List of Voters with my own name on it. I propose the following proposal: ---- Dictatorship The List of Voters is a game entity which names Jonathan Amery, and only Jonathan Amery. This rule overrides Rule 3, List of Voters; Rule 1, Existence of the Game and Rule 5, Rule of Handles. ---- Since I'm the only person named on the List of Voters; I have described the issue to all other entities named on the List of Voters; and each such entity has given unambiguous consent. This mail is also a purple coloured Notice of Consent for the above proposal, which becomes part of the rules. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 03:07:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 02:07:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4158B927.7070105@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it > requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since > it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. > > Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters. > > Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is. > > Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 > does not apply. I disagree with this assertion, but I think it's the only hole in the argument... Stuart From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 03:10:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 02:10:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money: Summary (3) In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4158B9D4.9040606@cam.ac.uk> Updated Summary: We're waiting for Dave and Carrie, since the rule of Assumed Consent appears to be functionally equivalent to hitting the game with a dodo. Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" (Version 2, see 18:39 25/09) For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, Adam Against: No comment: David, , Carrie, Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, Adam Against: No comment: David, Reserving Judgement: , JJ Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" For: Stuart, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester Against: Carrie, Mike, JJ, Adam No comment: David, Reserving Judgement: "Who's the banker in the black?" For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, Adam Against: No Comment: David, , 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 Sep 28 03:31:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Sep 28 02:31:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... Message-ID: > > I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it >requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since >it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. This is true, and should be fixed ASAP. > > Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters. This is also not true, as it was created by the initial state of the game. Just because that section of the rule has now been removed doesn't mean its effects have. > > Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is. That, however, is complete bollocks, since the English language defines what an entity is. How, please, do you think it might be defined such that the List of Voters is not an entity? > > Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 >does not apply. > > I create a List of Voters with my own name on it. What allows you to do this, even without the above objections? > > I propose the following proposal: > >---- >Dictatorship > >The List of Voters is a game entity which names Jonathan Amery, and >only Jonathan Amery. > >This rule overrides Rule 3, List of Voters; Rule 1, Existence of the >Game and Rule 5, Rule of Handles. >---- > > Since I'm the only person named on the List of Voters; I have >described the issue to all other entities named on the List of Voters; >and each such entity has given unambiguous consent. > >This mail is also a purple coloured Notice of Consent for the above >proposal, which becomes part of the rules. > > WC. > >_______________________________________________ >Nomic-talk mailing list >Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org >http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 09:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 08:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: Message from "John-Joseph Wilks" of "Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:29:50 BST." References: Message-ID: > That, however, is complete bollocks, since the English language defines what > an entity is. How, please, do you think it might be defined such that the > List of Voters is not an entity? "Something that has a real existence", "What exists" -- OED. > > Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 > >does not apply. > > > > I create a List of Voters with my own name on it. > > What allows you to do this, even without the above objections? Nothing restricts me in any way from doing so, since (by my argument) the LoV isn't an entity existing within the game (and anyway, I'm creating it; not changing it). Incidently, I agree that this is a pile of nitpicking arguments; but it's no more nitpicking than people who argue that the Rule of Assumed Consent doesn't work properly... WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 09:09:05 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 08:09:05 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:06:47 BST." <4158B927.7070105@cam.ac.uk> References: <4158B927.7070105@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it > > requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since > > it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. > > > > Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters. > > > > Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is. > > > > Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 > > does not apply. > > I disagree with this assertion, but I think it's the only hole in the > argument... > I think there're lots of holes in the argument; but I agree that's the one where I had to stretch hardest... Hmm; looking at my copy of the oed; there's a definite argument in English that something that doesn't exist can't be an entity, but I don't think I'll pursue that. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 10:53:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Sep 28 09:53:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... Message-ID: > > > That, however, is complete bollocks, since the English language defines >what > > an entity is. How, please, do you think it might be defined such that >the > > List of Voters is not an entity? > > "Something that has a real existence", "What exists" -- OED. > > > > > Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 > > >does not apply. > > > > > > I create a List of Voters with my own name on it. > > > > What allows you to do this, even without the above objections? > > Nothing restricts me in any way from doing so, since (by my argument) >the LoV isn't an entity existing within the game (and anyway, I'm >creating it; not changing it). However, the rules are descriptive, not proscriptive. They don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what happens when you do do something you can do. And they don't say you *can* do this. Therefore while you can claim that, it has no meaning within the game. JJ > > Incidently, I agree that this is a pile of nitpicking arguments; but >it's no more nitpicking than people who argue that the Rule of Assumed >Consent doesn't work properly... > > WC. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Sep 28 13:05:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 12:05:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it > requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since > it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. I don't think you can argue anything from the appearance of the web page, especially since the web page claims quite unambiguously (although possibly erroneously) that the list given is the List of Voters. Also, the rule describing the List of Handles clearly states that the first element in each pair is an entry in the List of Voters; therefore, if you assert that this list *is* the List of Handles, your argument that there is no List of Voters cannot possibly be true. > Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters. This is a plausible interpretation of the rules. > Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is. True. Since I believe the rest of the rules use 'entity' exclusively to refer to extranomic entities, I submit that the phrasing of Rule 1 should be changed. > Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 > does not apply. However, I believe that the phrase "and all entities existing within it" is actually just a clarification, and the effect of the rule would be unchanged if the rule said 'the game has a persistent state which can only change as described by the rules'. Either your declaration that you've created a new List of Voters doesn't intend to change the state of the game or it does; if it doesn't, fine, it doesn't do anything, and if it does, it's prohibited by Rule 1. Therefore, Wild Card's attempted coup fails. However, he has raised the point that there is not currently a definition of what the List of Voters is. I see two possibilities: 1) We accept that the fact that Rule 3 is titled 'List of Voters' implies that the list described therein is the List of Voters, and carry on as normal. 2) We declare that there is no List of Voters. In this case, the rules provide no way for one to be created, and since any change to the game requires the existence of an entity on the List of Voters to make a proposal, the game is irreparably broken and must be abandoned. I'm in favour of taking the first option and fixing the phrasing of Rules 1 and 3 ASAP. Anyone with me? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 13:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Tue Sep 28 12:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415945F8.4010301@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >> I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it >> requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since >> it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. > > > I don't think you can argue anything from the appearance of the web > page, especially since the web page claims quite unambiguously (although > possibly erroneously) that the list given is the List of Voters. Also, > the rule describing the List of Handles clearly states that the first > element in each pair is an entry in the List of Voters; therefore, if > you assert that this list *is* the List of Handles, your argument that > there is no List of Voters cannot possibly be true. > >> Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters. > > > This is a plausible interpretation of the rules. > >> Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is. > > > True. Since I believe the rest of the rules use 'entity' exclusively to > refer to extranomic entities, I submit that the phrasing of Rule 1 > should be changed. > >> Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1 >> does not apply. > > > However, I believe that the phrase "and all entities existing within it" > is actually just a clarification, and the effect of the rule would be > unchanged if the rule said 'the game has a persistent state which can > only change as described by the rules'. Either your declaration that > you've created a new List of Voters doesn't intend to change the state > of the game or it does; if it doesn't, fine, it doesn't do anything, and > if it does, it's prohibited by Rule 1. > > Therefore, Wild Card's attempted coup fails. However, he has raised the > point that there is not currently a definition of what the List of > Voters is. I see two possibilities: > > 1) We accept that the fact that Rule 3 is titled 'List of Voters' > implies that the list described therein is the List of Voters, and carry > on as normal. > > 2) We declare that there is no List of Voters. In this case, the rules > provide no way for one to be created, and since any change to the game > requires the existence of an entity on the List of Voters to make a > proposal, the game is irreparably broken and must be abandoned. > In favour of the second, and we restart with a slightly more far-reaching and better defined initial ruleset. Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 13:14:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 12:14:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: It's broke, so lets fix it. In-Reply-To: <4158B622.60307@cam.ac.uk> References: <4158B622.60307@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Following some discussion on IRC, the general consensus was we have some > holes that need patching. > > Proposal to reword the Rule of Assumed Consent > > Change the text of "The Rule of Assumed Consent" to read: > > A member of the list of voters shall be considered to have given > their consent to a proposal if the following are true: > - The proposal was suggested more then 72 hours ago > - The member has not explicitly voted against the proposal I object to this proposal for now. There seems to be some suggestion that voting against a proposal followed by giving consent to it is not 'unambiguous' and therefore that a vote against a proposal cannot later be changed to a vote in favour. Since this rule uses the phrase 'voted against' (which I think is a little dodgy anyway, given that there's no definition of voting), this would currently make it impossible to prolong discussion on a proposal without shooting it down entirely, so I will not give consent until the proposal to replace 'unambiguous' with 'explicit' is passed. > Create the rule: Public Records I consent. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 13:16:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 12:16:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal -- No more ambiguity! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Change every instance of the word "unambiguous" in the rules to > "explicit". I hereby issue my consent. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 13:19:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 12:19:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money: Summary (3) In-Reply-To: <4158B9D4.9040606@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <4158B9D4.9040606@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Updated Summary: We're waiting for Dave and Carrie, since the rule of > Assumed Consent appears to be functionally equivalent to hitting the > game with a dodo. I'm not sure that it's *quite* as useless as you suggest, but withholding notice of consensus is of course your prerogative anyway. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 13:21:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 12:21:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: <415945F8.4010301@mxtelecom.com> References: <415945F8.4010301@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <415948EC.4000007@cam.ac.uk> Mike Cripps wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: >> >> 1) We accept that the fact that Rule 3 is titled 'List of Voters' >> implies that the list described therein is the List of Voters, and >> carry on as normal. >> >> 2) We declare that there is no List of Voters. In this case, the rules >> provide no way for one to be created, and since any change to the game >> requires the existence of an entity on the List of Voters to make a >> proposal, the game is irreparably broken and must be abandoned. >> > In favour of the second, and we restart with a slightly more > far-reaching and better defined initial ruleset. > As tempting as it is to say "this would be better fixed if we started over" to a variety of problems, I'd prefer us to try to fix the existing rules. Surely part of the point of the game is to try to plug holes like this and create even bigger ones accidentally. Reminds me a bit of one of the societies I was in-unfortunately their membership was so low that they couldn't have quorate in meetings so couldn't change their committee, but they only realised this 3 years after it had got to this stage, so they had no idea who was technically the current committee. They just ignored the problem and rewrote the constitution. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 18:02:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Tue Sep 28 17:02:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Attempted scam... In-Reply-To: Message from Adam Biltcliffe of "28 Sep 2004 12:04:56 BST." References: Message-ID: > On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it > > requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since > > it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles. > > I don't think you can argue anything from the appearance of the web page, > especially since the web page claims quite unambiguously (although possibly > erroneously) that the list given is the List of Voters. Also, the rule > describing the List of Handles clearly states that the first element in > each pair is an entry in the List of Voters; therefore, if you assert that > this list *is* the List of Handles, your argument that there is no List of > Voters cannot possibly be true. I did only say "appears to be" :). > I'm in favour of taking the first option and fixing the phrasing of Rules 1 > and 3 ASAP. Anyone with me? > The first option sounds plausible. WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 18:09:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Tue Sep 28 17:09:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: <41583BDB.9070907@mxtelecom.com> <415842B5.1060706@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:08:10 +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > >>Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>Proposal: > > >>>---- > > >>>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 will become the Name of the Game > > >>>and any other Name Proposals shall be dropped. > > >>> > > >> > > >>Nay - this doesn't preclude the name of the game changing at a later > > >>date. (One can propose more name proposals after the name is picked). > > > > > > > > > "Until a name is chosen"... > > > > > > > Hmmm. OK. What if two names both get more-than-half support? > > > OK, recognising that this version will never get passed; and all > that; a new Proposal... > > Proposal: > ---- > 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. Nay > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 28 18:42:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 17:42:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:08:10 +0100, Jonathan David Amery > wrote: > > > Proposal: > > ---- > > 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. > > Nay Why not? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 18:57:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 17:57:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] bugfix Message-ID: A proposal to fix the issues identified by Wild Card with respect to Rule 1, Existence of the Game and Rule 3, List of Voters. ---------- Enact the following rule: 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. ---------- adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 19:25:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:25:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Votes Message-ID: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> I hereby expressly vote against all outstanding proposals unless either of the following is true: (a) I have already voted in favour of the most recent version of the proposal (b) I expressly vote in favour of a proposal in an email I send at a later time than I send this one. I also propose the following: ---- 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). ---- Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 19:32:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:32:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] bugfix Message-ID: > >A proposal to fix the issues identified by Wild Card with respect to Rule >1, Existence of the Game and Rule 3, List of Voters. > >---------- >Enact the following rule: > >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. >---------- > >adam Aye, looks good. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 19:42:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:42:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (Re)Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 Sep 2004 00:44:28 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 27 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > > Dictionary Additions 1 > Sociability > ...I wandered expensively as a bird... > > Aye to all three. > > adam > > > Ditto. 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 Sep 28 19:46:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:46:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Rule five part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 Sep 2004 00:10:33 +0100, David (Birch) wrote: > > > I propose the following rule to replace my earlier proposal: > > 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. > > -- I going to say nay until this makes sense. Carrie > ---------- > dtb26@cam.ac.uk > phone number 07906 638541 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 28 19:50:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:50:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (proposal) we need this Message-ID: > >On Sep 28 2004, John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > >> >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. ---------- >> >>Couple of points on this one. I think 'rules and/or gamestate' is clearer >>than just or. Make is a typo for may, I presume. And I'm not sure whether >>all such disputes can plausibly be resolved into a single 'statement whose >>validity is under question'. So I'm voting Nay for the moment, but I look >>forward to the rule in general > >Can you give an example of a dispute which can't be sensibly resolved into >a statement whose validity is under question, but could be sensibly >resolved using this procedure if this requirement were rephrased? I'm not >asserting that such statements don't exist, I'm just wondering how you'd >like to see them accommodated. I can't think of any offhand, though I'm still a little wary that they'll manage to come up later. So I'll drop this objection. > >> >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. ---------- >> >>Aye, although I'd prefer more definition in how and when the Clerk is to >>cause it to cease being so, and preferably what happens if they don't. > >The definition of 'duty' in the rules is 'is encouraged to do that thing'. >I believe all the rules in this proposal group continue to be well-behaved >if someone fails to perform their duty, although obviously it will piss >people off. There should possibly be some sort of disincentive for >neglecting one's duty added at some point. Yes, perhaps confiscation of finances? I'd still like it to be specified that the Clerk should try to do this by asking people if they will serve, since I presume that was approximately what you meant, though. I'm not worried about them not doing it, particularly, though > >>It might also be worth recording judgements made in a publicly viewable >>place, therefore, what do you think? > >Quite so. Adding it to the Clerk of the Vatican's mandate seems the obvious >solution. Agreed. > >adam > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Sep 28 19:55:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:55:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money: Summary (3) In-Reply-To: <4158B9D4.9040606@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <4158B9D4.9040606@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:09:40 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > Updated Summary: We're waiting for Dave and Carrie, since the rule of > Assumed Consent appears to be functionally equivalent to hitting the > game with a dodo. I think I should be offended. > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" > (Version 2, see 18:39 25/09) > For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, > Adam > Against: > No comment: David, , Carrie, Aye, althought I believe I have already said so. And isn't assumed consent now active so it doesn't matter! > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" > For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, > Mike, Adam > Against: > No comment: David, > Reserving Judgement: , JJ > > Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" > For: Stuart, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester > Against: Carrie, Mike, JJ, Adam > No comment: David, > Reserving Judgement: > > "Who's the banker in the black?" > For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, Adam > Against: > No Comment: David, , Carrie, , > Aye. Once again I really don't have to say this do I? Carrie > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 28 19:59:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Tue Sep 28 18:59:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal and Qurstion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 Sep 2004 17:41:16 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 28 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:08:10 +0100, Jonathan David Amery > > wrote: > > > > > Proposal: > > > ---- > > > 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. > > > > Nay > > Why not? > > adam Because I think we should all agree on a name, you're just bitter cos I don't like your name :P 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 Sep 28 20:30:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 19:30:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Votes In-Reply-To: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> References: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, 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). I'm not sure I understand why it's necessary to have someone personally vet dictionary submissions, and I'm not very keen to see the ability to decide the process for adding words to the dictionary given solely to one person with no outside influence. Mike, any particular reason to do things this way? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 20:33:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Tue Sep 28 19:33:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Votes In-Reply-To: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> References: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 28 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > I hereby expressly vote against all outstanding proposals unless either > of the following is true: Ok. Since you've just vetoed six of my outstanding proposals, at least four of which I think are quite important, I'd like to ask whether this is just to buy time to discuss things before assumed consent kicks in or whether you don't really intend to vote in favour of any of the proposals currently under consideration. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 21:00:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 20:00:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] (Re)Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4159B474.40708@cam.ac.uk> Aye to all of these John-Joseph Wilks wrote: > 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' > > > > Due to muppetry, I failed to give the following two names, so I'm > re-proposing them with names, which theoretically requires new voting on > them as well. > > > 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. > > Prop: JJ > > > ...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. > > Prop: JJ > > _________________________________________________________________ > It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 28 21:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 20:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Money Money Money: Summary (3) In-Reply-To: References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <4158B9D4.9040606@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4159B605.6040304@cam.ac.uk> Carrie Oliver wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:09:40 +0100, Stuart Moore wrote: > >>Updated Summary: We're waiting for Dave and Carrie, since the rule of >>Assumed Consent appears to be functionally equivalent to hitting the >>game with a dodo. > > > I think I should be offended. Don't be, it was a nice dodo... > > >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists" >>(Version 2, see 18:39 25/09) >>For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, >>Adam >>Against: >>No comment: David, , Carrie, > > > Aye, althought I believe I have already said so. And isn't assumed > consent now active so it doesn't matter! My apologies for not making this clearer, I proposed a 2nd version of the rule in response to people's suggestions > > >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?" >>For: Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, >>Mike, Adam, JJ >>Against: >>No comment: David, >>Reserving Judgement: >> >>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)" >>For: Stuart, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester >>Against: Carrie, Mike, JJ, Adam >>No comment: David, >>Reserving Judgement: >> >>"Who's the banker in the black?" >>For: Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, Adam >>Against: >>No Comment: David, , Carrie, , >> > > Aye. Once again I really don't have to say this do I? Assumed Consent seems (to me) to be broken, so I'm not going to use it (until I consider it fixed). See "It's broke, so let's fix it" for proposed fix. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Sep 28 21:08:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Tue Sep 28 20:08:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] bugfix In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4159B657.3060001@cam.ac.uk> Aye, seems a good thing (TM) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 11:06:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Wed Sep 29 10:06:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Votes In-Reply-To: References: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <415A7AB2.7020502@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 28 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > >> I hereby expressly vote against all outstanding proposals unless >> either of the following is true: > > > Ok. Since you've just vetoed six of my outstanding proposals, at least > four of which I think are quite important, I'd like to ask whether this > is just to buy time to discuss things before assumed consent kicks in or > whether you don't really intend to vote in favour of any of the > proposals currently under consideration. > > adam It's the former - I _really_ don't have time at work to sit down and work out exactly what each proposal means / look for badly worded bits etc etc. After tomorrow night I'll be able to give things more decent consideration. I apologise for holding things up. Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 11:35:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 10:35:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Votes In-Reply-To: <415A7AB2.7020502@mxtelecom.com> References: <41599E25.8080109@mxtelecom.com> <415A7AB2.7020502@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > It's the former - I _really_ don't have time at work to sit down and > work out exactly what each proposal means / look for badly worded bits > etc etc. After tomorrow night I'll be able to give things more decent > consideration. I apologise for holding things up. Okay, no worries. Now back to work with you! adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] doing it right (possibly) Message-ID: Wild Card's coup attempt raised the issue that the rules have never defined exactly what the List of Voters is. There's a proposal under consideration to fix this, but it hasn't passed yet (and in fact, couldn't do until I issue notice on it anyway). Wild Card's coup attempt failed because he attempted to create a List of Voters within the game, which is prohibited by Rule 1, Existence of the Game. I note, however, that there is clear acknowledgement by all parties that extranomic entities can have an effect on the game, viz., the fact that we as extranomic entities change the rules by making and approving proposals. I have a piece of paper here upon which is written: List of Voters 1. Adam Biltcliffe Photographic evidence can be provided on request. In the absence of any other apparent candidate, I submit that this should be considered the List of Voters. Therefore, I am the only member of the List of Voters. In addition, since the List of Voters has not until now existed, the only rules currently in effect are actually the initial ruleset. I therefore make and consent to the following proposal (noting that the issuing of a Notice of Consensus is not required): ---------- Alter the ruleset to be that which it was claimed to be at 11am on Wednesday, September 29th 2004 on the Nomic website (http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic). Append the sentence "the name 'List of Voters' shall be considered to refer exclusively to this list" to Rule 3, List of Voters. Enact the following rule: Imperious Emperor Adam Biltcliffe may make any change to the gamestate he desires by making a public declaration that he is doing so. ---------- I note that after this proposal, the List of Voters will be the list we've always considered it to be, ie. all of you will still be on it. Also, the power to change the gamestate is less worldshaking than it would be in a game like Axiom, since under my interpretation, proposals and votes are still considered to be extranomic entities, and hence I can't change them. So, anyone object? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:10:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:10:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] whoops Message-ID: Dammit, I knew I'd fluff that up. I missed out the important sentence I knew I really had to include. Fortunately, I think there's an out. The new Rule 18, Imperious Emperor declares that I can make any change to the gamestate I desire. This conflicts with Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules, which says that the rules can't change except when a Consensus of Opinion exists, and I forgot to put in an overriding clause, so the rules contain an unresolvable conflict. However, I believe I should still definitely be allowed to make changes to the gamestate *not* affecting the rules. Since the List of Voters now definitely *is* an entity existing within the game, I can change it. So, I remove evryone except me from the List of Voters. Then I propose, consent to and issue a pink Notice of Consensus for the following proposal: Append the sentence 'This rule takes precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules' to Rule 18, Imperious Emperor. That done, I restore the List of Voters to what it was before I sent this email. Conflict resolved. I'm not updating any of this onto the website just yet, since I thought I'd see if anyone finds fault with my coup first. If they don't, of course, I'm slacking in my duty as Minister of Freedom; sorry about that. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:13:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:13:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] doing it right (possibly) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415A8A60.9050102@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > Wild Card's coup attempt raised the issue that the rules have never > defined exactly what the List of Voters is. There's a proposal under > consideration to fix this, but it hasn't passed yet (and in fact, > couldn't do until I issue notice on it anyway). > > Wild Card's coup attempt failed because he attempted to create a List of > Voters within the game, which is prohibited by Rule 1, Existence of the > Game. I note, however, that there is clear acknowledgement by all > parties that extranomic entities can have an effect on the game, viz., > the fact that we as extranomic entities change the rules by making and > approving proposals. > > I have a piece of paper here upon which is written: > > List of Voters > 1. Adam Biltcliffe > > Photographic evidence can be provided on request. In the absence of any > other apparent candidate, I submit that this should be considered the > List of Voters. > > Therefore, I am the only member of the List of Voters. In addition, > since the List of Voters has not until now existed, the only rules > currently in effect are actually the initial ruleset. I therefore make > and consent to the following proposal (noting that the issuing of a > Notice of Consensus is not required): > > ---------- Alter the ruleset to be that which it was claimed to be at > 11am on Wednesday, September 29th 2004 on the Nomic website > (http://www.srcf.ucam.org/nomic). > > Append the sentence "the name 'List of Voters' shall be considered to > refer exclusively to this list" to Rule 3, List of Voters. > > Enact the following rule: > > Imperious Emperor > > Adam Biltcliffe may make any change to the gamestate he desires by > making a public declaration that he is doing so. ---------- > > I note that after this proposal, the List of Voters will be the list > we've always considered it to be, ie. all of you will still be on it. > Also, the power to change the gamestate is less worldshaking than it > would be in a game like Axiom, since under my interpretation, proposals > and votes are still considered to be extranomic entities, and hence I > can't change them. > > So, anyone object? > > adam > I object on the grounds that you aren't actually proposing the motion _to_ anyone (due to noone else being on the list of voters). I suggest, therefore, that you have failed to obtain "unabiguous consent to the proposal from each such entity". (From Rule 4 - Consensus of Opinion) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:16:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:16:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] whoops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415A8B21.4090507@cam.ac.uk> Don't think you can do that "The game shall contain a list of names which refer to specific entities in the real (extranomic) world." "The game and all entities existing within it have a persistent state which can only change as described by the rules." Therefore the list of names is within the game and hence can only change as described by the rules. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:18:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:18:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] doing it right (possibly) In-Reply-To: <415A8A60.9050102@mxtelecom.com> References: <415A8A60.9050102@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > I object on the grounds that you aren't actually proposing the motion > _to_ anyone (due to noone else being on the list of voters). I suggest, > therefore, that you have failed to obtain "unabiguous consent to the > proposal from each such entity". I've proposed it to all other entities named on the List of Voters - that being none, and I haven't failed to propose it to any of them. Arguably, I didn't actually need to tell anyone what my proposal was, since as soon as I come up with one it fulfils the criterion of having been proposed to all zero other voting entities and having been consented to by all zero other voting entities, so it passes into the rules. Also, I note that if your objection *does* stand, we're left with the even more stupid situation in which I'm the only person on the List of Voters and neither me nor anyone else can do anything to affect the game. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:20:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:20:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] doing it right (possibly) In-Reply-To: References: <415A8A60.9050102@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <415A8C36.1090007@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 29 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > >> I object on the grounds that you aren't actually proposing the motion >> _to_ anyone (due to noone else being on the list of voters). I >> suggest, therefore, that you have failed to obtain "unabiguous consent >> to the proposal from each such entity". > > > I've proposed it to all other entities named on the List of Voters - > that being none, and I haven't failed to propose it to any of them. > Arguably, I didn't actually need to tell anyone what my proposal was, > since as soon as I come up with one it fulfils the criterion of having > been proposed to all zero other voting entities and having been > consented to by all zero other voting entities, so it passes into the > rules. > > Also, I note that if your objection *does* stand, we're left with the > even more stupid situation in which I'm the only person on the List of > Voters and neither me nor anyone else can do anything to affect the game. Yes we could. You could write my name on the list of voters and we share a joint coup. Did I say that out loud? From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:22:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:22:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] whoops In-Reply-To: <415A8B21.4090507@cam.ac.uk> References: <415A8B21.4090507@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Don't think you can do that > > "The game shall contain a list of names which refer to specific entities > in the real (extranomic) world." > > "The game and all entities existing within it have a persistent state > which can only change as described by the rules." > > Therefore the list of names is within the game and hence can only change > as described by the rules. This is the 'bugfix' email you're objecting to, right? Rule 18, Imperious Emperor is clearly a rule, and it clearly states that I can change the gamestate to whatever I want. Therefore, the list is changing in a manner described by the rules and so is clearly legal according to the rule you quoted. The problem only arises when it comes to the issue of whether I can change the *rules* by Imperial decree, since the rules say both that I can (Rule 18, Imperious Emperor) and can't (Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules). The bugfix which I just passed by the totally legal method of removing everyone else from the List of Voters and then passing it in the normal way solves this inconsistency. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] whoops In-Reply-To: References: <415A8B21.4090507@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415A8D1F.6050700@cam.ac.uk> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 29 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> Don't think you can do that >> >> "The game shall contain a list of names which refer to specific >> entities in the real (extranomic) world." >> >> "The game and all entities existing within it have a persistent state >> which can only change as described by the rules." >> >> Therefore the list of names is within the game and hence can only >> change as described by the rules. > > > This is the 'bugfix' email you're objecting to, right? Apologies, was an objection to both > > Rule 18, Imperious Emperor is clearly a rule, and it clearly states that > I can change the gamestate to whatever I want. Therefore, the list is > changing in a manner described by the rules and so is clearly legal > according to the rule you quoted. > > The problem only arises when it comes to the issue of whether I can > change the *rules* by Imperial decree, since the rules say both that I > can (Rule 18, Imperious Emperor) and can't (Rule 2, Mutability of the > Rules). The bugfix which I just passed by the totally legal method of > removing everyone else from the List of Voters and then passing it in > the normal way solves this inconsistency. > > adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Sep 29 12:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] whoops In-Reply-To: <415A8B21.4090507@cam.ac.uk> References: <415A8B21.4090507@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Don't think you can do that > > "The game shall contain a list of names which refer to specific entities > in the real (extranomic) world." > > "The game and all entities existing within it have a persistent state > which can only change as described by the rules." > > Therefore the list of names is within the game and hence can only change > as described by the rules. Ok, having just been informed that you were actually objecting to the original coup: Your objection is entirely correct. However, it's also irrelevant. As you said, I can't change the list of names as defined by Rule 3 without going through the proper legal procedures. However, the rules do not declare that this list is in fact the List of Voters. The only List of Voters I've seen is the one on my bedroom floor, and I'm the only person on it. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:36:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:36:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] doing it right (possibly) In-Reply-To: <415A8C36.1090007@cam.ac.uk> References: <415A8A60.9050102@mxtelecom.com> <415A8C36.1090007@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > Also, I note that if your objection *does* stand, we're left with the > > even more stupid situation in which I'm the only person on the List of > > Voters and neither me nor anyone else can do anything to affect the > > game. > > Yes we could. You could write my name on the list of voters and we share > a joint coup. > > Did I say that out loud? I admit that the thought had occured to me. Applications for the position of my bestest buddy are welcome. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:52:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:52:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The game ended a couple of days ago Message-ID: <415A9399.1050103@cam.ac.uk> Here's an alternative interpretation, which I'm not persuing since it means the game is in an unchangeable state, but it's worth looking at. "Consensus of Opinion" refers to entities named on the List of Voters. List of Voters is a rule, that used to contain names. Then we got rid of them, at which point no more rules could pass. Hey Ho. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 12:55:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 11:55:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] The game ended a couple of days ago In-Reply-To: <415A9399.1050103@cam.ac.uk> References: <415A9399.1050103@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Here's an alternative interpretation, which I'm not persuing since it > means the game is in an unchangeable state, but it's worth looking at. > > "Consensus of Opinion" refers to entities named on the List of Voters. > > List of Voters is a rule, that used to contain names. Then we got rid of > them, at which point no more rules could pass. Hey Ho. I think I prefer mine. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 13:50:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 12:50:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Imperial Decree #1 Message-ID: Since the consensus (with a lowercase c) appears to be that my appointment to Emperorhood is valid, I hereby decree, to resolve all ambiguities, that the current state of the rules, List of Voters, List of Handles and occupation of Ministry roles is as presently specified on the Nomic website (which is the state I believe it should have been in after my coup). In particular: * There are nine people on the List of Voters, and it's the same nine as it's always been * Rule 3, List of Voters has been amended to specify that the list it defines is the List of Voters * There is currently no Law of Lizardmen * Rule 18, Imperious Emperor has been enacted, and specifically states that it takes precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules I also declare my pseudonym to be 'Emperor Explicivist'. I encourage all my subjects to adopt pseudonyms as well. I don't intend to abuse the position of Emperorhood; save for perhaps the occasional decree making fixes to the phrasing of rules, I shall mostly continue to make and vote on proposals like everyone else. adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 14:02:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (John-Joseph Wilks) Date: Wed Sep 29 13:02:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Imperial Decree #1 Message-ID: > >Since the consensus (with a lowercase c) appears to be that my appointment >to Emperorhood is valid, I hereby decree, to resolve all ambiguities, that >the current state of the rules, List of Voters, List of Handles and >occupation of Ministry roles is as presently specified on the Nomic website >(which is the state I believe it should have been in after my coup). In >particular: > >* There are nine people on the List of Voters, and it's the same nine as >it's always been * Rule 3, List of Voters has been amended to specify that >the list it defines is the List of Voters * There is currently no Law of >Lizardmen * Rule 18, Imperious Emperor has been enacted, and specifically >states that it takes precedence over Rule 2, Mutability of the Rules > >I also declare my pseudonym to be 'Emperor Explicivist'. I encourage all my >subjects to adopt pseudonyms as well. I declare my psuedonym to be 'Moderately High Evil Thingumabob', or MHET for short (does that need to go in the Dictionary? > >I don't intend to abuse the position of Emperorhood; save for perhaps the >occasional decree making fixes to the phrasing of rules, I shall mostly >continue to make and vote on proposals like everyone else. Hrrrm. JJ _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 15:26:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Wed Sep 29 14:26:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] doing it right (possibly) In-Reply-To: References: <415A8A60.9050102@mxtelecom.com> <415A8C36.1090007@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 29 Sep 2004 11:35:49 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 29 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > > > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > > > Also, I note that if your objection *does* stand, we're left with the > > > even more stupid situation in which I'm the only person on the List of > > > Voters and neither me nor anyone else can do anything to affect the > > > game. > > > > Yes we could. You could write my name on the list of voters and we share > > a joint coup. > > > > Did I say that out loud? > > I admit that the thought had occured to me. Applications for the position > of my bestest buddy are welcome. > > adam > > Ooh, me, me, me! 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 Wed Sep 29 15:34:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Wed Sep 29 14:34:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals Message-ID: Okay. You may hate all these suggestions but we need a name so... I propose the following rules: ============== Thats the Name of the Game The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" ================ Name that Game The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bowling for Buzzards" ============== Thrid Time Lucky The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bobbing for Snapping Turtles" ============== Okay. If those are no good someone else can come up with something. Carrie From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 15:37:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 29 14:37:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415ABA6C.6070107@cam.ac.uk> Carrie Oliver wrote: > Okay. You may hate all these suggestions but we need a name so... > I propose the following rules: > > ============== > Thats the Name of the Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" > > ================ > Name that Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bowling for Buzzards" > > ============== > Thrid Time Lucky > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bobbing for Snapping Turtles" > > ============== My favourite is "Bowling for Buzzards" so I'll vote yay to that, nay to the other two, but I will change my vote if public opinion goes another way From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 15:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 29 14:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:33:27 BST." References: Message-ID: > Okay. You may hate all these suggestions but we need a name so... > I propose the following rules: > > ============== > Thats the Name of the Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" > > ================ > Name that Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bowling for Buzzards" > > ============== > Thrid Time Lucky > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bobbing for Snapping Turtles" > Aye to all three. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 15:49:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Wed Sep 29 14:49:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] New Summary (please vote) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415ABCFB.5000705@mxtelecom.com> Oops, sorry guys. three more votes > > 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 > Aye: JJ, Stumo, adam, Carrie, Madeleine, dok > > +Aye > > > > 1. Any two players whose locations on the Bored of Being Board are the > same are Friendly. > Any player whose location is at least 4 units from all other players > (under a Euclidean metric) is a Loner. > > Prop: JJ > Aye: Madeleine, Stumo +Aye > > > > > 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. > > Prop: JJ > Aye: Madeleine, Stumo > > > Oh, +Aye From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 15:49:04 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Wed Sep 29 14:49:04 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415ABD20.4010009@mxtelecom.com> Jonathan David Amery wrote: >>Okay. You may hate all these suggestions but we need a name so... >>I propose the following rules: >> >>============== >>Thats the Name of the Game >> >>The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" Aye >> >>================ >>Name that Game >> >>The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bowling for Buzzards" Nay >> >>============== >>Thrid Time Lucky >> >>The game shall have a name and it shall be "Bobbing for Snapping Turtles" >> > > Nay From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 16:47:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Wed Sep 29 15:47:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > Okay. You may hate all these suggestions but we need a name so... > I propose the following rules: > > ============== > Thats the Name of the Game > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" > ================ Aye! Nay to the other two, but out of interest -- why buzzards? adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 17:01:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Wed Sep 29 16:01:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 Sep 2004 15:46:35 +0100, Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 29 2004, Carrie Oliver wrote: > > > Okay. You may hate all these suggestions but we need a name so... > > I propose the following rules: > > > > ============== > > Thats the Name of the Game > > > > The game shall have a name and it shall be "Astronomic" > > ================ > > Aye! > > Nay to the other two, but out of interest -- why buzzards? > > adam > > > Lion King!!!!!! Come on you only watched it... 2 days ago. 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 Wed Sep 29 17:17:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Wed Sep 29 16:17:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - Community Chest Message-ID: 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. ---- (Before you ask, we do have the technology) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Wed Sep 29 21:58:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Wed Sep 29 20:58:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - Community Chest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415B13A7.5080500@cam.ac.uk> Nice. I vote aye Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. > ---- > > (Before you ask, we do have the technology) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 30 01:50:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 00:50:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - Community Chest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 29 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > Community Chest Cards may be created at whim out of the ether as > required by the rules. I find this statement confusing. Does this mean players can create cards at whim, or just that the creation of cards by action of the rules is not restricted? Either way I vote yes. Hey, if it turns out to be too broken, I'll just use my Imperial powers to destroy all the cards ;) adam From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 06:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 30 05:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - Community Chest In-Reply-To: Your message of "30 Sep 2004 00:49:53 BST." References: Message-ID: > On Sep 29 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > Community Chest Cards may be created at whim out of the ether as > > required by the rules. > > I find this statement confusing. Does this mean players can create cards at > whim, or just that the creation of cards by action of the rules is not > restricted? The latter :) WC. From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 12:40:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 30 11:40:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - Community Chest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415BCFEF.7020903@mxtelecom.com> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. Vote Aye from me From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 13:10:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Thu Sep 30 12:10:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal - Community Chest In-Reply-To: <415BCFEF.7020903@mxtelecom.com> References: <415BCFEF.7020903@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:20:47 +0100, Mike Cripps wrote: > Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > 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. > > Vote Aye from me > Aye 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 Thu Sep 30 15:54:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (David (Birch)) Date: Thu Sep 30 14:54:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] My votes. Message-ID: I'm very busy at the moment, and autoadaption is broken. Therefore I vote "aye" to all current outstanding proposals that do not specificly name me. -- ---------- dtb26@cam.ac.uk phone number 07906 638541 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:17:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:17:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Scotsman's Votes Message-ID: I also can't actually find it oh, I see it ok, yes, they all seem sane Aye to the lot :) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:19:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:19:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Scotsman's Votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415C159F.4050205@mxtelecom.com> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I also can't actually find it > oh, I see it > ok, yes, they all seem sane > Aye to the lot :) > Hush you naughty man. That's in reference to adam's Papal proposals From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:19:05 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:19:05 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Imperial Proclamation #2 Message-ID: There's been a bit of arguing about whether Rule 11, The Rule of Assumed Consent should be interpreted to mean that a voter who has ever expressed any lack of consent to *anything* is exempt from having their consent assumed under the rule (the literal interpretation), or whether it should be implicit that only an objection to the proposal under consideration counts (the original intent of the rule). Since this seems to be a pointless argument of semantics, I declare that the situation shall be resolved by appending the words 'to that proposal' to Rule 11, The Rule of Assumed Consent, so that it now reads, in full: ---------- Rule 11, The Rule of Assumed Consent A player shall be considered to have given their consent to a proposal if the following are true: The proposal was suggested more then 72 hours ago, and they haven't explicitly expressed a lack of consent to that proposal. ---------- Your benevolent Emperor From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:23:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:23:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Scotsman's Votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 30 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I also can't actually find it > oh, I see it > ok, yes, they all seem sane > Aye to the lot :) And, for context, he was referring to my set of proposals for defining the Judgement of the Pope, in my email timestamped Tue Sep 28 00:25:02 2004. Stuart raised some minor quibbles with phrasing, but with the withdrawal of Mike's objection, no-one has 'explicitly objected', and so these rules are currently due to all pass in nine hours' time. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:24:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:24:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind Message-ID: 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. ---- I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. ---- From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:27:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:27:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 30 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. > ---- > I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind > > Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. > ---- I explicitly and unambiguously consent to the passing of both of these proposals. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 16:31:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 30 15:31:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415C1817.5020306@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 30 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > >> 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. >> ---- >> I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind >> >> Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. >> ---- > > > I explicitly and unambiguously consent to the passing of both of these > proposals. > out of interest, does 'Aye' count as that? But Aye to both Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 17:29:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 30 16:29:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415C22CB.2070301@cam.ac.uk> These have now passed: Notice of Consent: This is a Gold coloured notice of consent, 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 green coloured notice of consent, 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 black coloured notice of consent (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 Thu Sep 30 17:29:06 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 30 16:29:06 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind In-Reply-To: <415C1817.5020306@mxtelecom.com> References: <415C1817.5020306@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <415C2156.8070608@cam.ac.uk> Mike Cripps wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > >> On Sep 30 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> ---- >>> I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind >>> >>> Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. >>> ---- >> >> >> >> I explicitly and unambiguously consent to the passing of both of these >> proposals. >> > out of interest, does 'Aye' count as that? > > But Aye to both > We can put Aye in the dictionary of course... we could put Aye to mean "I object" and really screw the game ;) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 17:29:09 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 30 16:29:09 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposal: It's broke, so lets fix it. In-Reply-To: <4158B622.60307@cam.ac.uk> References: <4158B622.60307@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415C2307.20203@cam.ac.uk> Stuart Moore wrote: > > Proposal to ensure everything is on the email list: > > Create the rule: 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. > I believe this rule is currently blocked by Mike's blanket "No" From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 17:34:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Thu Sep 30 16:34:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415C2720.8070808@cam.ac.uk> Jonathan David Amery wrote: > 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. > ---- > I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind > > Initially the Minister of Perspicuity shall be Wild Card. > ---- Aye - although I'm wondering if we're cluttering up the rules with these ministry posts and definitions - possibly we move the list of ministry posts and their rolls elsewhere (create a "Mutability of the Ministry" rule similar to the Mutability of the Rules one, possibly allowing for impeachment From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 18:38:02 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 17:38:02 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind In-Reply-To: <415C1817.5020306@mxtelecom.com> References: <415C1817.5020306@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 30 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > > > I explicitly and unambiguously consent to the passing of both of these > > proposals. > > out of interest, does 'Aye' count as that? Dunno. I've been pushing vaguely for a formal voting procedure since we started, but everyone else seems happy with the current arrangement. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 18:49:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 30 17:49:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: <415C22CB.2070301@cam.ac.uk> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <415C22CB.2070301@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <415C38CE.9040203@mxtelecom.com> Stuart Moore wrote: > These have now passed: > > Notice of Consent: This is a Gold coloured notice of consent, 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 green coloured notice of consent, 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 black coloured notice of consent (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 > > About time to bring this up. It also affects a lot of NoCs from Jonathan. According to "The Rule Of Girls", NOcs must explicitly state what colour paper they are printed on. None of the NoCs in this document, or any proposed by Jonathan are therefore valid. Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 18:49:06 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 17:49:06 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Proposals -- I'm gonna be a History Maker in this land && I'm gonna be a Speaker of Truth to all Mankind In-Reply-To: <415C2720.8070808@cam.ac.uk> References: <415C2720.8070808@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Sep 30 2004, Stuart Moore wrote: > Aye - although I'm wondering if we're cluttering up the rules with these > ministry posts and definitions - possibly we move the list of ministry > posts and their rolls elsewhere (create a "Mutability of the Ministry" > rule similar to the Mutability of the Rules one, possibly allowing for > impeachment I don't mind keeping the definitions of Ministry roles in the rules, personally, but it would be nice to eliminate the rules saying "the Minister of X shall be Y". Feel free to propose an alternate election procedure. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 18:56:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Thu Sep 30 17:56:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: <415C38CE.9040203@mxtelecom.com> References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <415C22CB.2070301@cam.ac.uk> <415C38CE.9040203@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Sep 30 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > About time to bring this up. It also affects a lot of NoCs from Jonathan. > > According to "The Rule Of Girls", NOcs must explicitly state what colour > paper they are printed on. None of the NoCs in this document, or any > proposed by Jonathan are therefore valid. I note, however, that all the rule changes on which Jonathan has issued a NoC have nonetheless been made, as I declared them to be part of the rules in Imperial Proclamation #1 yesterday. Whether these Notices are valid is another matter; it depends on whether describing a notice as being a particular colour implies that the paper is that colour or not. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 19:05:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Thu Sep 30 18:05:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Notices of consent In-Reply-To: References: <4153FDDA.3050802@cam.ac.uk> <415C22CB.2070301@cam.ac.uk> <415C38CE.9040203@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <415C3C66.9010307@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Sep 30 2004, Mike Cripps wrote: > >> About time to bring this up. It also affects a lot of NoCs from Jonathan. >> >> According to "The Rule Of Girls", NOcs must explicitly state what >> colour paper they are printed on. None of the NoCs in this document, >> or any proposed by Jonathan are therefore valid. > > > I note, however, that all the rule changes on which Jonathan has issued > a NoC have nonetheless been made, as I declared them to be part of the > rules in Imperial Proclamation #1 yesterday. Whether these Notices are > valid is another matter; it depends on whether describing a notice as > being a particular colour implies that the paper is that colour or not. > > EE > Oh indeed, I was merely warning him for the future ;) From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 23:49:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 30 22:49:01 2004 Subject: [Nomic] Summary 04/09/30 Message-ID: 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) ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ **** 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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: Dunky 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, Dunky 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, Dunky 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, Dunky 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, Dunky 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, Dunky Withheld: Mike ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ Summary finished by Wild Card Thu Sep 30 22:47:17 BST 2004 From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Thu Sep 30 23:58:01 2004 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Jonathan David Amery) Date: Thu Sep 30 22:58:01 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ----- 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 ----- 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 ----- 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 ------ 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 ------ 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 ------ Summary finished by Wild Card Thu Sep 30 22:47:17 BST 2004