From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sat Jan 1 17:07:01 2005 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Sat Jan 1 17:07:01 2005 Subject: [Nomic] invocation of judgement Message-ID: On November 19th at 23:21 I created a rule stating that if activity on the Nomic email list ceased for a period of one continuous week, the game would end. Stuart Moore swiftly set up a cron job which emailed the list every three days to prevent this from happening; since the purpose of the rule was to ensure that the game didn't drag on forever with nothing happening, I felt no guilt at (ab)using my moderator privileges to block it. However, I've just noticed that the rule in question was never added to the rules page on the website, and on December 22nd I issued a Notice of Consensus for a rule stating that the 'perception of the state of the game which is commonly held by all players' could not be affected by events which happened more than two weeks previously. There have been no posts since December 24th, so I would like to invoke the Judgement of the Pope on resolving the following claim: The game is over, and Adam Biltcliffe has won. In justification, I point out that, if the Rule of Endings exists, I have clearly won the game, since the criteria given in that rule have been fulfilled. The only circumstance in which the Rule of Endings does not exist would be if the rule 'Sanity Check' prevented it from existing, which would be the case if no-one thought it did. While it hasn't been on the website, I certainly remembered that it existed; I infer that Stumo did as well, from the fact that he didn't cancel his cron job, and when I've mentioned it in passing to other players they seem to have also been aware of it. I'm not aware of anything saying that the website has any authority in defining the rules, so I believe that the website is incorrect, the Rule of Endings exists, the game has ended and I am the winner. EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Sun Jan 2 15:38:01 2005 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Sun Jan 2 15:38:01 2005 Subject: [Nomic] invocation of judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41D8152B.4060409@cam.ac.uk> If the game has ended already then there is no longer a judgement procedure. Thus by invoking a judgement procedure you are suggesting you believe the game to already exist. Or something. On the other hand, it seems everyone is bored. Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On November 19th at 23:21 I created a rule stating that if activity on > the Nomic email list ceased for a period of one continuous week, the > game would end. Stuart Moore swiftly set up a cron job which emailed the > list every three days to prevent this from happening; since the purpose > of the rule was to ensure that the game didn't drag on forever with > nothing happening, I felt no guilt at (ab)using my moderator privileges > to block it. > > However, I've just noticed that the rule in question was never added to > the rules page on the website, and on December 22nd I issued a Notice of > Consensus for a rule stating that the 'perception of the state of the > game which is commonly held by all players' could not be affected by > events which happened more than two weeks previously. > > There have been no posts since December 24th, so I would like to invoke > the Judgement of the Pope on resolving the following claim: > > The game is over, and Adam Biltcliffe has won. > > In justification, I point out that, if the Rule of Endings exists, I > have clearly won the game, since the criteria given in that rule have > been fulfilled. The only circumstance in which the Rule of Endings does > not exist would be if the rule 'Sanity Check' prevented it from > existing, which would be the case if no-one thought it did. While it > hasn't been on the website, I certainly remembered that it existed; I > infer that Stumo did as well, from the fact that he didn't cancel his > cron job, and when I've mentioned it in passing to other players they > seem to have also been aware of it. I'm not aware of anything saying > that the website has any authority in defining the rules, so I believe > that the website is incorrect, the Rule of Endings exists, the game has > ended and I am the winner. > > EE > > _______________________________________________ > Nomic-talk mailing list > Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Mon Jan 3 14:36:02 2005 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Adam Biltcliffe) Date: Mon Jan 3 14:36:02 2005 Subject: [Nomic] invocation of judgement In-Reply-To: <41D8152B.4060409@cam.ac.uk> References: <41D8152B.4060409@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Jan 2 2005, Stuart Moore wrote: > If the game has ended already then there is no longer a judgement > procedure. I do not see anything in the rules which states that the rules cease to apply when the game ends, so I believe this statement to be false. > Thus by invoking a judgement procedure you are suggesting you > believe the game to already exist. Or something. Yeah, it exists, it's finished and I won it. Is that contradictory? EE From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Tue Jan 4 11:55:01 2005 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Mike Cripps) Date: Tue Jan 4 11:55:01 2005 Subject: [Nomic] invocation of judgement In-Reply-To: References: <41D8152B.4060409@cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: <41DA83F6.2020306@mxtelecom.com> Adam Biltcliffe wrote: > On Jan 2 2005, Stuart Moore wrote: > >> If the game has ended already then there is no longer a judgement >> procedure. > > > I do not see anything in the rules which states that the rules cease to > apply when the game ends, so I believe this statement to be false. > >> Thus by invoking a judgement procedure you are suggesting you believe >> the game to already exist. Or something. > > > Yeah, it exists, it's finished and I won it. Is that contradictory? > > EE What if the Pope refuses to pass judgement? Is such a mechanism mentioned in the rules? (for those of us too lazy to look things up for ourselves [and at work...]) Happy New Year Mike From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Jan 7 15:07:02 2005 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Carrie Oliver) Date: Fri Jan 7 15:07:02 2005 Subject: [Nomic] invocation of judgement In-Reply-To: <41DA83F6.2020306@mxtelecom.com> References: <41D8152B.4060409@cam.ac.uk> <41DA83F6.2020306@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: Well I guess we should just hand to game to adam then. Seeing as everyone has got bored. Shame I was just getting the hang of it and I have been working pirates into it. Carrie From nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org Fri Jan 7 15:12:01 2005 From: nomic-talk at srcf.ucam.org (Stuart Moore) Date: Fri Jan 7 15:12:01 2005 Subject: [Nomic] invocation of judgement In-Reply-To: References: <41D8152B.4060409@cam.ac.uk> <41DA83F6.2020306@mxtelecom.com> Message-ID: <41DEA6B6.4000007@cam.ac.uk> Carrie Oliver wrote: > Well I guess we should just hand to game to adam then. Seeing as > everyone has got bored. Shame I was just getting the hang of it and I > have been working pirates into it. Fair enough. I admit defeat. I just lost the game.