Well - what follows is somewhat disoragnised but it's all I seem to have of game 1. Mostly the board discussion (don't have proposals and judgments unfortunetly, only got around to logging them properly later). ====================================================================== scoring rule and quotum (Hansb, Sep 10 19:18) [Amending Rule 203] It seems not reasonable to me that one would lose points when a proposal is defeated, just because too little people voted on it. Thus, I propose the following addition to rule 203: No points however will be subtracted for a proposed rule change that is defeated as a result of less votes than the required Quorum in the voting period. ** agree with 1 (Hansb, Sep 10 19:33) I agree with steve's proposal (1). But would prefer a 2/3 majority. ** "Re: voting: majorities versus super majorities." (Bud, Sep 11 05:23) I have been playing a nomic game for about a year now, and we have been seriously hamsturng by a 2/3 majority requirement. I assure you factions WILL develop (and suprisingly quickly). Although we all agree, right now, that we are in this game for a common good, our individual visions of that common good will vary greatly. Right now we have a serious incentive to change the unanimity constraint, we will not at a later point. Also, requiring a 2/3 majority grants undue power to the minority (to kill a rule you need only muster 33% of the registered voters). Similarly allowing a 1/3 vote to carry a vote allows control by a minority block. I think a rule should be passed if it receives a majority vote. That's pretty much what democracy is all about, no? ** Get rid of the 10pt rule for nay-votes (Michael, Sep 11 10:56) I agree with Evantine who has suggested that the first sentence of rule 201 be removed. Gaining points in this fashion seems contrary to the nature of the game somehow, (so define the nature of such a mutable game! :-) m. ** Simple majorities (Steve, Sep 11 12:53) [Amending Rule 210] this is not an amendment to an existing rule is right. Perticularly woth this many players, a simple majority is going to be hard enough to obtain. ** the 10pt rule. (Geoff, Sep 11 15:04) I think it would be more interesting if the 10pt rules were changed so that a certain number of pts (say 20) were available to be distributed among all no voters; this discourages plunging into no voting for the sake of it; but still leaves a small carrot :-) geoff ** Discrimination rule silly (Ronhe, Sep 12 03:42) Rule 208 is absurd. Of course I believe that we should not discriminate on the basis of race or creed, but to say that we should not discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics makes void any rules about player points, which are of course "personal characteristics". In general I am very unhappy with the tampering with Peter Suber's Initial Set _before the game even started_. I think we should have made the bare minimum of changes for the sake of the MUD structure. Suber is a philosopher of law and his Initial Set was very carefully constructed. Of course the game is infinitely mutable, but making ** Disc. rule silly, continued (Ronhe, Sep 12 03:47) Of course the game is infinitely mutable, but making unnecessary changes like this one throws the game balance off from the start. I propose we repeal rule 208, or else all new rules about player points will be void. *Everyone* should vote for this rule, because at least one player, who shall remain nameless, has told me he voted against the majority rule by mistake, so unless this vote is unanimous, it will fail. ** I will not repeal unanimouty until... (Goethe, Sep 12 04:47) this is not an amendment to an existing rule removed. REASON: It creates a Prisoner's dilemna in which many players will vote against good rules, just for the points, in the assumption that other players will vote for the rule. Experience with three (3!) past games indicates that repealing unanimoty without striking the ten-point rule stymies the game to the nth degree. ** Proposal to amend 201, RE 8,22 (Goethe, Sep 12 04:53) [Amending Rule 201] Proposal: The first sentence of 201 is striken, so the rule now reads ``A player proposing a passing rule shall receive an integer number of points between [old limits].'' ** Why have the 10pt rule? (Link, Sep 12 09:18) Can anyone give a justification for the 10pts someone gets for voting against a proposal? ** Unanimous Vote Needed for 10-pt rule 1005 (Evantine, Sep 12 10:57) this is not an amendment to an existing rule Please vote YES on 1005. Goethe will not vote to get rid of unanimity unless we all vote YES on 1005. Rule 1005 moves to strke the first sentence of 201, which gives players who vote against winning proposals 10 points. I think rules should stand or fall on their own merit, not based on who gets the easy 10 points. ** Will rule changes *really* take effect right away? (Evantine, Sep 12 11:26) [Amending Rule 202] Rule 202 has a problem. It says that a rule change takes full effect the moment it passes. While this is fine in a regular Nomic game, where only one proposal is being voted on at any given time, it is ambiguous here. For example, if the 2/3 majority rule (1004) passes before the voting on rule 1005 is complete, will rule 1005 pass with a 2/3 majority or will it need a unanimous vote? If it affects rule 1005 it could be construed as retroactive (a violation of 106). ** Problem with wording of 1004 (Evantine, Sep 12 11:34) We can't vote for 1004. Rule 1004 proposes to substitude the phrase "2/3 majority" for "unanimity" in rule 210. But if we look at rule 210, the word "unanimity" does not appear. I think we should be more careful with wording here. Even if 1004 passes it would have no effect. ** Retroactivity ? Reply to Evantine (Duchon, Sep 12 18:33) I considered proposing a rule to clarify/change this (depends on how the point is judged; I think there will be contestation on this). I'd like to propose a rule like "A vote shall be run with the rules that were valid when it was proposed for vote. This rule takes precedence over 202." I don't think this is in conflict with 106. What do others think ? ** Speeding up the voting (Heffalump, Sep 13 05:49) [Amending Rule 210] (This is largely Evantine's idea, but his note seems to have been messed up). The proposal is that the voting be ended not by a set time period but as soon as the result can be determined. So if a 50% majority is what is required, as soon as 50% of (active) players have voted for the proposal, it is adopted. Likewise, once >50% have voted against, it is rejected. Even faster determination of the result could be made with the addition of a "grey ball" for abstaining votes. Encouragement for quick voting could be added by reward all players who voted before the determination of the result with 1 or 2 pts. This proposal will require some adequate definition of an "active" player, but that can be left open for discussion until a formal proposal is made. I think a rule of this sort should be able to reduce the voting period substancially, without artificially hurrying the voting (only irrelevent votes will be "cut"). A cap of one week (or whatever) could remain for insurance. ** Rule changes and order... (Goethe, Sep 13 10:13) In concerning the order of Rule voting, perhaps a Rule should not receive a number until AFTER it passes, and votes are numbered in the order of passing. I But, I firmly believe that votes should abide by rules in effect at any given instant. That is, if players defeat an unwanted rule in the voting stage by quickly adding a rule disallowing the change, so be it! ** Judgement invoked on deletion of 1003 (Evantine, Sep 14 14:14) I have invoked judgment. I believe that Ronhe's note (1003) is not a formal proposal, and therefore is not subject to the requirement of (109) that "Once a proposal has been placed on the voting noticeboard, it cannot be removed until voting has been completed." My argument would be that a proposal is a proposal *ONLY* if the author intended it as such. In this case, the author did not realize what he was doing, because he (like the rest of us) is just learning this software. The dispute is with Geoff, who favors waiting a week. I think as a matter of aesthetics, it should be taken down ASAP. ** Steve accepts his position as Judge (Steve, Sep 14 15:20) I think I have to post this here... ** Evantine's Argument (Evantine, Sep 14 15:57) Several immutable rules were violated when proposal 1003 was posted to the voting notice board. Rule 109 states that "A proposal shall be made by placing it on the voting notice board." Ronhe used the "propose" command to place his note from the discussion board onto the voting notice board, where the computer gave it the number 1003. Rule 109 seems to imply that Ronhe's act made his note into a "proposal". But what is a proposal? Proposal is not defined explicitly. Rule 104 states that "all rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on." In English usage, a proposal is something that is proposed, therefore a proposal is, by definition, a rule change. Common logic suggests that (109)'s "proposals" means rule changes. Rule 103 defines "rule change." We must ask, does Ronhe's note (labeled 1003 by the computer) fall under any of the acceptable definitions of rule change? That which was labeled 1003 by the computer was the following: Proposal Rules: Rule 1003. [proposal] by Ronhe, last changed Sat Sep 12 04:04:54 1992 Please propose another majority rule this is not an amendment to an existing rule quibble over whether it's 50% or 2/3 majority, we should just bloody well VOTE FOR IT, or else NOTHING will ever happen in this game and Nomic World will disappear for lack of interest. Once we no longer need unanimity, we'll have plenty of time to argue about the requirements for majority. The game is in a very fragile state right now, so please, do the sensible thing. Is it the enactment, repeal or amendment of a mutable (or immutable) rule? Is it a transmutation of an immutalbe rule into a mutalbe one? No. What is it? First it says that "it is not an amendment." That is followed by an incomplete sentence, followed by an opinion, followed by an imperative. I don't know what it is, but it sure as heck isn't a rule change, and therefore, it is cannot be a proposal. For what is a proposal, if not a rule change? Furthermore, Rule 107 reads: "Each proposed rule change shall be given a rank-order number (ordinal number) for reference. The numbers shall begin with 1000, and each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted." [note the equivalence of *proposal* and *rule change* here] I believe the computer violated this rule [107] when it assigned the number 1003 to Ronhe's note, for Ronhe's note was not a proposal, and not a rule change, and yet it was still numbered (by an unthinking machine) just as though it were. When Heffalump proposed his 2/3 Majority amendment, it was blindly given the number 1004, a direct violation of the stipulation [107] that "each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer." I therefore move that [1003] be stricken from the voting bulletin board. Strictly speaking, we should also renumber all the legitimate rule changes in accordance with [107]. I will leave that to the discretion of the judge. Evantine ** Re: Evantine's Argument. (Geoff, Sep 14 16:17) Ok; here's my reply to Evantine's argument to proposal 1003. Evantine's argument hinges on proposal 1003 not being a rule change as stipulated by rules 107 and rules 103 (see below). Although rule 1003 appears to be non-sensical; it does appear to propose a rule change where someone (perhaps everyone?) has to propose another majority rule and we have to vote for it too! Apparently the author thought (perhaps mistakenly) that the prosposal was a "proper" rule as defined by rule 103 (this is what the judgement is really about in my opinion) and hence placed it up to vote. As such I think we should let the voters determine whether or not the rules is sensible (as well as desirable); as far as I can tell 1003 is a lousy enactment. Simply vote no. A positive judgement on this issue also appears to make other proposals that are not worded thoroughly correctly to be suspect to the same type of judgement even before we vote on the issue! Hence I argue that the rule should stand up to vote as is. -- Rule 103. [immutable] (Initial Rule) Changing the Rules. A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment, or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable. Immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed. No rule is absolutely immune to change.) -- Rule 1003. [proposal] by Ronhe, last changed Sat Sep 12 04:04:54 1992 Please propose another majority rule this is not an amendment to an existing rule quibble over whether it's 50% or 2/3 majority, we should just bloody well VOTE FOR IT, or else NOTHING will ever happen in this game and Nomic World will disappear for lack of interest. Once we no longer need unanimity, we'll have plenty of time to argue about the requirements for majority. The game is in a very fragile state right now, so please, do the sensible thing. - geoff ** Re: Speedin up voting (Duchon, Sep 14 17:01) I am not much in favor of speeding up the voting process, but I may change my mind. However, I think we should always see that rules are rejectd or accepted in the exact order of their proposing. I will not vote for a rule change that doesn't insure this. **** ** Hansb accepts his positions as Judge (Hansb, Sep 14 18:14) I accept the position as judge in the question whether a rule change on voting affects votes in progress. ** Steve's Judgement on Geoff/Evantine Issue (Steve, Sep 14 18:42) What follows is my judgement in the dispute between Geoff and Evantine, in the matter of whether r1003 ought to be immediately deleted form the voting noticeboard (henceforth the vnb) as Evantine wishes, or whehter it ought to be voted upon in the normal way (and presumably rejected) as Geoff suggests. I will first summarize the arguments on both sides, then deliver my Judgement on the matter. First r1003: Rule 1003. [proposal] by Ronhe, last changed Sat Sep 12 04:04:54 1992 Please propose another majority rule this is not an amendment to an existing rule quibble over whether it's 50% or 2/3 majority, we should just bloody well VOTE FOR IT, or else NOTHING will ever happen in this game and Nomic World will disappear for lack of interest. Once we no longer need unanimity, we'll have plenty of time to argue about the requirements for majority. The game is in a very fragile state right now, so please, do the sensible thing. Evantine argues that r1003 does not constitute a proposal under r103: Rule 103. [immutable] (Initial Rule) Changing the Rules. A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule...[etc] On its own, r103 can at most establish that r1003 is not a *rule change*. A further argument is required to show that it is not a proposal. Evantine seeks to provide this by appeal to r104: Rule 104: All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes, and quorum is achieved. on the grounds that since rule changes get proposed and proposals get proposed rule changes must be identical to proposals. Since r1003 is not a rule change, it is not a proposal (argues Evantine). Geoff counters that r1003 is a proposal on the basis of r109: Rule 109. [immutable] (Initial Rule) Making Proposals A proposal shall be made by placing it on the voting noticeboard. All pproposals shall be preceded by a heading which very briefly summarizes the content of the proposal. Once a proposal has been placed on the voting noticeboard, it cannot be removed until voting has been completed. Each player shall have at any given time in the game at most one proposal on the voting noticeboard. Since r1003 has been placed on the voting noticeboard, it must be a proposal. Also by r109, it cannot be removed until voting has been completed. Geoff argues that we ought not discriminate proposals on the basis of content, but let the voters decide what is nonsense. My Judgment. While Geoff is right to point out that we ought not discriminate proposals on the basis of their content, I am ultimately persuaded by Evantine's view, but only because the proposition of r1003 (by ronhe) was very clearly a mistake not intended by ronhe. I think that nonsense proposals ought to be allowed, so this Judgement is quite explicitly not to be taken to mean that r1003 is not a proposal *simply* in virtue of its failure to enact, repeal or amend a rule. Rather, it is this fact, *plus* the fact that the proposition was a genuine accident based on unfamiliarity with the environment (quite understandable), which makes r1003, in my Judgement, not a proposition. I wish to stress the importance of this fact in making the Judgement as I have, in order that it not become common practice to claim jthat the proposal one has made was a mistake that one now wishes to take it back. That is quite unacceptable. I am making an exception here, in exceptional circumstances. I will therefore remove r1003 from the vnb. If that proves too difficult, I simply declare that r1003 is not a proposal, and any votes cast for or against it shall be ignored, nor any penalty imposed on ronhe (who is now named Tinfoil). It will neither be adopted nor fail to be adopted. Evantine further argues that, given that r1003 is not a proposal, that subsequent numberings of proposals are in violation of r107: Rule 107. [immutable] (Initial Rule) Numbering Rules Changes. Each proposed rule change shall be given a rank-order number (ordinal number) for reference. The numbers shall begin with 1000, and each rule change is proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. [etc] on the basis that subsequent proposals have been given incorrect ordinal nnumbers. I reject ths argument. r1003 ceases to be a proposal only upon enactment of my Judgement (at least, I am explicitly making this the case), so the computer is correct to have numbered the other proposals as it has. I am therefore leaving the other proposals with their current numbers. Steve j** ** 45 (Hansb, Sep 14 23:17) My judgement on the question: Will a change to either the quorum or majority requirements affect a voting that was started before this change but ended afterwards? is YES. Rule 202 is applicable here. An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. The rule change thus is in effect at the moment the outcome of the voting is determined (at the end of the voting period) and thus affects the voting. ** Re: speeding up voting vs. immediate rule enaction (Xeman, Sep 15 00:44) I also think that a quicker voting process may be a good idea, and I particularly like the Evantine/Heffalump idea of passing or rejecting proposals as soon as it is clear (to the computer) that they have won or lost. But there's an additional problem to consider here: the programmers of this place! Often, there will be rule changes that require modifications in the code, some of which may potentially be rather large changes. Take the Evantine/Heffalump idea, for example - the voting noticeboard would have to be "taught" how to count active players, compare its vote totals to these numbers, and shut down voting on proposals at the proper time. If this idea were proposed, and if it passed, these changes, according to r202, should "take full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it." This is probably fine, considering that the "wizards" would have had a week's worth of voting time to prepare for the possible passing of the proposal. But if we cut the voting time down to 3 days (or to an arbitrarily small amount of time with the Evantine/Heffalump idea) then they wouldn't even be allowed to take a weekend off! Here are a couple of my ideas: 1) add a *minimum* voting time to the Evantine/Heffalump idea, to ensure that no proposals get passed overnight. 2) find some way for the wizzes to complain if a rule is going to be tough to code, so that it can take effect "upon completion of the required programming" or something. This would probably involve a blanket change to r202 to allow for such delays. I guess no rule could single out the wizzes, or it would break r208 (Discrimination). 3) just say "tough luck, let 'em deal" :-) So what does everyone else think? ** Proposals for Early Decision (Evantine, Sep 15 02:35) I agree with Xeman that there should be a minumum voting period of a day or two to prevent lightning-quick voting from taking place. There should also be a maximum. Now that the early results idea has been around for a while, perhaps we had better come up with some proposals to implement it. Let's discuss these thoroughly before proposing them... We would probably have to make [114] mutable and then change it. [114] says that "there shall be a prescribed voting period during which players may note upon it" and "Players may vote either for or against any proposal currently on the voting noticeboard." [114] might be amended as suggested in the next note. The note after suggests a change for [211]. [210] may also need some modification.** ** Draft proposal to change 114 (Evantine, Sep 15 02:37) [Amending Rule 114] After a proposal has been placed on the voting noticeboard, there shall be a prescribed minimum and maximum for the voting period. Players may vote on any proposal currently on the voting noticeboard. Permissable votes are "yes," "no," and "abstain." Players who do not vote before the vote has ended shall be deemed to have abstained. This rule takes precedence over any conflicting rules. ** Draft proposal to change 211 (Evantine, Sep 15 02:37) [Amending Rule 211] The maximum voting period shall be 1 week, and the minimum shall be 24 hours. The voting period shall end before the maximum period has elapsed if (and only if) at any time between the minimum and maximum voting periods, the required number of votes (and any other requirements that explicitly state that they are implied by this parenthetical qualifier) to either defeat or adopt a rule have been cast. In no case may the voting period end before a quorum has been achieved. This rule takes precedence over any conflicting rules. ** Need volunteers for Early Decision proposals (Evantine, Sep 15 02:41) Who would like to help work on these proposals and then propose some of this stuff we need for the early decision rules. Get in touch with Evantine by sending nomic mail. Send cc: to Heffalump. ** Temporal reversal of proposal order in adoption (Heffalump, Sep 15 05:19) This note addresses Duchon's concern that the order of rule adoption should be the same as the order of proposal. WHY? In either situation we are still going to need some rules for untangling rules that are related and being voted on concurrently. The Immediate Determination rule that Evantine and I endorse merely allows better proposals (more popular ones) to be adopted quickly and stupid ones to be wiped off the voting table quickly. ** Why I voted against 1006 (Jonathan, Sep 15 07:44) I voted against 1006 because of the danger involved in making this particular immutable rule (112) mutable. The rule is the only assurance that the game will continue to evolve; if it were made mutable, it could be repealed by simple majority (once we get that established), thus bringing the game to an unpleasant halt. ** Let's not speed up too much. (Goethe, Sep 15 08:25) I believe it would be dangerous to speed up voting TOO much. Therefore, I propose the following rule draft. It does not change the current voting limit, but places a bound on voting. RULE PROPOSAL The voting period (time between posting of a proposal on the voting board and calling the vote closed) may never be shorter than three days. Comments? ** 1006 needn't lead to game termination (Steve, Sep 15 10:46) I don'd undertand Jon Amsterdam's objection to r1006. The proposal to make r112 mutable explicitly states that it is to be amended to read "rule changes must never become completely impermissible". but even if that amendment were never made, and even if r112 were subsequently repealed, it would be a long way from saying that rule changes are now impossible. ** aliases (Joe, Sep 15 12:58) In order to make sure you vote the way you want, you might want to set up aliases, like so: alias votefor = place white ball in chute alias voteagainst = place black ball in chute -Joe ** Early Decision...AGAIN (Heffalump, Sep 15 13:25) I don't understand why this idea has been so hard to sell! One more try (for now). It is pointless to carry out the voting once a decision is already assured, that is the essential reason for the Early Decision. I haven't seen any argument against this yet. Draco's suggestion of awarding the proposer with points in proportion to the number of YES votes would still be workable... for example you could give a number of points equal to the difference between the YESes and NOs (or something like that). Furthermore, no vote will end prematurely by this procedure, as stated previously, only IRRELEVENT votes will be cut. Only Duchon's objection that it could allow the order of adoption to differ from the order of proposal applies, and no justification for this objection has been given yet. I don't think it matters much what the order is... but if it does turn out to be a problem we could still ANNOUNCE the result as soon as possible and put off adoption until a set period of time (equal to the maximum allowed voting period) has passed. Goethe is concerned that voting might go too fast, but I think the place to prevent this is on the proposal/discussion side of things. Make proposals sit 24hrs before being put to vote and then the wording must left unchanged. In addition I have no problem with a minimum 2 or 3 day period before new proposals go into effect AFTER voting starts. I'll detail a coherent set of rule changes that would enact the suggested procedure in a later note. Heffalump ** Judgement. (Geoff, Sep 15 14:40) I accept my position as Judge. geoff ** withdraw request for judgement (Yittra, Sep 16 03:28) I hereby withdraw my request for a judgement concerning the withdrawl of rule 1008. ** Re: proposals for Early Decision (Xeman, Sep 16 05:26) I don't think any amendments to r114 are needed to enact Early Decision. All it says is that there should be "a prescribed voting period during which players may vote upon" a proposal. r211 takes care of defining the "prescribed voting period". An amendment to r211 would take care of things, I think. r210 is also fine as it stands, because it too is careful to just mention the "prescribed voting period". As for r211, I think the changes suggested above are overly convoluted (no offense, Evantine). How's this: 211. The Prescribed Voting Period The prescribed voting period shall last from the time the proposal is placed on the voting noticeboard until the required number of votes have been cast to either pass or defeat it, as defined in rule 210. Under no circumstance, however shall this period last for less than two days, or for more than one week. I think that takes care of everything. There's no reason the "prescribed voting period" can't be flexible, and no reason we can't rely on r210 (or its subsequent amendments) to define "required number of votes" as r211 defines "prescribed voting period". Currently r210 doesn't mention how many "nay" votes are sufficient to defeat a proposal, but the changes above allow for that contingency. I didn't specifically allow for an abstain vote, but r114 doesn't specifically forbid that, either. And besides, I'm inclined to doubt that allowing an explicit "abstention" ball would speed up the Early Decision process that much. Any more comments anyone? ** To insure fair Turnaround time. (Goethe, Sep 16 06:03) To insure fair voting time, and insure that we can all *sleep* occasionally, please vote YES for 1011, to insure a minimum voting time in the future. This will still allow voting to close before everyone has voted (if a required number is reached), but it will keep the voting period from growing too short. ** Summary of Early Decision Recommendations (Heffalump, Sep 16 07:01) These are the rule changes I would like to see regarding new voting procedures. Comment, criticize, etc. Please. 202. Effect of Rule Changes An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it EXCEPT in the following circumstances: -proposals affecting voting shall not affect votes in progress. -no rule change shall be effective sooner that three days from the start of the vote that adopted it. -rule changes requiring implementation will NOT be effective (not even in part) until such implementation is complete (i.e. ASAP!) 204. Voting Eligibility Each player that has "active" status at the moment a proposal is placed for vote is entitled to one and only one vote on that proposal. No other votes may be cast on that proposal. 210. Quorem and the Required Number of Votes Proposals shall be adopted only if 60% or more of the FOR and AGAINST votes are FOR, and then only if a quorem of lesser of 50% of the eligible voters OR 30% of all registered players have voted. 211. The Prescribed Voting Period The voting period shall be concluded in any of the following situations: -The number of FOR votes equals or exceeds 60% (the victory margin from rule 210) of the number of eligible voters minus the number of abstaining votes. FOR >= 0.60(Eligible-ABSTAIN) -The number of AGAINST votes exceeds 60% (the victory margin) of the number of eligible voters minus the number of abstaining votes. AGAINST > 0.60(Eligible-ABSTAIN) -Ten days have past from the start of the voting period. If this final case terminates voting, then eligible voters who have not cast a vote are penalized 5 pts. ???. Active/Inactive Status Players who have signed on during the previous 10 days are to be considered "active". All others are "inactive". ???. Proposal Period A suggested propoonly be placed on the voting board after a 24hr waiting period, beginning at the moment it was placed on the notice board. NO modifications may be made to the proposal during that period. ** Judgement involving changing votes. (Goethe, Sep 16 07:35) I have invoked a judgement to allow the changing of votes during the period of an election. Currently, no rule exists to disallow the changing of votes...only the voting implementation does not permit this. Since, in theory, anything not specifically prohibited by the rules should be allowed, players should be allowed to change their votes while the vote is in progress. The way I see it, this would not affect the Early Decision Rule... if a vote has enough votes to pass at *any time* during the voting period, it would pass. Comments? ** Voting Shall Henceforth Be Open (Yittra, Sep 16 09:19) Proposal: There shall be a public board on which the disposition of the votes of all active players concerning current proposals shall be displayed. Furthermore, the complete voting record of all players shall be available. ** Withdrawing judgement??? (Blob, Sep 16 09:26) I have a problem with Yittra's "withdrawal of judgement". I do not see anything in the rules which allows judgement to be withdrawn once it is called, and I think it might be a bad precedent to have. I also don't believe the proposal in question should be removed. Ignorance ^H^H^H^H but I believe the Right Thing would be to let the Judge decide that issue now. If Proposal 1008 is withdrawn without judgement being completed, or if the judgement is not made and followed out, I would accuse the Judge who was selected of not performing his/her duty, and should be fined 10 points as proscribed in the rules. ** Support for Yittra and Goethe's Proposals (Heffalump, Sep 16 09:43) I agree whole-heartedly with the ideas expressed in Goethe's and Yittra's list notes. Open voting will make the game more interesting and also allow players to see how voting is going. Goethe's change (I guess it is more an interpretation) is nice because it will make discussion during the voting period more meaningful. ** Judgement for 1008 whether or not it's withdrawn. (Geoff, Sep 16 10:22) Ok - I rule it stays because the note is sensical and appears to propose a rule mutation; further more I don't want a precedent of rules being challenged before the voting is finished to continue. geoff ** Secret Ballot (Draco, Sep 16 11:14) As to Goethe's and Yittra's proposal. --**NO**-- I do **NOT** think that open voting would be a good idea. And I definitly do NOT want to be asked after a vote WHY my vote had been made in this fashion. Or be open to complaints that I had been the reason for a votes failing (even if true). My vote is my own private matter. It is for me and noone else to know how I voted. I will most certainly vote against the 'Open Voting' proposal. ** comments on 1011 (Joe, Sep 16 11:18) this is not an amendment to an existing rule I think proposal 1011 is unnecessary. If the required number of people vote and pass/fail a proposal in, say, 10 minutes, I see no reason to delay any further. Any additional votes will have no bearing on the outcome. ** RE: Draco (Heffalump, Sep 16 11:40) this is not an amendment to an existing rule Goethe and Yittra's proposals are different things. Draco's note clearly refers only to Yittra's. For the record, I don't see why Draco is so concerned. ** "this is not an amendment" problem - Fixed. (Geoff, Sep 16 13:45) Argh - I found the bug; using an old version of the language definition in which static vars were not functioning properly if you're interested at all. geoff ** re: Public vs Secret Ballot - Yittra proposal (Steve, Sep 16 14:04) i kind of like secret ballots myselfb. they make plotting so much more interesting. ** Power of Precedent (Yittra, Sep 16 15:08) I think that the rules governing judgement need to be clarified. Especially, is a precedent binding? I think that it should be unless an appeal is made to some higher body, say a panel of three judges. ** Re: Heffalump's Summary (Xeman, Sep 17 00:39) Okay, Heff, you asked for comments. Here are mine. On the changes to r202, I disagree that proposals affecting voting procedures shouldn't affect votes in progress. I agree with someone's previous note saying that once a change is made, it should be made across the board. The 3 day minimum is okay makes sense - that ensures there will be time for everyone to be aware of a rule change before it takes effect, if they care to be. And the "not effective before implemented" clause is necessary, otherwise we'll get really tangled the first time we vote in a major voting procedure change. The modifications to r204 seem completely unnecessary to me. Of course only active players can vote - the only way to vote is to be logged in, which automatically makes you active. What we need is some rule defining the number of eligible voters at a given time, and you've got one of those. r210 is going to be tough to modify, because it's basically two rules in one - it defines the "required number of votes" and it defines a "quorum". Both of these are hotly contested, so any statement of 210 that includes both definitions is bound to upset a lot of people - probably enough to defeat it no matter how many votes it needs. I won't quibble with the 60% figure (although I prefer 2/3), but I will say that I don't think any definition of quorum should depend on any percentage of the number of registered players. You'd be surprised how many people will become inactive and stay that way, especially if this game lasts more than a semester. Besides, that would effectively prevent Steve and the other wizzes from ever pruning the player list. I have two comments on the changes to r211 (Early Decision) - if voting should be over when it's sure the proposal is defeated, why wait for 60% nay votes; you only need 40%. And make sure the wording of this proposal defers to r210 (or whatever it gets split into) to define the "required number of votes". And leave the math to the computer - a phrase like "enough nay votes to prevent the proposal from passing" should be clear enough. The other complaint is your penalty for those who cast no vote within 10 days (for rules that do not attain a quorum). First of all, I think not voting is a perfectly fine method of abstaining, and we don't need a grey ball. Secondly, this would penalize anyone who goes inactive (ie. on vacation, busy with school, ...) Definition of active status is fine with me. The 24 hour waiting period is fine, too, but why can't there then be modifications as the proposal is taken to the voting board? The point of the waiting period is to prevent fatal grammatical and syntactical errors from ruining a good proposal, right? So if a flawed proposal can't be corrected, what's the point? I know, it could be reproposed, but I think we should give people a little more freedom than that. Just let flawed proposals (1003, for example) get defeated, and the 10 point penalty will teach people to be a little more careful. -Xeman ** Re: proposal 1011 and Joe's note (Xeman, Sep 17 00:50) I agree with Joe - there is no reason to limit the voting period, (on the short side), as long as a minimum time is provided before a proposal can be enacted. The only argument I can think of that would entitle everyone to vote on an already passed (or lame duck) proposal is to get their chance at the 10 points from r201. This argument isn't quite enough, in my view - the speed-up is well worth it. -Xeman ** Reply to Xeman's comments (Heffalump, Sep 17 01:33) Ok, you make some good points. There are also a few misunderstandings. First of all, my r202 suggests that changes about voting shouldn't affect votes in progress because it will often be unclear HOW these changes should affect the vote. I think proposals should be voted on by the rules in effect at the time the vote began. I should probably come up with some arguments for this, but I'll just let other people think about it and I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong. Now, the change I want for r204 is something I haven't brought up before, I tried to slip it in with the rest hoping no one would notice! :) Anyway, either I didn't express myself very well, or you misunderstood (or both). My intention is that ONLY the players who WERE active at the time the vote began on a particular proposal can vote AT ALL on that proposal. So if you are away for two weeks and come back, you can't vote on any of the proposals that are on the voting board at the moment of your return. The main reason for this is to have a set voter list. Among other things this simplifies the definition of r211 (Early Decision version) greatly. OK, r210... Like you say, we can quibble about the % needed... anything in the range 60-75% is fine by me. Less than sixty makes things too unstable I think. As for quorem, note my suggestion was that the LESSER of 50% of eligible voters or 30% of all players be used. I think in practice to first (50% of el.voters) will be the one that is less. The other is a safeguard. As for r211, yes, it should have been AGAINST > 0.40(NumVotes-ABST) I just made a mistake. I think there is a distinction between not voting at all and actively abstaining. We should encourage the latter. Hope I haven't missed anything... ** Ooops, missed these points (Heffalump, Sep 17 01:39) More on r211. Yes, as my suggestions stand it would penalize anyone who went inactive. This could be prevented in several ways, the one I favour is that players can place THEMSELVES on the inactive list voluntarily when they know they are going to be away for awhile. This would automatically cast an "abstain" vote for them on any proposal that they would otherwise be penalized for. The 24hr waiting period is to insure that discussion about the suggested proposal EXACTLY as it will be worded can be made. If you let people change the wording at all that leave a loophole that makes the rule meaningless. I don't think there is anything against the 24hr. ** towards an ideal society (Jfk, Sep 17 03:23) Here's an idea for you future world leaders: Have a subclass of rules, to be called Resolutions. These resolutions would have no effect on the rules of the game but they would be easier to enact and there would be a way to get points for them too. The Rule which would enact this program would be phrased in such a way as to first outline the system for passing resolutions and then suggesting the first resolution, appropriately numbered. "implementation is left as an exercise for the student" ** RESOLUTION to end Perfidious Secrecy. (Goethe, Sep 17 06:26) Ah, the veil of secrecy, last home of the malcontents. Plotters in the shadows, waiting quietly for their moments, fiendishly, randomly, killing proposals, secure in the fact that NO ONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. And indeed, they should feel secure. As no one CAN know who they are. Why did Rule X fail? Someone voted against it. WHO? Nobody knows. How can we change the rule, compromise, to satisfy the nay-sayer? NO ONE KNOWS, as the nay-sayer won't speak up. So rest, dear paranoid, secure in your secrecy. No one will EVER know how you vote. When the game sinks in a quagmire of failed proposals (when no one knows who defeated them) YOU will still be secure, along with your little vote, useless, but safe for plotting. No, dear paranoid, We're NOT out to find you, nor your brother, the conspirator---we don't want to ruin HIS fun. Even with a public vote, he can hide, waiting until the last moment to vote---and just think of the fun when changing votes is allowed, and the conspirator switches his vote at the last minute. We have a luxury beyond any Congress, any ruling body of a new society. We may vote with secrecy, doom any proposal, and not need to undergo scrutiny and questioning from our peers. Find for the common plebes---a handful of millions can HAVE their vaunted privacy. But to those who MAKE the laws, who wish to make them successfully, such luxuries are few and far between. *I* voted against some proposals. *I* doomed some proposals to the Room of Failure (tm). Do you know which proposals I condemned? Perhaps I lied when I told you? Do you really know what I stand for without being able to see my votes? If you don't know, how can you hope to compromise with me. How can you possibly hope to compromise with me? Don't look at me. I don't know either. --Geothe. ** Agree with Geothe (Evantine, Sep 17 06:31) I agree wholly and 100% with the sentiments of Goethe. I cannot say them any better myself, no I'll end this note here. Evantine ** A change in Original 116---bad precedent. (Goethe, Sep 17 06:52) In reading the Original Rules, I noticed an important difference which had escaped my attention.... Suber took great pains to add Immutable Rule 116, which contains the basic premise: ``Anything not expressly prohibited is permitted, and unregulated.'' It seems to me that this is a basic tenant of the game. The game comes out of anarchy, where anything not prohibited is allowed. It gives the game, in my opinion, its vital quality of ``something out of nothing,'' rather that a quality of ``nothing out of rigid something.'' The fundamental Rules of this game seem to have missed this, not addressing it at all. That, along with the MUD architechture of the game (specific commands recognized only) has given us the opposite effect, that is, ``Anything not expressly permitted is prohibited.'' In a sense, we are not starting with anarchy, but starting with totalitarianism. What can we do about this state of affairs? The limited nature of the computer forum does not make this the Land of Do as you Please. How can we bring this initial pull back to the balance of freedom from its currently controlled state? Simply, think. We can make this game go either way. If you want to do something not permitted expressly in the rules, ask the programmers, or invoke a judgement. If asked to judge such an issue, judge with freedom of action in mind. If you want to forbid everything, so be it. But do it through voting and laws, not through the judicial branch. Judging away freedom sets a dangerous precedent, and if you choose to do it, and find it later limits you, don't come crying to me. --Geothe. ** RESOLUTION for a BALACED SOCIETY (Goethe, Sep 17 07:29) WHEREAS---The basic purpose of government is the continued SUPPORT AND PROTECTION of it peoples' INTERESTS. WHEREAS---A government which concentrates its power into the hands of a few ceases to become responsive, and instead becomes supportive of TYRANNY. WHEREAS---No principle may be held dearer in a nation than it RESPONSIBILITY to its CITIZENS, even in periods of rapid CHANGE, and WHEREAS---CHANGE, when it occurs, must occur with deliberate THOUGTFULNESS, lest it cease to become RESPONSIVE to its CITIZENS, We do hereby RESOLVE, as this nation's Ruling Body, to uphold in our design of its laws a series of CHECKS AND BALANCES, dividing responsibility into THREE BRANCHES: THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH The Legislative Branch shall seek to respond to the needs of the nation through the passage of LAWS. The LAWS shall pass by whatever procedure the Legislators approve. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH The Judicial Branch shall seek to interpret laws, in a fair manner, based on the important tenant ``Anything not expressly prohibited is permitted an unregulated.'' The Judicial Branch shall strive to uphold this tenant by determining and allowing freedom of action when not prohibited expressly by laws. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCE The PROGRAMMERS and MAINTAINERS of this game system, and the world in which it exists, shall use their NATIVE EXECUTIVE POWERS to enforce the laws and judgements of the other two branches. They will, within their own discretion, seek to EXPAND the rules to allow FREEDOMS desired by the citizens. With trust to the great BIT-BUCKET, we do put our faith in this RESOLUTION, and will attempt, through DISTINCT APPLICATION of POWERS, to maintain the balances inherent in this, our great game. yrs, the undersigned, etc., Goethe. ** oh boy, it's the U.S. Constitution. (Johann, Sep 17 07:35) see headline. This is not a recursive posting. ** Reply to Steve re r112 (Jonathan, Sep 17 08:19) I was under the impression that before changing an immutable rule, you have to make it mutable. That's how proposal 1006 is worded, in any case. Once 112 becomes mutable, there is no guarantee that it will be amended in the way 1006 proposes. A sufficiently strong faction (once we dump unanimity for mutable rules) could be nasty and amend it in a way that would terminate the game. I don't think correcting the minor redundancy is worth the risk. ** Support Xeman's Proposal (Evantine, Sep 17 09:33) I support Xeman's proposal for changing 211 in order to allow for ending the vote when the outcome is clear. However, I agree with Goethe that the minimum voting period should be three days, so that players who log in less frequently can at least see what the proposals are before they are passed. I'd rather not come back after a weekend and find that all the rules had changed!! ** Proposals should be seconded. (Evantine, Sep 17 10:15) It might be nice if proposals had to have the "signature" of some other player. Or, there could be a formal "seconding" system. This would help to iron out phraseology issues, since it insures that someone was asked about possible rule conflicts and misinterpretations. Something along the lines of: [proposed rule]: Proposals may not be moved to the voting notice board unless they have been signed by another player. The player proposing the rule may privately ask any other player for a signature. Players who are asked have several options. They may (a) sign publically. The player's signature shall be appended to the rule when it goes to the voting notice board. (b) publically refuse to sign. Their refusal will be appended to the proposal when it goes to the voting notice board. (c) privately refuse. No record shall be kept of the transaction. (d) suggest changes or bring up concerns, withholding signature until the changes or concerns have been addressed. The player who proposed the rule may revise the rule or ask another player to sign it. This rule takes precedence over 110. --- I believe the 24-hour discussion period could be incorporated into this rule, if people want it. Possibly, the 24-hour wait could begin just as soon as the rule is signed. Note: if you support this proposal, vote to make 110 mutable. ** DELETE OLD NOTES!!!!! (Heffalump, Sep 17 11:41) PLEASE, delete your old notes... I'm sure everything earlier than 25 must be useless now! ** Reply to Jonathans reply Re: 1006 (Steve, Sep 17 18:29) Jon writes: I was under the impression that before changing an immutable rule, you have to make it mutable. That's how proposal 1006 is worded, in any case. Once 112 becomes mutable, there is no guarantee that it will be amended in the way 1006 proposes. A sufficiently strong faction (once we dump unanimity for mutable rules) could be nasty and amend it in a way that would terminate the game. I don't think correcting the minor redundancy is worth the risk. > And I reply: Of course, that *might* happen. But then it might happen *now*. If the intention is there - a proposal like "Play shall cease immediately. This rule takes precedence over all other rules" could be passed right now. Whether this would actually have the force of ending play or not is an interesting question. But do you really think such a proposal is likely to be met with approval? At this early stage, I doubt it. I suspect the game will terminate, if it ever does, due to apathy, not by vote. Here's hoping that doesn't happen. Steve ** re: Support Xeman's Proposal (Korama, Sep 17 18:32) perhaps if a vote lasts 3 days, then those 3 days should not include the weekend, ie saturday and sunday this would avoid the possibility of what Evantine described, that you come back from the weekend and find everything has changed. Korama ** Judges Notice board (Blob, Sep 17 22:52) As it is, rule 206 merely states that the Judge has one week "to post an official Judgement on the issue" it does not state WHERE it must be posted. A special area for such postings would be useful. ** Re: Dreamsleep's dilemma (Xeman, Sep 18 01:36) The real dilemma is that Dreamsleep is going to have to do something about r208 (the discrimination rule) before attempting to pass anything that singles him out for any special treatment. And just to make things interesting, how's this: Proposal: That when, and if, r208 is ever repealed, modified, or superseded, that the player(s) responsible shall lose a number of points equivalent to their maximum possible benefit from the aforementioned changes. This rule does not go into effect until such time as r208 is first repealed, modified, or superseded. :-) ** Re: Evantine's 'seconding' idea (Xeman, Sep 18 01:47) This is pure genius. I think it would take care of many, if not most of the typos, conflicts, and accidental proposings that have been cropping up so far. With the 'signing' in effect, I doubt the 24-hour waiting period would even be necessary. Write it up nicely, and I'll second it, Evantine! ** Re: Korama and time (Heffalump, Sep 18 01:50) How do you propose defining weekend when there are probably players in most time zones? ** Disagree with Xeman (Heffalump, Sep 18 01:58) Changing votes doesn't affect early decision. You simply better be careful how you vote and not count on getting a chance to change it, since once a decision is made you cannot change your vote. ** Thanks Geoff... BUT... (Heffalump, Sep 18 02:11) Thanks to Geoff for implementing the "list [x]" command.... how about a "list [person]" command to get a list of all of one persons notes? ** Dreamsleep's Divisor (Dreamsleep, Sep 18 04:58) ("factor doesn't start with D") Motivation: Game preservation by more difficult winning conditions and an "equalizing" mechanism that causes everyone to drift towards zero. The Rule: At 11:59 pm, GMT, on the first of each month, everyone's score shall be multiplied by 0.8. If, by a simple majority vote during the "Tally Period", namely 12:01 am to 11:59 pm GMT on the first of each month, the players choose a factor of -0.8 instead, then -0.8 it will be. There are no other options available. Another Rule: The winning condition will be changed to >= 100 pts and a 10-point lead over the 2nd place citizen(s) Discussion: Makes it hard to "make a run for it". If someone gets up to 80 pts, and everyone else is in the 10-20 range, the majority can turn the tables next month. If you're moving towards 100, you will need to keep the right company up there with you, or else be held in high public esteem, so we don't flip you over. P.S. I'll be scarce till Monday. -- S. L. Dreamsleep ** Vote changing and early decision (Joe, Sep 18 05:32) I believe this was mentioned in a previous note somewhere, but these two ideas are not incompatible. If AT ANY TIME within the voting period, a sufficient number of for/against votes are cast, voting should cease. If you vote hastily, then you run the risk of the decision being made before you would get the chance to change your vote. The simple solution to this is to carefully think things through and discuss them before voting. ** Multiple Proposals (Yittra, Sep 18 05:35) A given player shall be able to propose as many rules as he likes at any time. The penalty for proposing a failing rule will be enough to prevent lots of garbage rules from cluttering the board. Comments? ** RE:multiple proposals (Heffalump, Sep 18 05:46) No, I don't like the idea of unlimited proposals. Perhaps a maximum of 3 would be good. Note, there is nothing preventing you from packing as much into a single proposal as you like... there is just more for other players to dislike about it then. ** Idea using points as money. (Heffalump, Sep 18 05:50) This is related to Yittra's multiple proposals... Why not make players pay a certain number of points for putting a proposal to a vote? We could up the winning requirement (say n=500), and give everyone some points to play with (say 50). Provisions could be added for giving or lending points to other players. The general purpose being to make the range of things we can do with points wider. ** Revised Proposal for Seconding (Evantine, Sep 18 06:45) In the event that 110 does not become mutable, I am prepared to propose the following variant which makes seconding optional. [proposed rule]: Procedures for Seconding A player proposing a rule may ask privately ask any other player for a signature. Players who are asked have several options. They may (a) sign publically. The player's signature shall be appended to the rule when it goes to the voting notice board. (b) publically refuse to sign. Their refusal will be appended to the proposal when it goes to the voting notice board. (c) privately refuse. No record shall be kept of the transaction. (d) suggest changes or bring up concerns, withholding signature until the changes or concerns have been addressed. The player who proposed the rule may revise the rule or ask another player to sign it. In the event that 110 becomes a mutable rule, then nothing may be added to the voting noticeboard without a signature. This rule shall take precedence over rule 110 or its amendments. [end of proposal] And the following-- [proposed rule]: Scoring for Rules signed by other players. Players whose proposals have signatures shall only lose 5 points if their proposal fails, and shall receive 10 points if their proposal passes. A player who has signed a proposal receives 2 points if and when that proposal passes. A player who has publically refused to sign a proposal shall gain 2 points if and when that proposal fails, but shall lose two points if it succeeds. There shall be no penalty for signing a proposal which fails. This rule takes precedence over other rules on gaining points, but for unseconded proposals, the usual rules apply. [end of proposal] I am certainly open to suggestions here. The rationale behind all these point changes should be clear: getting your proposal signed will insulate you from the harsh penalties for losing a vote. Publically signing or refusing to sign is advantageous *if* the vote goes your way. Also, there is a risk in *publically* refusing to sign a proposal, because if that proposal passes, you lose 2 points. ----------- ** good god this is a hassle (Icedasht, Sep 18 07:08) word ** Violation of judging rule (Dylan, Sep 18 09:30) >From looking at the list of judges in the Judge registration room (suggestion: rename it the Hall of Justice) it seems that a judge can only judge one issue at a time. If so, this is a clear violation of rule 207, which reads, in part: Rule 207. [mutable] (Initial Rule) Selecting Judges If Judgement has been invoked, then a Judge will be selected randomly from the Pool of Judges. The Pool of Judges shall be constituted by those players who are registered as Judges when Judgement is invoked. ... This should be fixed as soon as possible. Dylan ** Suggested change to judging system (Dylan, Sep 18 09:50) There is one glaring flaw in the current judging system: a bad decision will never be overthrown. Realistically, we won't be able to get everyone to vote to overrule a judgement, let alone get unanimity. I propose that we adopt a system with a panel of judges, along the following lines: When judgement is invoked, a panel of seven judges (or a lesser odd number, if seven judges are not available) shall be selected randomly from the Pool of Judges. After listening to the arguments, the judges shall write one or more decisions; each judge shall sign one or more of the decisions. If a majority of the judges agree on the action to be taken (although not necessarily on the reasons for taking it) that action shall be taken. Otherwise nothing will happen; if desired, another call for judgement can be issued. If a judge fails to sign any decision advocating specific action within a week, 10 points shall be deducted from his or her score, and another judge shall be selected from the Pool. Comments, anyone? I think this may be too cumbersome, and perhaps should only be used for appeals, as Yittra suggested. In any case, we clearly need something better than the current system. Dylan ** Yup, this is slow. (Garf, Sep 18 10:27) I just read a note which said something to the effect of what I just did... This game is running really quite slowly. One of the proposals currently is that the voting period never be less than 3 days. Well, how about bringing the voting period down to that proposed minimum. I think it's either that or try and get that wierd early decision proposal passed. On second thoughts, better make it 4-5 days to allow for weekends . . . or, to be really difficult, 3 days for rules proposed Sunday to Thursday, 4 days for a Saturday, and 5 days for a Friday-proposed rule (or summink like that). Perhaps simplified a little, but still to allow about 2 working/uni days for voting on them. I mean, we just had our first rule's voting time expire, and it didn't even get passed, so no-one got any points, no noticable changes have taken place, nothing. If this game is going to get going and keep everyone involved and interested, it's gonna have to speed up a bit. Let's get this thing moving. Garf. ** Resolution to KEEP perfidious Secrecy. (Draco, Sep 18 11:54) Ah the watchful eye of society, the Argus eye that see's all, and lets nothing pass. The society that refuses to let people be what they are, and punishes them for not being like everyone else. Why did the Rule calling for more power for our rulers fail ? Why, because this malcontent over there doomed it. So let's all tromp all over him in the good old tradition of 1939. Let there be no doubt no PERFIDIOUS VILLAINOUS SCOUNDREL Revolutionary shall interfere with our brave new world. No one will threaten our society like George Washington, Martin Luther,Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King threatened theirs. For this is the way things must be, the 'common plebes' must be kept common, so that we 'who MAKE the laws' may continue making them. Revolutionaries have changed our world to the better, and this shall NOT be allowed to be changed by any further Revolutionaries, especially Plotters in the shadows, waiting quietly for their moments. No, let us rip this blanket of secrecy off them so they may stand in the harsh daylight and have all their acts revealed before all, so that we, who are of course always right may judge them, and then condemn them to their truly deserved fate. -signed: A revolutionary who is PROUD to be one,... and values his privacy to act as he whishes and be responsible only to his own conscience. ** Result for rule 1001 (Steve, Sep 18 12:20) All I can tell you is that rule 1001 (New quorum rule) failed. You probably oculd have guessed that by the fact that it now appears in the failed proposals room. Unofrtunately, the exact result is not available, since bit has been erased. This problem is being rectified, and in future, at least until sometihng different is worked out, I will manually post results to the board. sorry about this. Steve ** Rule 1002 fails - 6 against, 28 for. (Steve, Sep 18 13:10) Subject says it all. ** What if 1007 passes? (Dylan, Sep 18 13:22) Please note that if 1007 passes, the voting period will abruptly change to 3 days. I believe this means that all proposals up to and including 1012 will be decided. Please be advised of this if you want to change your vote (which is now possible--yay!) (One other note--I believe that people should be able to retroactively change their vote if they wanted to in the period when it was not possible. Post a note (or send mail) if you want to try.) Dylan ** Achieving Unanimity on a Majority Proposal (Steve, Sep 18 13:43) As you can see from my previous note, my proposal to change from Unanimity to Simple Majority has failed 6-28. I think it's pretty obvious that the game can get nowhere until the Unanimity Proposal is altered. With so many people playing, some no votes are almost inevitable. Here is what i would like to happen. I intend to propose (or have someone else propose) r1002 again. Before I do, I would like any players who disagree with the proposal to move to a simple majority to mail me and, if they like, the board, with their objections, which I will try to meet. I think we all want this and other rules like Early Decision to go through, or the game will die from apathy and boredom. So please consider carefully what you will do. This goes especially for the six of you who voted the proposal down. Hoping to hear from you soon, Steve ** Heffalump re: Garf (Garf, Sep 18 14:43) Uh, at the moment the early decision rule is completely invalid anyway (ignore wierd) unless EVERYBODY votes for a proposal, or, ONE person votes against it. Under Simple Majority passing, this sort of rule would undoubtably be very good at speeding the game up, but at the moment, it would not speed up the passing of rules (which is really the thing that's needed), just get rules out of the voting area a lot quicker. So at present, I'll go for the 3-day rule until 1002 is re-proposed and unopposed. Garf. P.S. Get your orang-utan off my lawn or I'll set fire to your bidet. ** Time (Korama, Sep 18 16:23) The weekend would be defined as starting at midnight Friday nights and ending midnight Sunday night, local time. This is not as much a problem as it seems as the 2 days would be added to the time that the vote is finalised. This would only apply to short voting times ie 3 or 4 days. it would not effect say week long voting times. This does not mean the game would be suspended over weekends, you could still log on and vote make proposals etc. any proposals made over weekends would be counted from sunday midnight. this is merely to avoid things happening too quickly when not many players log on. If voting periods were about a week long, there would really not be any point in this. Really, this is mainly for short voting periods. If a resolution was passed limmiting voting periods to 3 days or sim- ilar, I will make a proposal (better worded of course) pertaining to the above. Korama aka Graham the Happy Scum. ** Something like garfs note (Korama, Sep 18 16:25) in reference to the note just above this. Korama. ** Re: points as money (Xeman, Sep 19 01:28) I like Heffalump's points as money idea. As a matter of fact, in keeping with the "if it's not forbidden, it must be allowed" philosophy, could I request a 'give ' command? It shouldn't be too tough to implement, and would allow *lots* of interesting possibilities. We could buy votes, loan points with interest (although we might have to revive the MUD fighting commands to deal with defaulters :-), and have a real economy! And if there was a condition that you could only voluntarily give away points if you had a positive score (I think this would have to be legislated), then there would be a penalty for going negative. -Xeman ** More on seconding (Xeman, Sep 19 01:40) How about some voluntary seconding, until such time as it's required? This wouldn't do much to prevent the accidental/nonsensical proposals, but it would serve to eliminate typos, grammatical errors, and rule conflicts in serious proposals. And in conjunction with point-transfers, we could almost have all of the advantages Heffalump referred to - proposals could have joint authors, who had agreed to split the benefits/losses. And, at the very least, I think the 'propose' command ought to make *real* sure that the player knows that he's about to actually put something up for a vote, and stands to lose 10 points if he's proposing nonsense. -Xeman ** Incremental improvement in unanimity (Befalas, Sep 19 04:30) How about we try an incremental improvement? A proposal that stated that "All votes opposed by fewer than n people will pass." As it stands, the unanimity rule sets n=1; we could probably incrementally improve until the system stabilizes at whatever n is appropriate. Comments? ** request for disk space for players (Dave, Sep 19 05:07) This undoubtedly would make more sense as an IDEA bit, but it would be very nice if we could copy notes into our own unique memory spaces and edit them, and post proposals brought out of memory too. With individual player mailboxes we've already got some kind of personal directories, but there's no way to drag text from mail over the the board and tack it up. Maybe reviving the MUD get and put commands, Re: text files, and allowing an EDIT command to be done on anything one is carrying, and allowing an EDIT command to be done on anything one is carrying, would do the trick. Conspire! --Dave ** Situation (Draco, Sep 19 07:24) At the moment, proposal 1001 and 1002 have failed as you probably know. So, we still need a new quorum rule, and a new rule for unanimity. 1004 may yet get us off the Unanimity, that remains to be seen. HOWEVER, as some people before me have stated, the moment we go to non- unanimity, the 10 pt rule will cause a dilemma, as everybody going for the 10 pts will make it near impossible for even reasonable rules to pass. So, I assert: REMOVE the 10 pt rule. Everybody, PLEASE vote for rule 1005. I don't know wether 1004 will pass to remove unanimity, BUT if it doesn't, I request that everybody take a look at proposal 1009. It proposes not only a better rule toward Quorum, but also asks for a simple majority. I don't think anyone objects to my Quorum rule, so quarrels will probably be with the 'majority' part of the proposal. May I suggest that we FIRST pass this one, THEN those who want a 2/3 majority can put up their proposal, and have it even easier to pass it. At the moment, it is important for us to get off unanimity, not wether it will be 2/3 or 51%. BTW, since 1009 already encompasses Majority, I see no reason to repropose 1002 at this point in time, as Steve wishes. ** Sad Situation (Evantine, Sep 19 11:12) Well, 1001 to 1005 just failed. 1004 Failed 22 to 3. 1005 failed 22 to 12. Looks like we're not going to get anything passed then are we? Unless we vote for the next majority or 2/3 rule that comes along. If you voted against these rules, PLEASE state your reasons! We want to compromise to get the game moving. PLEASE come out of the shadows and tell us what you will vote for! If you don't, this game will die a slow and quiet death. Evantine ** Sadder and sadder (Dylan, Sep 19 12:48) Well, 1006 and 1007 both just failed. 1007 failed miserably, 16-15. Feeling depressed and hoping something will pass, Dylan ** Still TWO ways of speeding voting. (Heffalump, Sep 20 08:27) We seem to be focussing on the majority/unanimity rules, but trimming the voting period is almost as important/practical. SO, I'm going to propose a change to rule 211 that will implement some simple version of the Early Decision rule (subject to Evantine's approval, since the proposal is as much his as mine). Should anyone STILL disagree with this idea OR not know what it is, please send me mail or post a note. I would be extremely offended by any "NO" votes that were not forewarned. The proposal will go up early on Wednesday morning (Nomic time) if no one comes forward saying that they will not support it (or abstain). Please speak up before then if you intend to vote against... or else you will be condemning the game. ** I think a 'gray ball' should be implemented (Heffalump, Sep 21 05:13) Now that one can change one's vote, why isn't there a "grey ball"? What if I wanted to change my vote to abstain? ** Rule 1009 is dead too (Heffalump, Sep 21 05:42) Header says it all... I just watched while 1009 died. I don't know the number of FOR/AGAINST votes. In light of this I am abandoning the course of action suggested in my note of Sept 20th (#114 or less) and instead I am REproposing the 2/3 majority rule. ** On abstaining (Dylan, Sep 21 08:21) I just want to point out that you can abstain currently: leaving the voting booth without using either of the balls has exactly that effect. However, a grey ball should still be provided, just to make this more explicit. Dylan ** I was no-vote (Dreamsleep, Sep 22 03:49) So far, I have been holding out on removing unanimity, but I won't do this anymore (though I like 66% better then simple majority). Remember my message of long ago, where I complained "too businesslike"? Well, like I said, I was trying to stir things up. One aspect of this game is trying to find those "loopholes" -- its no good spending all this time discussing every tiny detail in order to ensure solid rules, unless there are subservsives out therew who will exploit them. So, although nobody seemed to catch it, I hinted in Dreamsleep's Dilemma that I was going to vote down any change to unanimity until I was voted into the lead. The unanimity rule is a weakness (as weve seen) that can be exploited. so I tried to do so. On the humanistic side, I see people starting to get upset, so I wont push this attempt any further, though I think it would have been fun. I'm not here to be a $%#&^@, as someone said! I was simply trying to exploit the system, and I will continue to play that role -- someone has to. I have no idea who the others were. ** a broad plan appealing to many special interests? (Dave, Sep 22 05:36) The idea behind the resolutions idea is that many of the ideas people have for improvements can be incorporated into one large agenda, like how have for improvements can be incorporated into one large agenda, like how ammendments get ammended onto bills in the U.S. Congress? The reason there aren't any points for resolutions is because I supposed that a major objection to the scheme would be it would make it too easy to get points. So, it in its current form somewhat requires an accompanying rule amending it to have points. I'm sorry about the typos. This line editor makes me nervous. There's a delay before the new line marker comes up, and I don't know how to edit a line. When I tried, it got totally scrambled. I wish there was a way to bring complete texte files into Nomic World from outside-- like E-Mail them to our Nomic-World mailboxes and then drag them over here or something. The rule that 1014 needs a co-conspirator to propose would go something like, "In the event that 1014 passes, it will be amended to give five points to every player who registers a vote on a resolution" As if we could all agree on that. ** Resolutions: not a subclass? (Evantine, Sep 22 06:20) It looks to me as though Dave's "resolutions" are not a sub-class of mutable rules at all, but rather, a new class of entities which are *not* rules. Thus, they do not carry the same binding power of rules (as imparted by 101), that is, one is free to disobey resolutions. In this sense, I do not believe that the rules applying to "mutable rules" would need to apply to resolutions. Resolutions could be a potentially useful means of guiding play, in the sense that they could be considered "conventions" or "customs". I believe a good example of a resolution would be the seconding procedure. If a resolution regarding seconding were passed, the technique would be voluntary, points earned would be voluntary. The resolution, if it became popular, could then be "transmuted" into a mutable rule by a proposal in the usual way. The typos are unfortunate, but perhaps they could be fixed up along with some of the typos in the current rule set. Evantine ** Unanimity vs. Majority, A Survey, please respond (Draco, Sep 22 08:47) Ok, Dreamsleep has owned up to getting in the way. Since the 2/3 proposal was killed by 3 players, this does not mean we have passed this hurdle. Since my majority one was killed by 8, it means we still have a long way to go (if at all). We've just seen a reproposal of 1002. I'm wondering myself as to wether this is the way to go. So, for the moment, i'd like some information. How many of you out there are for the simple majority, how many of you are for the 2/3 majority, how many are for Unanimity as it exists ? Care to state why ? Are you a Voting Member ? Please tell me, either via On-line mail, or E-Mail to ramsey@rhrk.uni-kl.de (state your nomic name please just so I can keep things straight). I promise to keep your individual answers secret, but if i get enough answers to this survey, i will post the percentages of players that are in favor of 50,67 or 100%, so we can get some information of what we should be trying for. -Draco- ** Re: Resolutions (Evantine, Sep 22 09:29) Well, seeing as how Dave's Resolutions proposal is certain to fail (isn't everything, at least for a while), I think next time around a "resolution" should be implemented not as a subclass of mutable rules, but as a separate class in and of itself. The language of the proposal should perhaps be worded such that it is clear that resolutions are not "rules." But, perhaps by then, resolutions will not really be needed. Evantine ** Re: Resolutions (Evantine, Sep 22 09:29) Well, seeing as how Dave's Resolutions proposal is certain to fail (isn't everything, at least for a while), I think next time around a "resolution" should be implemented not as a subclass of mutable rules, but as a separate class in and of itself. The language of the proposal should perhaps be worded such that it is clear that resolutions are not "rules." But, perhaps by then, resolutions will not really be needed. Evantine ** Majority vs 2/3 (Johnd, Sep 22 10:45) I thought that I'd add a few thoughts to the discussion about the eventual death of the unanimous rule. I voted against the simple majority proposal because it appeared to allow passage of rules with a very small total of votes (given our quorum). I am very supportive of the various 2/3 proposals. One will surely pass soon. On another topic -- I am planning to propose a a change to rule 201, so that points for successful proposals would become more competitive. Basically, when a rule passes, all who voted onn the rull can submit a number and the player submitting the highest untied number gets that many points. Easy and fun. ** phooey, darn, curses, oh heck. (Dave, Sep 22 11:06) [Amending Rule 1014] I guess I left out this about Resolutions when I retyped them friday evening after the Armageddeon Reboot -- They have no power or authority at all. They are just statements. I'd like to retroactively include that as the 10th clause of proposed rule 1014 if I may. May I? ** Results for proposals 1004-1010 (Steve, Sep 22 20:06) Sorry these are late - I have been away for a few days. Here are the results for proposals 1004-1010: Rule 1004 (Proposed by Heffalump) failed (3 against, 22 for) Rule 1005 (Proposed by Evantine) failed (12 against, 22 for) Rule 1006 (Proposed by Blob) failed (12 against, 16 for) Rule 1007 (Proposed by Dylan) failed (15 against, 16 for) Rule 1008 (Proposed by Yittra) failed (14 against, 15 for) Rule 1009 (Proposed by Draco) failed (8 against, 23 for) Rule 1010 (Proposed by Herman) failed (10 against, 15 for)** ** Re: Johnd's points proposal (Steve, Sep 22 22:28) Ummm...did you really mean the following: On another topic -- I am planning to propose a a change to rule 201, so that points for successful proposals would become more competitive. Basically, when a rule passes, all who voted onn the rull can submit a number and the player submitting the highest untied number gets that many points. Easy and fun. If that passes, you'll start a competition to invent the notation that describes the highest integer - and whoevrf wins would win the game. Not easy oor fun or productive. What did I miss? Steve *** ** WHAT ARE YOU DOING STEVE!!!! (Heffalump, Sep 23 01:54) Steve, why, pray tell, did you propose 1016? I can see it now, one or two people who support the simple majority (will needlessly) vote against 1015 because they prefer 1016. I hope they will realize how stupid that would be (since voting FOR 1015 might make 1016 easier to get in), but then there were 3 people who voted against 1004, so I guess we DO have some stupid people around. Anyway, a simple majority is far to weak a condition for rule adoption... I hope that people will give 2/3 a decent trial period (2 weeks?) before going after something less that might lead to too much instability. By the way (EVANTINE) at least one of the 3 votes against 1004 was made because the rule was seen as AMBIGUOUS... I realize that your nit-picky comments to that effect early on were well intentioned, but at the same time I think they could have been tempered and more thoroughly considered, particularly while we are in a climate of requiring unanimity! (In case someone might misinterpret me, I'm not at all suggesting that Evantine voted against 1004, just that he may have unintentionally been the cause of one NO vote. ** Re: Johnd's points proposal (Johnd, Sep 23 05:53) Steve suggested that my points proposal would lead to a quick victory for whoever figure out how to reach the magic number of points needed to win. I don't think that Nomic should ever end -- what would be the point in winning? I assume that shortly after we get to a position where points are being earned, that we will bump up the value to where we can play forever (or at least until the game stops by itself). johnd ** Survey, an addendum. (Draco, Sep 23 07:12) Hello again. If you are replying to my Survey, please also state how you stand to the Quorum Issue. Do you want a Quorum ? At what % value ? Of all players or 'active' players ? How would you like to see 'active' defined (if you like my quorum rule (see 1009), with maybe just diffrent % value, feel free to just say so :-) Thank you all for responding, -Draco- ** Re: Dreamsleep. (Draco, Sep 23 07:34) Dreamsleep has admitted that he was voting down any Majority proposal that came along. For what reason ? Because 'The unanimity rule is a weakness' (as weve seen) that can be exploited.)'. That the Unanimity Rule is a weakness, I will agree wholeheartedly. That we have seen this I will also agree. The sheer flood of proposal to change it has shown that we do, as well as the high number of 'yes' votes on the matter. The numbers of proposal's state one more thing though: We saw it long before dreamsleep took it upon himself to show us this. And some of us tried to DO something about it. Which Dreamsleep himself sabotaged by voting down. He in effect prevented us from doing something against the weakness by using it to hamstring us. Does this somehow remind you of 'fucking for virginity' ??? There are a few of us here trying to remove the weaknesses that the starting rules have left us with. Some of them try do do something about it (To find out who, read the scoreboard you'll see them immediately). Some of them just try to help them (those who voted yes, you know who you are, and thanks). There are those who stand in the way for whatever reasons they have, wether that be fun at seeing us flounder, or malice, or simply tring to show us things we already know. I won't state an opinion on these people here. I'll leave it up to the reader's of this note to form their own opinion. -Draco- ** Changing Immutable Rules (Draco, Sep 23 07:52) There have been a few proposals that ask for some Immutable rules to be made mutable, so we may change them (and possibly return them to Immutable state). The problem I see here is that those rules drive the game. It would be much to easy to change an immutable rule into something that would hurt the game seriously, so, I will tend to be against any such proposals. I however agree that some of the Immutable rules aren't exactly perfect. To change these, I suggest a diffrent path be taken. FIRST, propose the new form of the rule that you want to change. If we agree that this new rule is better, there should be no proplem in getting it voted. SECOND, make that rule immutable. THIRD, make the old version of the rule mutable, so that the old rule no-longer takes precedence over it. You will note that this way of doing things is just as complex as the other way, both need two votes to make the rules in question mutable/immutable, and need one more to change/enact the new rule. On the other hand, by enacting the replacement before the actual replacement, everybody may see what is going on, and make sure that what is happening is not potentially harmful. -Draco- ** Why Im going to leave this game soon (Garf, Sep 23 09:26) OK. I'm going to put it simply. This game is going to die. A lot of the discussions on the board at the moment seem to be about the two-thirds majority vs the simple majority vs unanimity...which majority do we go for IF we are going to get rid of unanimity. Well, and lets be frank about this, I DON'T CARE! Why have there now been two rules proposed; one for the simple majority and one for a 2/3 majority? Why couldn't we just vote for the one that was there and then, having a majority of some sort, changed it later on? Now that there are two choices people can and will vote for the one they want and (no doubt someone will) vote against the one they don't want, thereby reducing the chances of either being passed at all. Well, I'm gonna vote for both, and suggest that no-one vote against either, coz if in a week or so they get rejected, I for one am withdrawing from this game 'coz I've got better things to do with my time than watch a proposal sitting on the board for a week only to be chucked out by one nay vote. It is slow, boring, and will never get anywhere if this keeps up. Vote YES to BOTH majority rules. Garf, and he's bloody annoyed. ** A Points Suggestion. (Geoff, Sep 23 12:30) How many people would be interested in a points rule which guaranteed a zero sum points game? geoff ** Vote Yes to both proposals PLEEEAASSE!! (Geoff, Sep 23 12:35) Vote yes to both majority proposals - don't take the risk of vetoing one when the other might pass; please - lets get one of the majority proposals through. If you've voted no to either of them I implore you to change that to a yes vote... geoff ** Why I proposed 1016 (Steve, Sep 23 12:41) In defence of my proposal of 1016 (simple majorities), I admit it was a little hasty, but actually assumed that that 1015 would pass. This was probably very foolish of me. The point was then to determine if more than 2/3 of the players want a simple majority as opposed to a 2/3 one. It was not meant in any way to undermine 1015, but rather to complement it. So...PLEASE VOTE YES TO 1015, AT LEAST! IF YOU HAVE ALREADY VOTED AGAINST 1015, PLEASE CHANGE YOUR VOTE BEFORE NEXT MONDAY!!! And, well, vote for my proposal 1015, if you would like a simple majority. I still think that with 30+ players, a simple majority will work best. ** Results for proposals 1011 1012 (Steve, Sep 23 16:07) Rule 1011 (Proposed by Goethe) failed (8 against, 20 for) Rule 1012 (Proposed by Garf) failed (6 against, 16 for) ** More on zero-sum (Heffalump, Sep 24 02:11) (Hasn't this already been suggested somewhere?) Anyway, I like the idea too. I was thinking that the winning condition could be amassing half of the total points available in the game. It would mean that everyone would have to be given some starting amount of points and that players can't go below Zero. They could "owe" other players points though (such that they are automatically repaid the instant they are available), alternately, it could be made so that players who are broke just don't pay (ever). ** yup, nodody's hanging out here these days (Icedasht, Sep 25 06:27) yes, thing Heffalump. Nobody hangs at this crib no more. What's everybody doing? ** School (Dreamsleep, Sep 25 07:23) I cant speak for everybody, but schools starting here... Things were extrememly busy, though, I think I will prefer less traffic... ** interpretation of rule 207 (Lindrum, Sep 25 08:31) As I understand it, the following sequence of events is quite in accordance with the current rules: Players A and B are in dispute over the interpretation of rule X, and ask for a judgement. Player A is registered in the pool of judges and, as it happens, is the one randomly selected to judge the dispute between herself and Player B. Player A accepts the position of judge and rules in favor of herself. Am I interpreting rule 207 correctly here? If anyone disagrees with this reading, please let me know. LINDRUM ** Could be... (Garf, Sep 25 10:13) I think the reason there has been far less traffic in nomic world lately is any proposals which would have made the game vaguely interesting have been chucked, and the game is really quite boring. This must be becoming fairly obvious to others who read my posts, 'coz I must be pretty bored writing all these messages venting my anger and frustration, knowing maybe 10 people will actually read them. -Garf ARUNDA NILCHA ASPARAGUS POLTNIK WOTLING IKKI NIKKI NOO KERUMP DING PTANG! (Viking war cry) Man, I'm bored. I think I'll go and iron my socks. ** It's holidays in Australia, but... (Steve, Sep 25 12:26) well, it's september hols in Oz, but who says participation is down? We're still getting 25-30 votes for proposals... Steve ** Results for 1013 (Steve, Sep 25 12:27) Rule 1013 (Proposed by Miguelangel) just failed (12 against, 11 for) ** Keep writing, Garf (Johnd, Sep 25 12:39) Garf sounds depressed. This is a note of encouragement. I read all your notes. On a more philosophical note -- nomic is more like yachting than football. Its moments of excitment are spaced far apart. I think that nomic is really all of these notes and has less to do with the rules than most people seem to think. I don't see a goal or an end to nomic. I do hope that one of the proposals passes. johnd ** The Bulletin Board new command: list [keyword] (Geoff, Sep 25 13:20) the 'list' command has been extended to take a keyword from the headers (ie. someone's name) - it will then list all headers containing that word. Importantly it is case sensitive! geoff ** "Zero Sum Game" (Davidb, Sep 25 23:24) I'm not enthusiastic about the proposal to make Nomic a zero-sum game. In fact, I fear that doing so could well be the kiss of death. We've already been unable to pass any proposals and that's with everybody pleading for cooperation. If the game turns into a battle over brownie points, I fear nothing will be acomplished. I see Nomic as a game with somewhat conflicting goals. Building the "system" is an activity that one can take pride in. At the same time, exploiting the system by being able to find loopholes is also an activity that takes creativity and is, therefore, one that one can also take pride in. It's somewhat like the battle between software developers and software testers with everyone playing both roles. ** On the Person/Player Distnction (Lindrum, Sep 26 01:25) Rule 209 draws a clear distinction between "person" and "player"; a distinction marked in practice by the use of nicknames, e.g. David Bowen is a person in the game, while Sphinx is a player. What a person is need not detain us here, however Rule 209 has some important things to say about the way in which persons and players are related or associated. (i) Not every person in the game need be related to or associated with any player (e.g. Rob Rendell is an example of a person in the game who is not associated with any player. (ii) Every player in the game must be associated with some person (e.g. the player Dreamsleep is associated with the person Rob Shaw). (iii) The relation or association of a player with a person is established through, and constituted by registration. (iv) That is all that Rule 209 has to say about the way in which persons and players are related. ** On the Interpretation of Rule 204 (Lindrum, Sep 26 01:30) Rule 204 states that each player always has exactly one vote. It says nothing at all about how many votes a person may have. A person might, consistently with Rule 204, have more than one vote. ** Lindrum Accepts Appointment as Judge (Lindrum, Sep 26 19:43) I hereby accept appointment as judge in the matter of the issue between Heffalump and Evantine, and, conscious of the enormous power now invested in me as Judge, pledge to uphold and respect the rules and the spirit of the Game of Nomic in delivering a judgement on this matter within seven days. Lindrum, Sat Sep 26 1992. ** Survey, **PLEASE RESPOND* (Draco, Sep 27 00:22) Hello again everyone. I have gotten responses from only 9 people, half of which i only got responses by asking on-line. I need more data on what the voting population of Nomic World wants. So, *PLEASE*, tell me. For more details, please see notes 111, and 119 on this board. I'm trying to find out wether we should try for a 2/3 or simple majority, I think it's in everybody's best interests to find out which of these proposals has the best chances of coming about. Also, to those few that have answered, thanks for your time and help, I appreciate it. -Draco- ** let me bounce this off your wall: (Dave, Sep 27 04:34) Well my proposal failed by anyone's standards. FIne. I still would like to see us have some sort of resolution kind of thing, to give this game more substance in refining all of our political views instead of having it be a completely sterile exercise in abstract committee process. And I would like to know if I am or am not alone in this view. What I'm trying to bring about is a way to more efficiently run a "meme" up a flagpole and see who salutes it. Proposal 1014 had several problems in it of which I am aware, including: absence of a clause specifying powerlessness of resolutions Overly specific implementationi directives correctable typing errors And the question of whether these resolutions would have points with them or not left open for another seperate mutable rule. So, to do it right this time, Please N-mail me your ideas and I will attempt to incorporate them into a revised proposal. Or, if you have trouble with the concept, like you don't like it simply because it isn't in line with your idea of What Nomic Should Be, I would like to know your point of view, please share it. That's all for now ** another new idea (Dave, Sep 27 04:41) here's an idea for anyone to forge into a proposal --- I don't want to be it's salesman. If we ever finish this game, the surviving active players should form a closed elite, who will then be the core group for future games. And if anyone else wants to join the game, they will have to submit some kind of essay or something, like a Admission Proposal or something, and they will have to get voted in. This would allow the game(s) to continue smoothly, with consensus, if we ever get to a consensus state. It would also be a metaphor for college admissions, job search, and any of a variety of other situations in which one seeks admission to a functional elite club. (secret handshake, colors, and the official silly hat comes next...) ** Secret Handshakes (Blob, Sep 27 10:35) Dave's concept of an "elite" in Nomic is an interesting idea to toy with. Personally, I would find it fun from both the point of view of a member of the elite, and also from the view of someone trying to struggle eir way into the elite. It would be challenging. _BUT_ I don't think a public game of Nomic should be abandoned. If ever we decided to set up an elitist Nomic, I suggest we do it somewhere other than this World. Blob ** Lindrum's Judgement: Part 1 (Lindrum, Sep 27 17:08) Part 1: On the scope of this judgement. Evantine raises a question regarding the wording of Heffalump's Proposal 1004. Since 1004 was a proposed amendment to Rule 210, ju judgement of this matter will require clarification of Rule 210 and, as we shall see, various other rules on whose interpretation a proper understanding of Rule 210 and the present judgement will depend. Accordingly, I take the scope of my jurisdiction on the present matter to include the interpretation of any rules relevant to a proper understanding of this present judgement. This includes, but is in no way limited to, the interpretation of Rules 206, 210, and 102. Some comments in support of this statement of scope are appropriate here. Rule 206 states that: "Unless a judge is overruled, one judge settles all questions relevant to the disagreement which the judge was selected to settle, including questions as to their own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge." It is quite clear from this that any question of the scope of a Judge's jurisdiction is up to the Judge himself (and no-one else) to determine. Rule 206 also states that: "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree." This might reasonably be taken to be an explicit limitation of the scope of jurisdiction of a New Judge. However Rule 206 defines a "New Judge" to be one who has been selected after a previous judgement has been overruled. I am not a New Judge. ** Lindrum's Judgement: Part 2 (Lindrum, Sep 27 17:27) Part 2: On the interpretation of Rule 210. Rule 210 is a rule that includes an explicit, though vague, limitation of the period of its own effect. It states: "Initially, proposals shall be adopted only by unanimous vote ... " In other words, Rule 210 concerns only what is to happen during the initial part of the Game. It says nothing at all about the criteria by which proposals are to be adopted once the initial phase of the Game is over. (Rule 102 has a similar limitation.) In order to understand Rule 210, then, we must clarify the meaning of the word "initially". One approach would be to interpret "initially" in this context as meaning "until this rule is changed". It is this Judge's firm and considered opinion, however, that such an interpretation is mistaken, since it would rob the word "initially" of any force whatsoever. In that sense, after all, every Rule of the Game would be "initial" and one might fairly ask why it is not the case that every rule begin, as Rules 210 and 102 do, with the word "initially". As a matter of general principle one ought to prefer an interpretation of a rule that ascribes some relevance to each word or phrase appearing in the rule's statement, over any interpretation on which that word or phrase is merely superfluous or otiose. Now the Rules of Nomic offer no precise answer to the question: when does the initial part of the Game end? Rule 206 states clearly that when the rules are "silent" or "unclear on the point at issue", then the issue is one for judgement. As indicated in Part 1 above, I judge the interpretation of Rule 210 to fall within the scope of my present jurisdiction, and hence I am required as Judge to make this point precise in a manner consistent with "common morality, common logic, and the spirit of the game". Realizing that the choice of any particular point in time would be somewhat arbitrary, but forced nevertheless to choose, I hereby declare that the initial part of the game will end at the time of posting of the final Part of this Judgement. I interpret Rule 210 as stating that from that time onwards Rule 210 is no longer in effect. ** Lindrum's Judgement: Part 3 (Lindrum, Sep 27 17:47) Part 3: On the spirit of the game The present Judgement does not involve the enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation of any rule. Any such thing would clearly be improper. The present Judgement does no more than to interpret the rules as they currently stand. While some details of my interpretation may be a controversial matter, it is uncontroversial that, according to the current rules, I have the right as a duly selected Judge to enforce an interpretation which has less than universal support, provided that the opposition I face is also less than universal. Some of you may doubt, however, that the present Judgement is really "in the spirit of the game". Let me explain why it is. Peter Suber's carefully framed Rules of Nomic were not only adapted for the purposes of this computer implementation, they were changed, and for the worse. Since the beginning of play it has been clear to me that there were several serious problems, for example with rules regarding judgement that allow a Judge legally to grant himself absolute power by interpretation. There seemed to me to be a very real threat that the first appointed Judge would seize control of the Game with evil intent. I have been very troubled about this, for it seems to me that the spirit of the Game is cooperative and democratic, not totalitarian. When by chance I was selected as Judge I decided after much soul-searching and careful thought that the only sure way to preserve the integrity of the game was to proceed in the present manner. Accordingly, I have done no more here than to lay bare what was already implicit in the Rules: that an appointed Judge may legally determine that he himself has absolute power. I am committed to changing this state of affairs. I shall move immediately following the posting of this judgement to establish a Seven Day Interim Government with temporary emergency powers. The Interim Government is committed to establishing majority rule at the end of a seven day period following the posting of this Judgement. The democratic forces seeking a move to majority rule have been systematically thwarted by the tyranny of a minority who insist on retaining a unanimity requirement. I solemnly pledge to you democrats that the Interim Government will be dissolved after one week, leaving in its place a set of rules free from the flaws uncovered in the present judgement, and according to which proposals will be adopted by majority rule subject to a quorum. I urge you all to take an active part in the operations of the Interim Government during the coming week. ** Lindrum's Judgement: Part 4 (Lindrum, Sep 27 18:06) Part 4: Clarification of the criterion for the adoption of proposals. Rule 210 ceases to be in force at the conclusion of the initial part game. The remaining rules of the game are "silent" and "unclear" on the way in which proposals might be legally adopted once Rule 210 is no longer in effect. Since this murky state of affairs is a direct consequence of the interpretation of the rules presented in the current judgement, it would be an abuse of my position as Judge were I not to clarify the situation. To leave the Game in complete chaos or subject to exploitation by a Judge less scrupulous than myself would be unconscionable. Thus I judge in accordance with Rule 206 that "common morality" and "the spirit of the game" leave me with no choice but to interpret the remaining rules collectively in the following way when it comes to the subject of the adoption of proposals: A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it. Note the following crucial point. In stating this criterion I am not enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting any rule. I am merely interpreting those rules that will remain in force once Rule 210 has suspended itself. The interpretation, though controversial, is strongly supported by the comments on the spirit of the game outlined in Part 3 above. As was stated in Part 1, I have judged the scope of my jurisdiction on the present matter to include the interpretation of any rules relevant to an understanding of this present judgement, so my right to interpret these rules is unquestionable. Furthermore, my position as an appointed Judge makes the criterion that I have offered here legally binding from the moment that the final part of this judgement is posted, subject, of course, to the possibility that this Judgement be overruled. Similarly, Rule 102 only deals the situation that obtains during the initial part of the game. Rule 102 says nothing about the status of Rules in the 100's and 200's after that point. I hereby judge that from the time of posting of the final part of this judgement, all the rules of the game are henceforth mutable. ** Lindrum's Judgement: Part 5 (Lindrum, Sep 27 18:21) Part 5: How this judgement may be overruled. Rule 206 states that: "The Judge's judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players." The rule is "silent" on the matter of a quorum for this vote. As stated in Part 1, I judge that matters concerning the interpretation of Rule 206 fall within the provenance of my present Judgement. I hereby interpret the quoted sentence as saying that the present Judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of all registered players other than Lindrum. A unanimous vote that does not include every other player registerd as of the time of posting of the final part of this judgement will not overrule this Judgement. Furthermore, since neither this rule, nor any other rule, specifies a time period for overruling, I hereby judge that there shall be a time period of THREE MINUTES immediately following the posting of the final part of this judgement, during which any vote to overrule must be completed. If the present Judgement has not been overruled by the end of that period, then it cannot later be overruled. Addendum to Part 5: Since there appear to be technical problems with the newly created Judges' Noticeboard, and since the existence of that noticeboard may not yet have come to the attention of all registered players, and since the rules are silent and unclear on the question of the proper way to post Judge's Acceptances and Judgements, and since the matter is relevant to the present judgement and thus, by Part 1 above, within the proper scope of the present Judgement, I hereby judge that the general discussion noticeboard is an acceptable place on which to post such Acceptances and Judgements. ** Lindrum's Judgement: Part 6 [Final] (Lindrum, Sep 27 18:34) Part 6: Concluding Judgements In light of Parts 1 to 5 above, the issue between Heffalump and Evantine takes on a rather academic cast, being a dispute over the wording of a failed amendment to a rule that is about to suspend itself even as I write. However, the issue is of a kind that may arise again, and it would be remiss of me not to settle it here too. I find the wording of Proposal 1004 regrettably loose: Heffalump makes explicit mention of the word "unanimity" which occurs nowhere in Rule 210. The wording is, however, not such as to make the meaning of the Proposal unclear. Note that I make no appeal here to any consideration of the intentions of the framer of the proposal. Such intentions I judge to be irrelevant. The key point is that the meaning of the proposal as it satnds, or, rather, as it stood, is not such that reasonable people could disagree as to its interpretation. I have no doubt, in fact, that the meaning is quite clear to Evantine too. But of course that was not the reason for Evantine's having (quite properly) raised this issue, and indeed I thank Evantine for raising it. Nevertheless I am compelled to judge in favor of Heffalump in this dispute. Proposal 1004 was quite acceptable as it stood. End of Judgement. Lindrum, 27 September 1992. 6:35 p.m. Melbourne time. ** Enactment of Rule 1017 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:26) [Amending Rule 109] I approve Proposal 1017 (see voting noticeboard). It is now Mutable Rule 1017. Lindrum. ** Proposal 1018: Repeal of Rule 208 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:27) [Amending Rule 208] I propose that Rule 208 be repealed. ** Repeal of Rule 208 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:28) [Amending Rule 208] I approve Proposal 1018. Rule 208 is no longer in effect. Lindrum. ** Proposal 1019: Amendment to Rule 206 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:31) [Amending Rule 206] I propose that Rule 206 be replaced by a rule that reads: Judgement may no longer be invoked. However questions concerning the interpretation or application of a rule may be addressed to Lindrum, who henceforth has complete authority on matters of interpretation. Lindrum's judgements will be posted to the discussion noticeboard. ** Enactment of Rule 1019 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:33) [Amending Rule 206] I approve Proposal 1019. It is now Mutable Rule 1019. Rule 206 is no longer in effect. Lindrum. ** Proposal 1020: Amendment to Rule 1017 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:42) [Amending Rule 1017] I propose that Rule 1017 be replaced by a rule that reads: Any player may make a proposal by placing it on the discussion noticeboard. The voting noticeboard will no longer be used. All proposals must be preceded by a heading commencing with the word "Proposal" which very briefly summarizes the content of the proposal. Lindrum may have any number of proposals on the discussion noticeboard. Any other player may have only one proposal on the noticeboard at any given time. ** Enactment of Rule 1020 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:43) [Amending Rule 1017] I approve Proposal 1020. It is now Mutable Rule 1020. Rule 1017 is no longer in effect. Lindrum. ** Proposal 1021: Replacing Defunct Rule 210 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:47) I propose a rule governing the adoption of proposals that reads: A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it. In addition, Lindrum may enact, repeal, amend, or transmute a rule simply by placing a note to that effect on the discussion noticeboard. No other player has these rights. ** Enactment of Rule 1021 (Lindrum, Sep 27 19:48) I approve Proposal 1021. It is now Mutable Rule 1021. Lindrum. ** WELCOME TO LINDRUM WORLD! (Lindrum, Sep 27 20:30) Welcome to Lindrum World! The scenery may have changed a little since you were last here, but do not be alarmed. The game is presently under the temporary control of an Interim Government endowed with special emergency powers. This Interim Government is committed to the establishment of majority rule at the end of a seven day period starting now. The Government firmly believes that the spirit of the game of Nomic is one of cooperation and democracy. We democrats who have sought a move to majority rule have been systematically thwarted these past weeks by the tyranny of a minority who insist bloody-mindedly on retaining the unanimity requirement. No longer! Join us as we march forward together towards that democratic goal! If you have not already done so, please go back and read carefully the six parts of President Lindrum's Historic Judgement. This document has lit a pathway out of slavery for us all! On reading it you will, no doubt, appreciate the pain and anguish with which the Great Man set out along that pathway. We can only be grateful that he possessed the strength, ingenuity and good fortune to do what had to be done. Many of your fellows are already working with us. We urge each of you to show your support for the Seven Day Government of President Lindrum by making a simple Public Pledge of Allegiance on the Discussion Notice Board. We promise you will not be disappointed. The dawn of a Great Age is at hand! Let us grasp its fledgling rays tenderly in our fist and with a single voice shout: ALL HAIL PRESIDENT LINDRUM!!! ** Get a life, lindrum (Yittra, Sep 28 05:59) LIndrum, get a life and shut up. Stop cluttering the noticeboard with your inane prattle. Go aestivate under a rock somewhere. You see, your judgement is not in the spirit of the game, hence is illegal. Therefore, while you may think you have cleverly found a loophole you are just making an annoyance of yourself. To be fair, I suppose I must admit the possibility that you were just tring to get the game going before renouncing your 'powers' , but 1015 and 1016 will do that anyway. In short, feep off and die. ** ARGHHH (Dylan, Sep 28 06:11) What a sorry day for Nomic world. First I log on and find this dweeb Lindrum trying to declare himself dictator; then 1015 fails. Why? Who could be so stupid? (OK, I could believe Lindrum could be so stupid. Was he the one?) Dylan ** Kindly defenestrate yourself, idiot (Yittra, Sep 28 06:13) Well, kids, looks like 1015 failed again. To whom do we owe this? What could possibly have possessed someone to vote against this? Whoever you are, get lost. I suppose you could take some sort of pleasure in ruining our game but allow me to appeal to whatever enervated spark of nobility resides within you when I ask that you restrict yourself to games which you can more readily comprehend, like one dimensional tic tac toe, say. ** Treason! (Dreamsleep, Sep 28 07:19) Lindrum has violated the Spirit Of The Game, commonly known as treason. I demand Judgement be made against him (possibly Meta- judgement), and a fitting punishment be served. Personally, I like 2 weeks banishment :-) Speedwell Dreamsleep ** Well, I TOLD you... (Goethe, Sep 28 07:24) Ladies and Gentlemen (and even Lindrum)... 1015 failed. Why? You'll never know. Who did it? You'll never know. How can we convince the perpetrator of the error of his/her ways? You'll never know. Votes are secret, you see...it's tempting to blame Lindrum. Perhaps, blame someone else. If you want, blame ME. But you can't prove a thing, not now, not ever. We have the luxury of secret votes, almost directly contrary to Suber's version of the game. P.S. It's not anyone's fault, really...the first games of Suber's game played among folks over here went similiarly badly. Government is a learning experience, you know. --Goethe ** Rebellion ! (Draco, Sep 28 07:26) Ok, It's happened. From what I can see, Lindrum has used the loopholes in the rules against themself, and set himself up as dictator. There really IS no limitation to his own judgmental powers. However, since he has made his judgement, he relinquished those powers. He DID use them to give himself the power to enact and repeal rules. This to me constitues a state of affairs commonly called 'dictature'. And it also means that we must now do what has always been the logical answer to a dictature : rebellion. To further this rebellion, I am asking for judgment against Lindrum, stating that he acted against the spirit of the game, and asking that rule 210 be reinstated, that any laws Lindrum made be declared void, and that he me removed from this game. You will note that Lindrum, in his Judgment didn't remove the right for judgement. So, the judge that is selected in this case shgall have as much power as he did. Further you will note that Lindrum has tried to enact several rules. He however failed to change the voting DURATION in his judgement, which means that all his laws will take effect no sooner than in a week, and since he has finished judging, he may not retroactively change that fact. Judgment may still remove his dictatorship before it comes into power, so i have called for that judgement. As long as the judgement is acted upon quickly enough, we may yet face off this dictature. I therefore ask you that my judgement be speedily judged upon, and that justice be done. Lets hang the scurvy dog !!!!! -Draco- ** actually... (Goethe, Sep 28 08:11) Actually, Lindrum only proposed one rule: 1017. 1017 is now on the voting board. The voting period is still one week. Once THAT passes, and once he re-proposes all the other rules, they will begin to take effect. Since rules are not retroactive, he must re-propose his rules after 1017 once 1017 passes. --Goethe ** well, that's that. (Goethe, Sep 28 08:36) We have a problem with timing. Lindrum has given us a judgement. He, of course, can make his decision INCLUDING his legitimacy as a judge. His voting period of three minutes has passed. He IS a legitimate judge, and we have not voted down his judgement in time, so his judgement takes effect. However, let's take a look at 206. ``If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation of a rule, then Judgement is invoked and a Judge selected.'' Since, as we've mentioned before, anything not prohibited is permitted, the rule allows us to disagree with ANYONE's interpretation of a rule, it allows us to question a judge's interpretation. The Judge (Lindrum) answers specifically his legitimacy as a judge (which I don't argue with), but, by the above sentence I MAY ENVOKE JUDGEMENT ON HIS JUDGEMENT. Of course, Lindrum may disagree with this. He may then invoke judgement on my ability to invoke judgement. However, I have already questioned HIS ability to envoke judgement, so I simply invoke judgement on whether I may envoke judgement before his invoked judgement passes. If he questions this, he may (what else) INVOKE JUDGEMENT. Which means: Lindrum has become A JUDGE. However, nothing prohibits judgements from being retroactive...unlike rules, judgements serve to right wrongs. We may have MANY judges. And I say, Lindrum's Original Judgement isn't binding until all judges on his Judgement, and my ability to invoke judgement on his judgement, and his to invoke judgement on my right to invoke judgement, are tangled out. Furthermore, since we may ALL be judgements (A judge, not THE judge), I will someday be a judge. Since Judgements act to right wrongs, I hererby state that MY JUDGEMENT, when it comes, is that we have trapped ourselves in an infinte loop of judgements, and cannot continue the game until every infinite judgement plays itself out. We have transended the game unto the eternal loop and day of judgements. We are all our own judges...the spirit of LINDRUM is upon us, we may make our own rules and judgements. goethe ** A call for dissolution. (Heffalump, Sep 28 11:32) In light of the failure of proposal 1015, and Lindrum's obfuscation of the judgement rule (which, suspiciously, preceded the failure of 1015) I suggest that the game should be dissolved, and restarted after the rules have been rewritten. The new rules should have the virtues of being clear, concise, minimal AND they should allow quick and easy modification within the network/MUD implementation. ** I Pledge my Support (Blob, Sep 28 12:16) For the sake of being controversial, and thinking totally within the framework of the game, I hereby Pledge my support for the newly formed Lindrum Interim Government. Please do no abuse me for this. If you are getting emotional about the game, then you are getting too involved. I have thought long about this, and I have decided to keep playing in-game. That is, I will continue to abide by the rules as they are set out. Feel free to argue with me in-game, by I am not going to be moved by any outside the game arguments. I will present my in-game case for agreeing with Lindrum's judgement et al later this afternoon, when I have had time to formulate all my ideas properly. Please, remember, this game is primarily designed to have fun. If you are not having fun, I'd advise you to stop playing. Blbo Gak, I can't even spell my own name. Blob ** Meta comment (Dreamsleep, Sep 28 13:02) I agree with Blob about the point that we should keep inside the system. In fact, I think it's sort of cool what >, control could go right back to the > prompt 2: Along with posting and removing our postings, we could have an EDIT option, for an already posted note of ones own. another not to tricky to implement feature might be a NEXT instruction which will remember the ordinal number of the last posting one has read, and do a READ (1 + N). Thanks, I'll shut up now HAIL ERIS!!!!! ** Is there a problem here? (Evantine, Sep 29 10:41) Lindrum's rule is illegitamate. I intend to argue carefully that his activities after his "historic" judgment were in direct violation of several rules. I have examined the judgment itself, and, while I disagree with his conclusions, I (like all others here) cannot quibble with it. However, Lindrum's actions after the takeover were in violation of rules 104, 114, and 206, all of which were still in effect at the time of his judgment. Unless we are willing to accept the proposition that a judge is free to disregard any and all rules, during and after the period of his judgment--it shall be necessary to *seriously rethink* our current position. I will be posting a detailed argument in the near future. Evantine ** What is this world coming to!?!? (Johnd, Sep 29 11:04) I would like to express my strong opposition to the uprising that is currently taking place under the leadership of Lindrum. Nomic world is a land of rules and Lindrum has cleverly interpreted some of them and totally disregarded others. It was shocked to awake this morning to see the coup. Did I vote for it? Was I even asked about it? I don't see a clever way around the reign of rule violence that has begun. I say on with the voting. I am sure that the few opposed to any rule will tire before the rule abiding citizens of Nomic World. I urge the keepers of this world (the wizards) to not be sucked into the coup. Nomic is a game of rules -- so all arguments can be resolved within the rules. Nothing else matters. Stay the course. johnd ** NOT in "the spirit of the game" (Link, Sep 29 11:14) I can't belive all of you are just falling in behind this usurper with hardly a legal foot to stand on. First, this whole farce is not within the "spirit of the game," the buzz-phrase of the week. Lindrum repeatedly chastises the "tyrannical" elements for destroying all chances at democracy. To quote," The democratic forces seeking a move to majority rule have been systematically thwarted by the tyranny of a minority who insist on retaining a unanimity requirement." If Lindrum is not now a tyrant, then I completely misunderstand the definition of that word. His promise to step down does not mitigate his use of the very tactics he finds so objectionable. To use a cliche, the end does not justify the means. Even if this *were* a legitimate and reasonable way to change the rules of the game, it's timing is extremely premature. The game has only been in existance for about two weeks. That's only time for two rounds of proposals. Lindrum didn't even wait to see if the latest 2/3 majority proposal would pass. He started his shenanigans a day before the vote was complete. That certainly goes against the spirit of the game. We had a chance to move to a majority rule by means obeying the letter and the spirit of the law, and he potentially screwed it up by neglecting to wait until the result was known. Who knows how the vote would have gone if the future of the game had not been thrown into chaos before the voting was finished. Also, the person with the greatest motive to defeat the 2/3 rule is none other than Lindrum. Defeating it would tend to increase his appeal. More arguments as time permits.(read, some of us have severe time constraints and didn't mind a slow paced game.) ** Why Lindrum has failed. (Evantine, Sep 29 11:31) I have given considerable thought to Lindrum's coup d'etat, and I have examined the rules carefully in an attempt to determine whether or not the sudden and arbitrary changes that followed his judgment were, in fact, a flagrant violation of the rules. It is obvious that they were, as I shall demonstrate. Important: I shall not dispute Lindrum's legitimacy as judge, nor shall I attempt to undermine any of the authorities he set forth for himself as judge. I cannot argue against Lindrum the Judge, who judged that rule 210 was to be considered "expired"; rather, I argue against Lindrum the Player, who has posted numerous things to the discussion board, and for some reason has proclaimed them to be "rules". 1. Lindrum writes in his judgment: "Thus I judge in accordance with Rule 206 that "common morality" and "the spirit of the game" leave me with no choice but to interpret the remaining rules collectively in the following way when it comes to the subject of the adoption of proposals: A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it." As Lindrum has determined that this is within the scope of his judgment, we must accept it (until another judge determines otherwise). HOWEVER, Lindrum has *failed to realize* that there are many other rules still in effect, which govern the passing of rules. These are: Rule 104. [immutable] (Initial Rule) Voting On and Passing Proposals All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes, and quorum is achieved. Rule 114. [immutable] (Initial Rule) Voting Procedures After a proposal has been placed on the voting noticeboard, there shall be a prescribed voting period during which players may vote upon it. Voting shall be conducted by secret ballot. Players may vote either for or against any proposal currently on the voting noticeboard. Players who do not vote within the prescribed period shall be deemed to have abstained. Rule 211. [mutable] (Initial Rule) [First amended by Rule 1007]. The Prescribed Voting Period The prescribed voting period shall be exactly one week from the time that the proposal is placed on the voting noticeboard. At that point when Lindrum made his judgment, and ceased to be a judge, these rules were still in effect. Lindrum proposed rule 1017 and then declared that it had passed. However, his declaration was *null and void* because (a) rule 104 states that all rule changes shall be voted on, and will only be adopted if they receive the "required number of votes". What this required number is, I do not know. It might be 1, but then again, it might not be! (b) rule 114 states that "after a proposal has been placed on the voting noticeboard, there shall be a prescribed voting period during which players may note on it." This period is seven days. Friends, we are *still* in that voting period! (c) rule 202 says "An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of completion of the vote that adopted it." Clearly, 1017, whether Lindrum approved it or not, shall not take effect until the completion of the vote, which will be sometime next weekend. And, since that is the *last* proposal on the voting notice board, all the other stuff on the discussion board may be safely *ignored*. Note: this is not a call for judgment. This is one citizen merely pointing out that all the nonsense on the discussion notice board is NOT to be taken seriously! Evantine ** Re: Geoff is the real dictator .... (Geoff, Sep 29 12:37) Actually Lindrum is being melodramatic and simply expressing his own OPINION, I did not threaten to stop the game; I simply refused to implement *HIS* rules until it is accepted that *HIS* interpretation and *HIS* judgement are sound and valid. Where would the game be if I just accepted anyone's interpretation Lindrum? Why is yours so necessarily correct - quite a few arguments (as valid as yours L) have been proposed which refute your "rules" changes. Until the situtation is clarified I shall do nothing. Geoff ** Alternative to Lindrum (Evantine, Sep 29 12:43) I should have mentioned, for clarity, that rule 202 explicity states that "An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of completion of the vote that adopted it." Since the prescribed voting period is one week, none of Lindrum's proposals may be said to have passed yet. Conclusion: we may still invoke judgment. Here's the alternative to Lindrum's dictatorship (or whatever he chooses to call it): Someone invokes judgment (indeed, it has already been attempted) and defines the term "required number of votes" as it appears in rule 104. The judge may opt for 50%, 2/3 or perhaps unanimity. It is imperative that this be done *before* 1017 is allowed to pass, otherwise Lindrum will just pass it all by himself. Only another judge can overrule his "Lindrum shall decide" rule. Evantine ** I accept Judgement. (Geoff, Sep 29 13:06) Presuming the calling of judgement is valid I accept the judgement isssue as proposed by Evantine vs Lindrum. Geoff ** Geoff is not a resitered player!!! (Blob, Sep 29 13:08) Geoff is not a resitered player!!! He should not be allowed to Judge!!! ** Re: Geoff is not a registered player!!! (Geoff, Sep 29 13:19) Well apparently; according to 209 - I still was registered; since I was always on the nomic mailing list. geoff ** Correction. Geoff was registered. (Blob, Sep 29 13:44) Indeed, geoff is correct. By rule 209, Geoff was indeed registered. For a while he believed himself to be un-registered, but he wasn't. A WARNING to all those who have recently unsubscribed from the mailing list. Rule 209 explicitly states that: "Registration as a player is constituted by inclusion in the Nomic Mailing List. No person who is not thus registered may vote on any issue. Therefore, make sure you are registered, before you participate in any vote, or your vote will be invalid. Blob ** Rules Book. (Geoff, Sep 29 14:06) As requested you now carry around a rules book (do an 'i' to see what you're carrying). The has the commands 'show []' and 'rule ' to list a rule. This means you can look at rules anywhere in the game; no more running around. The commands have been named so as not to clash with the board. geoff ** Evantine's 2nd call for judgement is invalid. (Blob, Sep 29 14:32) Evantine has just called judgement against Lindrum, concerning the interpretation of Rule 104. Now, in no way do I want to sway the decision on this matter, which I feel is a very important one, but I believe that Evantine has been improper in his method of calling. Firstly he called judgement with the issue: "Definition of "required number of votes" now that "initial" game has expired" This was done at Tue Sep 29 13:00:48 1992. The player Jesse was selected as judge. But when Evantine noticed that Jesse hadn't logged on in a while, he considered it unlikely that he would logon again soon enough to judge, and Evantine took it upon himself to call judgement a second time, with the issue: "Definition of "required number of votes" in 104" at Tue Sep 29 13:02:10 1992. This time the judgement fell to Geoff. (this information is free for anyone to check in the Judges Room, up from the "endoplasmatorium") Now in my opinion these two statements constitute one and the same issue, as the phrase "required number of votes only ever occurs once in the rules and that is in rule 104. Now, Rule 206 clearly states: "Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions relevant to the disagreement which the Judge was selected to settle, including questions as to their own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge." And: "The Judge's judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players." I put it to you that by these rules, Jesse, and Jesse only, is to settle all questions about the Defintion of "required number of votes", until he is overruled, he refuses judgement, or he fails to judge within the allotted time. Thus the selection of Geoff as a Judge is invalid and should be rescinded. I am calling judgement on this issue. ** I accept Judgement. (Geoff, Sep 29 15:36) I accept judgement on the issue between Evantine and Blob. I'm glad there's two other issues that have gone to others.. otherwise Lindrum might lynch me! geoff ** Reply to Evantine (Lindrum, Sep 29 16:05) Evantine explicitly states that his posting is not a call for judgement, but he has also asked me (directly) to respond to his posting. Hence I shall respond to him unofficially. The following is not an official Judgement. I note, first of all, that Evantine accepts the content of Judgement 1, i.e. among other things, Evantine accepts that: (1) At the moment Judgement 1 was posted, Rule 210 went out of effect. (2) As of that moment, all the rules of the game became mutable. (3) From that moment, the correct interpretation of all the remaining rules of the game taken collectively was that the sole criterion for the adoption of proposals was: "A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it." (4) When the time period for possible overrule expired without every registered player beside Lindrum having voted against the Judgement, the Judgement could no longer be overruled at any later time. Evantine's worry is not with the content of Judgement 1, but ith the legitimacy of Rule 1017, proposed and enacted after that Judgement. Evantine suggests that the enactment of Rule 1017 was inconsistent with a particular subset X of the rules of the game remaining in force at the end of the initial part of the game (X is the subset containing Rules 104, 114, and 202). That this suggestion is mistaken follows directly from (3) above. Let p be the proposition: "Rule 1017 is legitimately enacted if and only if Lindrum approves it." Suppose that, as Evantine suggests, p is inconsistent with X. Let Y be the set of all rules in force immediately following the posting of Judgement 1. By (3), Y entails p. Since X is a subset of Y, it would follow that Y entailed p and its negation. Surely Evantine is not suggesting that the set Y is inconsistent! Lindrum. ** Blob's Survey (Lindrum, Sep 29 18:12) Blob has kindly agreed to carry out a survey on behalf of the Interim Government. The question is: Should voting be OPEN, or SECRET under the rules that will come into effect on October 4th? So as to keep this board as uncluttered as possible, please n-mail answers to Blob for tallying. ** Geoff Makes Himself a Judge (Lindrum, Sep 30 01:35) Any of you who doubted my earlier warnings about Geoff's intentions should now see that my fears were well grounded. As you can see, Geoff has joined forces with Evantine in an illegal attempt to overthrow the Seven-Day Interim Government. Most frighteningly, he seems willing to use his powers as wizard to set himself up as "Judge" and to trade on the ambiguity of his position inside/outside the game to attempt to gain control of Nomic World. As I see it, the "Invokations of Judgement" by Evantine and Dylan are not only illegal, they are mischievous, and designed to create chaos. I will respond to their content however, as I am committed to answering any questions that any of you have 'about the legitimacy of my Government. Perhaps I have already said all that needs to be said in my "Reply to Evantine". I demonstrate in that note that Evantine is committed to the view that the original rule set was inconsistent. He is certainly wrong in that claim. The rule set certainly allowed me to assume power, but that is a very different thing to being self-contradictory. It appears, however, that Evantine is trying to force the game to be stopped. Now that Geoff is helping him he may succedd, unless there is an immediate and loud cry of protest from all of you who accept the legality of what I have done. Note that I just say "legality". I hope that even those of you who still doubt my motives or questions my methods will agree that what I did was at every stage quite legal. If you do, and if you are as committed as I am to getting through this crisis while remaining *inside the game* then I beg you to post public protest against Geoff's abuse of his position. I beg you to protest immediately. I need you others to help me here. This feeble attempt at a counterrevolution is succeeding only in wasting valuable time that I could be spending on the re-drafting process. Keep the game alive!! I have delegated authority to Blob to coordinate the Govt's rule survey while I continue to waste time fighting insurgency. If you are brave enough to come forward and help me as Blob is doing, then mail me and specify the particular resects in which you feel you are able to help. I need you immediate responses. Don't let Evantine and Geoff kill this game! Lindrum. ** We May Not Like This, but Suber Will (Adaml, Sep 30 02:10) It appears that this game has degenerated into a simple forum for Lindrum (and, depending on whom you believe, Evantine and Geoff) to further inflate his massive ego and display the results to the whole world. Unless your name is Lindrum, you probably find this process frustrating; however, Peter Suber will be happy to hear about this, because it demonstrates an isomorphism between his game (invented to model the political process of "Western" democracies) and the political processes themselves. Adam ** An apology to those offended by my rhetoric (Lindrum, Sep 30 04:06) I know that some of you were deeply offended by the Stalinist rhetoric of my earlier posting "Welcome to Lindrum World!". I apologize to you sincerely, and seek here to explain why I ever wrote that note in the first place. Last weekend, after long study of the rules, I finally became convinced that my plan to establish a Seven Day Interim Government was based on unimpeachable legal argument. After an even longer period of soul-searching I decided that the course of action I had sketched for myself was not only morally correct, but obligatory given my special position as the first randomly selected Judge. At that point it became clear to me that my greatest danger was not contrary legal argument -- there is none -- but rather that the rest of you would simply fail to acknowledge that I had done anything. If you had all simply played on illegally as though my postings had never been made, then, from a practical point of view, there would have been nothing I could do. Thus I decided, perhaps unnecessarily, to guarantee myself *some* response by temporarily offending a few. Perhaps my judgement was poor in that respect. I repeat that I apologize for the content of that posting. The awful high-camp Maoist mixed metaphors of the penultimate sentence were meant to be a clue that I was not completely serious; that this was meant to be fun; that this is, after all, only a game. Sadly, it seems that a sense of irony is a rare thing in Nomic World. Lindrum. ** Exposing the Reckless Abuse of the Rules (Evantine, Sep 30 05:18) Well, I see Lindrum's argument. His entire authority hinges on his use of the following language: [from Lindrum's Judgment, part 4]: "Thus I judge in accordance with Rule 206 that "common morality" and "the spirit of the game" leave me with no choice but to **interpret the remaining rules collectively** in the following way when it comes to the subject of the adoption of proposals: ... " What a simple phrase: "interpret the remaining rules collectively." And yet, how very insidious. This phrase is a codeword for "massively abuse, distort, and disregard the remaining rules." For that is exactly what has been done. Judges are players, and all players must obey the rules (101, even if it was judged mutable, is still binding). Whence, then, comes Lindrum's power to disregard these very rules? He seeks to derive this power from an intricate misinterpretation of the Judge rules. Well, which rule shall take precedence: the Judge rule, which seems to imply that all Judges may disregard the rules, or the Venerable Rule 101, that all players (even Judges) must obey the rules? Even if you're prepared to fly in the face of the numerical precedence rule, you *still* have to contend with the fact that even the Judge rule says this: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect ... " In short, Lindrum acted far beyond his authority as a fellow player of this game in presuming (a) that he, as a Judge, was somehow "above and beyond" the rules of the game, and (b) that he could somehow pull the wool over our eyes by changing the rules of the game so quickly that by the time people realized that what he had done was ludicrous, his power would be irreversible. (He wanted the implementation of the game to be changed immediately, so that he could solidify his power before anyone could react; fortunately, Geoff opted to wait before implementing the change to see if it would be accepted by the players.) ** Lindrum, legality, and games (Johnd, Sep 30 05:32) I do not agree that Lindrum's move was legal. There end of story no more coup. Back to proposals and votes. I do agree with Lindrum when he recently stated that we are only playing a game. So let's get on with it. Back to nomic. Thank you to the wizards that have kept this world on course so far. John ** Personal Remarks on the Dictatorship (Evantine, Sep 30 06:34) So far I have presented some legal arguments that, hopefully, will expose this dictator who attempted to take over the game. Lindrum's reaction to my argument was, initially, to attempt to silence me. I was told to remove the notices I posted to the discussion board. Indeed, Lindrum thought himself to be very powerful. First, he took away my vote, second, he took away my right to invoke judgment. Third, he wanted to take away my only other way of expressing myself publically. I have no doubt that Lindrum believes he is acting in the best interests of the state. To him, my comments are subversive and destructive of play. Same as it ever was--those in power believe they know best. I, for one, reject *any* and *all* dictators. And I refuse to be coerced into making any kind of "pledge of allegience" or anything of the sort. I also reject any concept of a "game within a game" -- there is only one game here, and all the levels and meta-levels are indistinguishable. Note: This is a game. I, for one, am enjoying participating in this experiment in chaotic dynamics. Evantine ** Judges and Responsibility (Evantine, Sep 30 07:01) I would like to comment on the practice, introduced by Lindrum, of using the interpretive powers granted to Judges to re-interpret the rules in sweeping ways, even to the extent of deliberately misinterpreting the rules. I believe that Lindrum knows the true intent of "intially" as it appears in several rules, but chose to mis-interpret it even against his own logic. He did this because he wanted to enforce changes that he wanted to make. Were any Supreme Court justice to commit a misinterpretation on the scale of Lindrum's, he or she would almost certainly be impeached. I believe that, as players, we have a responsibility to guard against such a abuse of the rules, whether that abuse be in ourselves, or in others. What is the real threat to Nomic world? It is this kind of activity, this kind of deliberate twisting of the meaning of the rules. If the rules can be twisted entirely out of shape, then we (in effect) have no rules. Without the rules, we have nothing. We are no longer playing a game, no longer within a legal system, we have returned to a Hobbsian "war of all against all." Lindrum has passed his judgment. Under the rules, we could overturn it with a unanimous vote. The rules do not state that any quorum is needed, nor do they state that there is a time limit (whether three minutes or three days). However, Lindrum seems to have managed to convince us all that his judgement takes precedence over any and all rules, even those that determine how we may overrule him. Yet surely judgements must take an even lower priority than even the highest-numbered rules, in the precedence scheme? Lindrum said something in a previous note which implied that he was the first Judge to be selected. This is untrue, Steve judged an issue early on, and Hansb also judged an issue. These were all legitimate issues, and the judgements were well within any reasonable concept of the "spirit of the game" and any reasonable interpretation of the Judge rule. Yet Lindrum, as soon as he was appointed a judge (to an issue that was irrelevant, and to which I, incidentally, *did not* invoke judgement on, and even had no quarrel with), decided that he had a legal and moral right to exploit the rules mercilessly. Lindrum *was* granted power by the rules, I do not dispute that. However, it is the mark of a good leader that he uses his power wisely, rather than abusing it shamelessly. If you want to choose a leader who prefers to exploit the rules, rather than judiciously interpret them in the light of reason, so be it. However, if you *do* have reservations about this abuse of power, please let it be known, so we can turn the tide against this menace! Evantine ** Lindrum's insincerity (Heffalump, Sep 30 07:59) At the risk of being accused of lacking a sense of "irony": I find Lindrum's protests that Geoff and Evantine are harming the game somewhat hypocritical, to say the least. Blob notwithstanding (and Blob has been on Lindrum's side since the beginning of this stupidity, so I'm assuming he has been promised some personal reward), no one has accepted the legitimacy of Lindrum's judgement. I agree with Lindrum in but one regard: any attempt by Geoff or any other player to repeat Lindrum's folly and employ their position as judge to usurp control of the game should be rejected. So should the initial attempt made by Lindrum. Another matter I would like to raise is my suspicion that Lindrum is a likely suspect as one of the co-murderers of proposal 1015. The evidence is (because of the anonymity rule) purely circumstancial, BUT... consider that Lindrum initiated his claims of dictatorship before the failure of p1015... the success of which would have removed the need for the authoritarian reforms that serve as the foundation for his actions (...er... WORDS). It is clear that his judgement has no legality, it's only hope of success is that popular opinion end up in support, which would never have happened had p1015 succeeded. I know of no way (within the current rules) to save the game from the choice between dictatorship, anarchy, and stalemate that Lindrum and his confederates offer us, but I beg that you not reward them by choosing the choice that they desire. Heffalump ** hey hey hey hey (Icedasht, Sep 30 08:36) I like cheese I like girl's knees I say please I don't sneeze where'sa the grease? ** a satanic verse, by Salman Rushdie (Icedasht, Sep 30 08:36) I like coffee I like tea I like things you do to me ** Legality and Judges (Ilt, Sep 30 11:01) The rules do not limit what the judge can say or proclaim, except as follows: >From Rule 206: >From Rule 206: "All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge's only guides shall be common morality, common logic, and the spirit of the game." The judge gets to define when rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear. He gets to define common morality, logic, and the spirit of the game. He also gets to define the juridiction of his judgement. Therefore, provided a judgement demonstrates its accordance with Rule 206, any statement, proclamation, or rule change that a judge includes in his judgement is not contrary to any rules. This is true even when the judgement is incorrect. ** Lindrum and Legality (Ilt, Sep 30 11:03) All of Lindrum's actions were legal given the rules in effect when he passed judgement. However, many of us would agree that his judgement was a deliberately incorrect interpretation of the rules in effect. It was incorrect because it ignored rules 104, 114, and 202. ** Preventing Dictatorships (Ilt, Sep 30 11:06) Can we have rules that prohibit what Lindrum has done? ====================================================== For practical purposes, I think the answer to the first question is sort of `yes'. Suppose we have a rule worded as follows, A judgement cannot affect events before it is posted. When a judgement conflicts with a rule that was in effect at the posting time of the judgement, then the rule takes precedence over the judgement. The judgement may not take precedence over rules in effect at the posting time of that judgement under any conditions, even when the judgement explicitly says of itself that it takes precedence over a set of rules. With this rule, the rest of us can ignore wild judgements and go on playing. Suppose also that we have a rule specifying an adequate period and quorum for overruling judgements. Under those conditions, we would never believe that we have lost our (practical) ability to overrule judgements just because a judgement says so. ** Effect of Delayed Rule Changes (Blob, Sep 30 13:23) [Amending Rule 202] PROPOSAL: I propose Rule 202 be replaced by a rule that reads: A proposal may include a delay clause, which postpones the proposed rule change from taking full effect, as follows: If the rule change is adopted before the time and date given in the delay clause, then it will not take full effect until the exact time given. If the rule change is adopted after the time and date given in the delay clause, then it will take full effect immediately. If a proposal has no legal delay clause, the rule change takes full effect at the moment of adoption. A Legal delay clause must appear immediately after the heading "Proposal:" in the proposal it effects. Legal delay clauses must have the format: (DELAY: day/month/year hour:minute:second) Times are expressed in 24hr Melbourne Standard Time. The phrase "Post-Interim", where it appears in a delay clause, is understood to mean "04/10/92 18:35:00" ** Re: Reply to Evantine (Geoff, Sep 30 16:31) [Following 1] Hi - this is a short :) reply to Lindrum's 212. Lindrum: >Let p be the proposition: "Rule 1017 is legitimately enacted >if and only if Lindrum approves it." Suppose that, as >Evantine suggests, p is inconsistent with X. Let Y be the >set of all rules in force immediately following the posting >of Judgement 1. By (3), Y entails p. Since X is a subset >of Y, it would follow that Y entailed p and its negation. You have just said Y entials P then you go on to repeat it! Surely you mean X here Lindrum.. Currently (in following Evantine's thread of accepting Lindrum's Judgement) there are 2 major obstacles to accepting the implementation of 1017 (on which all of the rest of Lindrum's rules stem). a) Lindrum is trying to claim that voting is "completed" despite rule 211 specifying a one week voting period and the fact that others may still vote (although their votes maybe worthless) and the fact he may still change his vote (err - approval). Notice the use of the word "exactly" in rule 211 - what is it there for if not to specify the exact voting time Lindrum? IMHO - rule 1017 has certainly not been enacted yet. His usage of the word "approves" in his judgement is also very suspect; While rules are only adopted iff he "approves" them; his judgement certainly can't simply throw away the voting mechanism and rules that are still in effect (as a Judgement cannot overrule existing rules). And a rule change cannot be enacted until the voting period is complete (rule 106); perhaps after this Lindrum may wish to "approve" it as "president" so it can become an enacted rule. We can see his approval as more of a veto mechanism. Of course he is still free to propose rules and have them voted for/against and then "approve" them - but this does NOT preclude the voting mechanism as specified by the still existing rules at the finish of his Judgement. His judgement did not mention rule 211 at - I suggest a new judge needs to be called for this issue. b) His inconsistency proof above is invalid because X is not a subset of Y. What are rules ? Rules are restrictions on our freedom to do anything (hence anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed - see a previous judgement upon the ability to change your vote). So infact a "subset" of the written rules X of Y is not a subset of the possibilites open to us but rather a superset because we have more freedom available to us. Furthermore the proof relies on a very restricted X which fails to acknowledge others rules which have a profound effect on voting procedure and rule adoption (105, 106, 211). geoff ** Suber *does* like it! (Steve, Sep 30 16:35) I mailed Peter Suber a copy of Lindrum's Judgement. He thought it was marvellous and seemed delighted with it. Steve ** Re: Geoff Makes Himself a Judge (Geoff, Sep 30 16:42) [Following 3] More hysterical ravings by Lindrum; as far as I can see 1017 hasn't come into effect yet - so judgement can be called by any player (on whatever issue seems like it needs judgement). This has been done - you'll notice I'm not the only judge with issues at the moment Lindrum. People were here when it was done - so stop frothing at the mouth and use some level head sense instead of trying to ram your changes down everyone's throat. Your attempt at stand over tactics are pathetic. geoff ** Overturning Lindrum's Judgement. (Geoff, Sep 30 16:57) In accordance with rule 109 I have made a proposal. The proposal (which shouldn't have been numbered by the automatic stupid numberer - oh well - only rule changes should get numbered) is that we overturn Lindrum's Judgement. In accordance with rule 211 we have *1 week* to vote upon this (hence his 3 minute restriction is in direct violation of the rules - so we can ignore it). I urge you to vote in favour of it. geoff ** Proposal: Amend errors in 209 (Steve, Sep 30 17:54) Rule 209 is currently inadequate in (at least) two ways: Firstly, the rule currently states that "registration as a player is constituted by inclusion in the Nomic Mailing List". This was not my intention when I framed the rule. I intended to make this a necessary, but insufficient condition - you must also register as a player inside the game. Somehow I managed to forget this when I wrote the rule. I have since realized that inclusion in the Nomic Mailing List should not even be a pre- requisite for playing the game. Secondly, it is not at present illegal for a person to create more than one player. I therefore propose (to Lindrum) that Rule 209 be amended to read: A Player shall be any person registered as such. Registration shall be constituted by (i) applying to register as a player, and (ii) having one's application accepted. No person may register more than one player. No person who is not a player is entitled to vote on any issue or proposal in the game. All persons are allowed to observe and participate in discussion of any issue or proposal arising in the game. Steve ** Ilt's Suggestion (Lindrum, Oct 1 00:20) I thank Ilt for his suggestion about how to frame a rule that will prevent dictatorships. I have one major reservation about the content of Ilt's suggestion, however. He speaks of judgements conflicting with rules, of a judgement taking precedence over a rule, and of rules taking precedence over judgements. I think that this indicates a mistaken view of judgements as being rules of a kind, of judgments as figuring somewhere in the hierarchy of rules. Judgements are simply judgements, they are not some sort of rule. I would suggest instead that Ilt's idea ought to be implemented by a rule governing judgements that strictly limits ALL judges, not just new judges, to passing judgement only on the particular issue on which judgement has been called. That is, I would like to see an explicit limitation of the scope of a judge's jurisdiction written into the rule. I would also like to have it stated explicitly that (1) the time period during which the other players may vote to overrule is one week; (2) something less than a unanimous vote of all th eregistered players should suffice to overrule a judgement. M As regards (2), my worry is that getting ALL the other registered players to respond will just be a practical impossibility. Perhaps we should allow that if all those other players who actually vote on the judgement vote against it, then the judgement should be overruled -- i.e. the requirement is simply unanimity among the other actual voters. I have a feeling that that would still be open to abuse however, and for the following reason: Suppose that some person, Mr X is running two different players A and B in the game, undetectably from separate e-mail accounts. Suppose that A becomes a judge and passes some judgement that clearly ought to be overrruled. All the other players except A and B vote to overrule the judgement. B votes to uphold A's judgement, and so, since the judgement was not unanimously opposed it stands. If any of you have ideas about how to get around this problem, please let me know as soon as possible. Would there be anything wrong with having a simple majority vote on whether a judgement ought to be overruled? ** Re: Reply to Evantine (Lindrum, Oct 1 01:00) [Following 17] Geoff asks whether the proof given in my "Reply to Evantine" contains a typographical error. It does not. Another way of saying that p is inconsistent with X is to say that X entails not-p. X is a subset of Y, so Y entails not-p. But by (3), Y entails p. Hence Y entails a contradiction. So Y is inconsistent. Note further that the set Y is a subset of the original rule set. It follows that if Y is inconsistent, then so was that set. It seems that Evantine is committed to the view that the original rule set was such that there was no way that the game could have commenced in accordance with its rules. I think that that is obviously false. ** Limiting Judge's Powers (Xeman, Oct 1 01:52) [Following 13] Why not just explicitly limit the scope of the issue the judges can decide on? Clearly, they may need to *interpret* any number of rules to decide an issue, but there is no reason that those interpretations need to be binding, in a fixed rule set. The requests for judgement should specifically ask a *question*, instead of just naming an issue, and there should be a rule stating that the judge's decision has power ONLY with regard to the stated question. Judges would still be able to argue that their interpretation of the rules is that only THEY can approve new rules, etc., but this decision would have no effect on the game, if it didn't impact the judging question. There would still be the *possibility* of abuse, with an improperly worded question. So I'm not going to word a proposal yet - there are still a few ideas that need to be nailed down. Among them are the questions of how many votes and what time period should be "hard-wired" into the rule to cover judgement overrulings. I also like the idea of a court, instead of a single judge. Three would probably suffice, with a majority decision deciding an issue. This would also serve as a check against improperly worded questions. If the issue was worded as a yes-or-no question, a majority for *one* side would be guaranteed. But if the question was "What should be done about proposal 1004?", for which a possible answer could be "Change the entire rule set to the way I like it", it is doubtful that there would be a majority for any position. -Xeman ** Three choices: (Heffalump, Oct 1 03:28) 1) Anarchy: almost everyone is now a judge, since the rules are exactly as they were at the moment of Lindrum's "takeover" all judges have, in principle, the same power Lindrum claims. 2) Stagnance: we can decide that Lindrum (and all other judges) do not have the power to take control, and revert to the way the game HAD been going. 3) Dictatorship: allow Lindrum's move, let him rewrite the rules and play HIS game. It seems that opinion is split fairly evenly among these three. Question: IF Lindrum has the interests of all in mind, why did he not use his judgement to close the loophole? Why has he not denied the accusation of voting NO to 1015? I think it is clear that his intentions are not ALL benign. ** Lindrum and 1015 (Dylan, Oct 1 05:27) [Following 25] A correction: Lindrum has stated, I believe on the board but certainly at least in the discussion room in my presence, that he abstained from voting on 1015. Dylan ** Re: Reply to Evantine (Dylan, Oct 1 05:35) [Following 23] Although Lindrum does make a persuasive case that Evantine's position, as stated in his recent note, does imply that he believes the rules are inconsistent currently, this does not at all imply that Evantine thought the rules were inconsistent originally. Consider: with 210 having no effect, by 206 a judge may make a judgement on procedures to pass proposals, since the rules are silent on the issue. But before Lindrum's judgement, the rules were not silent on the issue (since we were still in the "initial period" of the game) so there was no freedom to make a judgement on the issue. Now, perhaps Lindrum is trying to say that Evantine must believe that the rules would become inconsistent starting from the initial set; if so, he should say that. Dylan ** Re: Proposal: Amend errors in 209 (Dylan, Oct 1 05:42) [Following 21] One serious flaw in Steve's proposal: he does not state anywhere HOW the players are to be accepted. Is it automatic? If so, he should say so. I think that automatic acceptance would be the way to go, at least initially. Also, Steve should state explicitly what happens to the current players: do they need to submit an application? Otherwise, this seems like a good change, one I will vote for when and if we have a legal voting system that does not require unanimity. Dylan ** A Modest Proposal (Dylan, Oct 1 05:46) One major flaw of the current rule set is that it does not explicitly allow quitting the game. Therefore, one change that should be made in any new constitution (or as soon as we get a reasonable system for passing rules) is incorporating Suber's rule 113, which I quote: 113. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. Dylan ** Overturning with simple majorities (Dylan, Oct 1 06:23) [Following 22] I think a simple majority is too little to overturn a judge's decision, if only because that would lead to too many attempts to overturn decisions. Otherwise, Lindrum has sound arguments. I would like to inject the idea of an appeals court here as well. An appeals court of a fairly small size would be much more likely to reach decisions more quickly than a week, allowing a faster game and less time spent in limbo, uncertain of whether a judgement is valid. To protect against collusion by the appeals court we still, however, need some method of voting to overthrow judgements. (Note that there are two reasons to allow overturning judgements: to protect against bad judgements (e.g., inconsistent interpretations of the rules) and to protect against power grabs of the sort Lindrum recently attempted. It seems that two different methods are appropriate for dealing with these two different situations.) Dylan ** Lindrum World (John, Oct 1 07:20) I have carefully evaluated the arguments regarding 1017. I think they have very little merit, if any. I believe Lindrum's actions are legal and within the rules. I further believe that by his actions with regard to scoring, Lindrum has demonstrated his good faith. I for one am _very glad_ Lindrum has done this; in one stroke he took a game that was in danger of total stagnation and made it fascinating (and at times hilarious!) I support the Interim Government. John. ** Xeman refuses judgement (Xeman, Oct 1 09:53) Xeman refuses all four of his appointments as judges between Heffalump and Heffalump, on the grounds that the suit is clearly nonsensical and frivolous. He encourages all other sane-thinking players to do the same, if they wish to avoid seeing the game thrown into a hopeless tangle of judgement disputes and paradoxes. -Xeman ** Dylan accepts judgement (Dylan, Oct 1 10:20) Dylan accepts his seven appointments as judge on issues between Heffalump and Heffalump. While he agrees with Xeman that these suits are frivolous, he would like to point out that refusing judgement will not help any: it will merely result in losing ten points per issue and having the issue handed on to someone else. Dylan ** Dylan's judgment on issue between Heffalump and Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 1 10:21) [Following 33] Text of the call for judgement: Whatever you like... Dylan's judgement on the issue: As there is no apparent disagreement here, I may take no action. Dylan ** Dylan's judgment on issue between Heffalump and Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 1 10:22) [Following 33] Text of the call for judgement: Whatever you like... Dylan's judgement on the issue: As there is no apparent disagreement here, I may take no action. Dylan ** Dylan's judgement on issue between Heffalump and Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 1 10:26) [Following 33] Text of the call for judgement: Whatever you like... Dylan's judgement on the issue: As there is no apparent disagreement here, I may take no action. Dylan ** On the New Board (Rendell, Oct 1 10:30) Ok, this is a new notice board (as you've probably noticed by now... :-) Although the help page is fairly clear (I hope), I thought I'd list the major differences between this board and the old one. Notes are organised in threads. A note that is 'post'ed to the board is independant of previous notes, but if a note is 'followup'ed to the board, it is put in the thread of the note it is following up. When you read or list the notes, the notes in a thread are listed/read together. If the note that started the thread is removed, notes that follow it remain - the 'base' of the thread simply shifts to the first follow up. The notes you have read are remembered, and only unread notes are shown when you list or read notes. Note that, between log-ins, the _oldest_ unread note is stored, so while you are logged on, you may read the notes in any order, but if you quit and then log back on, any notes newer than the oldest unread one will still be unread (this was to prevent having to save a complete 'unread' structure with every player - I don't think it's a major flaw) You can list and read old (read) notes, by using the keyword 'old' in your command appropriately (see the help page). I'll soon put in the ability to 'list old ' etc, so only notes n days old are used. At the moment, you can get (sort of) the equivalent by using 'catchup', which marks notes older than the specified number of days as read, and notes newer than that as unread, but this wipes the current 'read' state, so the change should be done soon... :-) Apart from syntactic changes, I don't think there are any other major differences. Players can edit notes that they posted, using ed (yay! :-/) Feel free to 'mail' me suggestions, but I've spent over a week writing this board, and probably should get on with my real work now :-) Have fun, Rob Rendell Oh, I forgot - the notes on the board expire after 10 days, and go to a log file. Any comments on the duration or otherwise? ** Re: Lindrum World (Evantine, Oct 1 10:45) [Following 31] John states that the arguments (which ones, he doesn't specify) concerning 1017 have "very little merit, if any." John, would you mind explaining *exactly* what is wrong with the arguments. To simply say they have no merit is no argument at all. Evantine ** Dylan's judgement on issue between Heffalump and Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 1 10:45) [Following 33] Text of the call for judgement: Whatever you like... Dylan's judgement on the issue: As there is no apparent disagreement here, I may take no action. Dylan ** Dylan's judgement on issue between Heffalump and Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 1 11:01) [Following 33] Text of the call for judgement: Whatever you like... Dylan's judgement on the issue: As there is no apparent disagreement here, I may take no action. Dylan ** Dylan's judgment on issue between Heffalump and Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 1 11:02) [Following 33] Text of the call for judgement: Whatever you like... Dylan's judgement on the issue: As there is no apparent disagreement here, I may take no action. Dylan ** I accept Judgement (Evantine, Oct 1 11:12) I accept judgement on the issue between Heffalump and himself, for what it's worth. Perhaps the issue would be better suited to a expert on the subject of split personalities, but I accept nonetheless. ** Re: I accept Judgement (Evantine, Oct 1 11:13) [Following 42] I should point out that I am only judging *one* instance of this case! ** I accept Judgement on all issues Heffalump vs Heffalump. (Geoff, Oct 1 11:42) There is no conflict so I pass no judgement (this is my judgement :-) Geoff ** Re: Lindrum World (Geoff, Oct 1 11:47) [Following 31] John!, please explain your reasoning - I can't read your mind. Tell me why Lindrum's judgement overrules specific rules; in particular rules 105 and 211? These specify that voting still must take place on an issue; rule 106 specifies no rule change may take place before voting is completed *whether or not* it is adopted. Lindrum's judgement cannot override existing rules - and his judgement makes no attempt at interpreting these rules. geoff ** Judgements Binding (Ilt, Oct 1 12:07) Anything a judge says, proclaims etc is legal provided they demonstrate that, in their judgement, it is legal. However, all players can decide to ignore any judgement they wish. There is no rule that determines the effect of a judgement. So Lindrum says "I am dictator". That is legal. Some players say "Ok, I buy your judgement and will act as if it were binding". That is legal. Some other players say "Ok, I buy that your judgement is legal, but I'm going to pretend it never happened" That is also legal. Personally, I will act as if Lindrum's judgement is binding. I will do so because it is interesting and has the best potential of our current options for continuing the game. ** Judgements vs Rules (Ilt, Oct 1 13:42) Lindrum is right. I assumed that judgements, like rules, would be binding and would restrict the actions for some players for some time period. Given the current rule set, this is mistaken. Bad news for the game if players can ignore judgements. To my mind, the judgements should be binding for some players for some time period. If this is encoded in the rule set, then it is possible that some rules will conflict with judgements. My definition of `conflict' is roughly that one rule or judgement allows some player to perform an action and another rule or judgement prohibits the player from doing so. So you ask, how are judgements different from rules? I believe they should apply to particular actions, for particular player, and be limited to a specific time period. ** I refuse all of Heffalump's invocations (Steve, Oct 1 13:52) Since i am supproting the interim Govt, I accept that all judgement are for a short period to be referred to Lindrum by posting them on the discussion board. Since heffalump has not done this, ans since he has raised no substantive issue or disagreement which requires clarification (this is obviously contrary to the "spirit of the game" and a waste of everybody's time), I am just going to ignore it. Furthermore, I urge the many others similarly invoked to do likewise and remind them that they will incur no penalty in points for so doing, since scoring has been suspended until monday. Steve ** My Judgement on Evantine vs Blob. (Geoff, Oct 1 14:25) My Judgement on the issue between Evantine and Blob. As most players seem to have accepted that Lindrum's judgement was legal according to the rules then I will accept his judgement as a premise of this judgement. (Subject to his judgement being revoked by a unanimous vote against him). Hence according to HIS judgement I may settle the scope of my judgement myself. So before I can respond to Blob's issue I must resolve the deadlock that has appeared in the game. The deadlock has to do with whether or not rule 1017 has passed. If it *has* pass then this judgement is invalid but as a judgement I judge it to have not currently passed because of the 1 week time period specified in rule 211. Lindrum's judgement while specifying that ALL the rules that exist may be taken to mean that the rules allow Lindrum to adopt proposals; his judgement cannot overrule the rules which currently exist. These rules clearly state (105) that any rule change must voted on. Rule 106 states that no rule change may take effect before the completion of the vote that adopted it; while Lindrum's may "adopt" rules - clearly there is still a voting situation involved. Rule 211 specifies the voting period shall be exactly 1 week. Hence 1017 is still in the voting period so this judgement is a valid judgement. Since Lindrum's rules are not in effect I will clarify Lindrum's previous Judgement which was clearly erroneous and mischevious in its intend. In no way did it attempt to meet the "spirit of the game" which I believe is defined by all the players that are participating - not just Lindrum. Lindrum's judgement was also erroneous in it's interpretation that the rules may be collectively interpreted to mean that rules may be adopted if Lindrum approves them; in no specific instance can I find mention of Lindrum. Hence I must begin by examining the intent of the original rules (now that the initial period of the game has finished according to Lindrum's judgement). The "spirit of the game" is obviously an important concept behind the framing of the rules otherwise Rule 206 would not have specified it. As I have defined the "spirit of the game" to be the players collective interpretation of the rules (not simply 1 individuals) I interpret rule 210 while loosing it's "initial" impact now relies on the "spirit of the game"; hence after the overwhelming support of for 2/3 majority on voting I interpret rule 210 to be: Proposals shall be adopted only by a 2/3 majority vote of the players who vote within the prescribed period, and only then if quorum is achieved. Quorum for any vote is unchanged because it does not come under the scope of "initially". Lindrum also failed to adequately clarify the "vote" against the judge; I believe that any vote against a judge's judgement can be framed as a proposal (ie. placed on the voting noticeboard) and hence is protected by the other rules referring to voting quorum and number. Now that I have clarified the game deadlock I believe that Evantine was wrong to invoke the same issue (as it is clearly the same issue although the wording may be different) twice for judgement and hence judge the my ability to judge that issue is null and void. When (and if) Jesse fails to accept judgement on the issue then a new judge shall be selected as described by rule 206. I would like to re-interpret Lindrum's definition of New Judge but am unable to because this is where I derive the power for this judgement from. This is my judgement to here; below is a call for sensibility. BUT - I appeal to all future judges to keep the "spirit of the game" in mind; realise there are other players who wish to participate and produce something interesting together. Not wait for a uni-lateral constitution developed by 1 player. My interpretation of rule 210 allows this to occur; a 2/3 majority is certainly obtainable and workable. It should also be noted that the unanimity rule was originally intended for a much smaller group of people than the number we currently have participating within the game. I urge you all to consider Lindrum's discussion (as that is all it is) when framing new proposals. I'd also like to see a good re-writing of rule 206 as it is clearly flawed; but I'd like to see everyone do it collectively! geoff m** ** Praise from Lindrum for Dylan's postings. (Guest, Oct 1 16:23) The President logged in earlier this evening to scan the board and has now asked me to post this dictated (!!) note: I have read Dylan's recent postings with great pleasure, and I urge all of you to give them you attention. I have the following comments: RE: 132. Thank you Dylan for suggesting a useful addition to Steve's Proposal on amending errors in 209. In response to the question: I think that current players certainly need not re-register. After all, the game will simply be continuing as normal after the Interim Government is dissolved in three days time. RE: 133. On the "No penalty worse than losing" rule. Yes! Great idea (this from a President who fears retribution after he steps down!) Suber's rule 113 should be in, I think. RE: 134. Nice point. Should there be, in fact, a penalty for invokations of judgement that a Judge finds frivolous? Dylan's comment about there being TWO kinds of reason for overruling judgements is a clever observation that probably has important repercussions. I recommend that you all read this note carefully if you haven't already done so. RE: 135. Good move Dylan. This flurry of "Heffa-judgements" is nothing more than harmless fun after all, so why not play along? And if, in fact, Geoff manages to grab power, anyone who has refused one of these judgemnt calls may ultimately find themselves liable to a ten point penalty. So why not just play along as insurance, on the off-chance that I fail? I won't hold it against anybody who does. [But: Xeman and Steve, I have noted with admiration your principled refusals to judge.] RE: 139,140,143,144 etc... Lovely stuff! What an efficient "judge" you are Dylan. Not even I can crank'em out like that!! You certainly gave those "issues" the weight of legal consideration they deserved! signed Gigi (close personal friend of the President) and authorized by Lindrum. ** Lindrum is at work on re-drafting ... (Guest, Oct 1 16:50) The following is a note authorized by the President: In case you are wondering why the President has not been hanging around much in Nomic World today, it is because he is hard at work considering all the suggestions and Proposals you have been making about how the rules should look when he gives up power on Sunday (I might interpose here that I can't wait for him to be just normal fun Lindrum again instead of dreary harassed "President" lindrum who is no fun to spend time with and nevr comes to bed any more!!!) He says to tell you all that he knows that there are still a few of you who have some remaining questions about the rightfulness of his Government, but he became aware last night that Geoff and some other guys were just trying to engage him in guerrilla warfare and waste his time in the hope of preventing him from getting the new rules written in time and thus discrediting Lindrum. So now he's just going to get those rules done the way most of you want them, and then get back to the job of wrapping the question of why he was really allowed to do all the things that he did in the first place. He asked me to tell you that he is the sort of person that can be trusted ... well, as a matter of fact, in the three years that I have known him I must admit that he has not been ENTIRELY trustworthy ... but that stuff is none of you guys business I guess, and I can say that when it comes to money or anything he is VERY trustworthy, and he is also amazingly good at remembering peoples birthdays which I have always thought was a sign that someone was nice. gigi ... close personal friend of the President ** Accept judgment (Leor, Oct 1 17:47) I accept my appointment to judge Heffalump vs. Heffalump and I judge that the former shall have to perfom a sexual service for the latter. ** Guest's postings authentic (Lindrum, Oct 2 01:42) Guest's two postings of last night: (154) Praise from Lindrum fro Dylan's postings; (155) Lindrum is at work on re-drafting. Are authentic. They were authorized by me. Lindrum. P.S. Leor, your judgement 156 rivals Dylan's best efforts! Keep up the good work friends. ** Two new Judgement rules. (Not debugged yet) (Ilt, Oct 2 02:16) 2000) The Judge and Judgements. If players disagree about the legality of a set of events, then a player may invoke judgement. Players may not invoke judgement when there is a disagreement in the interpretation or application of a rule unless that disagreement pertains to a particular disputed set of events. An event is any change in the state of the bits that represent Nomic World and occurs at some fixed time. After having invoked judgement for a given dispute, a player may not again invoke judgement on any dispute until a judgement is posted for the given dispute. When judgement is invoked, a judge is selected. The selected judge may not be a player who caused one of the disputed events, may not be the player who invoked judgement, and may not be a player who is currently judging another dispute. If no player can serve as a judge for a disputed set of events, the invocation of judgement is rejected. When a Judge is selected and accepts their position, they then have exactly one week to post an official Judgement on the issue for which their Judgement has been invoked. If they fail to do so, 10 points is deducted from their score, and a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is relevant to the disputed events and any related events that preceded the invocation of Judgement for the dispute. The Judge is free to determine which prior events and which rules are relevant to the dispute. Under no circumstances can a judgement determine the legality of events that occur during or after the period of Judgement. In determining the legality of prior events, when rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear with respect to the dispute, the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. The Judge can only make one of the following rulings: a) there is no dispute, b) the disputed and related events were legal, or c) the disputed and related events were illegal. The judgement must either have no effect or one or both of the following effects: a) placement of penalties on players who actions caused illegal events or who frivolously invoked judgement when there was no dispute and b) enactment of events that will reverse the effects of the events judged to have been illegal. The effects of a Judgement are binding unless a) the judgement conflicts with rules in effect when the disputed events occurred or b) the judgement is overruled. If a judgement conflicts with rules that were in effect when the disputed event occurred, then the rules take precedence over the judgement. The judgement may not take precedence over rules in effect at the time of the disputed event under any conditions, even when the judgement explicitly says of itself that it takes precedence over a set of rules. If players disagree about the legality of a judgement, judgement may be invoked. The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote, in which at least 20\% of registered players vote. To overrule a given judgement, some player must call for a vote to overrule. This may be done at anytime up to a week after the posting time of the judgement. If a vote to overrule a given judgement is called, all votes for or against overruling that judgement will be tallied exactly one week from the posting of the judgement. If a Judge's judgement is overruled, then the judgement has no effect, and another Judge is selected for the same dispute. Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions relevant to the disputed event which the Judge was selected to settle, excluding questions as to the legality of the judgment and the legality of events that occurred after the invocation of judgment. 2001) Penalties The only possible penalty is a loss of some number of points between 1 and 10. ** Steve's refusal to judge (Heffalump, Oct 2 02:52) You realize that Lindrum's take-over is far from accepted and had not been implemented yet. If you look at the rule set you will see that nothing in rule 206 (or any other rule) allows for a judgment to modify a rule, in fact 103 would seem to prohibit it. This being the case, NONE of Lindrum's proposed "interpretations" should be enacted--- that is if we are going to follow the rules (and if we don't then I'm afraid we have no game here at all!) THUS, you will be penalized for not judging the issues I've raised. Furthermore, in defence of the accusations that my invocations of judgment are frivolous, their intent was to show that if Lindrum's judgment is accepted, so must that of any other player (since the rules are the same now as they were when he made his). Of course I believe that Lindrum's judgment is not binding, and should NOT affect the rules. Why don't we just stop all this silliness, and try one more time to get a 2/3 majority rule passed, and get on with the game? It shows the utmost impatience and disregard for the principles of the game that people are so drawn to accepting Lindrum's illegitimate claims. But please, don't be influenced (either way) by my rhetoric... GO LOOK AT the rule (especially 206) and see for yourself that there is no real loophole in the judgment procedure, at worst it is utterly ineffectual. ** Geoff's judgment (Heffalump, Oct 2 02:56) See my previous post. Geoff's judgment is as ineffectual as Lindrum's. (and should I be mistaken on that point, it is AS effectual as Lindrum's which means we have anarchy). ** Shortcomings (Ilt, Oct 2 04:08) I have noticed 4 shortcomings in my Judgement rule (besides the fact that I can't decide how to spell judgment). First, it does not say and should do so that a player can't be selected to judge a dispute if they have already judged that dispute and were overruled. Second, the specific wording I used about conflicting rules causes a problem when judgement is invoked to decide about precendence for conflicting rules. Third, it states and probably shouldn't that each judge can only decide one issue. I don't see why they can't do more than one. Four, it doesn't address the possibility that more than one judge may be addressing the same dispute. In such cases, the judgement with the latest posting time will have precedence. Alright, what else is wrong? ** I Accept Judgement Re: Heffalump Vs. Heffalump (Dave, Oct 2 04:13) By the power vested in me by the current style of Judicial Edicts, I hereby declare Heffalump an Alternate Competing Dictator, with the full range of powers appropriate to that office. ALL HAIL THE LUMP! ALL HAIL THE LUMP! ALL HAIL THE LUMP! ALL HAIL THE LUMP! that is all ** Judges Authority (Draco, Oct 2 05:22) There seems to be a problem in what a Judges Authority extends to (I'm sure you all agree, based on current events). To rectify the situation, I will note that a Judge's Authority stems from the rules, and so, a Judge should NOT be allowed to change them in any way. This also means that a NEW law that conflicts with an old judgement overrides that judgement. I am going to propose this as a new rule, and hope that you will all agree to this without quibbling over words. I have tried to keep the rule as simple as possible, so as to find a workable solution that will apeal to everyone. If you feel that it is not 'perfect', I ask that you still pass it, as there is a need for this rule. If you think some minor changes should be made to it, please do so by ammending it, not by voting it down. -Draco- ** Re: Lindrum is at work on re-drafting (Mike, Oct 2 05:24) Heh. There's no point to it, Lindrum - your judgement and later actions were in contravention of rule 208 ("No discrimination in any way whatsoever on the basis of identity...will be void and without effect"). Since judgements must be within the existing rules, and since yours discriminates, your judgement is invalid :) Nice try, though. ** The call for judgment is illegal so no judgment is needed. (Adaml, Oct 2 06:21) Rule 206 states that calls for judgment may only occur when "players disagree...". As it is impossible for Heffalump to disagree with him/herself, no judgment is possible or required. ** The call for judgment is illegal so no judgment is needed. (Adaml, Oct 2 06:22) Rule 206 states that calls for judgment may only occur when "players disagree...". As it is impossible for Heffalump to disagree with him/herself, no judgment is possible or required. I have now discharged all responsibilities of my Judgeship. Adam (the real Adam: don't accept any imitations! #:\)) ** I Accept Judgeshiip (Adaml, Oct 2 06:26) I accept my Judgeship for the issues Heffalump vs. Heffalump, and Heffalump vs. Heffalump. This note should precede the notes stating my judgment on these "issues"; it does not because it had to be edited. ** Re: Adaml (Heffalump, Oct 2 07:06) It is quite possible to disagree with oneself... I see no contradiction. Actually, maybe you are right, it is contradictory. Q.E.D. ** Johnd's proposal. (Heffalump, Oct 2 07:11) WHY?! A rule just like that failed not a week ago (1016) and if we can't get unanimity on a 2/3 majority (1004, 1015) why would you think we can get one for a simple majority? I will abstain from voting against the new proposal (for now), but for the record I think that a 50% majority is too unrestrictive and would make the game too unstable. ** Re:Praise from Lindrum (Dylan, Oct 2 08:18) [Following 50] While I thank Lindrum for his kind words, I question his judgement in authorizing a posting solely to praise me. Surely my postings speak for themselves. Also, his praise of me may seem to imply that I support his actions or the legality of his regime; this is in no way the case. (This should be distinguished from my respect for him as a reasoned thinker, which is high.) Rather than spend his time dictating superfluous notes of praise, I would like to see Lindrum respond to two arguments against the legality of his regime that have recently been brought up. One is the argument in Geoff's Judgement: that Lindrum neglected to make any ruling in his Judgement as to when proposals would go into effect, and, in lieu of a judgement, we must use our own interpretation of the rules: namely, that rules go into effect after the end of the voting period, which remains a week. The other, brought up by Heffalump, is more fundamental; nowhere in any of the rules does it state that Judgments have any power whatsoever. As far as I can determine from the rules, Judgments just represent the views of an individual Judge, and players must choose whether to abide by them or not. This seems to remove the entire purpose for Judgements: to allow the game to continue when there is a real, fundamental disagreement as to how the rules should be interpreted, and should be fixed in any replacement of 206. (I am rather surprised to discover this flaw in the rules, as it seems Suber must have left it in deliberately; in fact, in the discussion accompanying the rules he refers (deliberately?) misleadingly to judgement as though they had real power.) These arguments have been around for a while; and while I agree that drafting a new constitution is a worthwhile activity, I believe the burden of proof, to establish that his takeover was legal within the rules, is now upon Lindrum. I eagerly await his arguments. (One note: in his zeal to praise me, Lindrum attributed to me an idea that I had not thought of: namely, should we punish frivolous suits? This is an interesting idea, one which I have no opinion on yet. My point that Lindrum seems to have misinterpreted was that we should discourage challenges of reasonable judgements, as that would require waiting yet another week before action on the judgement can be taken.) Dylan ** Illegality of Heffalump's Calls for Judgment (Adaml, Oct 2 11:18) [Following 64] Even if we allow the possibility of self-disagreement, it doesn't change the fact that the rule requires that it be "player_s_" in disagreement. ** Adaml ... ESL? (Heffalump, Oct 2 11:26) "If players disagree about the legality of a move..." ^^^^^^^ Compare: "If people steal, they should be imprisoned." Granted it is a poorly worded statement (and probably I could have found a nicer example) but its intention is clear. Only ONE person is required for the condition to apply. The same reading is certainly quite reasonable in the case of rule 206 (all but Lindrum, I suspect, will agree... and even he KNOWS better). ** The purpose of Judges (Dylan, Oct 2 11:33) It seems that there is considerable disagreement about the purpose of Judging. For instance, Ilt recently made a proposal that would reduce Judges to essentially traffic cops, requiring they judge the legality of one specific action. I feel that this is vastly insufficient; there can be ongoing disputes, for instance, or actions that should be permitted that aren't; or, for instance, someone needs to decide when rules conflict and what should be done if they do. Considering all these cases has made me begin to realize why the power of judges was not defined at all in the Initial Set. Judges need to decide what sorts of powers they have, and players need to decide how much weight to give their arguments, at least in Suber's view. I provisionally agree with Suber here, but I could be swayed. (Of course, I have no idea what Suber really thinks.) But in any case players should be restricted to the area judgement was invoked on. One note: although I agree that judgement should only be invoked when there is disagreement, part of the disagreement might be whether there is genuine disagreement, so one person should be able to invoke judgement. Also, there may be a problem with implementation, in which case players should be allowed to sue the state. -Dylan ** Inconsistencies in Rules (Dylan, Oct 2 11:49) Rule 108 states that Mutable rules that are inconsistent in any way with some immutable rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are wholly void and without effect. I believe that this is too strong; rather, only the portion of the mutable rule that is inconsistent should become void. The same effect can be acheived by including in any mutable rule the clause "If any portion of this rule is found to be inconsistent with any immutable rule, that portion shall be void, without affect the rest of the rule" (although it could be argued that that clause, itself, is inconsistent with 108, thus making the whole rule invalid); but I don't think that should be necessary. Also, rule 108 mentions transmuting rules twice; I don't believe this is necessary, and the parenthetical clause in the quote above should be struck. On another note, if it's just as easy to change an immutable rule to mutable as it is to amend a mutable rule, I don't think there is much point having a separate class of rules, as it merely requires three votes, each just as difficult, instead of one. I note that in Suber's set transmuting an immutable rule to mutable requires an unanimous vote (as an immutable rule); while I feel that unanimity is too strong a requirement for ANY vote with so many people, it should be genuinely harder to pass amendments to immutable rules, either by requiring a difficult vote for transmutation or allowing votes that amend immutable rules directly, but, again, requiring a higher percentage of players. -Dylan ** ENOUGH ALREADY! (Heffalump, Oct 2 13:09) Ok, until I see a reasonable rebuttal to the arguments I made in note 153 (on Steve's judgment, though their relevance is of far greater scope) I think it is time that we set aside all further tolerance for Lindrum and his accessories' claims. No rule changes can arises through judgment. This being the case I am going to try a third time to have a 2/3 majority rule enacted so that at worst we can get the game moving in a week or so. I would like to see someone else propose some (very conservative and unobjectionable) version of the Early Decision rule. I suggest that Evantine ought to be left the honour of doing so (if he desires) since it was mostly his idea in the first place. PLEASE, if you still believe in the legitimacy of Lundrum's "presidency", do NOT vote against either of these proposals. Should you be correct in your assessment they will be irrelevant, and if you are mistaken they are ESSENTIAL to the continuation of the game. I do not know who the two players who voted NO last time were, it is immaterial now, BUT I beg of them (and all others) do not vote NO this time without presenting your reasons for wanting to do so FIRST so that at least they can be discussed. Don't vote NO on the assumption that you can always change your vote later... MAYBE you won't get a chance for some reason... maybe you will forget. Don't ruin the game, vote YES, or abstain. Thank you, Heffalump ** Suggestion fo a New Rule on Judgement (Lindrum, Oct 2 13:58) Thanks to Ilt for his efforts in framing new rules on judgement I particularly like the idea of explicitly restricting the scope of the Judge's jurisdiction to "the disputed events". It occurs to me that one way in which that might be simply and effectively achieved would be by rules according to which: (a) A player calls for judgement on a particular *statement* which he or she then posts to the Judge's noticeboard. (b) Judgement is then just a matter of the selected Judge saying TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. Under such rules a Judge could not possibly pass a judgement that was irrelevant to the dispute, or which went beyond the scope of the issue at hand. The onus would be on the player invoking judgement to word the statement properly. Judges could and should still provide reasoned arguments for their judgements, but such arguments would not be part of the judgement itself. Comments on this suggestion please. Lindrum. ** Lindrum & his "supporters". (Geoff, Oct 2 14:53) Surely if Lindrum and his "supporters" were so organised and had a "great" consitution they could easily get it passed on non-unanimous voting anyway. Now that your "coup" seems to be running out of steam Lindrum - why not try the method as specified within the rules? There is a proposal up for non-unanimous voting currently - I urge you not to vote against it! geoff ** I accept Judgement for Dylan vs Lindrum (Geoff, Oct 2 15:01) as the title says. ** Reply to Mike (Lindrum, Oct 2 15:39) Mike says: "Lindrum - your judgement and later actions were in contravention of Rule 208 ... " I reply: When it was in force, Rule 208 stated that "Any RULE that acts or discriminates with respect to any specific player(s) on the basis of identity or personal characteristics will be void and without effect." Rule 208 says nothing about judgements. A judgement that discriminated against some player or players on the basis of personal characteristics (whatever that might mean!) would not, for that reason, clash with Rule 208. Hence it is not possible to make any case on the basis of the now defunct Rule 208 that Judgement 1 was in any way illegitimate. What does it mean "not to discriminate ... on the basis of identity or personal characteristics"? I guess it was intended to be a sort of symmetry requirement (though a very badly worded one). Whatever it might mean, Rule 1017 does not offend against this requirement. It is clear from the statement of 1017 that it treats all players symmetrically. So the Enactment of Rule 1017 did not clash with Rule 208. Rule 208 was then legally repealed by the adoption of Proposal 1018. Rules 1019, 1020, 1021, and 1025 may have clashed with Rule 208. But Rule 208 was no longer in effect when they were enacted. Lindrum. ** Reply to Heffalump (Lindrum, Oct 2 15:44) Heffalump states that "nothing in Rule 206 ... allows for a judgement to modify a rule." I agree. None of my judgements have modified rules. Judgements can only interpret rules. Lindrum. ** Reply to Geoff and Evantine (Lindrum, Oct 2 18:19) Geoff and Evantine ask: How can it be that Proposal 1017 came to be enacted less than seven days after its posting on the (now no longer used) voting noticeboard? The original rules relevant to this issue are 106, 114, 202, and 211. The initial part of the game ended immediately after the posting of Judgement 1. At that point Rules 210 and 102 went out of effect, and all remaining rules (the set of rules I have referred to elsewhere as "Y") became mutable. Part 4 of Judgement 1 made clear that, on a correct interpretation of the remaining rule set Y, a necessary and sufficient condition for the adoption of proposals was that they be approved by Lindrum. This criterion was NOT, of course, a new rule. It had simply been Judged to be a consequence of the existing rule set Y. Now the set Y contains the rules 106, 114, 202, and 211 mentioned above. Rule 106 speaks of "the vote that adopted [a rule change]", while Rule 202 mentions "the vote that adopted it". By Judgement 1 it follows from Y that a rule change is to be adopted if and only if it has Lindrum's vote of approval. Hence it is entailed by the rule set Y that the vote to adopt any particular proposal (e.g. Proposal 1017) is none other than Lindrum's vote. Rule 106 states: No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. It follows that, according to Judgement 1, Rule 106 is equivalent to the claim: No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of Lindrum's vote of approval, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. For our present purposes, however, the important point is that Rule 202 was interpreted in Judgement 1 as meaning: An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of completion of Lindrum's vote of approval. Geoff has stated unequivocally that he accepts the legitimacy of Judgement 1. It follows immediately from the above that Geoff must also accept the legitimacy of Rule 1017. There is one remaining worry. Rules 114 and 211 speak of "a prescribed voting period". If one were to interpret "the completion of the prescribed voting period" to mean the same thing as "the completion of the vote to adopt a rule change", then according to Judgement 1, the set Y must have been inconsistent. That such an interpretation is to be rejected is obvious. Perhaps the most basic principle of legal interpretation is this: whenever there exists a consistent interpretation of a rule or set of rules, it is to be preferred to any interpretation on which that rule or set of rules is held to be inconsistent. Clearly the "prescribed voting period" mentioned in Rules 114 and 211 was simply the longest possible period that Proposal 1017 could have remained on the noticeboard before Lindrum voted to approve it. Lindrum. ** An Observation on Dave's Position as "Judge" (Lindrum, Oct 2 18:36) I note with some interest that those among you who continue in the mistaken belief that there is any longer an institution of invocation of judgement have invited Dave to act as "judge" in the alleged "issue" between Evantine and myself. Dave finds himself in a powerful position, despite the fact that there is absolutely no legal basis to his "selection as judge", since it is now within his power single-handedly settle this situation from a pragmatic as well as from a legal point of view. The credentials of the Seven Day Interim Government are, from a legal point of view, impeccable. However, on a pragmatic level, resistance continues to be heard from those who won't accept the rules as they now are. Should Dave find this "case" in my favor, the opponents of the interim Government will be forced to admit that EVEN BY THEIR OWN LIGHTS my Presidency is legitimate. For this reason alone I await Dave's response with amused expectation! Lindrum. ** Lindrum's continuing melodrama (Geoff, Oct 2 20:52) [Following 77] Hello Again!, Lindrum's intepretations of the rules seem to continue well after his judgement has finished. Let me first address the totally incorrect statements in Lindrum's posts: >Geoff has stated unequivocally that he accepts the legitimacy >of Judgement 1. Please don't put words in my mouth and read my post carefully; it carefully specifies that I have accepted it as a premise for the purpose of a judgement; it does not necessarily reflect my acceptance of it's legitimacy. It was merely to clarify the position for those who do accepts its legality; of course as pointed out be Ilt (& Heffalump) there is nothing in the rules specifying that we must accept a Judge's judgement; whereas the rules are clear about obeying the rules! >It follows immediately from the above that >Geoff must also accept the legitimacy of Rule 1017. I accept it's legitmacy after 1 week; of course my Judgement overturned your incorrect interpretation of the rules so it probably will not pass the normal method of voting that is currently in place. To sum up my following reply succintly: Your interpretation of the Judgement and rules as they stood after you Judgement are NOT necessarily the correct interpretation, as you no longer held the power of the position of Judge. In fact if there is a dispute (which there clearly was and is!) then that dispute should be resolved by judgement before the game can blindly continue. Until that dispute is resolved then 1017 cannot be accepted as "in action" even presuming a judge does rule in your favour. To do so would be to always have Lindrum as judge and interpreter for all rules that exist - I cannot accept this. Hence the other rules; particularily those about Judgement are still in force. Since your interpretation seems to be in the minority Lindrum; perhaps you should call for Judgement? Below is clarification of the individual points you raise: >The original rules relevant to this issue are 106, 114, 202, >and 211. Did Lindrum miss rules 104 and 105? 105: "..rule change must be written down before it is voted on" This clearly implies that any rule change MUST be voted on. >The initial part of the game ended immediately after the posting >of Judgement 1. At that point Rules 210 and 102 went out of >effect, and all remaining rules (the set of rules I have referred >to elsewhere as "Y") became mutable. Part 4 of Judgement 1 made >clear that, on a correct interpretation of the remaining rule >set Y, a necessary and sufficient condition for the adoption >of proposals was that they be approved by Lindrum. This >criterion was NOT, of course, a new rule. It had simply been >Judged to be a consequence of the existing rule set Y. Lindrum is attempting to re-write his judgement now! Let us see what was written in his judgement before we accept his belatedly "corrected" interpretation. >From Lindrum's Judgement: A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it. This mentions NOTHING about time; nothing about individual rules 104, 105, 106, 114, 202, 211. Clearly our interpretation of the rules must be consistent with all the individual rules that exists and your collective interpretation of them as a Judge. >Now the set Y contains the rules 106, 114, 202, and 211 >mentioned above. Rule 106 speaks of "the vote that adopted >[a rule change]", while Rule 202 mentions "the vote that >adopted it". By Judgement 1 it follows from Y that a rule >change is to be adopted if and only if it has Lindrum's vote of approval. >Hence it is entailed by the rule set Y that the vote to adopt >any particular proposal (e.g. Proposal 1017) is none other >than Lindrum's vote. I disagree entirely - in not one place in the rules is the word "Lindrum" present - read them carefully! I will provide a consistent interpretation of the rules set and your Judgement below that requires far less "re-writing" of the rules. >No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment >of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if >its wording explicitly states otherwise. >It follows that, according to Judgement 1, Rule 106 is >equivalent to the claim: >No rule change may take effect earlier than the >moment of the completion of Lindrum's vote of >approval, even if its wording explicitly states >otherwise. It mentions "the vote"; not "Lindrum's vote". The other rules clearly specify the manner and time period of "the vote" - you are completely ignoring them! In fact the judgement doesn't even mention Lindrum's vote. They still exist Lindrum - your judgement doesn't make them go away. Lindrum's intepretation now can only serve to be part of a dispute for which a judge should be invoked, otherwise accept the rules should be accepted as they're written! >For our present purposes, however, the important point is >that Rule 202 was interpreted in Judgement 1 as meaning: >An adopted rule change takes full effect at the >moment of completion of Lindrum's vote of approval. I certainly did not see this statement anywhere in your judgement. Have you forgotten it? I suggest you re-read your judgement; the more I read your judgement and the existing rules the more I'm convinced that the required 1 week voting period which is clearly mentioned throughout the rules must take place before a rule may be adopted whether or not you approve it! Your approval can be taken as an interpretation of rule 106 as such: No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it providing Lindrum approves it, even if its wording expliclitly states otherwise. No... This interpretation of rule 106 provides an intepretation of the rules that is consistent with Lindrum's Judgement and with the current rules set. This is far less mutilation than Lindrum's strained interpretation requires. I re-iterate that if there is a dispute of interpretation it should be resolved by a Judge before the game can continue, to do otherwise would be to ignore the rules and the players. If Lindrum wants to pariticipate by himself - then he should feel free to do so! But to ignore everyone else and participate in a "speed" move is unacceptable. As the dispute is still not settled we cannot accept 1017 as being passed. >There is one remaining worry. Rules 114 and 211 speak of >"a prescribed voting period". If one were to interpret >"the completion of the prescribed voting period" to mean The above interpretation of the rules doesn't require us just to "ignore" rules which do exist! The rules are written in such a way the we must obey the rules firstly and primarily; judgement provides a method to settle dispute. Clearly Lindrum's judgement failed to do this (look at all the noise it has generated!), the rules do not require us to accept Lindrum's judgement (although I do believe it is in the spirit of the game to accept them); perhaps this is one case where we should reject them and select another judge to resolve the issue? >to be rejected is obvious. Perhaps the most basic principle >of legal interpretation is this: whenever there exists a >consistent interpretation of a rule or set of rules, it is >to be preferred to any interpretation on which that rule Good! I'm glad we agree - I find that the interpretation given above provides a consistent interpretation of the rules set without having to ignore important rules which do have meaning! I suggest everyone now get together and try and build an interesting rules set in the manner intended and set down by the rules; not by some extreme judgement. Your judgement has only served to highlight numerous problems in the rules which can be corrected in the manner that the rules [clearly] intend. I'm sure you've come up with many suggestions which you wish to put forth; people can then make them proposals as appropriate. If Lindrum still maintains that his judgement can somehow make us ignore existing rules then I suggest he calls judgement on the situation! geoff ** Reply to Draco (Lindrum, Oct 3 01:10) Draco asks whether my actions in Judgement 1 were "contrary to the spirit of the game". I refer him to Part 3 of that Judgement, in which it was explained why that is not the case. I remind Draco that Rule 206 is no longer in effect and hence that there is no longer any "invoking of Judgement". It seems to me that even within the framework of the original set of rules (including Rule 206, now defunct) however, Draco's sets of "demands" in calling this judgement are unjustifiable. He is asking for a judge to do something which under the original rule set no judge is allowed to do, namely: "reinstate a rule" (!) I fail to see Draco's strategy here. Is he trying to operate under the original rules and simply making a mistake, or has he abandoned all appeals to rules whatsoever? On his call to have me banished I make no comment except to point out that that too is contrary to the the original rule set, and to remind Draco that the Interim now has less than two days to run, and that after it has dissolved itself, he will have the opportunity to take part in a majority vote on the question of whther I should be allowed to remain in the game. Lindrum. ** Heffalump ... Common sense? (Adaml, Oct 3 01:22) [Following 68] Disagreement requires that there be two opinions: one held by a certain person, and a different one, also held by a certain person. To me, a necessary (although, I grant, far from sufficient) condition for a person to be a reasonable, logical thinker is that it cannot happen that he/she has two contradictory opinions on the same matter. If you do, Heffalump, I reiterate the earlier suggestion (by whom it was made I do not recall) that you consult a psychiatrist specializing in treating cases of multiple personality. Even should you be in such a situation, your calls for judgment did not deign to inform us of the specific issue (if any) on which you are in disagreement with yourself, and I reiterate my claim that your calls for judgment are invalid, for this reason if no other. However, you are welcome to continue posting them if you'd like--it costs you far more time than it does anyone else. (This is, of course, only my opinion.) Adam ** Re: Heffalump ... Common sense? (Heffalump, Oct 3 04:08) [Following 81] Adam, this is getting worse and worse, you are grasping at air. First of all, I should state that I do not believe that any of the judgments I invoked were relevant, except to the extent that they should force people to see the folly of Lindrum's judgment AND act as a safeguard on the chance that people are swayed by his politicking and come to support him (despite his illegality). This being the case, I apologize to those who I've inconvenienced into making a judgment, though those of you who take Lindrum seriously should be thankful, you should feel that you have power equal to his as a judge (and you do --- none). But don't make the mistake of NOT accepting your position as judge unless you do not mind losing the specified number of points. ** I accept judgeship re evantine vs lindrum (Dave, Oct 3 05:34) ** Re: Reply to Heffalump (Dylan, Oct 3 06:44) [Following 76] Lindrum seems to have missed the main point of Heffalumps objection. Not only do the rules not state that judgements can change rules; in fact, they do not even state that Judgements can make interpretations of the existing rules that are binding in any way on the players. Thus Lindrum's protestations that he was merely interpreting the existing rules are silly; even if they were only interpretations, we have no reason to accept Lindrum's interpretation as definitive. -Dylan ** judgement re evantine vs lindrum (Dave, Oct 3 06:57) I find that the word "Initially" in rule 210 means at the beginning of the game We're no longer at the beginning of the game we're a month into it So I follow Geoff in choosing the 2/3 majority as the current definition of REQUIRED NUMBER OF VOTES. I had a wordier version of this up but I tried to edit it and went link-dead during the editing, losing the notice. ** Re: judgement re evantine vs lindrum (Dylan, Oct 3 07:02) [Following 85] I saved Dave's original judgement, and, as he is still stuck in the Stone Age, I am posting it for him (refilling the paragraphs). ORDER IN THE COURT! ORDER IN THE COURT! BANG BANG BANG BANG goes the judge's gavel. I find that "Initial" means "When The Game Starts" and that further, the lapse of definition of Required Number Of Votes in rule 210 is a real thing, and a legitimate subject for invokation of a judge to clarify it. So, it falls on me to determine a definition for the phrase Required Number Of Votes, which is in keeping with all the Rules of the game, including not only immutable rule 101 but also in keeping with what rules 105 and 109 must mean, and what the inclusion of the word "communicated" in rule 105 must mean, bearing in mind that the rules as we have them are translated into a context different from the one for which they were designed. I rule that the required number of votes is a 2/3 majority, in keeping with the precedent set by Geoff in posting #143. Court is adjourned ** in my own defense (Dave, Oct 3 07:02) I refer all who would dispute the way I chose to rule to rules 101 105 and 109, which seem to rule against anyone setting up a rule and passing it without the process due it. Lindrum, and other pet would-be powermongers are to be encouraged, and their increasingly grotesque attempts to maintain the consistency of their views are to be remembered and used as Ming's lines in unwritten sequels to Buck Rogers. No I'm sorry I mean Flash Gordon. (huge difference) pardon me while a laugh maniacly ** Judgment and Commentary (Evantine, Oct 3 08:41) My judgment on the issue (?) of Heffalump vs. Heffalump is as follows. The issue at hand is: is this a legal invocation of judgment? Hence, did Lindrum successfully repeal rule 206? I will draw the analogy to the U.S. Government--to wit, the role of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court has no power to enforce the laws, only to interpret them. The Executive Branch enforces the laws. As Goethe pointed out long ago, the wizards are the Executive Branch here. The judicial branch of our government maintains its authority by "convention"; their deicisions are enforced only because that branch of government is credible and respected. Similarly, I believe that here, the judicial branch of our government has the responsibility to carefully intepret the laws, rather than wildly ignore them. If the Supreme Court chose to make a Lindrum maneuver, along the lines of "The Constitution will henceforth be interpreted collectively to mean: a bill will only become a law if the Chief Justice approves it." The Court would lose its credibility, and the decision would be rejected by the community. The rules are not perfect, but they will be even less so if we fail to exercise restraint and reason in our interpretation of them. As players, we are free to ignore any judgment, as it does not specify in the rules that judgments must be obeyed. Yet, the game clearly relies on the players behaving in a reasonable manner and obeying judgments. I think this experience proves that there is more to this game than the rules. In accordance with this "reasonableness" principle I judge that I am not a valid judge, and hence I have no jurisdiction, on the grounds that Heffalump really didn't have a serious dispute with himsel(ves). I decline the opportunity to grossly misinterpet the rules and insult the spirit of the game. If only Lindrum had a little of the jurisprudence that the rest of us have been exercising... Evantine ** Re: Judgments can discriminate (Evantine, Oct 3 08:47) [Following 75] Lindrum argues that judgments are free to discriminate with respect to certain players. I disagree. Judgments are not stipulations and mandates in and of themselves, they are meant to be clarifications of the rules. If the rules state that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics or idenity, then it seems pretty clear to me that any valid interpretation of those rules would be similarly restricted. Evantine ** I'm embarrassed... (Dylan, Oct 3 11:21) It seems that I unaccountably missed a key sentence in rule 206, namely, the one that reads: Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions relevant to the disagreement which the Judge was selected to settle, including questions as to their own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge. The word 'settle' in this sentence does imply that Judges have a specific power of settling disputes. Of course, this grant of power also specifically limits it, to 'questions relevant to the disagreement'. It is NOT the case that, as Lindrum states in his Judgement (Part 1) 'the scope of a Judge's jurisdiction is up to the Judge himself (and no-one else) to determine'. Unfortunately, it does seem that an interpretation of 210 was 'relevant to the disagreement', and thus the bulk of Lindrum's Judgement was valid. There are, however, two portions of his Judgement that were not valid, as they were not 'relevant to the disagreement': namely, his interpretation of Rule 102 and his discussion of the requirements to overthrow his Judgement. In particular, regardless of what you may feel about when rule 1017 may go into effect, it will be invalid (by rule 108) as rule 110 is still immutable. Of course, another Judge may decide to extend Lindrum's interpretation of 'initially' to Rule 102; but it was not Lindrum's place to do so. In fact, such an extension would be somewhat controversial, as the word 'Initially' in Rule 102 is not otiose; it is necessary so that it will not conflict with any transmutations. -Dylan ** Proposed new rule. (Tortoise, Oct 4 00:02) I have just proposed a new rule: It is illegal to propose an amendment to a rule while another amendment for the same rule is being voted on. I think that some of the problems we have had with changing rule 210 has been the simultaneous amendments and that people have voted for the alterative they want, and against the others. Net result: no proposal has made it. To avoid this in the future, vote for proposal 1022. Tortoise. ** Acceptance of Judgement (Goethe, Oct 4 06:57) I accept judgement between Draco and Lindrum. In a letter to me, Lindrum stated aproximately (pardon the paraphrase) ``Even though the repeal of Rule 206 gives you no legal basis for judgement, the difficulties of acceptance of the interim government would have me follow the guidelines of judgement of another.'' Thus, according to the anti-interim-coup supporters, I have legal jusrisdiction as a judge. In addition, Lindrum has accorded me the respect of listening (and hopefully abiding by) my judgement. In respect for the law, I previously supported Lindrum's government, as (at the time) I saw no concrete legal arguments against his actions. However, recent arguments by Evantine, et. al., have convinced me to take another look at the matter at hand. I would ask that, having the support of both sides to make an impartial judgement, both sides remain in good faith and finally abide by my decision, which should be ready within the next day. If the period of Interim Government elapses before my judgement, I would ask that Lindrum withhold action until the judgement comes. I would further ask the plethora of judges currently active to defer to this voice, in the hopes of reaching a settlement and continuing the game. --Goethe ** The Issue (Goethe, Oct 4 07:07) The Actual Issue Draco has asked me, as a judge, to ``declare Lindrum's actions against the spirit of the game, reinstate Rule 210 with `initially' defined as ``until Rule 210 is amended or changes as per amemdment procedure,'' and declare the rules of Lindrum's Interim Government as null and void.'' Again, Lindrum has agreed to support whatever judgement I make. By the old rules, opponents of Lindrum have also agreed to abide by any decision I make. Hopefully, this support on both sides will allow my decision to untangle the delicate knots of semantics and emotions, and push this game well along its constantly changing tracks. --Goethe ** Re: Goethe's judgment (Heffalump, Oct 4 09:07) [Following 93] I'm not sure that I follow Goethe's logic, it sounds like he has just announced that he has the power to legitimize Lindrum's judgment. My argument that judgment has no binding legal power apply just as strongly to Goethe's judgment. Players *may* (if they wish) choose to follow the interpretation of the rules provided by a judge ONLY if that judgment does not contradict existing rules. Nothing binds a player to follow any judgment, however a judgment that violates the rules absolutely cannot be followed. ** Judgement PART 1: Basis for decision, Opening comments (Goethe, Oct 4 10:20) I will base my dicision on the State of the Rules before Lindrum's Judgement. According to Lindrum's opponents, this gives the judgement legitimacy. Since Lindrum has agreed to support my judgement, it hold merit in the Interim Government's eyes as well. The questions I will answer: ``Does Lindrum`s judgement have legitimacy?'' AND ``Should all of Lindrum's Rules be declared Null and Void?'' In the hopes of arriving in the spirit of the game, I will use Rules in three Ranking Orders: 1] If the current rules allow/forbid it, I will allow/forbid it. 2] If the current rules are silent, I will examine Suber's original rules. While these do not have direct legitimacy, they fall under my judgement of ``spirit of the game'' and hence under consideration for judgement. --More--(60%) 3] If both locations are silent, I will judge with the basis ``anything not expressly prohibited is permitted, and unregulated.'' Those of you who have read any other of Hofsteader's books may remember a certain figure known as Godel (here without the two dots). Based on his incompleteness theorem, I know the above three criteria will not allow me to form a wholly consistant decision. Therefore, I shall temper by decision with respect to cultural assumptions and common law. --Goethe ** JUDGEMENT PART 2: The Main Text (Goethe, Oct 4 10:22) RULE 206 : ``If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then Judgement is invoked and a judge selected.'' In the beginning, two players took it upon themselves to question the legality of a move. Hence, judgement was selected. Lindrum became the judge. Lindrum proceeded to judge the issue, and hand down a decision, including the repeal of 206 and the creation of an Interim Government. ``The Judge's judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players.'' The rules were silent: Lindrum defined a certain time period for such voting, and no such voting came into effect. Therefore, his judgement must be determined as legal. HOWEVER: The rules are also silent on another question: WHEN DOES THE EFFECT OF A JUDGEMENT TAKE PLACE? Does it take effect the moment the decision is made? After a unanimous vote to dethrone it fails? What happens in the time between the judgement and the moderator's game changes based on that judgement? More importantly, what happens during the period of two concurrent judgements which contradict each other? Three? How do you tangle out N judgements? Do you enact judgement N+1? Has Lindrum's judgement actually taken effect? To find a solution within the spirit of the game, I return to Suber's original judgement rule. RULE 212: ``When judgement has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.'' To see how we might apply this to a game without turns, I judge: 1: Our conception of TURNS has been replaced with RULE VOTING PERIODS, JUDGEMENT PERIODS, and ENACTMENT OF RULES. 2: While voting and judgement must run in parallel, SOME SEQUENTIAL ORDER MUST EXIST. Since sequential order does not exist in the legislative rule changes or judgements, it must exist in the ENACTMENT OF RULES by the moderator. Since we only have one implementation of the game, WE ONLY PLAY ONE VERSION OF THE GAME AT A TIME. 3: Parallel events which conflict must be sorted sequentially, but parallel items which DO NOT conflict may be processed in parallel without harming the game. Two judgements may pass at the same time, --More--(57% providing they do not affect each other. Therefore, I apply Suber 212 to this sequential part of the game, and judge: ``WHEN JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN INVOKED, NO CHANGES IN THE GAME'S STRUCTURE MANDATED BY THE JUDGEMENT MAY BE MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF A MAJORITY OF THE OTHER PLAYERS.'' Thus, while voting and judgement continues during judgement, actual implementation of applicable rules, procedures, or judgements may not take place. Some may argue that such consent came during the three-minute voting period. After all, abstention may be seen as a form of consent. However, the statement does not refer to a ``Majority Vote,'' but a ``Consent of the Majority.'' Since Suber uses the word `vote' specifically in other places, we must assume that he had in mind actual STATED CONSENT in this particular case. Since this is not a vote, there is no voting period. Changes just may not be made until THE INSTANT A MAJORITY OF PLAYERS GIVE THEIR CONSENT. In the case of Draco vs. Lindrum, I speak thus: Lindrum has made a legal judgement, which has not been voted down. However, the game may not be changed in the manner described, until a MAJORITY of the PLAYERS give their CONSENT. Lindrum's Rules after the judgement do not take affect, as they were proposed under the old rules, which specify voting procedure. Lindrum's judgement remains legally made, but open and not enacted: the instant a majority of the players allow it, the Interim Government comes into effect. But not until. This applies similarly to all judgements, including this one. --Goethe. ** JUDGEMENT PART 3: Consequences, closings, requests (Goethe, Oct 4 10:24) My judgement, according to Lindrum's rules, does not have the force of law. Even if it DOES have the force of law, its self-referential nature says that it will not come into effect until a majority confirm it, and a majority cannot confirm it (because the setting up of a voting process represents a change in the game) until it comes into effect. We must enact it in order to vote to enact it. But once again I say HOWEVER, and for *this* however I return to the force of common law. We have made many assumptions in this game, as necessary to get the game started. We have assumed a voting procedure (which has since changed, through judgement). We have assummed a judgement procedure, a talking procedure, and a discussion procedure, NONE OF WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY THE RULES. Hence, with regard to my last judgement, I hereby make the following REQUEST TO THE EXECUTIVE, AND GEOFF ----------------------------------- Geoff, set up a voting procedure for the purpose of consenting to judgements. Nothing in the rules prohibits this: you could argue that *any* of us should be allowed to do this, although you're the only one with the power. Structure the voting procedure simply: A player, to any judgement, may give their consent. Consent may be given, but not removed (or perhaps removed, but does one remove consent?)...it may be public or private: I'd make it public, but that's just me. Then, leave such ``consent voting'' open, on all judgements. Allow judges to change the wording of their judgements at any time, resetting consent to zero but allowing compromise if they do not receive enough consent. If, at any time, a judgement receives enough consent to enact it, ENACT IT. It becomes a mandate from the people, worthy of inclusion in the game. Secondly, the rules state that ``The judges answer all questions...'' Our implementation of judgement has given the judges too much latitude... they seem to be answering questions that they have not been asked. So, in implementing judgements, perhaps a system such as suggested by Lindrum: 1: All judgements invoked consist of a series of questions. These may or may not be prefaced with accompanying arguments. 2: The judge may make any arguments he/she wants, but in the end, may only ACCEPT, REJECT, or REFUSE TO PASS JUDGEMENT. While the judge's arguments may create more judgements, they may not have any effect other that TO APPLY TO THE EXACT CURRENT QUESTION. In this way, not only to you (as the moderator) receive a voted mandate, but you also receive an EXACT DEFINITION AND SOLUTION to the problem. In my case, for example, the judgement (regardless of argument) is ACCEPT Lidrum's judgement as valid, REJECT his rule changes since the judgement, and REQUEST (not a judgement activity) the new consent policy. It takes away from the danger of people accusing you or any judge, of having too much power---the Executive merely implements direct instructions, to the best of his abilities. Again, nothing in the rules prohibits this. Take my judgement as a request for such action, or put it up to the vote. And put Lindrum's to such consent: there may come a time, in a fit of frustration, that we actually desire the Interim Government and all its dangers, and we might give Lindrum the credit he desires. And, other players, pay attention to the judgements. Consent wisely, or wisely take consent away. We may easily judge others, but as a whole majority, we may easily and soundly judge ourselves. --Goethe ** Re: Goethe's judgment (Goethe, Oct 4 10:41) [Following 94] My argument for authority was simply: According to the Old Rules, and thus Lindrum's opponents, I'm a legitimate judge. While Lindrum does not consider me a legitimate judge, he has said he will abide my decision...so, for the purposes of both groups, I have a ligitimate claim... ** Why you should vote *for* proposal 1019 (Geoff, Oct 4 16:02) If you're in favour of any non-unanimity proposal then PLEASE vote for 1019; proposal 1021 should pass easily then if the majority of people believe 2/3 is better! So vote yes to both!!! Better to get something through *definetly* in this cloud of confusion than more failures.. Of course if you believe 1017 was enacted immediately and judgements are binding (etc etc) then just don't vote at all. Do the reasonable thing and let others continue with the game! geoff ** Post-Interim Rule Set, Part 1 (Lindrum, Oct 4 16:43) Post-Interim Rule Set, Part 1 Immutable Rules 1101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in accordance with currently existing game custom. 1102. Until such time as they are legally transmuted, Rules 1101-1115 are immutable, and Rules 1201-1220 are mutable. 1103. A rule change must be one of the following: (1) the enactment repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. 1104. All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on. Three conditions must be satisfied for a proposal to be adopted: (1) a quorum must have been achieved; (2) the required number of votes must have been cast in favor of the proposal; and (3) the prescribed voting period must have elapsed. 1105. Any proposed rule change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. 1106. No rule change may take effect before the end of the prescribed voting period on that proposed rule change, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive application. 1107. Each proposed rule change shall be given an ordinal number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 1300, and each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive ordinal, whether or not the proposal is adopted. The effective ordinal number of a rule is the ordinal number of the most recent change to that rule. 1108. Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way with some immutable rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are wholly void and without effect. They do not implicitly transmute immutable rules into mutable rules and at the same time amend them. Rule changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules will be effective only if they explicitly state their transmuting effect. 1109. The proper way to make a proposal is to place it on the voting noticeboard. The prescribed voting period begins at the moment that the proposal is placed on the voting noticeboard, and the proposal then cannot be removed from the voting noticeboard until the end of the prescribed voting period. ** Post-Interim Rule Set, Part 2 (Lindrum, Oct 4 16:55) 1110. The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. However, the magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot be continued may be enacted and (while mutable) be amended or repealed. 1111. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur it, may be imposed. 1112. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule changes must never become completely inpermissible. 1113. Rule changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule changes are as permissible as other rule changes. Even rule changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule change is impermissible solely on account of the self- reference or self-application of a rule. 1114. Players may vote either for or against any proposal on the voting noticeboard during the prescribed voting period. Voting shall be by secret ballot. Players who do not vote within the prescribed period shall be deemed to have abstained. 1115. Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. ** Lindrum's Discussion. (Geoff, Oct 4 16:58) As you can see Lindrum has presented us with some interesting discussion which taken collectively could be applied as a constitution. Unfortuneatly Lindrum can't post all these proposals at once; so I suggest his supporters and people who like what he's done get the proposals up for vote and we shall very soon have a similar consitution. Of course this requires you not to vote against the current non-unanimity proposals (depending on the state of the game which I am unsure of) - so vote for both!! geoff ** Post-Interim Rule Set, Part 3 (Lindrum, Oct 4 17:10) Mutable Rules. 1201. Quorum is defined to be 20% of the recently active registered players. 1202. A registered player is recently active with respect to a proposal if he or she has logged on to the game at least once in the two weeks before the beginning of the voting period on that proposal. 1203. The number of votes required to pass a proposal is two-thirds of the votes legally cast within the prescribed voting period. 1204. Each player has exactly one vote. 1205. The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting from the moment that the proposal is placed on the voting noticeboard. 1206. An adopted proposal takes effect at the moment that the prescribed voting period ends. 1207. When a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted against it receive 10 points each. A player whose proposed rule change is adopted receives a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. 1208. When a proposed rule change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points. 1209. The winner is the first player to achieve a score of 100 points. 1210. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest effective ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another, or to defer to one another, then the numerical metod must again govern. ** Post-Interim Rule Set, Part 4 [Final] (Lindrum, Oct 4 17:42) 1211. Any player who has a question or complaint about any matter concerning the laws and their interpretation may place a statement on the discussion noticeboard and call for judgement on that statement. 1212. When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected from among the other registered players. The player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the discussion noticeboard. Any player who does not respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. 1213. Having accepted the appointment, a Judge has exactly one week in which to post an official Judgement. A Judge who fails to deliver Judgement within that period is penalized 10 points. 1214. There are only three possible Judgements: (1) True; (2) False; or (3) Undecided. A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons an arguments, but any such reasons and arguments form no part of the official Judgement itself. 1215. All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules then in effect. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision. 1216. If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be true, and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game custom. 1217. If a statement on which Judgement has been called is declared false, and that Judgement is not overruled, then the player who called for Judgement shall be penalized 10 points. 1218. At any time in the week following the posting of a Judgement of "true" or "false", any player may propose that the Judgement be overruled, i.e. changed to "undecided". If that proposal is adopted, according to whatever rules are currently in effect for the adoption of proposals, then the Judgement is overruled, and the Judge who made it penalized 20 points. 1219. A player is any person who is registered as a player. No person may register as a player more than once concurrently. Anyone is allowed to observe the game and parrticipate in discussion of any issue, but no person who is not a player may make a proposal, or vote on any proposal, or call for judgement, or judge, or score points, or win the game. 1220. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call for judgement on a statement to that effect. If the statement is judged true, and the judgement is not overruled, then the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the game. This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner of the game. ** My Letter to Goethe (Lindrum, Oct 4 18:06) In a series of recent postings, Goethe claims incorrectly that he has my support. Goethe states that "Lindrum has agreed to support whatever judgement I make." That is not true. Goethe also says that in a recent letter to him I stated: "Even though the repeal of Rule 206 gives you no legal basis for judgement, the difficulties of acceptance of the interim government would have me follow the guidlines of another." He claims this is an "approximate paraphrase" of my words. Nothing could be further from the truth! To set the record straight I shall append a complete transcript of the only letter I have ever sent to Goethe, and you can make up your own minds how close his "paraphrase" is to what I said. The Letter is dated Saturday October 3rd: Dear Goethe, I see that you have been called upon by the counter-revolutionary forces opposing an orderly change to majority rule to "judge" an so-called "issue" between Draco and myself. I have posted a "Reply to Draco" on the main noticeboard that makes clear where I stand on this point. I think it is quite obvious what you should do, but of course it is a matter for you and you alone to decide the correct course of action. In the long run your judgement, it seems clear, has no legal basis whatsoever following the repeal of Rule 206, but nevertheless you and the other "judges" whose opinion has recently been "invoked" have an important role to play in the pragmatics of the game henceforth. Were you to find in my favor in the "case" Draco has brought against me, then I think we would be at a point where even by their own stated criteria my opponents would have to admit that the Interim Govt. is legitimate. I think that this would be i the best interests of retsoring order to the decision making process. But these things are not simply decided in the abstract; I repeat some words you wrote long ago ... Grau, mein Freund, ist alle Theorie, Und gruen des Lebens goldner Baum. You must act, and I know you will, as your heart dictates. Best wishes, Lindrum. ** Vote: Should Lindrum Leave the Game? (Lindrum, Oct 4 18:23) The Seven Day Interim Government has but fifteen minutes to run as I type these words, and I am on the point of stepping down as President, leaving in place a rule set free of the loopholes that allowed me to assume power, and in which proposals are adopted by a two-thirds majority vote. I thank all those of you who have helped me in framing these rules, either by your assistance, or, indirectly, by your adversity. I promised at the beginning of my Presidency that once I stepped down I would call for a vote on the question of whether I should now leave the game entirely. Perhaps Geoff who, in his problematic joint roles as game wizard and power player, has attempted to thwart my every step will at least grant me this one small indulgence: facilitate a secret ballot on the question: SHOULD LINDRUM LEAVE THE GAME? This is not a vote on a rule proposal, it is outside the game itself, and has no legal force. It is not a vote on whether or not I should be banished. However if more than half of those of you who vote on this question think that I should now leave the game, then I shall abide by the wishes of the majority and go quietly. I await your instructions. I imagine that Geoff will refuse to organize this vote, and there would be little point in trying to force him to do so. If that turns out to be the case, then I would be happy to have you vote publically by posting a short note to the discussion board. I will not be upset by anything you say, so please don't be shy. If this is the way that the vote takes place, and if the majority of those who respond think that I should go, then go I will. Thank you. Lindrum. ** Repeal of All Rules Except 1019 and 1021 (Lindrum, Oct 4 18:26) All Rules currently in effect except Rule 1019 and Rule 1021 are now repealed, and as of the moment this note is posted are no longer in effect. Lindrum. ** Enactment of Post-Interim Rule Set (Lindrum, Oct 4 18:30) I hereby declare, by the power invested in me by Rule 1021, that at 6:35 p.m. (AEST) on Sunday 4th October 1992, the Post-Interim Rule Set given in four previous postings consisting of Immutable Rules 1101-1115 and Mutable Rules 1201-1220, will go into effect. Lindrum. ** Repeal of Rules 1019 and 1021 (Lindrum, Oct 4 18:32) I hereby declare, by the power invested in me by Rule 1021, that at the time of posting of this note, Rules 1019 and 1021 will be repealed and henceforth no longer in effect. Lindrum. ** Post-Interim Nomic (Lindrum, Oct 4 19:20) With the repeal of Rules 1019 and 1021 I have stepped down from the Presidency, and now speak to you as Citizen Lindrum. Three minutes after my resignation, a new set of Post-Interim Rules went into effect. I hope that these Rules will be more successful in unequivocally guiding play than the Pre-Interim Rules were. Questions of the legality of what I have done have been adequately dealt with elsewhere, although I should be happy to answer any further queries you may have. Let me just add a pragmatic observation: I suspect that the way the game proceeds from here will not be a matter of legality. It will either be decided by fiat -- by Geoff's simply interpreting what has happened this past week in whatever way he chooses -- or by a groundswell of consensus of public opinion coming to favor one or another way forward. I think that we have all learnt this last seven days that there was always a lot more to this game than simply the rules. What happens from here will inevitably depend on what the majority of the most vocal and/or powerful of you want to happen. I don't know what will result. I think I have done my job by presenting you with a single clear and legal alternative to choose. If the most vocal of you prefer chaos and anarchy (a perfectly respectable choice to my mind) then I guess that's what will happen. If the most vocal of you want to try to undo what has been done and return somehow to some version of the flawed Pre-Interim Rule Set, then that, I suppose, will happen. I do not think that either of these courses will be easy, unless Geoff steps in as Dictator of the meta-game and sorts things out by deus ex machina. Personally I would find that disappointing and rather boring. Can't we just play on within the game itself? I think that by far the most interesting way to proceed from here would be to go with the Post-Interim Rule Set. That's because it is the only LEGAL way to go on from here. However, if issues of legality become irrelevant for all practical purposes my next prefernec would be to fight out an anarchic battle in a game with no rules. (You may take this into account in deciding whether to vote that I should leave the game!!) That would be frustrating, but entertaining in a way too. On the other hand, if our present practical problems are simply solved by wizardry, then I think that I will probably choose to leave the game out of sheer boredom before too long, and see if I can find a group of people who want to play Nomic instead of "Whim of Geoff". ex-Prez Lindrum. ** Re: Vote: Should Lindrum Leave the Game? (Tortoise, Oct 5 01:04) [Following 106] My vote is that Lindrum should stay in the game. Tortoise ** Re: Post-Interim Nomic (Tortoise, Oct 5 01:25) [Following 110] The question I'm sure a lot of people are asking themselves is 'What do we do now?' The alternatives are clear: We can accept Lindrums actions and his new rules, or we can reject his actions and go on with the old rules. There are two sorts of arguments on both sides. One conserns the legality of the Interim Government. The other the merits of the rule sets. I won't repeat the legal argument as you have all heard them before, I will just state that I personally think Lindrums actions were illegal. On the merit side, however, I must say that the new rules are better. They are less ambiguous and more oriented towards simultaneous play. I feel that we have no legal way to decide this question, any judge will be ignored by a large fraction of the players. In my very humble opinion, a simple majority decision is in order. If this matter is brought up for voting, my vote would go for the _old_ rule set. (However, this may perhaps better be decided by secret vote) Tortoise PS: if we decide in favor of the old rules, I request that any judges should stick to the questions they are asked to resolve until we get the rules improved. (Again, just my humble opinion) ** Re: My Letter to Goethe (Goethe, Oct 5 04:12) [Following 105] I apologise quite profoundly to Lindrum for mis-quoting him. I read the letter quickly, and late at night, and assumed it meant one thing, when it really meant another. What he meant to say was ``I respect your opinion, and will listen to what you say, as long as what you say does nothing to harm my Interim Government, and supports my position in every way.'' Again, I apologise for the inconvience to everybody who had to slop through my longer postings, when in the great sceme of things, they really didn't mean a damn. --Goethe ** the sorrow, and the pity. (Goethe, Oct 5 04:36) Dear Geoff, I cannot help but be amused by the parallels that appear in history. I am reminded (for U.S. History buffs) of the 1834 Cherokee Indian Nation case, wherin the Supreme Court, led by Judge Marshall, declared that the United States could not deport Cherokee Indians from Georgia. President Andrew Jackson responded with a single line: ``Judge Marshall made the Rule. Now let Judge Marshall enforce it.'' The President then proceeded, with the army's help, to deport the Indians to the dry stretches of Oklahoma. Lindrum made his judgement. Now, it seems, you have said ``Let him enforce it.'' It seems that someone, somewhere should be laughing. And if someone is laughing, that person is not me. You have said that we should ``Continue the game normally (whatever that means) and vote for the current proposals etc., assuming Lindrum's judgement to be invalid. Well, if we proceed ``normally,'' we would continue the process of judgement. All judgements SINCE Lindrum's (mine, all the Heff. vs. Heff, etc.) would ALSO be legal. Yet you (so far) have paid no attention to them, not even with the dignity of reply. For now, I have voted *against* your little unanimouty proposals, as I would like to hear your arguments and discussion. Not that this matters: if you want government ``by Geoff, for Geoff, and with regards to Geoff,'' why not simply change any proposals you want to change yourself? It seems to me you have a few options: 1] Accept Lindrum's judgements, and all Lindrum's changes. 2] Reject his judgement, yet acknowledge all judgements since Lindrum's, since they were made legally under 206. 3] Play Nomic in name only, and dress the charade covering your power by ignoring or furthering only the causes you see fit. If you choose number 3, you'll be happy to know that I'll no longer be a problem. Fortunately, this game has a stronger Social Contract (from the people's view): while I cannot take your power away, I can simply (along with others) cease troubling anyone, and leave the game. I hope you enjoy your world. I, for the most part, certainly have. But the time comes, as in all things, to take one's toys and go home. Sincerely, Goethe ** A Proposal for Everyone (Ilt, Oct 5 05:07) One group of players are following one set of rules and another set of players are following similar but non identical rules. We are going to have many future disputes unless everybody agrees on the set of rules. I am about to propose a rule that I believe both camps will want to have enacted. My rule will be: All players must always abide by all the rules in the Post-Interim Rule Set. However, when the rules in the Post-Interim Rule Set conflict with those in the Original set, those in the Original set will take precedence. In this rule, the Original set refers to all rules in effect at 17:07:59, September 27, 1992 (game-time); the Post-Interim Rule set refers to all rules proposed by Lindrum October 4, 1992 in bulletin board messages numbers 184, 185, 187, and 188. For Camp A: =========== This rule is put on top of the Original set. It places some minor amendments on the Original set, disambiguating some terms and prohibiting dictatorship. If you all vote for this proposal, the world stays basically as it was with a few new safeguards. And you don't have to admit that anybody had dictatorial powers. And everybody agrees about the state of the game. Later votes can alter the Post-Interim Rule Set, but this proposal gives us a quick fix to Original Rule Set. For Camp B: =========== This rule is added to the Post-Interim Rule set. Admittedly, it waters down some of the changes, but it fixes the Original set by disambiguating terms and prohibiting dictatorship. One of the main purposes of the new rule set was to fill in ambiguities and silences in the original rules. This purpose is still achieved. If you vote for this proposal, the world is as described by the Post-Interim Rule set except in a few particulars. The most notable is that unanimity is still required for votes. This is not too much of a price to pay for getting all the players into the same game. There are still many ways to get rid of unanimity (see below). Later votes can repeal rules in the Original set as necessary and can make the Post-Interim Rule set explicit in the rules. Getting rid of unanimity: 1) Get a unanimous vote once everybody agrees on what game we're playing. 2) If it doesn't pass, we can all post our yea votes on the B-board we can figure out who voted nay by elimination and harassment we can also bug them about why they voted nay. 3) Surely everybody knows we aren't going to get anywhere until this voting rule gets fixed. ILT ** Re: Vote: Should Lindrum Leave the Game? (Heffalump, Oct 5 06:45) [Following 106] How utterly insane! Why should we have any say or interest in having you leave the game Lindrum? While some of us may not agree with your arguments, no one has claimed that you are not entitled to make them, and I don't think anyone will question the claim that you have contributed to the game whether your judgment was valid or not. Stay if you are still interested in participating, leave if you are not. ** what would the Proposal mean (Ilt, Oct 5 07:23) For Lindrumites and non-Lindrumites: The Post-Interim rules propose some amendments to the Original rules and conflict (in an obvious way) only five times. Amendments: 1. Rules are interpreted in accordance with currently existing game custom. 2. Until such time as they are legally transmuted, Rules 1101-1115 are immutable, and Rules 1201-1220 are mutable. 3. The end of the prescribed voting period on a proposed rule change is the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. 4. The prescribed voting period begins at the moment that the proposal is placed on the voting noticeboard. 5. The rules that establish a winner when play cannot be continued may be enacted and (while mutable) be amended or repealed. 6. A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur it, may be imposed. 7. Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. 8. A registered player is recently active with respect to a proposal if he or she has logged on to the game at least once in the two weeks before the beginning of the voting period on that proposal. 9. Any player who has a question or complaint about any matter concerning the laws and their interpretation may place a statement on the discussion noticeboard and call for judgement on that statement. 10. There are only three possible Judgements: (1) True; (2) False; or (3) Undecided. A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons an arguments, but any such reasons and arguments form no part of the official Judgement itself. 11. If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be true, and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game custom. 12. If a statement on which Judgement has been called is declared false, and that Judgement is not overruled, then the player who called for Judgement shall be penalized 10 points. 13. No person may register as a player more than once concurrently. 14. No person who is not a player may make a proposal, or call for judgement, or judge, or score points, or win the game. Obvious Conflicts: CONFLICT: The numbers of rules shall begin with 1300, --- Original set overrides, saying things start at 1000. CONFLICT: The number of votes required to pass a proposal is two-thirds of the votes legally cast within the prescribed voting period. --- This is overridden by the unanimity rule. CONFLICT: When a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted against it receive 10 points each. --- Original set says that this only applies after unanimity is voted down. CONFLICT: At any time in the week following the posting of a Judgement of "true" or "false", any player may propose that the Judgement be overruled, i.e. changed to "undecided". If that proposal is adopted, according to whatever rules are currently in effect for the adoption of proposals, then the Judgement is overruled, and the Judge who made it penalized 20 points. --- Original set requires a unanimous vote to overrule. CONFLICT: When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected from among the other registered players. --- Original set says that a Judge must be a player who is registered as a judge. ** Re: Vote: Should Lindrum Leave the Game? (Dave, Oct 5 07:37) [Following 106] Oh relax. You've clearly been through a stressful time, and we appreciate your effort. Have some soup. ** Re: Post-Interim Nomic (Dave, Oct 5 07:42) [Following 112] Lindrum has delivered a rule set, as promised. So let's put it up to a vote, as a whole block, first changing whatever rules prohibit the putting up to a vote of a block of rule changes. Dave ** Dissolve the game and restart (Evantine, Oct 5 08:50) As you are probably aware, I have been a vocal opponent of Lindrum's Interim Government. However, he has now stepped down, and submitted the product of his revolution to us. It is up to the people to decide whether to play the game as we have been playing it, or to quit this game, and begin another with this new set of rules. If we choose the former, we will have to go through the unctuous process of getting rid of unanimity first, then proceed to implement the changes we want piecemeal. We could also accept Ilt's unusual "dual rule set," or whatever he wishes to call it. Who honestly wants to go through this rigaramole? Let's face it, the game as we have been playing it, is dead. Lindrum helped to kill it, but it was dying even before then. Even as a strong opponent of Lindrum, I think it would be for the better if we DISSOLVED this game, and started anew with Lindrum's rules. Let's face it, they're clean, efficient, clearly written, better suited to simultaneous play, and closer to Suber's original idea. IMHO, there are times when it becomes necessary to make a decision outside the game--and the fundamental decision of what game we wish to play should be done that way. Evantine ** Time, 1017 and Lindrum. (Geoff, Oct 5 12:55) Lindrum continues to claim his judgement is LAW but still fails to provide adequate explanation for (a) the time period before its invocation and why judgement wasn't called to resolve the dispute and (b) Heffalump's argument that judgements aren't legally binding and laws aren't. Goethe expresses his disappointment at *me* and has stated he has voted against the unanimity proposals in an effort to torpedo what is happening and *force* us into a situation of accepting Lindrum's rules set. While it may be better framed than the current one - why can't you pass the rules within the rules that currently exist Lindrum? Please Lindrum; provide adequate CLEAR explanations for (a) and (b) - I'm willing to accept the explanations if you can provide them. geoff ** Re: the sorrow, and the pity. (Geoff, Oct 5 13:11) [Following 114] What can I say Goethe? Perhaps you're disappointed but as an implementor I am in a VERY difficult position because of the way Lindrum has FORCED his will upon all of us saying "THIS IS LAW". Clearly there were a number of interpretations available - which was I to choose? a) Lindrum's Judgement was legal and 1017 was enacted immediately and hence Lindrum's rule set is in effect. b) Lindrum's Judgement was legal and 1017 took a week to enact hence other Judgements made in that time period are legal. c) Lindrum's Judgement was not binding and nor are any other judgements hence the rules set before Lindrum's Judgement is in effects. d) Lindrum's Judgement was illegal in some repects and we shall use the written laws over what a judge writes; especially in areas where the judge hasn't specifically interpreted the rules in question. So what am I to do? I'm in a pretty much no win situation no matter what I do; from Lindrum's "dicatator" accusations, to your sorrow and pity. Perhaps dissolving the game is the best course of actions. But I feel that is merely accepting Lindrum's will - so why play? Why not re-write the rules to indicate Lindrum's is judge and executor for all rules? In which case Lindrum will say I'm doing that anyway. Perhaps I should choose using a dice? That's the course of action I favour :-). Well - the game has certainly been the most interesting game of Nomic I've participated in and I'd like to see some resolution to this situation that is acceptable to all; unfortunetly I don't see it happening. Steve has clearly sided with Lindrum's - although he can't provide explanations for (a)-(d) above and why Judgement wasn't invoked to clarify the situation before Lindrum simply plunged headlong in his "LAW". This is what I see as the major failure in Lindrum's legality actually; his failure to use the existing rules to clarify a clear conflict in the inpterpretations of the rules and his written judgement, but that is merely my opinion. My course of action so far has been to "do nothing" as far as implementation is concerned; Rendell (the non-interested implementor) has no better resolution to the problem either. So perhaps we should accept your word Goethe? simply in a corner, geoff ** Re: Vote: Should Lindrum Leave the Game? (Steve, Oct 5 13:44) [Following 106] Lindrum has added greatly to the interest of the game. People who think the game should return to 'normal' have missed the point - this sort of occurrence should be regarded as normal. We mostly agree that what Lindrum did in interpreting 210 as he did was legal. There is still disagreement about what sohuld have happened after that. Either way, I vote Lindrum stays. He a lecturer in game theory - it's a fine game that can hold his interest. Steve ** In defence of Geoff (Steve, Oct 5 14:30) Geoff has copped a lot of flak from many players over his handling of\ the Lindrum Affair. Lindrum, I am aware painted Geoff in several posts (quite unfairly, I think) as a wizard-fascist bent on implementing the game only according to his tastes. This is innacurate. Geoff has left the implementation untouched. He has (wisely) waited for some sort of consensus to arise regarding the current state of play. So far, no consensus has been forthcoming. Doing nothing has no doubt enraged those who saw the rules as requiring geoff to make changes, just as implementing those changes would equally have enraged those who thought the rules required nothing of the sort. At leats doing nothing is fair and consistent. There is no evidence that geoff has manipulated the game in an unfair manner. So much for that. As for positive suggestions, we appear to have a number of available options: 1. We can have some sort of vote to decide which of the two available constitutions - the Original or Post-Interim - we should adopt. 2. We can dissolve the game and begin again, probably with the Post-Interim set. 3. We can continue as we are now. There are problems with all three options. Someone pointed out (was it Evantine? I'm certain Lindrum said something similar anyway) that we should have realized by now that the game consists of much more than the rules. Heffalump has argued that the rules nowhere enforce Judgements as binding upon players. Clearly, the concept of a Social Contract in this game is central - and problematic, since none of us ever explicitly agreed to abide by such a contract. That's the problem with Option 1. We could have a vote - and then supporters of both sides might argue that such a vote is invalid. Or they might agree to be bound by whatever decision is made, even wish to be bound by such a decision, but find nothing in the rules to justify it. Option 2 - dissolving the game - is cleaner, but something of an admission of defeat. Option 3 - continuing as at present - presents the unpleasant prospect of complete anarchy - no agreement as to what the current rules are or should be, people claiimg eachothers Judgements and proposals have no validity, etc etc much as we have seen over the past week. Some think this would be fine. I disagree. I want to move on to discuss something other than the hopeless deadlock surrounding Lindrum's Judgement, the (il)legality thereof, the controversial consequences thereof, etc etc. To confuse matters further, Ilt has posted an ultimatum claiming that at klea[4 least he (and implying the existence of others who) will leave the game unless Geoff (or Rob or myself) take action to break this deadlock. We could do this - dissolve the game by fiat, say, and start afresh - but how many would we alienate in the process? It seems an impossible situation. My personal preference is for dissolution and restart - but only because that would be clearest for all concerned. Steve ** Concerning current issues. (Blob, Oct 5 19:26) Sadly, I have been away for the past four days and have missed much of the action. I have done my best to read and interpret all the messages since I left, and I now want to put forward my opinions, to be shot down in flames as usual: * No, Heffalump, Lindrum did not offer me anything more than he offered all other players who would swear allegiance to him - that is, a listening ear when we made suggestions for his Post-Interim Rule Set. * I hereby accept judgement on the issue of Heffalump vs Heffalump I rule that the same issue, according to the rules, cannot be put to more than one judge at a time. This means that calling me as a judge is invalid. As an invalid judge, I have no right to decide anything, not even the validity of my judgement. Therefore, my declaration that I am an invalid judge is null and void. Is it possible for a judge to determine eir own validity? If e is valid, then yes - and e is valid. If e is invalid, how can e rule concerning eir validity? "This statement is True." * Concerning the stalemate the game is currently in: It is perfectly within the wizards rights et hoc genus omne, to produce _another_ game, with a _different_ rule set, which has] no legal links with this one. If there is sufficient split between players wanting the old rule set, and players wanting the new, would the wizards be able to run two versions of the game? Surely the less popular one would finally die out. This idea must, of course, be tempered by the wizards judgement. * Concerning the power of the wizards and the implementation of the game. It is obvious that the implementation-dependant nature of this game is unavoidable, and a problem that can never be completely overcome. I suggest that a new rule set, if one is used, include rules which allow for the discrepency, and soften its effects even if they don't overcome them. * Concerning very long messages: There have been a lot of these lately. Personally I find I have a hard time wading through them all. I am dismayed at the unexpected tendency towards lengthy rambling this very message is displaying. So I will end it immedi ** Re: Vote: Should Lindrum Leave the Game? (Blob, Oct 5 19:35) [Following 106] I say that the player Lindrum should be immediately be banished from the game. As this cannot be legally enforced, due to anti-discrimination rules, I suggest that Lindrum leave by his own choice, and I will accept his word that he will not return. Legislation for this will unfortunately never be passed, but I will substantiate my opinion by vowing that I will vote against any rule that is ever proposed with Lindrum's name attached. I urge others to do likewise. Blob ** perhaps, Geoff, a solution... (Goethe, Oct 7 04:16) Geoff, I tried posting this last night, but apparently the bulletin board somehow ate my message. First, any comments I made about the ``power of the Executive, etc.,'' I did not mean to direct to you personally...In my opinion, you have done a wonderous job of staying balanced, and implementing the game at the same time. This is certainly the most interesting game *I* have seen, as well. A thought--- My suggestion (about majority consent continue after a judgement) is, in effect, ALREADY a part of the game. Lindrum's judgement was the first not to have a clear majority consent (i.e., the first to provoke argument) and, by god, the game has not progressed since his judgement. (By progress, I mean continue along some determinable path. Things certainly *have* happened :) ). Perhaps using my judgement was a little too formal method of making a suggestion. Consider: Judgements before Lindrum passed with majority consent. By not questioning previous judgements, players consented to continue the game under the judgement's rulings. Now, after the controversy, we have had many suggestions. From ``ignore the ruling,'' to ``follow Lindrum'' to ``re-start the game.'' We have also had requests for a vote (a meta-vote, outside the voting rules) to see what the majority of people want to do. And that's exactly the problem. We don't know where the majority of the people stand. So I think the best thing to do is to call for a formal vote, with a system, somewhere, to list the choices and count tallies. Saying ``I vote yes/no/jump in a lake'' in the discussion board is nice, but I, for one, have lost count. By using Suber's consent rule, in a judgement, I tried to bring such voting in from a meta-rule to a rule (or interpretation of the rule). It seems *much* more elegant to solve a problem within the rules, than by bringing in meta-rules. And since then, I have thought of another suggestion...I propose: All judgements previous to Lindrum's have passed, by majority silence. We do not have silence on Lindrum's case. Where is the majority? Set up the judging system as follows: Again, this changes no rules (it merely defines a system that *began* poorly defined)... A judgement voting room/both. The moment after a judgement is posted on the judgement board, change all players votes to ``consent.'' For a reasonable amount of time afterwards, players may change their consent to ``no consent.'' If, after this reasonable time the majority of the players have said ``no consent,'' the judgement does not come into effect. The judge may change the wording of the judgement, and try again...the judgement remains in Limbo until a majority of players let the judgement pass, or the judge is voted out via the unanimouty clause. Net effect: Judgements do not become final until a majority of the players are content enough to let it pass (the burden of rejection is placed on the players). This is consistant with the Rules we have played under (as players have let, you can say, previous judgements pass). It is legal, as it merely defines a system left undefined by the rules (and, of course, an earlier judgement held ``anything not prohibited is permitted, and unregulated.'' We have not changed anything, we have just not implemented this system before because it was unneccesary. As far as such unregulated procedures go, I believe the Spirit of the Game (a large ghost...is that like ``the intentions of the Founding Fathers?) would have us make whatever procedures are necessary to continue the game, as long as such procedures remain unregulated. Finally, it lives up to the idea of the game, as it implements a clause from Suber's original rules. Several players have spoken to me in favor of this proposal (note: it forgets the accept/reject part, I'm leaving that for another day)---as one person championing this cause, I cannot speak for others, but it seems the most reasonable compromise, and it has the advantage of not even being a rule, or a meta-meta-rule, but a bona-fide permissable action as based on the clause of ``freedom of the unregulated.'' Even if you do not implement the exact system above, I ask, and urge you to create some place we can vote (even if its a meta-vote, or a resolution) on the proposals and ideas which we've seen so far. If you don't use my in-rules method, just a place to tally opinion, in yes-no vote form, on where the game should go from here. We can go in ten thousand directions at once. Provided, in some subtle vector-space, all the directions agree. yrs, Goethe. ** How about an all-purpose polling room? (Evantine, Oct 7 04:25) With the large number of requests for the implementation of various voting situations outside the rules of the normal game, how about implementing an "all-pupose" voting/polling room where *anyone* could put *anything* up to a vote that they wished. The room would have nothing to do with the rules at all, but it would be very useful in situations where you either want a vote on something (anything!), or if you want to poll the voting public in some way. Whoever put up the statements for voting should be able to specify the time period of voting, so that the room would be capable of serving many different purposes. Evantine ** Re: How about an all-purpose polling room? (Dave, Oct 7 06:58) [Following 128] I posted this as a possible proposal like my earlier Resolutions idea but the bboard ate it. A nice thing might be a stongly-approve approve no-opinion disapprove strongly-disapprove scale, like those used by actual real life poll takers. ** Re: On the New Board (Dave, Oct 7 07:02) [Following 37] Yes. This "Log file". How does one access it? ** Well well well (Garf, Oct 7 10:03) I have been away for the last 12 days or so (you may have noticed in the recent coup etc a lack of whining posts from myself) and I come back to discover I have not only missed the only action here in the last month, but that the game is now in even more of a mess than when I left it. I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. What I do know however, is that all these long long long messages on this board are just taking up my time, and so, whoever now has the power to do so, please get me out of this game as soon as possible, or at least inform me how I may do so. I have utterly had it with this mess. Sorry Blob, I just can't wrap my mind around all the socio-political crap in here. This game is NOT any FUN, it is a shambles. Goodbye. GARF. ** how about starting again? (Korama, Oct 8 09:40) how about ending this particular game, and starting again with a better majority rule, ie 50% or something like that, cos thats the only thing holding this game up... it would be a lot easier than waiting for _EVERYBODY_ to agree on a majority rule. Korama. ** Re: how about starting again? (Joe, Oct 8 12:30) [Following 132] I agree that this is probably the best course of action. The original rules were written with a much smaller group in mind, where unanimity is quite a bit easier to achieve/overturn. Also, in the original game, a turn would probably last less than five minutes, not a week. The way this game is set up, a single saboteur could tie up the game for weeks. As such, people lose interest, and eventually (or judging by the number of people usually on lately - imminently) it will be hard to muster up even a quorum. Thus, the game will become even more deadlocked than it already is; it will completely die out! We (hopefully) have learned from experience. So lets start up again with a more suitable set of rules for this environment (e.g. Lindrum's set). In the meantime, please vote for the one remaining amendment to rule 210... -Joe ** New Game? (Geoff, Oct 8 13:15) I'm willing to start a new game to resolve this crisis; using Lindrum's new set of rules he has posted here. Anyone violently in favour or against please post or mail me with your reasons. geoff ** 1019 Amendment to rule 210 fails by 1 vote; fails to reach quorum. (Geoff, Oct 8 13:23) 16 people voted which is 1 less than the current quorum. geoff ** New Game - OK (Leor, Oct 8 17:42) I think that starting a new game with Lindrum's rules would be simple and definitely speed things up around here. I also think that the programmers should consider placing a new object in one of the western rooms: a shrine/dartboard bearing Lindrum's likeness - something that both his admirers and detractors could relish and remember his era by. ** Re: New Game - OK (Dave, Oct 9 02:21) [Following 136] and while we're designing the new clubhouse, how about putting a fridge in the bar? ** Re: New Game - OK (Ilt, Oct 9 02:28) [Following 136] The subject says it all. (a short message for once) ilt ** Re: New Game - OK (Goethe, Oct 9 05:36) [Following 136] So, a new game, with Lindrum's Rules, a ``random voting room'' for voting on non-proposals, a fridge...perhaps a swimming pool out back? P.S. Given the turnout of the last vote, maybe we should have people re-register once the game starts, so we know who's still interested in playing... (re-register within the game, that is.) ``You mean I wrote all those pages and pages of judgement for nothing?'' ``Yeah. Have a drink?'' ``Sure.'' --Goe<>the Hi - this is a short :) reply to Lindrum's 212. Lindrum: >Let p be the proposition: "Rule 1017 is legitimately enacted >if and only if Lindrum approves it." Suppose that, as >Evantine suggests, p is inconsistent with X. Let Y be the >set of all rules in force immediately following the posting >of Judgement 1. By (3), Y entails p. Since X is a subset >of Y, it would follow that Y entailed p and its negation. You have just said Y entials P then you go on to repeat it! Surely you mean X here Lindrum.. Currently (in following Evantine's thread of accepting Lindrum's Judgement) there are 2 major obstacles to accepting the implementation of 1017 (on which all of the rest of Lindrum's rules stem). a) Lindrum is trying to claim that voting is "completed" despite rule 211 specifying a one week voting period and the fact that others may still vote (although their votes maybe worthless) and the fact he may still change his vote (err - approval). Notice the use of the word "exactly" in rule 211 - what is it there for if not to specify the exact voting time Lindrum? IMHO - rule 1017 has certainly not been enacted yet. His usage of the word "approves" in his judgement is also very suspect; While rules are only adopted iff he "approves" them; his judgement certainly can't simply throw away the voting mechanism and rules that are still in effect (as a Judgement cannot overrule existing rules). And a rule change cannot be enacted until the voting period is complete (rule 106); perhaps after this Lindrum may wish to "approve" it as "president" so it can become an enacted rule. We can see his approval as more of a veto mechanism. Of course he is still free to propose rules and have them voted for/against and then "approve" them - but this does NOT preclude the voting mechanism as specified by the still existing rules at the finish of his Judgement. His judgement did not mention rule 211 at - I suggest a new judge needs to be called for this issue. b) His inconsistency proof above is invalid because X is not a subset of Y. What are rules ? Rules are restrictions on our freedom to do anything (hence anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed - see a previous judgement upon the ability to change your vote). So infact a "subset" of the written rules X of Y is not a subset of the possibilites open to us but rather a superset because we have more freedom available to us. Furthermore the proof relies on a very restricted X which fails to acknowledge others rules which have a profound effect on voting procedure and rule adoption (105, 106, 211). geoff My Judgement on the issue between Evantine and Blob. As most players seem to have accepted that Lindrum's judgement was legal according to the rules then I will accept his judgement as a premise of this judgement. (Subject to his judgement being revoked by a unanimous vote against him). Hence according to HIS judgement I may settle the scope of my judgement myself. So before I can respond to Blob's issue I must resolve the deadlock that has appeared in the game. The deadlock has to do with whether or not rule 1017 has passed. If it *has* pass then this judgement is invalid but as a judgement I judge it to have not currently passed because of the 1 week time period specified in rule 211. Lindrum's judgement while specifying that ALL the rules that exist may be taken to mean that the rules allow Lindrum to adopt proposals; his judgement cannot overrule the rules which currently exist. These rules clearly state (105) that any rule change must voted on. Rule 106 states that no rule change may take effect before the completion of the vote that adopted it; while Lindrum's may "adopt" rules - clearly there is still a voting situation involved. Rule 211 specifies the voting period shall be exactly 1 week. Hence 1017 is still in the voting period so this judgement is a valid judgement. Since Lindrum's rules are not in effect I will clarify Lindrum's previous Judgement which was clearly erroneous and mischevious in its intend. In no way did it attempt to meet the "spirit of the game" which I believe is defined by all the players that are participating - not just Lindrum. Lindrum's judgement was also erroneous in it's interpretation that the rules may be collectively interpreted to mean that rules may be adopted if Lindrum approves them; in no specific instance can I find mention of Lindrum. Hence I must begin by examining the intent of the original rules (now that the initial period of the game has finished according to Lindrum's judgement). The "spirit of the game" is obviously an important concept behind the framing of the rules otherwise Rule 206 would not have specified it. As I have defined the "spirit of the game" to be the players collective interpretation of the rules (not simply 1 individuals) I interpret rule 210 while loosing it's "initial" impact now relies on the "spirit of the game"; hence after the overwhelming support of for 2/3 majority on voting I interpret rule 210 to be: Proposals shall be adopted only by a 2/3 majority vote of the players who vote within the prescribed period, and only then if quorum is achieved. Quorum for any vote is unchanged because it does not come under the scope of "initially". Lindrum also failed to adequately clarify the "vote" against the judge; I believe that any vote against a judge's judgement can be framed as a proposal (ie. placed on the voting noticeboard) and hence is protected by the other rules referring to voting quorum and number. Now that I have clarified the game deadlock I believe that Evantine was wrong to invoke the same issue (as it is clearly the same issue although the wording may be different) twice for judgement and hence judge the my ability to judge that issue is null and void. When (and if) Jesse fails to accept judgement on the issue then a new judge shall be selected as described by rule 206. I would like to re-interpret Lindrum's definition of New Judge but am unable to because this is where I derive the power for this judgement from. This is my judgement to here; below is a call for sensibility. BUT - I appeal to all future judges to keep the "spirit of the game" in mind; realise there are other players who wish to participate and produce something interesting together. Not wait for a uni-lateral constitution developed by 1 player. My interpretation of rule 210 allows this to occur; a 2/3 majority is certainly obtainable and workable. It should also be noted that the unanimity rule was originally intended for a much smaller group of people than the number we currently have participating within the game. I urge you all to consider Lindrum's discussion (as that is all it is) when framing new proposals. I'd also like to see a good re-writing of rule 206 as it is clearly flawed; but I'd like to see everyone do it collectively! geoff Hello Again!, Lindrum's intepretations of the rules seem to continue well after his judgement has finished. Let me first address the totally incorrect statements in Lindrum's posts: >Geoff has stated unequivocally that he accepts the legitimacy >of Judgement 1. Please don't put words in my mouth and read my post carefully; it carefully specifies that I have accepted it as a premise for the purpose of a judgement; it does not necessarily reflect my acceptance of it's legitimacy. It was merely to clarify the position for those who do accepts its legality; of course as pointed out be Ilt (& Heffalump) there is nothing in the rules specifying that we must accept a Judge's judgement; whereas the rules are clear about obeying the rules! >It follows immediately from the above that >Geoff must also accept the legitimacy of Rule 1017. I accept it's legitmacy after 1 week; of course my Judgement overturned your incorrect interpretation of the rules so it probably will not pass the normal method of voting that is currently in place. To sum up my following reply succintly: Your interpretation of the Judgement and rules as they stood after you Judgement are NOT necessarily the correct interpretation, as you no longer held the power of the position of Judge. In fact if there is a dispute (which there clearly was and is!) then that dispute should be resolved by judgement before the game can blindly continue. Until that dispute is resolved then 1017 cannot be accepted as "in action" even presuming a judge does rule in your favour. To do so would be to always have Lindrum as judge and interpreter for all rules that exist - I cannot accept this. Hence the other rules; particularily those about Judgement are still in force. Since your interpretation seems to be in the minority Lindrum; perhaps you should call for Judgement? Below is clarification of the individual points you raise: >The original rules relevant to this issue are 106, 114, 202, >and 211. Did Lindrum miss rules 104 and 105? 105: "..rule change must be written down before it is voted on" This clearly implies that any rule change MUST be voted on. >The initial part of the game ended immediately after the posting >of Judgement 1. At that point Rules 210 and 102 went out of >effect, and all remaining rules (the set of rules I have referred >to elsewhere as "Y") became mutable. Part 4 of Judgement 1 made >clear that, on a correct interpretation of the remaining rule >set Y, a necessary and sufficient condition for the adoption >of proposals was that they be approved by Lindrum. This >criterion was NOT, of course, a new rule. It had simply been >Judged to be a consequence of the existing rule set Y. Lindrum is attempting to re-write his judgement now! Let us see what was written in his judgement before we accept his belatedly "corrected" interpretation. >From Lindrum's Judgement: A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it. This mentions NOTHING about time; nothing about individual rules 104, 105, 106, 114, 202, 211. Clearly our interpretation of the rules must be consistent with all the individual rules that exists and your collective interpretation of them as a Judge. >Now the set Y contains the rules 106, 114, 202, and 211 >mentioned above. Rule 106 speaks of "the vote that adopted >[a rule change]", while Rule 202 mentions "the vote that >adopted it". By Judgement 1 it follows from Y that a rule >change is to be adopted if and only if it has Lindrum's vote of approval. >Hence it is entailed by the rule set Y that the vote to adopt >any particular proposal (e.g. Proposal 1017) is none other >than Lindrum's vote. I disagree entirely - in not one place in the rules is the word "Lindrum" present - read them carefully! I will provide a consistent interpretation of the rules set and your Judgement below that requires far less "re-writing" of the rules. >No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment >of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if >its wording explicitly states otherwise. >It follows that, according to Judgement 1, Rule 106 is >equivalent to the claim: >No rule change may take effect earlier than the >moment of the completion of Lindrum's vote of >approval, even if its wording explicitly states >otherwise. It mentions "the vote"; not "Lindrum's vote". The other rules clearly specify the manner and time period of "the vote" - you are completely ignoring them! In fact the judgement doesn't even mention Lindrum's vote. They still exist Lindrum - your judgement doesn't make them go away. Lindrum's intepretation now can only serve to be part of a dispute for which a judge should be invoked, otherwise accept the rules should be accepted as they're written! >For our present purposes, however, the important point is >that Rule 202 was interpreted in Judgement 1 as meaning: >An adopted rule change takes full effect at the >moment of completion of Lindrum's vote of approval. I certainly did not see this statement anywhere in your judgement. Have you forgotten it? I suggest you re-read your judgement; the more I read your judgement and the existing rules the more I'm convinced that the required 1 week voting period which is clearly mentioned throughout the rules must take place before a rule may be adopted whether or not you approve it! Your approval can be taken as an interpretation of rule 106 as such: No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it providing Lindrum approves it, even if its wording expliclitly states otherwise. No... This interpretation of rule 106 provides an intepretation of the rules that is consistent with Lindrum's Judgement and with the current rules set. This is far less mutilation than Lindrum's strained interpretation requires. I re-iterate that if there is a dispute of interpretation it should be resolved by a Judge before the game can continue, to do otherwise would be to ignore the rules and the players. If Lindrum wants to pariticipate by himself - then he should feel free to do so! But to ignore everyone else and participate in a "speed" move is unacceptable. As the dispute is still not settled we cannot accept 1017 as being passed. >There is one remaining worry. Rules 114 and 211 speak of >"a prescribed voting period". If one were to interpret >"the completion of the prescribed voting period" to mean The above interpretation of the rules doesn't require us just to "ignore" rules which do exist! The rules are written in such a way the we must obey the rules firstly and primarily; judgement provides a method to settle dispute. Clearly Lindrum's judgement failed to do this (look at all the noise it has generated!), the rules do not require us to accept Lindrum's judgement (although I do believe it is in the spirit of the game to accept them); perhaps this is one case where we should reject them and select another judge to resolve the issue? >to be rejected is obvious. Perhaps the most basic principle >of legal interpretation is this: whenever there exists a >consistent interpretation of a rule or set of rules, it is >to be preferred to any interpretation on which that rule Good! I'm glad we agree - I find that the interpretation given above provides a consistent interpretation of the rules set without having to ignore important rules which do have meaning! I suggest everyone now get together and try and build an interesting rules set in the manner intended and set down by the rules; not by some extreme judgement. Your judgement has only served to highlight numerous problems in the rules which can be corrected in the manner that the rules [clearly] intend. I'm sure you've come up with many suggestions which you wish to put forth; people can then make them proposals as appropriate. If Lindrum still maintains that his judgement can somehow make us ignore existing rules then I suggest he calls judgement on the situation! geoff >From nomic-request@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au Mon Sep 28 18:22:28 1992 Received: by molly (5.57/1.34) id AA05641; Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:22:27 +1000 Received: by bruce (5.57/1.34) id AA03321; Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:22:23 +1000 Received: by yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (5.65a/1.34) id AA00862; Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:10:08 +1000 Received: from molly.cs.monash.edu.au by yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (5.65a/1.34) id AA00834; Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:09:32 +1000 Received: by molly (5.57/1.34) id AA05541; Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:09:30 +1000 Errors-To: listman@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au Sender: list-errors@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au From: gardner@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au Reply-To: NOMIC Distribution List Message-Id: <9209280809.AA05541@molly> Subject: We have a dicatatorship! (Welcome to Lindrum World) To: NOMIC Distribution List Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:09:29 EST X-Sequence: 17 Status: OR Well it's love it or hate, it seems we have a dictatorship - for a week. Using the enormous power granted to Judges, player Lindrum has effectively declared himself the sole arbiter of the rules of Nomic World! Do not panic, however! Lindrum has stated clearly his intention to step down from his position as President of the Interim Government in one weeks time, leaving in place a revised constitution including majority voting, protection against dictators (!!) and other bugs in the current rules. He has cordially invited all players to join the Interim Government to contribute their ideas to how we can improve the rules from their current sorry state. He hopes to offer a Draft constitition by Wednesday. I here include the text of Lindrum's historic document seizing power for himself "to make the game safe from tyranny"! There has never been a better time to log on to Nomic World, and join in the furore! See you there! Steve -------------------Text of President Lindrum's Judgement------------------ Lindrum's Judgement: Part 1 (Lindrum, Sep 27) Part 1: On the scope of this judgement. Evantine raises a question regarding the wording of Heffalump's Proposal 1004. Since 1004 was a proposed amendment to Rule 210, judgement of this matter will require clarification of Rule 210 and, as we shall see, various other rules on whose interpretation a proper understanding of Rule 210 and the present judgement will depend. Accordingly, I take the scope of my jurisdiction on the present matter to include the interpretation of any rules relevant to a proper understanding of this present judgement. This includes, but is in no way limited to, the interpretation of Rules 206, 210, and 102. Some comments in support of this statement of scope are appropriate here. Rule 206 states that: "Unless a judge is overruled, one judge settles all questions relevant to the disagreement which the judge was selected to settle, including questions as to their own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge." It is quite clear from this that any question of the scope of a Judge's jurisdiction is up to the Judge himself (and no-one else) to determine. Rule 206 also states that: "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree." This might reasonably be taken to be an explicit limitation of the scope of jurisdiction of a New Judge. However Rule 206 defines a "New Judge" to be one who has been selected after a previous judgement has been overruled. I am not a New Judge. Lindrum's Judgement: Part 2 (Lindrum, Sep 27) Part 2: On the interpretation of Rule 210. Rule 210 is a rule that includes an explicit, though vague, limitation of the period of its own effect. It states: "Initially, proposals shall be adopted only by unanimous vote ... " In other words, Rule 210 concerns only what is to happen during the initial part of the Game. It says nothing at all about the criteria by which proposals are to be adopted once the initial phase of the Game is over. (Rule 102 has a similar limitation.) In order to understand Rule 210, then, we must clarify the meaning of the word "initially". One approach would be to interpret "initially" in this context as meaning "until this rule is changed". It is this Judge's firm and considered opinion, however, that such an interpretation is mistaken, since it would rob the word "initially" of any force whatsoever. In that sense, after all, every Rule of the Game would be "initial" and one might fairly ask why it is not the case that every rule begin, as Rules 210 and 102 do, with the word "initially". As a matter of general principle one ought to prefer an interpretation of a rule that ascribes some relevance to each word or phrase appearing in the rule's statement, over any interpretation on which that word or phrase is merely superfluous or otiose. Now the Rules of Nomic offer no precise answer to the question: when does the initial part of the Game end? Rule 206 states clearly that when the rules are "silent" or "unclear on the point at issue", then the issue is one for judgement. As indicated in Part 1 above, I judge the interpretation of Rule 210 to fall within the scope of my present jurisdiction, and hence I am required as Judge to make this point precise in a manner consistent with "common morality, common logic, and the spirit of the game". Realizing that the choice of any particular point in time would be somewhat arbitrary, but forced nevertheless to choose, I hereby declare that the initial part of the game will end at the time of posting of the final Part of this Judgement. I interpret Rule 210 as stating that from that time onwards Rule 210 is no longer in effect. Lindrum's Judgement: Part 3 (Lindrum, Sep 27) Part 3: On the spirit of the game The present Judgement does not involve the enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation of any rule. Any such thing would clearly be improper. The present Judgement does no more than to interpret the rules as they currently stand. While some details of my interpretation may be a controversial matter, it is uncontroversial that, according to the current rules, I have the right as a duly selected Judge to enforce an interpretation which has less than universal support, provided that the opposition I face is also less than universal. Some of you may doubt, however, that the present Judgement is really "in the spirit of the game". Let me explain why it is. Peter Suber's carefully framed Rules of Nomic were not only adapted for the purposes of this computer implementation, they were changed, and for the worse. Since the beginning of play it has been clear to me that there were several serious problems, for example with rules regarding judgement that allow a Judge legally to grant himself absolute power by interpretation. There seemed to me to be a very real threat that the first appointed Judge would seize control of the Game with evil intent. I have been very troubled about this, for it seems to me that the spirit of the Game is cooperative and democratic, not totalitarian. When by chance I was selected as Judge I decided after much soul-searching and careful thought that the only sure way to preserve the integrity of the game was to proceed in the present manner. Accordingly, I have done no more here than to lay bare what was already implicit in the Rules: that an appointed Judge may legally determine that he himself has absolute power. I am committed to changing this state of affairs. I shall move immediately following the posting of this judgement to establish a Seven Day Interim Government with temporary emergency powers. The Interim Government is committed to establishing majority rule at the end of a seven day period following the posting of this Judgement. The democratic forces seeking a move to majority rule have been systematically thwarted by the tyranny of a minority who insist on retaining a unanimity requirement. I solemnly pledge to you democrats that the Interim Government will be dissolved after one week, leaving in its place a set of rules free from the flaws uncovered in the present judgement, and according to which proposals will be adopted by majority rule subject to a quorum. I urge you all to take an active part in the operations of the Interim Government during the coming week. Lindrum's Judgement: Part 4 (Lindrum, Sep 27) Part 4: Clarification of the criterion for the adoption of proposals. Rule 210 ceases to be in force at the conclusion of the initial part game. The remaining rules of the game are "silent" and "unclear" on the way in which proposals might be legally adopted once Rule 210 is no longer in effect. Since this murky state of affairs is a direct consequence of the interpretation of the rules presented in the current judgement, it would be an abuse of my position as Judge were I not to clarify the situation. To leave the Game in complete chaos or subject to exploitation by a Judge less scrupulous than myself would be unconscionable. Thus I judge in accordance with Rule 206 that "common morality" and "the spirit of the game" leave me with no choice but to interpret the remaining rules collectively in the following way when it comes to the subject of the adoption of proposals: A proposal shall be adopted if and only if Lindrum approves it. Note the following crucial point. In stating this criterion I am not enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting any rule. I am merely interpreting those rules that will remain in force once Rule 210 has suspended itself. The interpretation, though controversial, is strongly supported by the comments on the spirit of the game outlined in Part 3 above. As was stated in Part 1, I have judged the scope of my jurisdiction on the present matter to include the interpretation of any rules relevant to an understanding of this present judgement, so my right to interpret these rules is unquestionable. Furthermore, my position as an appointed Judge makes the criterion that I have offered here legally binding from the moment that the final part of this judgement is posted, subject, of course, to the possibility that this Judgement be overruled. Similarly, Rule 102 only deals the situation that obtains during the initial part of the game. Rule 102 says nothing about the status of Rules in the 100's and 200's after that point. I hereby judge that from the time of posting of the final part of this judgement, all the rules of the game are henceforth mutable. Lindrum's Judgement: Part 5 (Lindrum, Sep 27) Part 5: How this judgement may be overruled. Rule 206 states that: "The Judge's judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players." The rule is "silent" on the matter of a quorum for this vote. As stated in Part 1, I judge that matters concerning the interpretation of Rule 206 fall within the provenance of my present Judgement. I hereby interpret the quoted sentence as saying that the present Judgement may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of all registered players other than Lindrum. A unanimous vote that does not include every other player registerd as of the time of posting of the final part of this judgement will not overrule this Judgement. Furthermore, since neither this rule, nor any other rule, specifies a time period for overruling, I hereby judge that there shall be a time period of THREE MINUTES immediately following the posting of the final part of this judgement, during which any vote to overrule must be completed. If the present Judgement has not been overruled by the end of that period, then it cannot later be overruled. Addendum to Part 5: Since there appear to be technical problems with the newly created Judges' Noticeboard, and since the existence of that noticeboard may not yet have come to the attention of all registered players, and since the rules are silent and unclear on the question of the proper way to post Judge's Acceptances and Judgements, and since the matter is relevant to the present judgement and thus, by Part 1 above, within the proper scope of the present Judgement, I hereby judge that the general discussion noticeboard is an acceptable place on which to post such Acceptances and Judgements. Lindrum's Judgement: Part 6 [Final] (Lindrum, Sep 27) Part 6: Concluding Judgements In light of Parts 1 to 5 above, the issue between Heffalump and Evantine takes on a rather academic cast, being a dispute over the wording of a failed amendment to a rule that is about to suspend itself even as I write. However, the issue is of a kind that may arise again, and it would be remiss of me not to settle it here too. I find the wording of Proposal 1004 regrettably loose: Heffalump makes explicit mention of the word "unanimity" which occurs nowhere in Rule 210. The wording is, however, not such as to make the meaning of the Proposal unclear. Note that I make no appeal here to any consideration of the intentions of the framer of the proposal. Such intentions I judge to be irrelevant. The key point is that the meaning of the proposal as it satnds, or, rather, as it stood, is not such that reasonable people could disagree as to its interpretation. I have no doubt, in fact, that the meaning is quite clear to Evantine too. But of course that was not the reason for Evantine's having (quite properly) raised this issue, and indeed I thank Evantine for raising it. Nevertheless I am compelled to judge in favor of Heffalump in this dispute. Proposal 1004 was quite acceptable as it stood. End of Judgement. Lindrum, 27 September 1992. 6:35 p.m. Melbourne time. -- Steve Gardner | Appearances to the contrary, Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | things are just what they seem. gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au |