ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/2014.06.ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au.tar/ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/tmp_amd/malcolmr/nomic/nomic_world/game1.txt

Text File | 2001-06-14 | 333KB | 7,484 lines

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 <player> <points>' 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 [e-mail] (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  <Lindrum did.
But, from inside the game, I *oppose* his coup, which is why I
evoked judgement against him (I did it first, by the way, in
case that matters...).

 I *heartily* agree with Blob that if you're losing sleep over this
game, you are too involved.

Thank You for your support...

S. L. Dreamsleep

**
Judgement 2: Dreamsleep's Comments (Lindrum, Sep 28 14:29)
 I remind Dreamsleep that since Rule 206 is no longer in effect
 he has no right to invoke judgement.  Nevertheless, he asks
 whether I have violated the spirit of the game.  I am surprised
 at his asking, since the question was already answered in the
 negative in Part 3 of my Judgement on the Heffalump-Evantine
 issue (hereafter referred to as "Judgement 1").  I refer him
 to that document.
 In accordance with Rule 1019, I hereby reaffirm my Judgement
 that none of Lindrum's actions up to this point are contrary
 to the spirit of the game.
 Lindrum.

**
Judgement 3: Draco's Comments (Lindrum, Sep 28 14:34)
 Draco asks whether I have violated the spirit of the game.
  I refer him to Part 3 of Judgement 1, and Judgement 2.
 Draco appears to accept that Rules 1018-1020 are legitimate.
 He suggests that since Rule 211 is still in force they will
 only come into effect in a week's time.  This is an inter-
 esting point.  Having given the matter some thought, I
 find, in accordance with the powers invested in me by Rule
 1019, that Draco's suggestion is mistaken.  Rule 211 was
 merely a clarification of Rule 210, making precise the
 reference in Rule 210 to a "prescribed voting period."
 Once Rule 210 lapsed, Rule 211 became contentless.  I
 recommend that, to avoid further confusion, Rule 211 be
 repealed.
 Lindrum.

**
Repeal of Rule 211 (Lindrum, Sep 28 14:36) [Amending Rule 211]
 In accordance with the powers invested in me by Rule 1020
 I hereby repeal Rule 211.  It is no longer in effect.
 Lindrum.

**
Judgement 4: Goethe's Comments (Lindrum, Sep 28 14:41)
 Goethe suggests that the current set of rules may trap
 the game in "an infinite loop of judgements."  I judge
 that that is clearly not the case.  I refer Goethe to
 Rule 1019, and remind him that since Rule 206 is no
 longer in effect, neither he (nor I for that matter)
 may any longer invoke Judgement on Rule 1019 or any
 other rule.  During a period of several minutes on
 Sunday evening, while 1019 was being proposed and enacted
 there was indeed an opportunity legally to invoke
 Judgement on Rules 1017 and 1018.  No-one took that
 opportunity, as it happened, and it has now gone.
 Lindrum.

**
Repeal of Rule 104 (Lindrum, Sep 28 15:07) [Amending Rule 104]
  In accordance with the powers invested in me by Rule 1020
  I hereby repeal (mutable) Rule 104.
  It is no longer in effect.
  Lindrum.

**
Repeal of Rule 114 (Lindrum, Sep 28 15:17) [Amending Rule 114]
  In accordance with the powers invested in me by Rule 1020I hereby repeal Rule 114.  It is no longer in effect.
 Lindrum.

**
Thank you Blob! (Lindrum, Sep 28 15:27)

   I thank Blob for his pledge of support and invite him
 to join us in the Interim Government.  An invitation to join
 will be n-mailed.  I plan to have a draft of a back-to-Suber
 rule set ready by Wednesday, and will then have all members
 of the Seven Day Interim Government vote on it.  If it
 is accepted, then it will go into effect at the end of the
 week and I shall step down.  I hate being President.
 After democratic rule has been established I plan to
 call a vote on whether or not I should at that point be
 banished from the game.  If the majority of you want me
 to leave, then I will do so.  Ultimately only History will judge whether
 or not my current course is the proper one.
 Lindrum.

**
I support the Interim Govt - with reservations. (Steve, Sep 28 17:39)
This has cost me much very painful soul searching. To be associated with
such a coup d'etat I find difficult to reconcile with other of my principles.
However, I am persuaded that Lindrum's creation of an Interim Govt falls within
a reasonable interpretation of the rules. Since I drafted these rules, I feel
that I bear particular responsibility for the way on which Lindrum has been
able to exploit them as he has. I feel that support for the Interim Govt is
one way to expiate my guilt for having written the rules so poorly, by publicly
admitting their inadequacy.

This is only because Lindrum is a personal friend of mine and I trust that
his intentions are good. I do believe that come next Monday, he will step
down having placed a new constitution for the game in place. I believe he
will submit to being banished from the game if that is our will. I also
believe that in the light of the failure of 1015 (and presumably 1016) that
this is the quickest (and most interesting) way to achieve the changes we
almost all of us desire. I hope that by pledging my support for the Interim
Govt, that others might be persuaded to do the same. I hope that the friends
I have made through my association with this game will forgive, understand,
and even join me in drafting a better set of rules for the game which will
provide a defense against this and other sorts of abuse.

Fortunately, Nomic is only a game.
Steve

**
Lindrum-Lenin: Separated at birth? (Leor, Sep 28 18:04)
I believe Lindrum's actions are legal but unnecessary.
Keep the game alive!

**
Lindrum is a fascist pig (Dylan, Sep 28 18:47)
Just waking you all up.  Well, I strongly disagree with Lindrum's actions;
just because a loophole exists doesn't mean it should be exploited.  I
also disagree with the legality of his actions; I feel his jurisdiction was
restricted to the matters he covered (quite well) in part 6 of his judgement.
However, I am definitely interested in changing the nature of the game
drastically.  As Lindrum seems to have good intentions, I will try to help
draft a new constitution with him.

Of course, as his actions were wholly illegal, I will do nothing to
legitimize them.  In particular, Lindrum has indicated that he will set up
a Interim Government consisting of people who have pledged supprot for him.
As this illegal "government" can not be anything but a blatant tool of Lindrum,
I will decline any position in this government.

Dylan

**
Points for Lindrum? (Blob, Sep 28 19:37)
Lindrum, here is an interesting point:

You have just had seven proposals (I think) adopted. Therefore, by rule 201,
which still stands, you should receive a random number between 1 and 10
inclusive, points per proposal.

Now, you have stated that you do not want to win, but you are in danger of
doing so in the current situation. In this vein, I have made a proposal
in a message which follows this one, to the effect that all scores are reset
to zero, and no scoring will take place until your Interim Govt has passed.

I would consider it a great boon if you would see fit to have my humble
proposal adopted.

Blob

I think if you do add this rule it would serve to demonstrate to the public
that you will accept other's input in your Government, and that you are not
doing this for your own selfish ambition.

**
Proposal: Reset Scores and Pause all Scoring (Blob, Sep 28 19:47) [Amending Rule 201]

I propose that rule 201 by replaces by a rule that reads:

At the moment of the adoption of this rule, all players' scores will be
reset to zero. They shall remain zero until 6:35 pm Melbourne time on the
4th of October. After that time, points will be gained as follows:

Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random integer number
of points in the range 1 to 10 inclusive.


**
Enactment of Rule 1025 (Lindrum, Sep 28 23:09) [Amending Rule 201]
  I approve Blob's Proposal 1025.  It is now Rule 1025.
  Rule 1025 reads:

  At the moment of the adoption of this rule, all players' scores
  will be reset to zero.  They shall remain zero until 6:35 p.m.
  Melbourne time on the 4th of October.  After that time, points
  will be gained as follows:
  Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random integer
  number of points in the range 1 to 10 inclusive.

  Lindrum.

**
Comment on Rule 1025 (Lindrum, Sep 28 23:18)
  I thank Blob for bringing to my attention the fact that I was
  in great danger of inadvertently winning the game.  Just for
  the record, I would like Geoff to tell me at some stage
  exactly how many points I had before Rule 1025 was enacted.
  It is some number between 0 and 70, right?

  In setting all scores to zero, I had some qualms about the
  fairness of giving points to those who had negative scores.
  I personally would have preferred a Rule that said "all
  positive scores will be reset to zero".  But the main thing
  is that scoring ought to be frozen for the next six days,
  and after that point the majority can always vote to reinstate
  the negative scores that existed before Rule 1025's adoption.

  I admire Blob's spirit of cooperation in these
  difficult times.  He is certainly playing in the spirit
  of the game.

  Lindrum.

**
Than you Steve, Leor, and Dylan (Lindrum, Sep 28 23:24)
  I thank Steve, Leor, and Dylan for their public statements
  of support, guarded though they be.  I invite all three of
  them to join the Interim Govt. and help with the redrafting
  of the rule set.  I reiterate my plea to those of my supporters

  who asked for confidentiality to openly support the Interim Govt
  now you are not alone.  I understand Dylan's qualms about
  being an official member of the Govt.  I want him to have a
  part in the decision making this week anyway, and I will
  see how that can best be achieved.
  Lindrum.

**
Geoff is the real dictator ... (Lindrum, Sep 28 23:40)
  Some call me "dictator", but it is Geoff who is
  the real dictator.  He has threatened to stop the
  Game, rather than let it play itself out naturally.
  Since he is a wizard, I am powerless against him.
  I call on each of you to e-mail him and plead
  with him to let the game continue without outside
  interference.

**
"Support for the new regime" (Davidb, Sep 29 00:04)
   With the failure of 1015, it appears that the best hope of
achieving any progress in this game lies in supporting Lindrum and
his followers.  Therefore I declare my support for the next seven days.  If at
that time Lindrum and his regime are still in power, I will switch my
support to whatever opposition movement exists at that time.

**
On the Interim Government (Lindrum, Sep 29 00:12)
  I intend to organize the Seven Day Interim Government
  as a majority-game within the original game.  Any player
  of the original game who pledges allegiance to the
  Interim Government may play in this majority game.
  As far as possible I will not interfere with the
  operations of the Interim Governemnt, as they frame a
  bug-free set of Rules to go into effect on October 4th.
  In fact I will not even be a voting member of the Interim
  Government.  I will abide by any decisions it reaches,
  provided that they are consistent with my already stated
  promise.  When I assumed the powers of the Presidency
  I promised to establish majority rule in a constitution
  as far as possible free from loopholes within seven days.
  I stick by that promise.

  I encourage each of you to come forward and pledge
  your support and take part in the democratic process.
  Lindrum.

**
Support for Lindrum (Xeman, Sep 29 01:42)
I too will pledge my support to the Seven Day Interim Government.  The
problems in the current rule set have been plaguing all of us since the
beginning, and Lindrum has found a quasi-legal way to circumvent them.

Arguments about the legitimacy of Lindrum's conclusions are interesting,
as he has procalaimed himself the sole possible arbiter in all matters
requiring judgement - a claim tthat will result in a "who shaves the
barber"-type paradox, if it continues to be disputed.  It's almost too
bad that the paradox rule was dropped from the initial rule set - I
feel that Lindrum deserves some points for originality, and may deserve to
win, if in fact he has successfully "hung" the game.

But I digress.  I'm supporting the Interim Government becuase I feel
that Lindrum has acted within the rules, for the most part.  Any
dissenters, at this point, can only succeed in killing the game.  If
you're interested in seeing some positive changes, join up and give us
your input.

-Xeman

**
Thank you Davidb and Xeman (Lindrum, Sep 29 01:46)
  I thank Davidb and Xeman for their public pledges of support
  for the Seven Day Interim Government, and hereby invite them
  to become members of that Government, i.e. I am registering
  them as voting playes in the Seven Day Interim Game.
  Lindrum.

**
Support for Lindrum (Joe, Sep 29 02:04)
After considerable thought, I have determined that Lindrum's actions are
legal, and quite clever at that.  In addition, he seems genuinely interested
in improving the rule set.  As previous attempts to change the rules have
been thwarted, Lindrum's government provides an excellent opportunity for
change.  As such, I hereby pledge my support for Lindrum's Interim
Government.

-Joe

**
Lindrum is an impatient egomaniac (Heffalump, Sep 29 02:51)
I cannot believe you are all supporting this stupidity.
Lindrum's actions can't be taken as being within the bounds of the
rules (his interpretations of "Initially" and "New Judge" are very
reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.  At any rate, I see no reason why the
programmers should feel any compulsion to implement any of the
changes that he proposes.

**
Guarded Enthusiasm... (Goethe, Sep 29 03:11)

   After much thought, and a few hours sleep, I hereby
conclude that, in respect for supremecy of the Rules of Law,
I must throw my support behind Lindrum's government.  Whether
I *like* the state of the game, or whether I *like* Lindrum
(which I cannot say, for I have not conversed with him), he
enjoys, as near as I can tell, the full support of law...I
would also like to thank him for pointing out the flaws in my
arguments against him.

    Whether you like him or hate him, though, I urge you to
continue to search for faults or loopholes in his arguements.
If you don't like him, this has the obvious advantage of perhaps
getting rid of his power.  If you *do* like him,
you can rejoice in the fact that searching for loopholes
can only help the state of the game which he is trying to
acheive...i.e., you fix a system by trying to exploit it,
then fixing the leaks you have found.

       As I have mentioned before, the structure of this particular
game implementation implies totalitarianism.  It has given us
this totalitarian state.  Hopefully, at this point, we may rejoice
that the first to exploit the game's weaknesses may have
the soul of an anarchist.


**
CONDEMNATION (Goethe, Sep 29 03:22)

    Now, for the stronger language...

    Whether my support for Lindrum is whole-hearted or not,
I feel I must UNHESITATINGLY CONDEMN the displays of his
opponents, so far.  Rather than offer us suggestions, or
counter-arguments to Lindrums (thus-far) legitimate powers,
the nay-sayers have simply rattled their sabers, calling
the take-over ``illegal'' without offering any support.

    It is these we must watch out for.  These peoples who
want to ``re-start'' the game if ever flaws are found.  These
peoples will invest full powers, not in law, but in a
moderator running a computer.

    Think about it.  All you need to do to start over the game
or destroy the rules is to convince Steve that the game needs
changing.  We are lucky.  Steve has refused such power.  But
by taking power from Lindrum, the nay-sayers try to force it
on Steve.  I would rather accept rule through law of a single
person than accept rule through underhanded computer tricks
which the nay-sayers heartily recommend.

    So to you nay-sayers...put your money where your mouth is.
Put up or shut up.  Come up with a legitimate argument against
Lindrum, or crawl back under your rocks and admit you would have
done it yourself, had you thought of it.
     To those who have put out insightful arguments
against Lindrum, more power to you.  Any ruler must answer
the legitimate questions of his people.

   But, in the manner of all societies, we should chase the
idiot radicals who would start a second Reign of Terror into
a corner, and leave them there.

   They truly go against the spirit of the game.

                                                --Goethe

**
Further support for Lindrum (Njx, Sep 29 03:54)
I hereby give my support to the Interim Government.  nj

**
Impatient egomaniac? (Joe, Sep 29 06:00)
As I see it, his interpretation of "new judge" is absolutely correct.  His
interpretation of "initially" is controversial, yet valid.
By acting as he did, Lindrum has demonstrated several flaws in the
initial rule set.  But instead of taking complete and total advantage of
this situation (by, say, declaring himself the winner, which, according to
the rules, he has every right to do), he is trying to correct these flaws.
Given the existing flaws, had he not seized the opportunity, someone else
may have done so later, but with a less noble purpose.  And even if he were
to use this situation to his advantage, it is his prerogative as the one
who exposed the flaws.

Either way, an improved set of rules will result.  For if he does end the game,
I'm sure we'd want to rewrite the rules for the next game to prevent such a thing from
happening again.

-Joe

**
gosh golly gee willikers! (Dave, Sep 29 06:10)
Hi everyone!  How Exciting!  "I Pledge Fealty To The Lindrum
Interim Government" ----

When do we organize the covert real-life negative actions subcomitee?
I want to research peoples home addresses and give them to junk mail
lists, if they don't like living under the velvet-fisted rule of
our new and (if he  should so choose) temporary king.

**
oh and while I've got the megaphone... (Dave, Sep 29 06:29)
I have two suggestions re: this board:
     1: When one is through reading a note, instead of
        a line displaying <<DONE>>, 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 <category> [<full>]' and 'rule <num>' 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 <n>' 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... <sigh>

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<<hic!>>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 [e-mail] 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: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: NOMIC Distribution List <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <9209280809.AA05541@molly>
Subject: We have a dicatatorship! (Welcome to Lindrum World)
To: NOMIC Distribution List <[e-mail]>
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.
[e-mail]    |