My player status is now active.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

I vote YES.

--- In ignn@y..., Sir Toby <jjweston@k...> wrote:
>  I open this proposal up for voting. I vote YES.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote:
>
> >  Amend rule 9 to read as follows:
> >
> > If two or more rules conflict with one another, then the rule
with the
> > lowest 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 supersede 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 method
again
> > governs.
> >
> >  Repeal rule 10.

I vote YES... (I will also be watching to make sure this comes back via the
list)
     - Alex.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sir Toby" <jjweston@...>
To: <ignn@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ignn] Proposal: Improved Rule Priority


> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:
>
> > I open this proposal up for voting. I vote YES.
>
> As Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for voting
> at 00:37 GMT 2/27/2002.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ignn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, dmdsnprls99 wrote:

> This could be a mess.
>
> The simplest interpretation is that, because Alex (probably)
> did "vote/respond" (in some sense), Alex should be active.  (rule 82
> does not apply)
>
> My ruling is that Alex is active.

	 I have updated my players web page to reflect this judgement.

> Thoughts and concerns about this interpretation:
>
> Allowing this interpretation of the rules in every situation (correct
> though it may be) could quickly lead us into an unmanageable (even
> paradoxical) game state.
>
> This seems to indicate there is a problem with this interpretation.
> (At first, I thought this potential paradox implied that it must
> conflict with some other rule, but I could not find any rule that it
> conflicted with. (Apparently neither could Jeff.))
>
> The real problem is that this interpretation, while not conflicting
> explicitly with any of the other rules, seems to conflict with the
> ASSUMPTIONS made by several of the other rules (or players reading
> them).  For example, some other rules/players appeared to ASSUME that
> votes are communicated to other players (meaning received by other
> players.) Additionaly they seem to have assumed that the gamestate
> would be the same from the perspective of each player and that it
> would not need to be laboriously merged and resolved from time to
> time.

	 You bring up some very good points. I've been studying how Agora
handles these types of situations (actually I've been playing Agora for
the last several weeks), and I'll try to summarize their aproach.
Essentially, they have various offices that track different bits of the
gamestate. All of the officers must issue a weekly report that contains
all of the gamestate information they are tracking. There is a system in
place for making Claims of Error to correct any errors that may occur.
There is also a ratification process, where if no players object to the
ratification of the report, it can be declared to be an official
representation of the gamestate.

	 While we probably don't need anything so fancy at this stage,
having all aspects of the gamestate being tracked and having regular
reports on the gamestate would be a good start. We could utilize our Rule
Judge rules to work out any errors with the reports.

The ruleset has been updated to reflect the passage of this
proposal.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote:

>  Amend rule 24 to read as follows:
>
> The Rule Judge is the intermediary. If there currently is no Rule Judge,
> the Record Keeper is the intermediary.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:

>  I open this proposal up for voting. I vote YES.

	 As Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for voting
at 00:37 GMT 2/27/2002.

I open this proposal up for voting. I vote YES.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote:

>  Amend rule 9 to read as follows:
>
> If two or more rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the
> lowest 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 supersede 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 method again
> governs.
>
>  Repeal rule 10.

Just going through the email messages and seeing what proposals
have been placed on the table and not voted on, withdrawn, or otherwise
removed from the table.

Jeff Grid Position Tracker
Jeff Improved Rule Priority
Luke Email subject lines.
Jeff Voting Sanity

Create a new rule with the following text:

In any situation allowing a player to vote or cast a vote on some issue,
that player's vote must be communicated to all players. In a situation
where a player's vote is automatically determined by the rules in some
fashion, this condition can be noted by any player and must be
communicated to all players.

This could be a mess.

The simplest interpretation is that, because Alex (probably)
did "vote/respond" (in some sense), Alex should be active.  (rule 82
does not apply)

My ruling is that Alex is active.

--Luke

ps. If you care->

Thoughts and concerns about this interpretation:

Allowing this interpretation of the rules in every situation (correct
though it may be) could quickly lead us into an unmanageable (even
paradoxical) game state.

This seems to indicate there is a problem with this interpretation.
(At first, I thought this potential paradox implied that it must
conflict with some other rule, but I could not find any rule that it
conflicted with. (Apparently neither could Jeff.))

The real problem is that this interpretation, while not conflicting
explicitly with any of the other rules, seems to conflict with the
ASSUMPTIONS made by several of the other rules (or players reading
them).  For example, some other rules/players appeared to ASSUME that
votes are communicated to other players (meaning received by other
players.) Additionaly they seem to have assumed that the gamestate
would be the same from the perspective of each player and that it
would not need to be laboriously merged and resolved from time to
time.

Nomic tradition (as I have seen it in my VERY short time here.)
dictates that this situation requires rule clarification rather than
acceptance of these assumptions as part of the rules.  Some would
argue that this is what makes the game fun.

In summary:

I will interpret rule 82's word "respond" in such a way as to include
Alex's situation.  Indeed this seems correct and fair.  I note that
this does seem to contradict the assumptions of several other rules
as outlined above, but I will not rule that contradiction with the
ASSUMPTIONS of higher priority rules constitutes contradiction with
the higher priority rules.  This means that rule 10 will not be taken
to apply to this interpretation of rule 82.

I hope someone comes up with a rule clarification proposal soon to
eliminate this problem.  Some future gamestate tracker would thank
them for not having to track the gamestate from everyone's potential
perspectives and merging them whenever the rule judge(s?) deem it
appropriate.

Just in case it is ruled that Alex is inactive, I state that I am
not interested in the Banker or the Building Permit Department Head
positions.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:

> I did not find it in the archive either....  I also do not remember getting
> the email back via the list like usual.  I was on my way out and thought it
> was just taking awhile to traverse the net.  When I got to a place to check
> again I forgot.  Anyway not really sure what happens now maybe it should go
> to the rule judge to decide what happens with technology fails....
>     - Alex.

	 Oh boy... This is gonna be a mess. I wish I would have reconciled
these events when they occured.

	 I note that the rules do not say HOW someone is to vote beyond
that a valid vote must be of the form Yes / No / Abstain, per rule 73.
There is no requirement that a vote be sent to the mailing list, or even
communicated to any of the players. This occurs to me as being a
signifigant problem, since it makes it impossible to determine whether
anyone voted, or how they voted if they choose to vote in a method that
doesn't involve informing the other players. I would argue that Alex's
vote is legal, since it is of the form required by rule 73, even though it
was not sent to any players. I trust Alex when he says he voted in time.

	 Given these assumptions, I have drafted a potential status of the
game from 2/03/02 onwards, below. Conveniently enough, Luke Maxon is the
current Rule Judge in both versions of the current game status. That way
we won't raise any nasty paradoxes by asking Luke for a judgement on this
situation.

	 I ask the Rule Judge for a judgement, and I pay the appropriate
fee. I say that Alex's vote is legal according to the rules, and that Alex
is still active. My argument for this assertion is this message.

	 And now, the potential game status with Alex still being active:

	 The last proposal, The Judge is the Intermediary, was opened for
voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02, as per the officially recorded time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:21:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Sir Toby <jjweston@...>
Reply-To: ignn@yahoogroups.com
To: ignn@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ignn] Proposal: The Judge is the Intermediary

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:

>       Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.

         As the Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for
voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02

----------------------------------------------------------------------

	 According to my records, Jeff Weston, Alex Jackson, and Luke Maxon
were active for that voting period. Jeff, Luke, and Alex all voted YES.
At 22:18 GMT 02/05/02, the proposal was adopted with three votes
YES.

	 On 2/11/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. Jeff Weston
became the Rule Judge, since he was the one player who had spent the
longest time since being Rule Judge, and who had been continuously active
for the past fortnog.

	 On 2/18/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. Alex Jackson
became the Rule Judge, since he was the one player who had spent the
longest time since being Rule Judge, and who had been continuously active
for the past fortnog.

	 On 2/25/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. Luke Maxon
became the Rule Judge, since he was the one player who had spent the
longest time since being Rule Judge, and who had been continuously active
for the past fortnog.

	 I note that Tim Salzman became inactive at 05:10 GMT 02/02/2002.
If Tim does not become active before 05:10 GMT 03/02/2002, he will be
dropped from the game.

I did not find it in the archive either....  I also do not remember getting
the email back via the list like usual.  I was on my way out and thought it
was just taking awhile to traverse the net.  When I got to a place to check
again I forgot.  Anyway not really sure what happens now maybe it should go
to the rule judge to decide what happens with technology fails....
     - Alex.

----- Original Message -----
From: "dmdsnprls99" <luke.maxon@...>
To: <ignn@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: [ignn] Re: Status of the Game


> I can't confirm this.  And I can't deny it.  But I do not see it in
> the archive either.
>
> Luke
>
> --- In ignn@y..., Sir Toby <jjweston@k...> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > I did vote for that proposal and I have the message in sent items
> to prove
> > > it.  (see attached)
> >
> > Can anyone confirm this? I checked and double checked. I did
> not
> > receive any such message. I also checked the Yahoo Groups archive
> and
> > don't see it listed there.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ignn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I can't confirm this.  And I can't deny it.  But I do not see it in
the archive either.

Luke

--- In ignn@y..., Sir Toby <jjweston@k...> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:
>
> > I did vote for that proposal and I have the message in sent items
to prove
> > it.  (see attached)
>
>  Can anyone confirm this? I checked and double checked. I did
not
> receive any such message. I also checked the Yahoo Groups archive
and
> don't see it listed there.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:

> I did vote for that proposal and I have the message in sent items to prove
> it.  (see attached)

	 Can anyone confirm this? I checked and double checked. I did not
receive any such message. I also checked the Yahoo Groups archive and
don't see it listed there.

I did vote for that proposal and I have the message in sent items to prove
it.  (see attached)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sir Toby" <jjweston@...>
To: <ignn@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 6:25 PM
Subject: [ignn] Status of the Game


> Sorry for disappearing for a while there. I got tired of being the
> only person making proposals and was hoping someone else would hop in for
> a bit. Guess everyone is just as busy as I am. For an update on my own
> status, I am now working on a project in Chicago. My time in San Francisco
> was quite short before I had to head out.
>
> Okay, game status...
>
> The last proposal, The Judge is the Intermediary, was opened for
> voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02, as per the officially recorded time.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:21:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Sir Toby <jjweston@...>
> Reply-To: ignn@yahoogroups.com
> To: ignn@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [ignn] Proposal: The Judge is the Intermediary
>
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:
>
> >       Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.
>
>         As the Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for
> voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> According to my records, Jeff Weston, Alex Jackson, and Luke Maxon
> were active for that voting period. Jeff and Luke both voted YES, while
> Alex did not vote within one Noggle of the proposal entering the voting
> process. At 22:18 GMT 02/05/02, the proposal was adopted with two votes
> YES and one vote ABSTAIN. Alex became inactive at that time.
>
> Since only active players can hold Positions, Alex ceased being
> the Banker and the Building Permit Department Head when he became
> inactive. Those two Positions must now be filled. Nominations for Banker
> and Building Permit Department Head are now open.
>
> Since only active players can be the Rule Judge, Alex ceased being
> the Rule Judge when he became inactive. Since no player held the title of
> Rule Judge, a new one was selected at that time. Jeff Weston was the one
> active player who had spent the longest amount of time since being the
> Rule Judge, and he was continuosly active for the last fortnog. Jeff
> Weston became the Rule Judge at that time.
>
> On 2/11/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. This again fell
> to Jeff Weston, since he was the only active player who had been
> continuously active for the past fortnog.
>
> On 2/18/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. This again fell
> to Jeff Weston, since he was the only active player who had been
> continuously active for the past fortnog.
>
> On 2/25/2002, a new Rule Judge will again need to be selected.
> Unless things change between now and then, this will fall to Luke, being
> the one active player who has spent the longest time since being Rule
> Judge, and who has been continuously active for the last fortnog.
>
> I note that Tim Salzman became inactive at 05:10 GMT 02/02/2002.
> If Tim does not become active before 05:10 GMT 03/02/2002, he will be
> dropped from the game.
>
> I note the Alex Jackson became inactive at 22:18 GMT 02/05/02. If
> Alex does not become active before 22:18 GMT 03/05/2002, he will be
> dropped from the game.
>
> There... I think that covers everything. Let me know if I've
> missed something.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ignn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I vote Yes.
     (Jeff +1 nog +5 ng)
     - Alex.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sir Toby" <jjweston@...>
To: <ignn@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ignn] Proposal: The Judge is the Intermediary


> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:
>
> > Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.
>
> As the Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for
> voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ignn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Sorry for disappearing for a while there. I got tired of being the
only person making proposals and was hoping someone else would hop in for
a bit. Guess everyone is just as busy as I am. For an update on my own
status, I am now working on a project in Chicago. My time in San Francisco
was quite short before I had to head out.

	 Okay, game status...

	 The last proposal, The Judge is the Intermediary, was opened for
voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02, as per the officially recorded time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:21:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Sir Toby <jjweston@...>
Reply-To: ignn@yahoogroups.com
To: ignn@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ignn] Proposal: The Judge is the Intermediary

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:

>       Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.

         As the Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for
voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02

----------------------------------------------------------------------

	 According to my records, Jeff Weston, Alex Jackson, and Luke Maxon
were active for that voting period. Jeff and Luke both voted YES, while
Alex did not vote within one Noggle of the proposal entering the voting
process. At 22:18 GMT 02/05/02, the proposal was adopted with two votes
YES and one vote ABSTAIN. Alex became inactive at that time.

	 Since only active players can hold Positions, Alex ceased being
the Banker and the Building Permit Department Head when he became
inactive. Those two Positions must now be filled. Nominations for Banker
and Building Permit Department Head are now open.

	 Since only active players can be the Rule Judge, Alex ceased being
the Rule Judge when he became inactive. Since no player held the title of
Rule Judge, a new one was selected at that time. Jeff Weston was the one
active player who had spent the longest amount of time since being the
Rule Judge, and he was continuosly active for the last fortnog. Jeff
Weston became the Rule Judge at that time.

	 On 2/11/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. This again fell
to Jeff Weston, since he was the only active player who had been
continuously active for the past fortnog.

	 On 2/18/2002, a new Rule Judge had to be selected. This again fell
to Jeff Weston, since he was the only active player who had been
continuously active for the past fortnog.

	 On 2/25/2002, a new Rule Judge will again need to be selected.
Unless things change between now and then, this will fall to Luke, being
the one active player who has spent the longest time since being Rule
Judge, and who has been continuously active for the last fortnog.

	 I note that Tim Salzman became inactive at 05:10 GMT 02/02/2002.
If Tim does not become active before 05:10 GMT 03/02/2002, he will be
dropped from the game.

	 I note the Alex Jackson became inactive at 22:18 GMT 02/05/02. If
Alex does not become active before 22:18 GMT 03/05/2002, he will be
dropped from the game.

	 There... I think that covers everything. Let me know if I've
missed something.

I like this improvement.
-Luke
--- In ignn@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston" <jjweston@k...> wrote:
>  Amend rule 9 to read as follows:
>
> If two or more rules conflict with one another, then the rule with
the
> lowest 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 supersede 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 method again
> governs.
>
>  Repeal rule 10.

--- In ignn@y..., Sir Toby <jjweston@k...> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:
>
> >  Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.
>
>  As the Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for
> voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02

I vote YES.

Email subject lines should relate to their content.

Thoughts:

I'm not sure how someone might interpret "relate" but I think people
would agree that I shouldn't have posted with a subject line
of "Hmmmmmm.." or whatever it was :)  It is hard enough to follow
this stuff as is.

This is already partially provided for in rules 11 and 38.  Maybe
there should be a "subject" provision in each rule regarding email
posts as to the format of the subject line.  There could also be a
catch-all email subject rule for posts not pertaining to the rules.
Or a rule against posting things which are not explicity post-able
per the rules.  (no spam?)  Must put "spam" in the subject line?  I'm
open to thoughts :)

-Luke

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, dmdsnprls99 wrote:

> I wish to be active.
>
> Per rule 83, I am now active.

	 Welcome back. There is a proposal currently in the voting process:
The Judge is the Intermediary. I believe there is about 5 hours left in
the voting period.

I wish to be active.

Per rule 83, I am now active.

I note that it is now Monday in the GMT time zone. Alex Jackson is
the one active player who has spent the most time since being the Rule
Judge, and has also been continuously active for the past fortnog. Alex
Jackson is the new Rule Judge.

Your right a typo.  Sorry
     - Alex.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey J. Weston" <jjweston@...>
To: <ignn@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ignn] Proposal: Reduced Salary for the Banker


> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:
>
> > (Jeff +50 ng for providing the official time.)
>
> Hmm... I thought it was only 5 Noggins, per rule 79.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ignn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Sir Toby wrote:

>  Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.

	 As the Time Keeper, I record that this proposal was opened for
voting at 22:18 GMT 02/03/02

Seeing no discussion, I open this proposal up for voting.

	 I vote YES.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jeffrey J. Weston wrote:

>  Amend rule 24 to read as follows:
>
> The Rule Judge is the intermediary. If there currently is no Rule Judge,
> the Record Keeper is the intermediary.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:

> I vote YES.
>
> ( +1n +50ng for Jeff for the proposal passing and providing the official
> time)

	 The rules have been updated to reflect the passing of this
proposal.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Alex Jackson wrote:

> (Jeff +50 ng for providing the official time.)

	 Hmm... I thought it was only 5 Noggins, per rule 79.