From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #397 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Wednesday, 14 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 397 Re-judgments 51:1-13 (Part II) Re-judgments 51:1-13 (Part II) Re: Judgement 51:7 Re: Harsh rulings Re-judgment of 51:12 Re: Judgement 51:7 50:12: "...taken w/o knowledge or consent." Re: Judgements 51:12 & 13 Re: A Standard Clock Re: A Standard Clock Re: objection to Judgement of 51:13 Re: A Standard Clock ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Residue@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:50:50 -0500 Subject: Re-judgments 51:1-13 (Part II) Rule 51:6 (Dug) VALID 1.0 Style Points [changed by re-judgment from INVALID, 1.0 Style Points] >>>>> At the end of the round, any player bought by any other player must pay the owning player half of his/her earnings for the round. Each player may be bought and sold only once during the round. I would like to purchase rule 51:2 for 300 FRanC. I offer for sale the Brooklyn Bridge at the low, low price of 150 FRanC. >>>>> Judgment: Rule 51:2 is not (yet) for sale. Re-judgment: ...but that's no longer fatal. The attempt to purchase 51:2 is merely unsuccessful. Rule 51:7 (Dug) VALID 0.5 Style Points [changed by re-judgment from INVALID, 0.5 Style Points] >>>>> Every rule in this round shall have a "retail value" determined using the following formula: Rule 51:X retail value = X * 50 FRanC Players offering rules may not ask for more than the retail value (they can offer "discounts," though). Players purchasing rules must pay at least what was asked (or more, if they choose). I offer for sale rules 51:2 - 51:4 at their retail value. I would also like to purchase myself from Peter at 400 FRanC. Finally, for clarification, the price on the right to bribe the Wizard/Judge (see rule 51:5) is 600 FRanC. >>>>> Judgment: Fixing the amount of the bribe at 600 FRanC would (in my opinion) invalidate, and is therefore inconsistent with, 51:5. Re-judgment: Disregard the original judgment. Everything's cool. Rule 51:8 (Kurt) UNSUCCESSFUL >>>>> Any player that goes bankrupt during the round may recapitalize themselves at the cost of one day of eligibility for each 100 FRanC that they wish to receive. I am buying my own declaration of participation in this round for 100 FRanC. I offer for sale Peter for 600 FRanCs. >>>>> Judgment: Kurt's declaration of participation is not (yet) for sale. Fortunately for Kurt, his declaration of participation also does not exist, and he's not on the member list, so there's no penalty. Rule 51:9 (Jeremy) INVALID 0.5 Style Points >>>>> FRanCs, Stylepoints and Days of Eligibility may not be taken from another player without that player's knowledge or consent. Stylepoints and Days of Eligibility may not be created or destroyed by players, only the Judge can do that. All future rules may be violated by any rule which pays a sum of FRanCs to be determined by future rules to the author, or if the rule has been sold, to the present owner of the rule. I purchase 51:3 for 150 FRanCs. I purchase 51:4 for 200 FRanCs. I purchase the Brooklyn Bridge for 150 FRanCs. I Offer a time-bomb of my own construction for sale for 400 FRanCs. >>>>> Judgment: This is another rule I think would need an overrule proposal to be VALID, since the "All future rules may be violated..." part is inconsistent with R.O. 6. Re-judgment: I suppose if a rule says you can violate a rule, it's not an inconsistency to do so. I therefore retract my original judgment comment. However, this rule _is_ inconsistent with 50:4, which can penalize players by taking FRanCs without their consent. Rule 51:10 (Stein) VALID 1.5 Style Points >>>>> # Isn't that neat! Now YOU can buy one of our hash signs designed to give your rule that little extra. These hash signs cost 30 FRanCs a piece, 50 FRanCs for two and 200 FRanCs for a 10-pack. We also supply percent-signs, %, and curly braces { }, at the same prices. Also, we're currently looking for freelance workers to design new characters for sale. For any character design we will pay 15 FRanC royalty per character sold. KULSETH ENTERPRISES, the FRCs foremost supplier of special characters >>>>> Judgment: I'm assuming (and I'm doing a lot of that these days) use of #, et al., in a rule does not in itself constitute a purchase from Kulseth Enterprises by that rule's author. In other words, purchases must be explicit. Joshua used a % in 51:3 without paying, so there must be other sources of special characters for those willing to settle for second-rate, no-name punctuation. Too bad there's no fantasy Patent Office. By designating himself a supplier, Stein will be considered to own an arbitrarily large quantity of these special characters. As he's selling from stock he owns, he will profit from any sales. His entire inventory will be taken off the market after five rules (per 51:3). Rule 51:11 (Joshua) INVALID 1.5 Style Points >>>>> Thought for the rule: "The last person in existence is the richest person in existence; therefore, the final player to remain eligible in this round is the richest player in this round." I offer for sale 1 insurance policy for the cost of 500 FRanCs. This policy works as follows for the player who purchases it: When a player submits a rule that is deemed INVALID the owner of this policy recieves 1 extra day of eligibility to be taken from Joshua. This policy is terminated upon the purchasing player recieving the day elgibility. I will purchase one designer # (from rule 51,10) for the low cost of 30 FRanCs. >>>>> Judgment: I think the general consensus is you can't affect eligibility at all without overruling R.O. 4. Period. Rule 51:12 (Jeremy) VALID 2.0 Style Points >>>>> 1. FRanCs may not be taken from another player without that player's knowledge or consent. <100 FRanCs> 2. All restrictions in this and future rules must be individually and consecutively numbered in the same manner as is found in this rule. <10 FRanCs> 3. All restrictions in this and future rules will apply to all players except those who have purchased and presently own a waiver for that particular restriction. <50 FRanCs> 4. The waiver price for each restriction must accompany that restriction. <50 FRanCs> 5. The use of a waiver destroys it. <50 FRanCs> 6. A maximum of three waivers may be purchased by each rule. <200 FRanCs> 7. Purchase of a waiver requires the transfer of the waiver price to the author or present owner of the waiver. <50 FRanCs> 8. Waivers are automatically offered for sale at the waiver price by the author of the restriction. <100 FRanCs> 9. Waivers may only be resold if specifically offered for resale by the present owner. <50 FRanCs> 10. Once a waiver is sold, the author of that restriction may not offer another waiver for that restriction for sale. <200 FRanCs> 11. Waivers may not be used by the same rule in which they were purchased. <100 FRanCs> 12. The use of a waiver costs the waiver price, which must be payed to the bank. <50 FRanCs> 13. Each author must place a number of FRanCs, equal to 50% of the waiver price for each restriction e writes, in escrow. This sum may not be used by the author or anyone else until it is returned to the author at the time the waiver is sold. <100 FRanCs> I place 555 FRanCs in escrow to pay for these restrictions. >>>>> Judgment: Looks OK to me, except...well, I'll keep my mouth shut. ;) Rule 51:13 (Curious) VALID 2.0 Style Points >>>>> 1. I am a representative of the FRenCh Bureau of Exchange, and the sole possessor of the right to exchange other currencies for FRanCs, and FRanCs for other currencies. <50 FRanCs> 2. All exchanges are made with the bank rather than my personal account - I am merely the enabler of these exchanges. <2 FRanCs> 3. Until further notice from this representative, rates will be as follows. 9 FRanCs will be given in return for 10 units of any other currency, with a fee of 1 FRanC payable to myself. 9 units of any other currency will be given in return for 10 FRanCs, also with a fee of 1 FRanC payable to myself. <2 FRanCs> 4. Any individual may cause any amount of currency they possess to be exchanged for other currency by saying so. Exchanges involving FRanCs occur according to the procedure described above. <2 FRanCs> 5. Individuals may charge fees for the sale of items that they do not own. <2 FRanCs> 6. Fees may only be charged in Wizrdz, and may not be more than 10% of the sale price of the item. (eg max fee of 1 Wizrd for the sale of a 10 FRanC item.) <100 FRanCs> 7. No individual may declare themselves the owner of any amount of any currency without also declaring all other individuals owners of a similar amount. <50 FRanCs> 8. All players now have 1000 Wizrdz. <2 FRanCs> 9. Possession Cap. After the first week of the game, the only allowable possessions will be players, rules, waivers, and all other items already possessed at that time. <200 FRanCs> 10. I offer for sale my status as sole possessor of the right to make FRanC exchanges, for a price of 10,000 FRanCs. <2 FRanCs> Prices is <>'s above have no meaning unless 50:12 is valid. If necessary, I place 206 FRanCs in escrow for the above waivers. If available, I purchase a waiver for item 13 of 50:12. Note: I don't believe that items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 above constitute "restrictions" per items 2-4 of 51:12, as they are descriptive or enabling. However, I have followed that format just in case. >>>>> Judgement: I guess I deserved this. Hrumph. Note that Curious misspelled "51:12" twice. Good thing spelling doesn't count. ;) Bryan Bowe residue@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Residue@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:54:34 -0500 Subject: Re-judgments 51:1-13 (Part II) The top lines were missing from Part II. 51:6's re-judgment is: Rule 51:6 (Dug) VALID 1.0 Style Points [changed by re-judgment from INVALID, 1.0 Style Points] >>>>> At the end of the round, any player bought by any other player must pay the owning player half of his/her earnings for the round. Each player may be bought and sold only once during the round. I would like to purchase rule 51:2 for 300 FRanC. I offer for sale the Brooklyn Bridge at the low, low price of 150 FRanC. >>>>> Judgment: Rule 51:2 is not (yet) for sale. Re-judgment: ...but that's no longer fatal. The attempt to purchase 51:2 is merely unsuccessful. Bryan Bowe residue@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Don Blaheta Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:40:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Judgement 51:7 Residue sez: > Rule 51:6 (the Brooklyn Bridge rule) arrived in my mailbox 15 minutes before > Rule 51:7 (the 600 FRanC right-to-bribe rule). I did notice the numbering and > content suggested the reverse order was intended. While I can accept the use of "other criteria" to imply your own ordering, content most certainly did not imply that the reverse order was intended--obviously Dug intended the one he labeled "6" to go out first. > However, I stand by my ordering of the rules. Like it or not, I have to use > an impartial clock to make timing determinations, and the one that stamps my > mail is as good as any. What's my alternative? It's not as good as any... the net is known to have problems getting email delivered in the correct order. I, at least, use the Date: header. > To avoid this in the future, I'd suggest not submitting multiple rules in > quick succession. A) It's their right to submit rules as close together as they like, and when they specifically give cues to help you in ordering them, it seems silly to ignore them, and B) this doesn't address the case of multiple people sending rules at once. Vanyel - -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- The idea is to die young as late as possible. -- Ashley Montague ------------------------------ From: Don Blaheta Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:56:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Harsh rulings Residue sez: > Peter wrote: > > In particular, I take exception to the Judge's assumption of > > facts not in evidence. No rule in this round has so much as > > mentioned the concept of being a "broker". The Judge does not > > have the power to create this concept. > > By my interpretation of Rule 51:1, Stein is auctioning off an item he doesn't > own. If he _did_ consider himself the owner, why would he bid for it (instead > of, say, setting a minimum bid)? How do you know he doesn't own it? Although I will admit that by putting in a bid he seems to imply he doesn't. > So, Stein is the auctioneer, not the owner of the thing being auctioned. In > an auction, the owner is typically the recipient of the purchase payment, not > the auctioneer. Well, I don't see that there needs to be an "auctioneer" at all--Stein merely notes that it is for sale. > > The simplest sales model is that of a buyer giving money to a > > seller. In the absence of a rule defining a more complicated > > model, the simplest (and most common) one should be assumed. It > > is for the players to create complexity, not the Judge. Assuming > > a brokerage concept was premature and restrictive. > > I disagree. In the absence of a rule defining a more complicated model, the > simplest _appropriate_ one should be assumed. In the case of 51:1, turning > the proceeds of the sale over to Stein would be inconsistent with my > understanding of words like "auction" and "bid" as they appear in 51:1. Perhaps so, but either reading would be consistent, so without further information you should not assume either, and wait for it to become determinate at some later time. It is not uncommon for an FRC rule to point to multiple possible gamestates, then wait until a future rule violates one of them to choose the other. > Adopting the term "broker" and applying it consistently to sales in which the > seller is not the owner seems warranted to me. Unless and until some rule or > proposal suggests otherwise, of course. I have no problem with you giving a "running summary" using whatever language you like, PROVIDED that if someone posts a rule that is consistent with the rules but not your language, you revise your language and don't mark the rule invalid. > > Furthermore, I see no grounds for invalidating rules just > > because they purchase items which were not explicitly put up for > > sale prior to the purchase. No VALID rule requires prior > > notification of saleability. > > The words "buy" and "sell" are not devoid of meaning, and I don't think it's > the intent of the FRC to consider them so until defined by a rule. If that > were the case, we'd be spending a heck of a lot more time preparing to play > than we would actually playing. True. As in Agora, one assumes the "common sense", "real life" definition of a word, in absence of convincing evidence otherwise. > In fact, "buy" and "sell" _do_ mean something, and their use carries certain > implications--one of which, in my opinion, is that you can't buy something > that isn't for sale. Of course not. However, the fact that an item is up for sale isn't inconsistent with prior rules just because it hasn't been mentioned. > > If I say in a rule that I just bought a house, the fact that it > > was for sale is implied. > > And if I say in a rule I just bought all your FRanCs, Style Points, and > eligibility time, is the "fact" they were for sale implied? Actually, yes. The thing that prevents this from happening is that it is "legal, winning, and No Fun". > If I were to accept your reasoning, the concept of "selling" something would > be rendered meaningless, since you could simply buy anything you wanted to. Until and unless some future rule says otherwise, yes. Of course, I see no problem with *assuming* for now that they hold their regular meanings--just don't invalidate a rule based only on your preconceptions of what you think the "read-between-the-lines" parts of the rules mean. > Oh, by the way, I just bought your car. Hope you don't mind. Shortly after you took possession, I bought it from you. Drives nicely, doesn't it! > > Buying something which wasn't explicitly put up for sale is NOT > > inconsistent with the Reg Ords or a previous VALID rule in this > > round. > > That's true. Buying something which wasn't explicitly put up for sale is > inconsistent with my interpretation of "buying something." Rather than > suspending judgment until all such terms are defined to everyone's > satisfaction, I was judging rules based on my understanding of the English > language and the use thereof. Once again, you are forgetting that just because something is unsaid does not mean it has not happened. > The point is moot, though. I've adopted the seller-as-owner thesis, against > my better judgment. Don't do this on our account! We are trying to persuade you, but _you are the judge_, and it *is* your prerogative to invalidate any rule you want. It would be most preferable if you only invalidated the inconsistent ones, however. > > Invalidating 51:2 was a harsh call. Ronald could have been > > perfectly free to sell his style point. > > In retrospect, I think I agree. Trading Style Points is harmless enough. Perhaps harmless, but illegal according to the ROs. > However, declaring 51:2 VALID at this point would ruin the game by knocking > out about half (at least) of the later rules. To be consistent, then, I'm > maintaining my strict stance as described in the judgment comments for 51:2, > even though I don't really want to. The other thing which has precedent around here is that if a Judge mistakenly invalidates something, but several rules later finds it should have been valid... it is often left invalid. After all, the author (in most cases) has had other opportunities to post rules, and is still in the round; validating a rule so far after the fact would be counter-productive. > > That doesn't necessarily mean that the buyer gets to add that > > point to his style point total for the round. Style points could > > figure into the economy in a completely different way. > > What...and have me create a new concept??? ;) > > A Style Point that doesn't add to one's Style Point total seems a bit of a > stretch to me. I suppose I could let anybody do _anything_ if I went down > that road. It does seem a stretch. I wasn't contesting 50:2, though--you were well within your rights to invalidate it. > Speaking of going down roads--want your car back? As though you're in a position to offer it. Or did you take it back again while I wasn't looking? ;) Vanyel - -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun ------------------------------ From: Residue@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:16:37 -0500 Subject: Re-judgment of 51:12 51:12 should have been INVALID. That's the last time I try to figure this stuff out at two in the morning. 51:13 is unaffected, except Curious winds up with no waivers and a lot more FRanCs. Name Eligibility (GMT) Style FRanCs Possessions - -------- ----------------- ------ ------ ---------------- Curious 96-02-21 02:00:58 2.0 1200 1000 Wizrds Stein 96-02-20 13:34:00 2.5 1500 1000 Wizrds Dug 96-02-19 19:14:24 2.0 1050 Himself Rules 51:1-4 Bribe (51:5) Brooklyn Bridge 1000 Wizrds Peter 96-02-19 17:36:46 1.0 1500 1000 Wizrds (others) 96-02-19 15:00:00 0.0 1000 1000 Wizrds Joshua 96-02-18 17:35:01 2.0 1200 Loan (51:3) 1000 Wizrds Ronald 96-02-18 15:00:00 3.0 1300 1000 Wizrds Jeremy 96-02-17 15:00:00 2.5 1250 1000 Wizrds Attention K-Mart shoppers! The following are currently up for grabs: Hash signs, percent signs, and curly braces (51:10) Rule 51:12 (Jeremy) INVALID 2.0 Style Points [changed by re-judgment from VALID, 2.0 Style Points] >>>>> 1. FRanCs may not be taken from another player without that player's knowledge or consent. <100 FRanCs> 2. All restrictions in this and future rules must be individually and consecutively numbered in the same manner as is found in this rule. <10 FRanCs> 3. All restrictions in this and future rules will apply to all players except those who have purchased and presently own a waiver for that particular restriction. <50 FRanCs> 4. The waiver price for each restriction must accompany that restriction. <50 FRanCs> 5. The use of a waiver destroys it. <50 FRanCs> 6. A maximum of three waivers may be purchased by each rule. <200 FRanCs> 7. Purchase of a waiver requires the transfer of the waiver price to the author or present owner of the waiver. <50 FRanCs> 8. Waivers are automatically offered for sale at the waiver price by the author of the restriction. <100 FRanCs> 9. Waivers may only be resold if specifically offered for resale by the present owner. <50 FRanCs> 10. Once a waiver is sold, the author of that restriction may not offer another waiver for that restriction for sale. <200 FRanCs> 11. Waivers may not be used by the same rule in which they were purchased. <100 FRanCs> 12. The use of a waiver costs the waiver price, which must be payed to the bank. <50 FRanCs> 13. Each author must place a number of FRanCs, equal to 50% of the waiver price for each restriction e writes, in escrow. This sum may not be used by the author or anyone else until it is returned to the author at the time the waiver is sold. <100 FRanCs> I place 555 FRanCs in escrow to pay for these restrictions. >>>>> Judgment: Looks OK to me, except...well, I'll keep my mouth shut. ;) Re-judgment: Oops! Point 1 is inconsistent with 51:4 for the same reason 51:9 was. Bryan Bowe residue@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Residue@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:31:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Judgement 51:7 Vanyel wrote: > While I can accept the use of "other criteria" to imply your > own ordering, content most certainly did not imply that the > reverse order was intended--obviously Dug intended the one he > labeled "6" to go out first. Reversed from the order _I_ specified, I meant. > It's not as good as any... the net is known to have problems > getting email delivered in the correct order. I, at least, use > the Date: header. I _am_ using the Date: header. The Date: header is what led me to order the rules the way I did. > A) It's their right to submit rules as close together as they > like, and when they specifically give cues to help you in > ordering them, it seems silly to ignore them, and Certainly it's their right. It's also a risk, apparently. I'm not at all saying they can't submit rules on top of one another, I'm just pointing out the danger. As for cues, obviously I can't make a determination based on that. One can write anything one wants in a rule, including typos and falsehoods. Besides, I need a time to determine eligibility as well as order. If I discard the Date: in favor of cues provided by the author, does it make sense to use the Date: for the purpose of eligibility? What _would_ I use? Bryan Bowe residue@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Matthew Ryan Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:59:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: 50:12: "...taken w/o knowledge or consent." See exerpted material. Residue@aol.com wrote: > >Rule 51:9 (Jeremy) INVALID 0.5 Style Points >>>>>> >FRanCs, Stylepoints and Days of Eligibility may not be taken from another >player without that player's knowledge or consent. > >[...] > >Re-judgment: >[...] this rule _is_ inconsistent with 50:4, which can penalize players by >taking FRanCs without their consent. > > >Rule 51:12 (Jeremy) VALID 2.0 Style Points >>>>>> >1. FRanCs may not be taken from another player without that player's >knowledge or consent. <100 FRanCs> > [...] >>>>>> >Judgment: Looks OK to me, except...well, I'll keep my mouth shut. ;) I hypothesize that Jeremy's intent with this restriction is to say that *players* cannot take FRanCs from other players w/o their knowledge or consent. This would be consistent with the established precedent of a player indicating conditions in which players can lose FRanCs to the bank. - -Matthew Ryan, mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu Curious Of All Natures ================================ ==================================== Let us treat men and women well; If you dare to be who you truly want treat them as if they were real. to be, you risk enjoying every day Perhaps they are. --R.W.Emerson of your life. --Desmond Atholl ================================ ==================================== ------------------------------ From: Jeremy D Selengut Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:20:11 EST Subject: Re: Judgements 51:12 & 13 Hard-working Wizard-Judge, You now say that 51:12 is INVALID because restriction #1: > FRanCs may not be taken from another player without that player's > knowledge or consent. is inconsistent with 51:4. I assume you mean this part of it: > If the rule becomes officially INVALID, he loses half again what he > paid for it Not so. i. Since 51:4 was posted, all players have the "knowledge" that if they purchase a rule and it is subsequently judged INVALID they would lose the proscribed amount. ii. The amount is "lost," not taken, in this case. Lost implies that it has been transferred away from someone without simultaneously being transferred to someone or something else -- it's just gone. "Taken" implies that someone or something does the taking, a very different concept. If you agree with either of these arguments I believe you must revert back to your earlier judgement. With regard to 51:13, I think you missed a major self-inconsistancy with it: Restriction #6 states: "Fees may only be charged in Wizrds..." while restriction #3 states "...with a fee of 1 FRanC payable to myself." If you do not choose to reverse yourself on these two rules, please accept the following two proposals: 51:D That 51:12 be declared VALID 51:E That 51:13 be declared INVALID Keep your chin up... - - Jeremy ------------------------------ From: Jeremy D Selengut Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:33:46 EST Subject: Re: A Standard Clock Wizard-Judge, Whenever I have been Judge, I have used the clock provided by sabre-wulf.nvg.unit.no as to the receipt of rules from players. This is presumably the time that the list has recieved the information. It is independant of any potential tampering by the sender, but most importantly is apparrent to all. It is confusing to use the clock at the Judge's end because only the Judge can see it. If the list's clock is used, then everyone can know the order in which the rules were recieved. The time at which the rules are sent out is not useful because we know that the listserver sometimes sends things out in a scrambled order (sometimes by many hours when under stress) compared to the order they were recieved. It seems to me that the only two resonable options are the time the rule says it was sent from the player and the time it was recieved by nvg. In addition to the remote possibility of players altering the aparrent sending time, what about the situation where a message is sent, but is waylaid enroute to nvg for many hours, during which time other rules are sent, recieved and distributed to the players? Is it fair to judge the waylaid rule as if it were before the others? I don't think so, that's not how the world works. If you have a deadline to make and you put a proposal in the mail and the carrier loses it for a week - tough luck, you can't expect your competitor not to get the contract because your proposal was late... - - Jeremy Should we mandate the clock with a proposal??? ------------------------------ From: Don Blaheta Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:10:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: A Standard Clock Jeremy sez: > Whenever I have been Judge, I have used the clock provided by > sabre-wulf.nvg.unit.no as to the receipt of rules from players. For most purposes I just use the Date: header (since it's the one that shows up without hitting "h" :), but for truly time-sensitive info I use the same method Jeremy prescribes above. Actually, I made a judgement in Agora (quite a while ago now) that indicated such... > - Jeremy > Should we mandate the clock with a proposal??? Not a bad idea. How about this: (NOTE: This is _not_ an official proposal, I'm merely throwing out some ideas. That way I can change it before "officially" proposing it)? <<<<< The Regular Ordinances shall be Amended by inserting the following Ordinance after RO 4: 4b. Timing. In all matters of timing, for purposes of eligibility and rule ordering, or any other purpose, the official time of a message shall be the time it was received at the official committee forum. <<<<< Vanyel - -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- "Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together." ------------------------------ From: Matthew Ryan Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:50:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: objection to Judgement of 51:13 Jeremy D Selengut wrote: > >With regard to 51:13, I think you missed a major self-inconsistancy with it: > > Restriction #6 states: "Fees may only be charged in Wizrds..." while >restriction #3 states "...with a fee of 1 FRanC payable to myself." > >If you do not choose to reverse yourself on these two rules, please >accept the following two proposals: > >51:D That 51:12 be declared VALID >51:E That 51:13 be declared INVALID > >Keep your chin up... Argh. I am going out of town this afternoon, and won't be back before my eligibility lapses unless I post a valid rule now, which I thought I'd succeeded in doing. But fair is fair. Considering the above-mentioned circumstances, please accept the following as a new rule posting if 51:13 is deemed by proposal or Judge/Wizard to be invalid. Or, the Judge/Wizard can choose to accept the wording change below as part of the meaning of 51:13. Change is denoted by ###'s. 1. I am a representative of the FRenCh Bureau of Exchange, and the sole possessor of the right to exchange other currencies for FRanCs, and FRanCs for other currencies. <50 FRanCs> 2. All exchanges are made with the bank rather than my personal account - I am merely the enabler of these exchanges. <2 FRanCs> 3. Until further notice from this representative, rates will be as follows. 9 FRanCs will be given in return for 10 units of any other currency, with a fee of 1 FRanC payable to myself. 9 units of any other currency will be given in return for 10 FRanCs, also with a fee of 1 FRanC payable to myself. <2 FRanCs> 4. Any individual may cause any amount of currency they possess to be exchanged for other currency by saying so. Exchanges involving FRanCs occur according to the procedure described above. <2 FRanCs> 5. Individuals may charge fees for the sale of items that they do not own. <2 FRanCs> 6. Fees ###described in item 5 above### may only be charged in Wizrdz, and may not be more than 10% of the sale price of the item. (eg max fee of 1 Wizrd for the sale of a 10 FRanC item.) <100 FRanCs> 7. No individual may declare themselves the owner of any amount of any currency without also declaring all other individuals owners of a similar amount. <50 FRanCs> 8. All players now have 1000 Wizrdz. <2 FRanCs> 9. Possession Cap. After the first week of the game, the only allowable possessions will be players, rules, waivers, and all other items already possessed at that time. <200 FRanCs> 10. I offer for sale my status as sole possessor of the right to make FRanC exchanges, for a price of 10,000 FRanCs. <2 FRanCs> Prices is <>'s above have no meaning unless 50:12 is valid. If necessary, I place 206 FRanCs in escrow for the above waivers. If available, I purchase a waiver for item 13 of 50:12. Note: I don't believe that items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 above constitute "restrictions" per items 2-4 of 51:12, as they are descriptive or enabling. However, I have followed that format just in case. I vote YES on 51:D and NO on 51:E, if they become active proposals. - -Matthew Ryan, mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu Curious Of All Natures ================================ ==================================== Let us treat men and women well; If you dare to be who you truly want treat them as if they were real. to be, you risk enjoying every day Perhaps they are. --R.W.Emerson of your life. --Desmond Atholl ================================ ==================================== ------------------------------ From: Matthew Ryan Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:00:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: A Standard Clock Don Blaheta wrote: >Jeremy sez: >> Whenever I have been Judge, I have used the clock provided by >> sabre-wulf.nvg.unit.no as to the receipt of rules from players. Request: please describe how to determine which header-line indicates the date and time that the message was received by sabre-wulf. I agree that this is the proper clock to use for judging purposes. > [possible proposal] ><<<<< >The Regular Ordinances shall be Amended by inserting the following >Ordinance after RO 4: > >4b. Timing. > In all matters of timing, for purposes of eligibility and rule > ordering, or any other purpose, the official time of a message shall > be the time it was received at the official committee forum. > ><<<<< Recommend describing the means of determining that information in the current setup. - -Matthew Ryan, mbr2@midway.uchicago.edu Curious Of All Natures ================================ ==================================== Let us treat men and women well; If you dare to be who you truly want treat them as if they were real. to be, you risk enjoying every day Perhaps they are. --R.W.Emerson of your life. --Desmond Atholl ================================ ==================================== ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #397 *************************