|
Quarter I Quarter II - V Quarter VI Quarter VII |
Oct - Dec 1998 Jan - Dec 1999 Jan - Mar 2000 Apr - Jun 2000 |
Creation; expansion of rules. Beginning of slow period; somnolence. End of somnolence; start of Minic Era. This report (Minic Era rule expansion). |
There were 622 messages to Axiom's mailing list in the seventh quarter, making this period slightly less robust than the first quarter in terms of list traffic, but more robust than any quarter since that time.
Listed according to month, there were 398, 129, and 95 messages for the months of April, May, and June respectively.
Towards the end of June, the mailing list had a rule defined harfing office created who was required to publish reports of the state of the mailing list. What follows is an excerpt from the report detailing the state of the list as of the end of Quarter VII:
------------------------------------------------------------------ Status Key: P=Player O=Observer V=Vacationer EMAIL ADDRESS STATUS NAME DATE SUBBED tmcal@ucdavis.edu P Tyrrell McAllister 09/30/1998 rcarbol@home.com P Roger Carbol 11/18/1998 phowell@uiuc.edu O Phillip Howell 09/14/1999 ryan_shannon@yahoo.com O Ryan Shannon 10/06/1999 ma.gruss@gmx.net O Marco Gruss 12/19/1999 babylon@angelfire.com P Babylon Horuv 12/26/1999 mueller4@pop.sonic.net P Jennifer Mueller 09/25/1998 ibis@mac.com P Eric Reinecke 03/20/2000 ajp@netdex.com P Alex Perez 04/12/2000 david.kenning@which.net P David Kenning 11/17/1998 paploo.nomic@nb-ic.net P Jeff Reinecke 03/20/2000 dricher@chiark.greenend.org.uk O Duncan Richer 04/24/2000 lostandsound@lostandsound.com O Michael Barnaby 06/04/2000 ice_scape@hotmail.com P John Sterling 06/13/2000 Sabrin1315@aol.com P Sabrina Roberti 06/16/2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------From this list, only Tyrrell McAllister and Jennifer Mueller are founding members of Axiom, though Eric Reinecke, Alex Perez, and Jeff Reinecke were members of Simplex (Axiom's precursor) and all received the message wherein Axiom was created. These last three chose not to join until quite recently, however.
Note that the list records now track the player list as well as simply who is on Axiom's message list. For comparison with the end of Quarter VII, the beginning of quarter seven had a quite different player makeup.
The transition to the Minic era moved the game from the following list of citizen's (and several not very well tracked citizenless players):
Citizen Corresponding Player Gödel Jennifer Mueller* Malaclypse Gabe Drummond-Cole Altra The FireCat Bryan Frederico Kane Tyrrell McAllister* General Relativity Dieter Dehlinger Skweezer Karl J. Galbreath Razorwing JT Traub Satan Roger Carbol** NotTonightJosephine David Kenning* MAX Keith W. Smith Sycorax Mike Lugo Sprout Karl Low* PikeWake J. Blomberg Babylon Babylon Horuv* Child With AK47 Alithea Margot Seemann* * = still a player immediately after P411's passage. ** = became a player again shortly after 411's passage....To seven players who were in on the ground floor of the Minic Era to work out the details of our new regime:
Jennifer Mueller, Tyrrell McAllister, Babylon Horuv, Jeff Reinecke, Alithea Margot Seemann, Karl Low, David Kenning.
While it is probably useful to keep track of Axiom quarter by quarter, with reports coming swiftly on the heels of the events that transpire, it prevents any sort of broad perspective from coming through. When Alithea Margot Seamann joined Axiom just before the Minic Era started, and then remained active enough to be carried over, one might have thought that she would bring harf and good cheer to Axiom for many a day. Instead she was rather quiet up until her departure which occasioned the first test of the just created judicial system (case 100400A).
Who knows when a future Emperor has joined the game? John Sterling (in an act of admirable bravado) joined with an announcement that e would, in fact, *become* our new Emperor, and has not been heard from since. I suppose it will fall to later historians to go over these very documents, filling them with annotations and clever observations of the sort "If only they had realized..."
Ahhh well, what can wee do but hope and imagine what the grand sweep of time will bring.
As a side note, since eir joining the game, Babylon Horuv has never really made any unusual references to what appears to be a joke name. To this time, I don't think any other player knows the "real identity" of Babylon.
While it would be admirable to give such an exciting and action packed story as last report's chronicles of Emperors and scam, this report shares much with the report detailing Quarter I. This is probably because both quarters started with a fairly empty, homogenous, uniformly generated rule set. Quarter I started with the original initial ruleset and Quarter VII started with the Minic style ruleset laid out in "P411, Starting Anew".
The starting point for the evolution of the Minic Era was the ruleset after P411 got done with it:
Rule 101: "Axiom is a nomic game. The game, and things within the game, only change when the rules say they can and then only in ways described by the rules. If a contradiction is determined to exist in the rules such that two or more phenomena are described which are legally mutually exclusive, then, for that phenomenon, the following procedure shall determine which rule takes precedence: (1) The rule which is refered to by an integer that is of the lowest value among the rules in question shall take precedence unless precedence is explicitly claimed or deffered by the rules in question, in which case, the rules can settle things amongst themselves. (2) If two statements in a rule's description are determined to be mutually contradictory, then the statement which appears later in the text, as it would be normally read, is given precedence." Rule 102: "The rules of Axiom change when a majority of the players of Axiom explicitly agree with each other, or are silent for two weeks, on the substance and form of the change."Using 837 characters of actual text, the self-modifying heart of nomic was captured. Over the course of Quarter VII, Axiom has grown from 2 rules to 19 rules.
Rule 1 is simply a "memorial stone" to the previous ruleset.
Rules 100-102 have been amended several times to give a slightly more formal explanation of rules and how to modify them.
Rule 103 was the first rule to be added to the Minic set, and lets players join and leave the game.
Rule 104 introduces a currency, the Suber Token.
Rule 105 introduces the concept of factions with extra votes.
Rules 110-113 lay out a judiciary, crime, and criminal trials.
Rules 115-117 defines offices, the Clerk Of The Courts, and the Registrar.
Rule 150 lets subrulesets be formed and joined by players.
And Rules 200-203 create a coordinate system within which "physical objects" may move according to the "laws of physics".
Jennifer Mueller and Jeff Reinecke have been dramatically more prolific than the other players, though Tyrrell McAllister, David Kenning, and Babylon Horuv have all made suggestions or propositions which eventually found their way into the rules. Roger Carbol also authored a proposition which, though it did not find its way into the rules, did spawn the largest and most important court case to date.
In Quarter VII, Axiom saw the construction of a judicial system and the movement of five cases through this system.
Nomic World was the first known nomic game to be played on the Net, and used a very close approximation of the original Suber ruleset. The ability of judges in the original Suber set to make sweeping judgments on eir own jurisdiction and power, lead to the first crisis of Nomic World: an Emperor scam on the part of the first judge.
Nomic World's Rules: http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~geoff/nomic/nomic_mud.html
Nomic World's History: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mn200/games/nomic/nomic-world/
The First Scam: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mn200/games/nomic/nomic-world/dictator-lindrum
Since that time, it has been traditional for very large limitations to be placed on net nomics, usually in eir initial ruleset. One of these limitations (which appears in almost all net nomics) is the CFJ format, which involves some variation on a statement which the judge may rules True or False on, and little else.
Given this background, it is interesting to note that Axiom has sharply broken with the majority of net nomics by reinstating the original powers of the judge to post binding, long form, rulings. The acknowledged danger of this system is limited by the ability to convene new courts on rulings for up to a week before they truly become binding.
Beyond this, Axiom has formally instituted a system of precedence wherein the rulings of old courts must be followed in new cases. Unless we trash this system at some point in the future, it is conceivable that our judiciary could become vast and Byzantine to the point of rivaling a real world justice system.
Another interesting feature of the judicial system developed early in Quarter VII was the non-random judge selection. Instead of random selection, the Clerk Of The Court (whose job is defined in Rule 116) selects the judge for each new case. The first COTC of Axiom is Jeff Reinecke, who has, in an attempt to be stringently honorable, been randomly selecting judges from among pools restricted by such things as knowledge of the case and impartiality.
One other point of interest, the COTC may not be impeached or voted out of office, because there is currently no rule defined way to start an election or impeach officers (though it has been speculated that this could be accomplished through the courts themselves using a binding ruling in a case claiming that the COTC was not following eir rule-defined duty).
The cases have no rule defined numbering scheme, but we informally number them similarly to astronomic phenomenon. Jeff laid out the details of the numbering system, using the date the court was convened:
I'm not sure exactly what numbering scheme I'll use, but a date based system is probably a good idea. How about something like: DDMMYYA DD is the day MM is the month YY is the last two digits of the year (if this thing lasts more than 100 years, I don't think they will care how I numbered my first court thingies) A is a letter, which runs from A-Z to cover what happens if more than one CFJ (I'm going to unofficially call it that) is invoked in a day.There were five cases in Quarter VII. Each was rather important, especially considering the precedence system we've instituted.
Case 100400A - Case of Alithea's Playership Status
Alithea Margot Seemann was the first player to leave Axiom in the Minic Era. The reason this was controversial enough to prompt the convening of a court was that e failed to post eir end of playerhood to the mailing list, instead choosing to email Jennifer, the then unofficial tender of the mailing list with a request to be removed from the list.
Jennifer complied and then convened a court requesting clarification of Alithea's status. Jeff Reinecke requested the email records from Jennifer and then submitted them, in the course of eir ruling, as evidence which satisfied the rule's requirements of public notification. Very loose precedent had been established on the admissibility of evidence and rather strong precedent had been established on proxy communication to a forum of Axiom and the timing of such proxied action (it happens when it hits the list, not when the actor talks with the person who passes the message along).
Case 120400A - Case of Vote Retraction
This case was appealed and so its ruling is not binding and does not form a precedent establishing proscription.
In brief, it was noted that the clause from R101 as produced by P411, Starting Anew said: "The game, and things within the game, only change when the rules say they can and then only in ways described by the rules."
By this time we'd already formalized the rule making system to the point of propositions and votes (not simply informal agreement). With informal agreement it was possible to withdraw that agreement before consensus had been reached... when we "retracted" votes we were doing the same thing *functionally*, but we were now manipulating "things within the game". A court was convened to determine if we'd been violating R101 by retracting votes. Babylon Horuv ruling began:
Hmm, well, as the rules seem to be unclear on the issue I will select what seems the more humane and playable version, which is that yes, you can retract your votes. Although this can make record keeping more difficult I think that is outweighed by the advantage of being able to change one's mind when a vote has been made in error.This was appealed by Jennifer Mueller on the grounds that there was no requirement or allowance in the judicial rules for making decisions on the basis of playability *or* humanity.
Case 130400A - Contesting of Babylon's Decision on Case
David Kenning found that the "the spirit of the game" (a legal reason for judges to make rulings with) could be manipulated to justify the actual content of Babylon's ruling, but agreed with Jennifer that neither playablity nor humanity were sufficient reasons to support a judicial decision.
Case 280400A - Case to Resolve Rule 110 Ambiguity
Duncan Richer joined the game on Apr 25 2000 and three days later submitted the following for clarification:
Rule 110 specifies that if a judge does not post an official decision on a court issue within 168 hours, then they shall be "replaced by the COTC". Does this mean that the COTC shall judge the issue, or that they must select a replacement judge?Jennifer was assigned to judge and wrote a (perhaps too long) court opinion, which ran 2080 words not including the eleven citations added in for good measure.
Jennifer was the first judge to wander out of the strict bounds of the issue and eir ruling made explicit several foundation principles which lead to the conclusion she ultimately drew. The meat of eir ruling was summarized within the text thusly:
I find that the intent of a rule should, when possible, be demonstrated through evidentiary production of the discussions which surrounded the creation of the rule in question. I further find that based on this principle, "replaced by the COTC" as it appears in R110, means that the Clerk Of The Court should do as e would for an appeal of a ruling: e should SELECT a new judge in the place of the judge who failed to turn in a ruling on time.Case 100600A - Case To Clarify The Status Of The Kneecap Prop
This case was notable for a number of reasons. The first of which is that it was the first case to be defaulted on by the first judge assigned to it. I happen to know that Tyrrell McAllister had some extenuating circumstances involving car trouble going on, but e nonetheless is the player responsible for breaking the streak of prompt judging which had been maintained up to this point.
The kneecap prop was Roger Carbol's first and only prop submitted during Quarter VII. Just prior to submission, Rule 105 (defining factions) had been added to the rule set. The first faction was formed by Jennifer Mueller, Babylon Horuv, and Roger Carbol as the Mafia Faction. To celebrate, Roger hastily announced a prop to institute the "Broken Kneecap" which would be awarded to those who voted against props authored by the leader of the Mafia Faction (himself at the time).
Roger voted for it, and then Jennifer voted against it and pointed out several problems which caused em to do so. No one else voted.
The primary issue of case 100600A was whether any of the text of the prop was actually in the rules. This was complicated by several sub-issues.
First, Roger was leader of the Mafia Faction when both e and Jennifer voted, but Jennifer was leader at the end of the voting period.
Second, the prop was announced with less formality than previous props and there was the outside possibility that there was no prop in the first place because it hadn't been created with an announcement which fell within the legal boundaries of a prop creating message.
Third, the text of the prop was simply the text of the "new rule" with no mention of what to do with the text. Was it to go in a new rule? With what number? Did the text replace some other text? Which text?
Sabrina Roberti, a new player who had not even been around at the time the prop in question resolved, showed great panache, delivering a three part judgment. Sabrina erred on the side of safety and found that "Vote for it or else" was not sufficiently formal to create a prop given the text of the proposition rule at the time. Further, she noted that even if it had been properly announced, the lack of a number would prevent the text from landing anywhere within the ruleset. Finally, she noted that had their been a prop with correct numbering, the text of the faction rule at the time lead to the conclusion that to get the extra strong vote of a faction leader, you only had to be a leader at the time of casting. She then called for a new proposition to fix the fact that a faction could get a leader vote for every one of its members by cycling them all through the leadership position long enough to vote.
Over the course of Quarter VII, of the 622 messages to the list, 101 messages have been about a game which started in a message dated 02:17:09 Apr 29 2000. The only way the game formally touches the rules is that it is being played for a side bet of ST1.00 (the currency defined in Rule 104). Nonetheless, I believe the game may have been instrumental in keeping Axiom from getting a start at stagnation during several periods where the side game constituted the only list traffic (for example: May 11-15, May 23-26, and June 7-10).
Like Political Go from the Pre-Minic Era (Rule 600, Hawaii Five-Oh) this game was a variant of Go. The game was named Klein Go, because it takes place on a crude text based model of a klein bottle.
The board workings were (most clearly in the author's opinion) explained through a series of examples:
If you go off the sides, you return on the same board at the same number. If you go off the top or bottom of the top or bottom boards, respectively, then you track right through to the same letter on the far side of the other board. If you leave the top or bottom in the middle, then you return on the other board's middle edge at the noted letter. By way of example, the following "x" and "o" configurations let "o" be killed by "x"'s move at "k": Example 1 A B C D E F G H I J Inside 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 | 2 . . . . x . . . . . 2 <----/ 3 . . . x o k . . . . 3 4 . . . . x . . . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . . . . 5 Example 2 8 . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 . . . . . . . k . . 9 A B C D E F G H I J f g h i j a b c d e f g h i j a b c d e A B C D E F G H I J Outside 1 . x o x . . . . . . 1 | 2 . . x . . . . . . . 2 <----/ 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 Example 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . . . x 5 6 k . . . . . . . x o 6 7 . . . . . . . . . x 7 Example 4 A B C D E F G H I J Inside 1 . . . x o x . . . . 1 | 2 . . . . x . . . . . 2 <----/ 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 . . . . . . . . . . 9 A B C D E F G H I J f g h i j a b c d e f g h i j a b c d e A B C D E F G H I J Outside 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 | 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2 <----/ 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 . . . . k . . . . . 9 A B C D E F G H I J Example 5 8 x . . . . . . . . . 8 9 o x . . . . . . . x 9 A B C D E F G H I J f g h i j a b c d e f g h i j a b c d e A B C D E F G H I J Outside 1 . . . . . k . . . . 1 | 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2 <----/ 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3What follows is an uncommented summary of the progression of the game as it was played during Quarter VII. Every ten moves, I have shown the board as it appeared at that time. There was a side discussion or two, and a few emails wherein the rules of Klein Go were clarified and the terms were settled; this explains the discrepancy of 101 emails for 84 moves.
01. (D,4,Out)
02. (D,6,Out)
03. (E,5,Out)
04. (B,5,Out)
05. (G,6,Out)
06. (J,5,Out)
07. (H,4,Out)
08. (H,7,In)
09. (F,8,In)
10. (C,3,Out)
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 . . . . . . . . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . j . . 7
8 . . . . . B . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . j . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . B . . . B . . 4
5 . j . . B . . . . j 5
6 . . . j . . B . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
11. (D,2,Out)
12. (C,2,Out)
13. (H,9,In)
14. (D,3,Out)
15. (E,3,Out)
16. (D,1,Out)
17. (E,2,Out)
18. (I,9,In)
19. (I,8,In)
20. (C,1,Out
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 . . . . . . . . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . j . . 7
8 . . . . . B . . B . 8
9 . . . . . . . B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . j j . . . . . . 1
2 . . j B B . . . . . 2
3 . . j j B . . . . . 3
4 . . . B . . . B . . 4
5 . j . . B . . . . j 5
6 . . . j . . B . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
21. (E,1,Out)
22. (H,8,In)
23. (G,9,In)
24. (J,8,In)
25. (F,9,In)
26. (E,4,Out)
26. (J,6,In)
27. (E,4,Out)
28. (C,4,Out)
29. (H,6,In)
30. (B,9,In)
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 . . . . . . . B . j 6
7 . . . . . . . j . . 7
8 . . . . . B . j B j 8
9 . j . . . B B B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . j j B . . . . . 1
2 . . j B B . . . . . 2
3 . . j j B . . . . . 3
4 . . j B B . . B . . 4
5 . j . . B . . . . j 5
6 . . . j . . B . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
31. (I,7,In)
32. (I,6,In)
33. (I,5,In)
34. (G,6,In)
35. (H,5,In)
36. (G,7,In)
37. (F.7.In)
38. (I,3,Out)
39. (A,7,In)
40. (J,7,In) Capturing 2
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 . . . . . . . B B . 5
6 . . . . . B j B j j 6
7 B . . . . . j j . j 7
8 . . . . . B . j . j 8
9 . j . . . B B B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . j j B . . . . . 1
2 . . j B B . . . . . 2
3 . . j j B . . . j . 3
4 . . j B B . . B . . 4
5 . j . . B . . . . j 5
6 . . . j . . B . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
41. (J,2,Out)
42. (I,3,Out)
43. (A,2,Out)
44. (A,8,In)
45. (A,1,Out)
46. (H,1,Out)
47. (C,8,In)
48. (F,7,In)
49. (E,7,In)
50. (E,6,In)
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 . . . . . . . B B . 5
6 . . . . j B j B j j 6
7 B . . . B j j j . j 7
8 j . B . . B . j . j 8
9 . j . . . B B B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 B . j j B . . j . . 1
2 B . j B B . . . j B 2
3 . . j j B . . . j . 3
4 . . j B B . . B . . 4
5 . j . . B . . . . j 5
6 . . . j . . B . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
51. (E,5,In)
52. (D,7,In)
53. (E,8,In)
54. (B,7,In)
55. (A,6,In)
56. (A,5,In)
57. (B,6,In)
58. (C,6,In)
59. (E,5,In)
60. (D,6,In)
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 j . . . B B . B B . 5
6 B B j j j B j B j j 6
7 B j . j B j j j . j 7
8 j . B . B B . j . j 8
9 . j . . . B B B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 B . j j B . . j . . 1
2 B . j B B . . . j B 2
3 . . j j B . . . j . 3
4 . . j B B . . B . . 4
5 . j . . B . . . . j 5
6 . . . j . . B . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
61. (D,8,In)
62. (B,5,In) Capturing 3
63. (G,5,In)
64. (G,8,Out)
65. (I,5,Out)
66. (J,4,Out)
67. (J,6,Out)
68. (F,7,Out)
69. (E,6,Out)
70. (D,8,Out)
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 j j . . B B B B B . 5
6 . . j j j B j B j j 6
7 . j . j B j j j . j 7
8 j . B B B B . j . j 8
9 . j . . . B B B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 B . j j B . . j . . 1
2 B . j B B . . . j B 2
3 . . j j B . . . j . 3
4 . . j B B . . B . j 4
5 . j . . B . . . B j 5
6 . . . j B . B . . B 6
7 . . . . . j . . . . 7
8 . . . j . . j . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
71. (A,7,Out)
72. (B,7,Out)
73. (A,6,Out)
74. (B,8,Out)
75. (C,2,In)
76. (B,2,In)
77. (B,1,In)
78. (B,3,In)
79. (D,3,In)
80. (B,9,Out)
In: A B C D E F G H I J
1 . B . . . . . . . . 1
2 . j B . . . . . . . 2
3 . j . B . . . . . . 3
4 . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 j j . . B B B B B . 5
6 . . j j j B j B j j 6
7 . j . j B j j j . j 7
8 j . B B B B . j . j 8
9 . j . . . B B B j . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
f g h i j a b c d e
f g h i j a b c d e
Out: A B C D E F G H I J
1 B . j j B . . j . . 1
2 B . j B B . . . j B 2
3 . . j j B . . . j . 3
4 . . j B B . . B . j 4
5 . j . . B . . . B j 5
6 B . . j B . B . . B 6
7 B j . . . j . . . . 7
8 . j . j . . j . . . 8
9 . j . . . . . . . . 9
A B C D E F G H I J
81. (E,4,In)
82. (C,1,In)
83. (A,1,In)
84. (D,1,In)
In the report for Quarter I, I made a call for all players to end eir silence and spring back into action. This was due to an email slowdown that I feared might end to the game. That silence only put the game in a sort of jerky hiatus, and we revived ourselves afterwards, but I see some of the same trends that almost killed Axiom then, repeating emselves now.
Instead of a blustery call to action, as I did then, I would like to make specific suggestions for how the game might be effectively raised up from the dangers of somnolence:
1. Each of us should make an effort to find someone to play who might stick with Axiom for a while, authoring propositions and taking an active part in the legislative process.
2. Each of us should make an effort to take at least one proposition from start to finish, with several rough drafts and commenting periods, through to inclusion within the rule set.
The 398, 129, and 95 progression of email volume is spooking me out a bit, especially when I consider that Klein Go started at the very end of the 398 month... meaning that many of the 224 messages in May and June were part of the 101 go messages.
The factual assertions and views expressed herein are those of the author, not of the administrator of the mailing list, of the publisher of Axiom's Quarterly Report, or of Axiom itself. Notification of errors should be directed to the wastebasket nearest you.
Last Updated: 7/6/2000 11:00pm PST
Author: Jennifer Mueller
If you're wonder whether the game is still going, message me at mueller4@sonic.net