When proposal 318 passed, Jeff made the following comment:
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:22:21 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. Henry currently occupies square (40, 20). However, the X coordinates only go up to 39, according to rule 318. Any thoughts on how to resolve this?
Rich proposed the following solution:
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:03:41 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. "Jeffrey J. Weston"writes: > Henry currently occupies square (40, 20). However, the X > coordinates only go up to 39, according to rule 318. Any thoughts on how > to resolve this? The easiest thing, I think, would be to agree to handle it as if Joel's departure had occurred just after passage of Rule 318, instead of just before. That is, Joel was on File 20; therefore everyone on File 20 or above moves down 5 files: Ross 35 -> 30 Eric 25 -> 20 Henry 40 -> 35 Jeff 30 -> 25
Henry argued that Rich's solution wasn't what really happened:
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:49:39 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Henry Towsner is in an illegal position. >The easiest thing, I think, would be to agree to handle it as if >Joel's departure had occurred just after passage of Rule 318, instead >of just before. > >That is, Joel was on File 20; therefore everyone on File 20 or above >moves down 5 files: But that isn't actually what happened.... Should we adopt a game state out of convenience, or is there a better solution? Rule 318 says: a) "Each Player or Reyalp occupies a square on a 2-dimensional grid" b) "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y)" c) "The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps" d) "Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules." Conclusions: 1) Prior to Joel leaving I was at the square (40, 20) 2) (40, 20) ceased to be a square 3) Since (40, 20) is not a square, I must be at a different square 4) This does not contradict (d) because I was not moved from one square to another (since (40,20) was not a square when I moved) 5) Therefore I am at a square on the board, but we do not know which one
Jeff, seeing a disagreement among the players, invokes judgement:
Invocation #2
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:35:21 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position It looks like we need an official ruling on this, so I hereby Invoke Judgement. Rich Holmes suggested that we act as if Joel left after proposal 318 passed. While this may conveniently solve the problem, it is not what actually happened. I leave it in the hands of the judge to determine what to do. I feel that only a judge can adopt a solution like what Rich Holmes suggests. I don't feel that the players can just agree to it, because it isn't what really happened.
Eric supports Rich's original idea:
Date: 30 Jan 2001 14:08:04 EST From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@dartmouth.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position --- You wrote: It looks like we need an official ruling on this, so I hereby Invoke Judgement. Rich Holmes suggested that we act as if Joel left after proposal 318 passed. While this may conveniently solve the problem, it is not what actually happened. I leave it in the hands of the judge to determine what to do. I feel that only a judge can adopt a solution like what Rich Holmes suggests. I don't feel that the players can just agree to it, because it isn't what really happened. --- end of quote --- ok. whoever is the judge should say that, then. who's the judge?
Rich decides that Henry's idea is better:
Date: 30 Jan 2001 14:52:28 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Invoking Judgement: Henry's Illegal Position frederick.c.strathmeyer@dartmouth.edu writes: > who's the judge? Andre was when the point was raised. Personally I think Henry's objection to my suggestion is well taken. After all, since Joel's departure occurred before my rule-change passed, my suggestion would constitute moving players from one square to another not in accordance with the rules, and the rules specifically prohibit that. So I actually think Henry's suggestion is better: grant that Henry is on a square somewhere on the board, we don't yet know where. A future rule-change can then move him to a known square. By the way, I note Jon's Reyalpship expires today. Fortunately, my rule-change having passed, that won't cause anyone else to get stranded.
Things are further complicated when Jon Grimm leaves the game:
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:21:25 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Jon Grimm is dropped from the game. Jon Grimm did not leave Reyalp status in the provided time free. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre Engels must remove yet another word from the list of valid label words. I'm going to hold off on updating the gamestate until we get an official ruling regarding Henry's position.
Andre issues his first ruling:
Judgement #2 (a)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:58:33 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position Here is my Judgement regarding Henry's position: Just before the adoption of Rule 318, Henry was at position (39,20). That we know. But what about his position immediately after the proposal was accepted? There seem to be 3 possibilities: - Henry was at (39,20) - Henry was at some other point - Henry was at no point at all. The first and third are directly forbidden by Rule 318. The second is forbidden by Rule 318's (and previously Rule 313's) provision that players may only be moved from one square to another as specified in the rules. Thus, we have a conflict within the rules regarding Henry's position. The rules regarding precedence do not help us either, since everything is part of a single rule (rule 318). Thus, Henry's position cannot be known. Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. At that time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be changed. Moving Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of which cannot be determined with finality'. Thus, I judge that Rich has won the game. All players' points are reset to 0, and all Groks to 50 except for Rich, who has 70. Next time a movement of Jon is attempted which might be legal, we will have a game win again. I hope that this situation soon will be repaired.
Rich adds an additional possibility for consideration:
Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:24:28 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position Andre Engelswrites: > Just before the adoption of Rule 318, Henry was at position > (39,20). Actually (40,20). > That we know. But what about his position immediately after the > proposal was accepted? > > There seem to be 3 possibilities: > - Henry was at (39,20) > - Henry was at some other point > - Henry was at no point at all. Actually I think there are four possibilities: - Henry remained on the square at (40,20) - Henry moved to a square at some other point - Henry moved to no point at all. - Henry remained on the same square, but the coordinates of that square changed! The fourth possibility may seem far-fetched, and it probably is. It's very much in the spirit of general relativity, for whatever that's worth -- the universe changes size and carries the galaxies along with it. I can tell you're impressed by the analogy. But there's nothing in the rules that prohibit a square's coordinates from changing, is there? And if a square's coordinates were to change, the Player(s) on that square would have to come with it. > Next time a movement of > Jon is attempted which might be legal, we will have a game win > again. You mean Henry? Jon is gone...
Rich disagrees with Andre's judgement and tries to get the players to overrule it:
Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:45:28 -0500
From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu
Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com
To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position
Actually I can state my latest argument a little more forcefully. It
all hinges on the difference between squares and coordinates. Pay
attention.
(1) Is Henry on a different square? He can't be. "Players and
Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified
by the Rules.", and the Rules don't allow for Henry to be moved to
another square in these circumstances.
Therefore Henry is still on the same square.
(2) The coordinates of Henry's square were (40,20). Is that still
true? It can't be. "The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1),
where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps" and when
Joel left, n dropped to 8.
Therefore either the square Henry was on became coordinateless, or it
acquired new coordinates.
(3) Squares can't be coordinateless. "Squares have integer
coordinates (x,y)."
The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of
Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know.
Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the
rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction.
I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players
to vote on an override.
If the above analysis is upheld, then two things need to happen
quasi-immediately by passage of appropriate rules: (1) Henry's
position needs to be set (2) Coordinates of squares need to be made
fixed -- or at least, changes of a square's coordinates need to be
regulated.
Eric also wants to overrule Andre's judgement:
Date: 31 Jan 2001 12:36:16 EST From: frederick.c.strathmeyer@dartmouth.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position --- You wrote: The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players to vote on an override. If the above analysis is upheld, then two things need to happen quasi-immediately by passage of appropriate rules: (1) Henry's position needs to be set (2) Coordinates of squares need to be made fixed -- or at least, changes of a square's coordinates need to be regulated. --- end of quote --- I agree with Doctroid's re-interpretation (partly because I don't want Rich to win and partly because I admire how Doctroid's come up with an interpretation that doesn't contradict the rules) and call for an override of Andre's judgment.
Rich adds another point of contention against Andre's judgement:
Date: 31 Jan 2001 13:08:43 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position Here's another point on which I disagree with Andre's judgement, or at least am unclear as to eir reasoning. Andre writes: > Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. At that > time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be changed. Moving > Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of which cannot be determined > with finality'. Rule 213 states: If ... the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality ... then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner. But the legality of my move is not in question. What is in question is the legality of the gamestate after Joel's departure. The changes to the gamestate created by Joel's departure happened, by inference, at the moment of Joel's departure and are not part of the turn structure. Unless you take the word "move" in Rule 213 to refer not to a N_omic "turn" but to Henry's alleged change of position. My reading of the rules is that "move" here should be considered a synonym of "turn". Unfortunately the term "move" does not seem to be well defined in the rules. But even then, I was not unable to complete my turn. I did complete all four phases. It's true that (Rule 212) When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players. But that just means Ross can't complete (or start) eir turn without such consent -- and there's nothing that says such consent may not be given unless the Judge first resolves the matter under Judgement.
Jeff also wants to overrule Andre's judgement:
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:20:20 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position On 31 Jan 2001 rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu wrote: > The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of > Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. > > Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the > rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. > > I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players > to vote on an override. I agree with Rich's argument and therefore vote to overrule Andre's judgement.
Henry also wants to overrule Andre's judgement:
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:41:39 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position > The only possibility remaining, then, is that the coordinates of > Henry's square changed -- to what, we don't know. > > Again, this may seem farfetched -- but I see no contradiction with the > rules, and I see no other possibility that isn't in contradiction. > > I therefore disagree with Andre's judgement, and call upon the players > to vote on an override. I don't agree entirely with Rich's argument. In particular, I think it's ambiguous whether the coordinates changed or if I was transferred to a different square (which as I noted previously, I think is possible since I was transferred from something which was not a square to a square). Regardless, there is no reason to believe that the legality is indeterminate: it's legal, we just don't know hoe. I therefore vote to override Andre's judgement.
Ross also wants to overrule Andre's judgement:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:14:54 -0500 (EST) From: Ross B. SchulmanReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position I also vote to override the judgement, if only because I don't want Rich to win. : ) No, but seriously... I don't think anything illegal happened here. This is fixable within the rules, I believe.
Andre defends portions of his judgement:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:52:59 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu wrote: > Unless you take the word "move" in Rule 213 to refer not to a N_omic > "turn" but to Henry's alleged change of position. My reading of the > rules is that "move" here should be considered a synonym of "turn". > Unfortunately the term "move" does not seem to be well defined in the > rules. I disagree with this interpretation. In my opinion, a 'move' is any action that has a consequence for n_omic. A turn consists of a number a moves, by various players.
Rich defends his position that Henry is still on the same square:
Date: 01 Feb 2001 10:05:09 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement on Henry's position Henry Towsnerwrites: > I don't agree entirely with Rich's argument. In particular, > I think it's ambiguous whether the coordinates changed or if I was > transferred to a different square (which as I noted previously, I > think is possible since I was transferred from something which was > not a square to a square). I decided I don't buy this. If you were transferred from something which was not a square, then at some point you were not on a square. But that would have been illegal: the rules require that each player be on a square.
Feyd contemplates overruling Andre's judgement, but doesn't do so at this time:
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:44:07 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position --- In n_omic@y..., Andre Engelswrote: > Here is my Judgement regarding Henry's position: Hm, I'm the only one left. If I vote to overrule, then I become the judge and have to write a new judgement (which can the be overruled in turn I guess). I need more time to look at this and decide what to do. There seem to be two issues to decide: 1. Is Henry on an illegal square? 2. If he is, does that mean no further moves can be made? I think that if I disagree with either of these points then I need to vote to overrule. I'll take some time and re-read all discussion and rules before posting -- or if I have questions I'll post them.
Feyd puts more of his thoughts up for discussion:
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:34:28 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > Jon Grimm did not leave Reyalp status in the provided time > free. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre Engels must > remove yet another word from the list of valid label words. > I'm going to hold off on updating the gamestate until we get an > official ruling regarding Henry's position. Ok, so Jon Grimm is removed from the gamestate. Now, according to 318 (in effect when he left): "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range over all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps. " THEN "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps." Now the first paragraph takes precedence over the second. This means that as soon as Jon left, the X-coordinates were deleted. The x coordinates DO NOT EXIST when the second paragraph comes into effect. This states that players "whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp..." shall be moved down by 5. But this player doesn't have an x coordinate anymore by the first paragraph (or some have proposed that that person is on an unknown yet valid square). An (unknown quantity - 5) is still an unknown quantity. Therefore players cannot be moved, and remain on an unkown square. Thus, any time a Player or Reyalp leaves the game this situation will arise. Specifically, if Rich is the winner because of Henry's leaving, he will immediately be declared the winner AGAIN because of Jon's leaving. Any comments on this?
Henry has some comments for Feyd:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:55:15 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. >Thus, any time a Player or Reyalp leaves the game this situation will >arise. Specifically, if Rich is the winner because of Henry's >leaving, he will immediately be declared the winner AGAIN because of >Jon's leaving. I don't think there's a requirement that things happen in order; why can't the movement happen at precisely the same as the player leaves.
Rich also has some comments for Feyd:
Date: 01 Feb 2001 16:25:17 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. Nomic1@aol.com writes: > --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > > Jon Grimm did not leave Reyalp status in the provided time > > free. He is dropped from the game. As the current judge, Andre > Engels must > > remove yet another word from the list of valid label words. > > I'm going to hold off on updating the gamestate until we get an > > official ruling regarding Henry's position. > > Ok, so Jon Grimm is removed from the gamestate. Now, > according to 318 (in effect when he left): > > "Squares have integer coordinates (x,y). The y coordinates range over > all finite integers, positive and negative. The x coordinates range > from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and > Reyalps. " > THEN > "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or > Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the > departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x > coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a > Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player > was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed > from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps." > > Now the first paragraph takes precedence over the second. This means > that as soon as Jon left, the X-coordinates were deleted. The x > coordinates DO NOT EXIST when the second paragraph comes into > effect. This states that players "whose x coordinate is equal to or > higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp..." shall be moved > down by 5. > > But this player doesn't have an x coordinate anymore by the first > paragraph (or some have proposed that that person is on an unknown > yet valid square). An (unknown quantity - 5) is still an unknown > quantity. Therefore players cannot be moved, and remain on an unkown > square. > > Thus, any time a Player or Reyalp leaves the game this situation will > arise. Specifically, if Rich is the winner because of Henry's > leaving, he will immediately be declared the winner AGAIN because of > Jon's leaving. > > Any comments on this? Yeah: Horsesh*t. Nothing in the rules say anything about precedence within a single rule. In any case, precedence doesn't refer to the order in which things happen, but to which rule applies when two conflicting rules seem to apply. In this rule, the first paragraph quoted above is stating a fact -- that there are 5n Files on the board -- and the second is stating the means by which that fact is implemented when a Player leaves -- that Players at or above the departing Player's File are shifted down 5 Files, and THEN the last 5 Files are removed. If you like, the players are shifted in the instant before a Player departs, and the Files are removed in the instant after. You may object to this on grounds of causality: that a Player's departure causes the other Players to shift just *before* the departure. But there's no Rule preventing that. Causality is an attribute of the real world, not the N_omic world. The difference in Henry's case is that Joel left BEFORE the rule was amended; so his position didn't change when Joel left, but LATER the File he was standing on disappeared (or rather, the x coordinate at which the File he was standing on was located ceased to be a valid x coordinate).
Jeff also has some comments for Feyd:
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:41 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 Nomic1@aol.com wrote: > "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or > Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the > departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x > coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. [[For example, a > Player at (12,3) gets transferred to (7,3) if the departing Player > was on file 12 or below.]] Files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are then removed > from the board, where n is the old number of Players and Reyalps." > > Now the first paragraph takes precedence over the second. This means > that as soon as Jon left, the X-coordinates were deleted. The x > coordinates DO NOT EXIST when the second paragraph comes into > effect. This states that players "whose x coordinate is equal to or > higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp..." shall be moved > down by 5. > > But this player doesn't have an x coordinate anymore by the first > paragraph (or some have proposed that that person is on an unknown > yet valid square). An (unknown quantity - 5) is still an unknown > quantity. Therefore players cannot be moved, and remain on an unkown > square. Please re-read the last paragraph of rule 318. It specifies an order to events when players leave. Sentence 1 : Players are moved up. Sentence 2 : Files are then deleted. I don't see any ambiguity there. I'm ignoring the comments when giving sentence numbers.
Feyd responds to some of the comments:
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:07:09 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Question On Jon Grimm Leaving. --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 Nomic1@a... wrote: > > > "When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player > > Please re-read the last paragraph of rule 318. It specifies an > order to events when players leave. Sentence 1 : Players are moved > up. Sentence 2 : Files are then deleted. I don't see any ambiguity > there. I'm ignoring the comments when giving sentence numbers. Good. While Doctroid's succinct "Horsesh*t" response didn't (quite) sway me, this does.
Feyd eventually decides to NOT vote to overrule Andre's judgement:
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:57:02 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position I think that the upshot of this discussion is that no one really know's WHERE Henry is, or whether that is a legal square or not. Given that, and Andre's analysis of: >Next, we get to the situation when Jon Grimm ceased to be a Reyalp. >At that time, we had to check whether Henry's position had to be >changed. Moving Henry at this time became a move 'the legality of >which cannot be determined with finality'. I think Rich has an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. But we are trying to subtract 5 from Rich's current X coordinate, and that isn't a know function. Therefore, even though it is not popular, I vote to uphold Andre's judgement.
Rich asks Feyd to explain his reasoning:
Date: 02 Feb 2001 15:13:36 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position Nomic1@aol.com writes: > I think Rich has an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. I request that you justify this decision. The rules don't require you to; all you have to do is say you don't vote to overrule Andre, and that's that. But given the chaos that would ensue if Andre's decision is upheld, versus the relative sanity my interpretation makes possible, I think you owe it to us to make your reasoning a little clearer.
And Feyd does:
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:42:16 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nomic1@a... writes: >> I think Rich has an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. > I request that you justify this decision. The rules don't require you to; all you have to do is say you don't vote to overrule Andre, and > that's that. But given the chaos that would ensue if Andre's decision > is upheld, versus the relative sanity my interpretation makes > possible, I think you owe it to us to make your reasoning a little > clearer. I think that's a reasonable request. BTW: Will those of you who voted to overturn Andre "because [you] don't want Rich to win" please give a fuller justification of your decision to overturn a Judge. ================POINT=============================== Item 1: Rule #213 states: "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner." Item 2: Rule #218 states: "...When a Player or Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate..." Counter #1: (Rich) Rich asserted that, though unlikely, Henry's square has reidentified itself from (40,20) to another, unknown but legal, cooridinate. ==============ANALYSIS=========================== Assume for sake of argument that Counter #3 is correct. According to Item 2 we must determine whether or not to subtract 5 from Henry's [unknown] position. While according to Counter #1 Henry is somewhere within the range of [0 - (#players + #reyalps)], you cannot specify that any further. Therefore you cannot determine what action to take in regards to Item #2 (i.e. subtract 5 or not). In sum, even by accepting you argument in message #390 (and a nice argument it was too), you get caught in a trap of not knowing how to process the portion of #318 mentioned in Item #2. Thus, by Item 1, a winner is declared. This happened before Rich took phase 4, so Rich is the winner of round 1. ===================NOTES============================ When I went back and reread Andre's Judgement, I discovered that I paraphrased him. I wrote the above without direct reference to his judgement however. I would much have preferred to vote to overturn. This *is* going to be more chaotic, but then this entire thing is more chaotic than pretending that Joe resigned immediately before #318 went into effect. We did not accept the "easier this way" argument then and I will not do it now.
Jeff writes an essay detailing his thoughts:
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:52:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Jeff's Analysis of the Situation Okay... I don't want to see Feyd reach the same conclusions as Andre, so I present my view of the situation: Before Proposal 318 passed, Henry was at (40, 20), a legal position according to rule 313, in effect at that time. Then proposal 318 passed which restricted x coordinates to 0 through 39. Henry's position no longer made sense. Did he move from the square? No. Rule 318 only allows players to move from one square to another only as specified by the rules. According to the rules, you can move only when it is your turn, or in the process of another player leaving the game. Neither of these two conditions apply, so Henry cannot move according to the rules. Has he been removed from the grid? No. Rule 318 also states that each player occupies a space on the grid. If Henry was no longer on the grid, that would violate this rule. Is he on a square with undefined coordinates? No. Rule 318 also states that squares have integer coordinates. There are no provisions for squares with undefined coordinates. So what happened to Henry? He is still on the grid somewhere. In fact, he is on the same square he has always been on. The square has defined coordinates, we just don't know what they are. Then Jon Grimm leaves the game. There are provisions for moving players around the grid at this time, but it requires knowing the positions of player in order to determine if they have to move or not. We know that Henry is on a specific portion of the grid, we just don't know where. We cannot legally determine whether he has to move at this time or not. At this point it makes sense to conclude a win by paradox, however lets take a second look. Henry is still on a square with defined coordinates. How is this possible? When proposal 318 passed, the coordinates on Henry's square became undefined. But, this is not allowed by rule 318, so the coordinates on his square must have changed to some defined value. The coordinates changed? Is that even legal? Well, nowhere in the rules does it state that squares have fixed coordinates. Also, the rules do not regulate how a square may change coordinates. Take a look at rule 116: 116 - Immutable - Initial Rule Whatever is not 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. Having a square change its coordinates is not prohibited, nor is it regulated by the rules. This opens a loophole that makes it leagal for Henry's square to change its coordinates. So, Henry's square has changed its coordinates to a legal value, we just don't know what that is. This problem can be easily solved by applying the same loophole again. Someone can simply proclaim that Henry's coordinates have changed to a known value. Of course, taking this approach opens a WIDE OPEN LOOPHOLE into the ruleset. But its the only alternative I can think of to alleviate the problem at hand. I would hope this situation is resolved quickly.
Rich has some problems with Feyd's reasoing:
Date: 02 Feb 2001 17:43:00 -0500
From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu
Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com
To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position
Nomic1@aol.com writes:
Let me see if I understand your argument. I don't believe the word
'move' in Rule 213 should be interpreted as non-synonymous with 'turn'
(an interpretation I admit can be argued either way). Presumably you
do, and you use this as the basis for your case.
Here's the situation:
1. Henry is at (40,20).
2. Joel leaves the game. Henry is still at (40,20).
3. Prop 318 passes. Game board shrinks.
4. I take Phase 4.
5. Jon leaves the game.
There are two general possibilities:
1. At step 3, Henry's coordinates did not change, or changed to
something illegal.
2. At step 3, Henry's coordinates changed to something legal.
We do not know Henry's coordinates. Contrary to Andre's judgement, he
may have legal coordinates, if he remains on the same square but the
square's coordinates change to legal ones.
You seem to be arguing that since we can't determine Henry's
coordinates, we can't determine whether they're legal, and so we can't
determine the legality of either of Henry's "moves" -- when Joel left,
and when Jon left.
(I believe that these are not "moves" in the sense in which the word
is meant in Rule 213.)
You then say
> This happened before Rich
> took phase 4, so Rich is the winner of round 1.
But the contraction of the game board happens outside the Turn
structure. The completion of a move does not require the completion
of the process of changing the game board. Nothing about the legality
or illegality of either of Henry's 'moves' affected my ability to
complete my Turn, and nothing prevents the next player from starting
and completing eir Turn except e may not start without our unanimous
consent to do so. So Rule 213 cannot create a winner until a
situation arises in which the completion of someone's Turn depends on
determining the legality of Henry's position. By the time that
happens, Henry's may be in a known and legal position -- e.g. if the
next turn results in passage of a Rule that says, among other things,
"Henry is moved to the square at (25,40) [or wherever]". Then the
present ambiguity will *never* result in an inability to complete a
Turn, and there will be no winner.
In any case, I claim I have completed my Turn and therefore cannot be
the winner.
Feyd respond's to Rich's criticism:
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:53:05 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position --- In n_omic@y..., rsholmes@m... wrote: > Nothing about the legality > or illegality of either of Henry's 'moves' affected my ability to > complete my Turn, and nothing prevents the next player from starting > and completing eir Turn except e may not start without our unanimous > consent to do so. a reyalp left between phase 3 & 4 of your turn. This caused judged to be invoked before your turn ended. >So Rule 213 cannot create a winner until a > situation arises in which the completion of someone's Turn depends on > determining the legality of Henry's position. That happened by #318 causing Henry to be moved (or not moved), and we being unable to determine whether to move him or not. > In any case, I claim I have completed my Turn and therefore cannot be the winner. Judgement was invoked before you did that.
Henry details his analysis of the situation:
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:08:20 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position Here's my analysis, which is similar, but not identical to Jeff's, so I'll only focus on the differences. First, a philosophical point. I think the clause being cited ("if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality...") is one to be reserved for extreme situations. It's intended for full blown paradox, not mere indeterminacy. Just because we don't know what the game state is doesn't mean that we have yet hit a paradox, it just means that not all information about the N_omic universe can be inferred from its rules and history (I'm thinking about it like an axiomatic theory in mathematics, where there are multiple models which can satisfy the axioms of the system). The assumption should be that if we don't know what happened, something legal happened, as long as there is any possible legal event. We know that players are always on a square, that squares always have coordinates within a certain range, and that players only move as specified by the rules. From this we can conclude that, when Joel left the game, the coordinate of my square must have changed, since that is the only possible event consistent with the rules. When Jon left the game, some players squares moved. Again, there is no uncertainty about legality. To paraphrase rule 318, when a Reyalp leaves the game, each remaining Player or Reyalp whose x coordinate is equal to or higher than that of the departing Player or Reyalp is transferred to the square with the x coordinate reduced by 5 and the same y coordinate. Now, we don't know whether or not the clause applies to me because we don't know what the coordinate of the square I was on was. If the square I was on had a high enough coordinate then I moved, otherwise I didn't. If the rules had declared that, no matter what, I moved 5 squares then someone would win because it would be impossible to determine whether or not I could move 5 squares legally; fortunately they don't say that. Feyd wrote that "That happened by #318 causing Henry to be moved (or not moved), and we being unable to determine whether to move him or not." I want to emphasize that that is not enough to trigger a win; we are unable to determine whether or not I move, but there is no question of legality. There is no reason to believe that the game could be in an illegal state. Jeff claimed that any player could declare what coordinate I am on and that that would be the case. I don't think that is sufficient; I could declare right now what square Jeff was on and I would be right or wrong but it would not effect the gamestate. It would require a rule change or judgement (and there are no grounds for such a judgement) to determine which of the possible gamestates is the "real one." Finally, as food for thought, the rules do not prohibit the changing of a square's coordinates, do not require that there be a square associated with every coordinate, and do not require that there be only one square associated with each coordinate.
Rich points out the grim consequences of Andre's judgement:
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 06:27:46 -0000 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] One more point... Andre's judgement is that I am the winner, because the ambiguity of Henry's position means I am unable to complete my turn. I disagree with that, but if Feyd does not support the overrule, Andre's judgement stands and I will abide by it. However: Andre and Feyd worry that I or someone else will win again, and again, until the situation is corrected. They are wrong. It's worse than that: IF IT IS TRUE I AM UNABLE TO COMPLETE MY TURN, THAT MEANS THE NEXT TURN CANNOT BEGIN. And that means this game of Nomic is over!
Rich feels that invocation #2 is illegal and invokes judgement on it:
Invocation #3
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:25:39 -0000 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position --- In n_omic@y..., Nomic1@a... wrote: > >So Rule 213 cannot create a winner until a > > situation arises in which the completion of someone's Turn depends > on > > determining the legality of Henry's position. > > That happened by #318 causing Henry to be moved (or not moved), and > we being unable to determine whether to move him or not. > > > > In any case, I claim I have completed my Turn and therefore cannot > be the winner. > > Judgement was invoked before you did that. Take another look at the ruleset. "Inability to complete a turn" refers to situations in which a Player cannot complete the actions of em required during a Turn. It DOES NOT refer to situations in which the only thing preventing the next Turn from starting is the invocation of Judgment itself. That is made clear by the following part of Rule 212: "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked." The present question -- "Does Henry occupy a legal position?" -- does NOT affect the completion of my Turn. Henry's position is irrelevant to the actions required to complete my Turn. Only the Judgment that was called on this question affects completion of my turn. I not only disagree with Andre's Judgment, but I assert that there was no cause to invoke Judgment in the first place. Let me give an example. Suppose my proposed rule-change had had an additional clause stating that it was legal for any player to move (for free) to the square Henry occupies, and that the rule-change passed. Suppose in Phase 4 I then said, "I move to (3,7)". Is that legal? It is if Henry is at (3,7), it isn't if he's not. Then the question of Henry's position would affect completion of my move, because knowledge of his position would be required to evaluate the legality of my move. But my proposal had no such provision, and I made no move (or rather, I made an illegal move intended to be ignored). Henry's position had no effect on completion of my Turn. Therefore the invocation of Judgment on Henry's position was invalid. That invocation of Judgment *does* affect completion of my turn. Therefore, I INVOKE JUDGMENT on the legality of the previous invocation of Judgment. That is, I ask the Judge to decide the following question: Does the ambiguity in Henry's position (as distinguished from the invocation of Judgment on that ambiguity) affect the completion of my Turn? If not -- as I claim it does not -- then the previous Judgment was invoked illegally and should be set aside. If, on the other hand, the ambiguity in Henry's position does prevent completion of my Turn, then the Judge must either resolve that ambiguity, enabling my Turn to be completed, or not, in which case my Turn cannot be completed and the game cannot continue.
Andre decides to change his original judgement:
Judgement #2 (b)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:22:01 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Judgement change Having read the discussion regarding my judgement, I have thought about it again, and found that there is some truth in the objections. I still do not buy the argument that Henry would be still on the same square, but with different coordinates. I also do not agree that 'move' is equal to 'turn'. However, what I do agree with is: 1. Henry possibly moving is not a move or part of a move. In my opinion, a move is an action of a player that has consequences for the game. In this case, what was going on was not player-caused but rule-caused. As such, it is not a move but an event. 2. Pointing to Rich as the winner would be incorrect anyway. Rule 213 says that "the first player unable to complete a turn" would be the winner. The problems that exist do not cause Rich to be unable to complete his turn and as such, could not be reason for me to declare him to be the winner. Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be resolved soon.
Jeff responds to Invocation #3:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:09:40 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu wrote: > Take another look at the ruleset. "Inability to complete a turn" > refers to situations in which a Player cannot complete the actions of > em required during a Turn. It DOES NOT refer to situations in which > the only thing preventing the next Turn from starting is the invocation > of Judgment itself. That is made clear by the following part of Rule > 212: The thing preventing you from completing your turn is that we don't know about what exactly happened when proposal 318 passed. This would be the case whether judgement was invoked or not. > "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on > which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of > the turn in which Judgment was invoked." Be sure to note that it also applies to issues in which the players currently disagree. I would say we certainly disagree on this issue. > The present question -- "Does Henry occupy a legal position?" -- does > NOT affect the completion of my Turn. Henry's position is irrelevant > to the actions required to complete my Turn. Only the Judgment that > was called on this question affects completion of my turn. I not only > disagree with Andre's Judgment, but I assert that there was no cause to > invoke Judgment in the first place. We disagreed on the interpretation of a rule. That is a perfectly justifiable reason to invoke judgement. Also, I would argue that since the invocation is about the application of a rule as it was just passed, including events that take place as a direct result of it passing, your turn cannot be completed until we determine the exact effect of that rule. I would argue you cannot (and did not) complete phase 3 until this is resolved. > Let me give an example. Suppose my proposed rule-change had had an > additional clause stating that it was legal for any player to move (for > free) to the square Henry occupies, and that the rule-change passed. > Suppose in Phase 4 I then said, "I move to (3,7)". Is that legal? It > is if Henry is at (3,7), it isn't if he's not. Then the question of > Henry's position would affect completion of my move, because knowledge > of his position would be required to evaluate the legality of my move. > > But my proposal had no such provision, and I made no move (or rather, I > made an illegal move intended to be ignored). Henry's position had no > effect on completion of my Turn. Therefore the invocation of Judgment > on Henry's position was invalid. > > That invocation of Judgment *does* affect completion of my turn. > Therefore, I INVOKE JUDGMENT on the legality of the previous invocation > of Judgment. That is, I ask the Judge to decide the following > question: Does the ambiguity in Henry's position (as distinguished from > the invocation of Judgment on that ambiguity) affect the completion of > my Turn? If not -- as I claim it does not -- then the previous > Judgment was invoked illegally and should be set aside. If, on the > other hand, the ambiguity in Henry's position does prevent completion > of my Turn, then the Judge must either resolve that ambiguity, enabling > my Turn to be completed, or not, in which case my Turn cannot be > completed and the game cannot continue. This is an easy one to decide. Judgement can be invoked when "players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule". Straight out of rule 212. We disagree on the interpretation or application of rule 318. My invocation is perfectly legal. Additionally, I also maintain that the completion of your turn is affected by the outcome of events directly related to proposal 318 passing.
Jeff argues that Andre can't change his judgement since Jeff (mistakenly) believes he was overruled:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:14:29 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > resolved soon. Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. Since you are no longer the judge, I don't think you can change your judgement... I would say you're going to have to invoke judgement regarding changing your own judgement in order to pull this one off...
Ross details his own opinion and plan to solve the problem:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 09:58:19 -0500 (EST) From: Ross B. SchulmanReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position Wow... this is quite a mess, isn't it? Well, just to set out my opinion and plan: I don't believe that Rich is the winner because I don't think Henry's position is of the right contradictory sort to fall into the game ending category (others have expressed this view better than I could and so I'll just leave it at that). However, after Rich wins and play passes to me, I'll include a clause in my proposal that will restore Henry to a valid square (since that is legal within the rules).
Jeff comes up with yet another potential solution:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:59:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Another thought to add to the fire... Just had another thought about the issue this morning. Take a look at this sentence from rule 212: 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 shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. Invocation #2 is regarding what happened to Henry when proposal 318 passed. The rules are clearly silent, inconsistent, or unclear on this issue. That leaves the judge able to use game custom and spirit of the game when judging this issue. That would allow the judge some lattitude to adopt a resolution like Rich's original plan, where we acted as if Joel left the game after proposal 318 passed. While this plan doesn't have a legal backing in the rules, one could argue that it, or another plan like it, is within the spirit of the game.
PDX points out that Andre was never overruled, and is still the current judge:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 02:45:09 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > > > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > > resolved soon. > > Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were > overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. Since you are no longer the > judge, I don't think you can change your judgement... I would say you're > going to have to invoke judgement regarding changing your own judgement in > order to pull this one off... Not true. I've been reading up on the discussion here and it's quite clear that Andre is still the Judge. MSG#400 and MSG#408 make this clear. Also, not everyone has voted yet. While this discussion has taken place, a couple people have added themselves to the game. As the vote was not finalized, the judgement didn't go into effect. In that time, the Judge change his position and ruled differently. This doesn't appear to conflict with any rules. The game then continues unless someone would foolishly attempt to overrule this new judgement.
Jeff recants his earlier objections to Andre changing his judgement:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:13:19 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > Not true. I've been reading up on the discussion here and it's quite > clear that Andre is still the Judge. MSG#400 and MSG#408 make this > clear. Also, not everyone has voted yet. While this discussion has > taken place, a couple people have added themselves to the game. > > As the vote was not finalized, the judgement didn't go into effect. > In that time, the Judge change his position and ruled differently. > This doesn't appear to conflict with any rules. The game then > continues unless someone would foolishly attempt to overrule this new > judgement. *sigh* Thank you for a voice of reason. I had misread Feyd's message (#400) as though he had voted to overrule and also misread message #408 as though he was issuing a judgement to keep Andre's original decision. My apologies. Andre is still the current judge. I guess there is no reason why he can't change his judgement...
Jeff still doesn't like Andre's new judgement:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:37:44 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Having read the discussion regarding my judgement, I have thought about it > again, and found that there is some truth in the objections. > > I still do not buy the argument that Henry would be still on the same square, > but with different coordinates. Hmm... So how did he move to a different square? Rule 318 states that: "Players and Reyalps may be moved from one square to another only as specified by the Rules." No provisions have been made in the rules for Henry to move to a different square. > However, what I do agree with is: > 1. Henry possibly moving is not a move or part of a move. In my opinion, a > move is an action of a player that has consequences for the game. In this > case, what was going on was not player-caused but rule-caused. As such, it > is not a move but an event. *Everything* in this game is rule-caused. When a player takes a turn, it is caused by a rule. When a player moves from one square to another during phase 4, it is caused by a rule. Since the rules are written by the players, I would argue that everything is also player-caused. In this particular case, the "event" was caused by the enactment of rule 318 from Rich's proposal; a player action. > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > resolved soon. I don't buy this judgement either. I feel it leaves us with the very same situation we started with. I don't feel the game can continue with Henry in an indeterminate position. I feel there are ways within the rules permitting us to determine where Henry is. I still vote to overrule this judgement.
PDX comes up with yet another potential solution:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:01:59 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Another resolution to #318 It isn't a valid rule. I quote from 316 on the voting phase, "If any single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that proposal, are discarded and not enacted." You also loose 5 points. We already know that Henry is at position (40,20). When Rule 318 goes into effect, it claims that X coordinate 40 doesn't exist. This is clearly wrong unless we're willing to go along with some clever mind bending argument that the coordinate of a square is not the same as the square. We may consider 318 illegal because it contradicts the existing game state. It states that no player can be on square X > 39, and yet here is Henry at (40,20). Rule 318 is illegal and thus according to rule 316 should be discarded. This follows cleanly from the spirit of rule 316 and should be within the judges discretion. Note this skips past rule 115. Rule 318 is invalid not due to self-application, but due to contradiction with the game state. It states something about the game space that simply is not true. NOTE: This is purely accidemic at this point since Andre already changed his judgement.
PDX responds to Jeff's objections regarding Andre's new judgement:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:17:54 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change > > Thus, I hereby change my judgement (calling for judgement first if so needed) > > to state that we still do not know where Henry is, but that Rich has not won > > the game, and that the game simply continues with Henry in an indeterminate > > position. The problems that I thought occurred might occur if Henry tries to > > make a move, by the way, and I sincerely hope that the problem will be > > resolved soon. > > I don't buy this judgement either. I feel it leaves us with the > very same situation we started with. I don't feel the game can continue > with Henry in an indeterminate position. I feel there are ways within the > rules permitting us to determine where Henry is. I still vote to overrule > this judgement. It seems clear to me that Andre is not a Mathematician. If we accept that rule #318 is valid, then we must accept that Henry's X coordinate is within the allowable range (0,39), call it henry_x. He location is EXACTLY (henry_x, 20), then we remove players that have left the game. This updates his position to ( if(henry_x > expired_players_x) then henry_x - 5 else henry_x, 20 ). This is a perfectly well defined location, it just makes accounting a little annoying. There is nothing in the rules stating that we must know the value of henry_x. Further calculations are not a problem. The only problem is when you must invoke a decision based on the value of henry_x. For instance, is Henry's score over 200? Did he win? >From the equation that represents his score, we can deduce that it currently is less than 200. Only at a point at which this is not known does it cause difficulty in continuing with the game. Besides, the very next rule proposed should establish where Henry is located and hopefully resolve such future problems.
Jeff responds to PDX's comments:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:24:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > It seems clear to me that Andre is not a Mathematician. If we accept > that rule #318 is valid, then we must accept that Henry's X coordinate > is within the allowable range (0,39), call it henry_x. He location is > EXACTLY (henry_x, 20), then we remove players that have left the > game. This updates his position to ( if(henry_x > expired_players_x) > then henry_x - 5 else henry_x, 20 ). This is a perfectly well defined > location, it just makes accounting a little annoying. There is > nothing in the rules stating that we must know the value of henry_x. > Further calculations are not a problem. You assume that Henry is still in a position where the Y coordinate is 20. The current judgement puts Henry in an indeterminate location, including an unknown Y coordinate. What if Henry is at Y = 0? He's gained 100 points and everyone has moved elsewhere... Also, we've had two players join the game since Henry's position became indeterminate. Look at how we handle new players (from rule 318): When a new Player enters the game, files (n-1)*5 to n*5-1 are added to the board and the new Player is placed on square ((n-1)*5, j), where n is the new number of Players and Reyalps and j is the mean value of the y coordinate of all the other Players and Reyalps, rounded to the nearest integer. We need to know the mean value of the Y coordinates of all the other players to determine where the new players get placed. This situation just gets uglier and uglier... > The only problem is when you must invoke a decision based on the value > of henry_x. For instance, is Henry's score over 200? Did he win? > >From the equation that represents his score, we can deduce that it > currently is less than 200. Only at a point at which this is not > known does it cause difficulty in continuing with the game. > > Besides, the very next rule proposed should establish where Henry is > located and hopefully resolve such future problems. We need to know where he is now. I don't see any other way around it. We can probably get by for a turn or so with just his X coordinate being indeterminate, but since his entire position along both directions is indeterminate, it presents a problem that needs to be solved now.
Jeff likes PDX's idea so much that he Invokes Judgement using it:
Invocation #4
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:32:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Another resolution to #318 On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > It isn't a valid rule. I quote from 316 on the voting phase, "If any > single rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that > rule change, along with all higher numbered rule changes in that > proposal, are discarded and not enacted." You also loose 5 points. > > We already know that Henry is at position (40,20). When Rule 318 goes > into effect, it claims that X coordinate 40 doesn't exist. This is > clearly wrong unless we're willing to go along with some clever mind > bending argument that the coordinate of a square is not the same as > the square. > > We may consider 318 illegal because it contradicts the existing game > state. It states that no player can be on square X > 39, and yet here > is Henry at (40,20). Rule 318 is illegal and thus according to rule > 316 should be discarded. This follows cleanly from the spirit of rule > 316 and should be within the judges discretion. > > Note this skips past rule 115. Rule 318 is invalid not due to > self-application, but due to contradiction with the game state. It > states something about the game space that simply is not true. You know what... The more I think about it, the more I like this solution. I like it so much that I Invoke Judgement using it as a basis. Invocation #4 : I argue that rule-change 318 is illegal since it contradicts the existing game state. Rule 316 allows for illegal rule-changes to be discarded and not enacted. I call for this to take place. As support for my invocation, I use PDX's original message, quoted above.
PDX wants to write a thesis on the quantum physics of N_omic:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 08:24:37 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > > You assume that Henry is still in a position where the Y > coordinate is 20. The current judgement puts Henry in an indeterminate > location, including an unknown Y coordinate. What if Henry is at Y = 0? > He's gained 100 points and everyone has moved elsewhere... Also, we've had > two players join the game since Henry's position became indeterminate. Yes, the Y coordinate needs to be known otherwise the game will fall into itself; grinding to a halt as no-one can keep up with the game state. He he... another crazy idea: consider it like quantum physics. Henry's position is "all possible positions with equal probability", until the probability field collapses into a given state with 100% probability. The position of new players would be based on this probability field, as would points, etc. Of course, we couldn't declair winners until the probability of them winning is 1. This could be a lot of fun! Finally, a use for my degree. However, I'm with you on supporting that rule 318 is illegal. My argument is on shaky ground, but rule 212 does provide that the Judge has some discretion "...when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue..." This is clearly the case here. And if Andre does accept that 318 is illegal, he will not be overruled. Andre's second judgement should be overruled if he does not decide to change it again. Andre? BTW: I just finished reading the entire N_omic archive. Very interesting! Well done!
Yet another player (Andre) reminds Jeff that Andre wasn't overruled:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:15:26 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were > overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. I was not overruled. Only an anonymous vote among the remaining players can overrule my judgement, and Feyd voted against the overruling.
Andre argues against PDX's probability theory:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:25:15 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > Yes, the Y coordinate needs to be known otherwise the game will fall > into itself; grinding to a halt as no-one can keep up with the game > state. He he... another crazy idea: consider it like quantum > physics. Henry's position is "all possible positions with equal > probability", until the probability field collapses into a given state > with 100% probability. That does not work - there exists no uniform probability distribution on the integers.
PDX teaches everyone some of the finer points of probability theory:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 18:55:56 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change Really? I can declare a probability field as long as the sum(i in I, P(i)) = 1, where I is the set of all integers and P(i) is the probability of i. Being uniform mearly means that P(i) = P(j) for all i and j in I. This is clearly reasonable when you consider that you can have a probability field over the real numbers. There are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers. In fact, a gausian distribution covers all real numbers. Just becuase P(i) is so small that no-one can tell you what it is doesn't mean that it can't exist in mathematics. It's been quite a few years since I got my degree in Pure and Applied Mathematics, but I'm sure I haven't missed on this one. Besides, I really think you should change your judement and declair #318 to be illegal. We'll have a hell of a time educating everyone about the finer points of mathematics. I remember tutoring students and teaching pre-calculus; I don't care to do it over the web. PDX --- In n_omic@y..., Andre Engelswrote: > pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > > Yes, the Y coordinate needs to be known otherwise the game will fall > > into itself; grinding to a halt as no-one can keep up with the game > > state. He he... another crazy idea: consider it like quantum > > physics. Henry's position is "all possible positions with equal > > probability", until the probability field collapses into a given state > > with 100% probability. > > That does not work - there exists no uniform probability distribution > on the integers.
Jeff - Open Mouth, Insert Foot:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:20:03 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Judgement change On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Andre Engels wrote: > Jeffrey J. Weston wrote: > > > Wow... Talk about a whole other can of worms... You were > > overruled, so Feyd is the current judge. > > I was not overruled. Only an anonymous vote among the remaining players > can overrule my judgement, and Feyd voted against the overruling. Yeah, my bad. I didn't read Feyd's posts properly. I accept that you can change your judgement regarding invocation #2. However, we still are waiting for judgements on invocations #3 and #4...
Rich argues against the claims that rule-change 318 is illegal:
Date: 04 Feb 2001 15:31:10 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Another resolution to #318 "Jeffrey J. Weston"writes: > Invocation #4 : > > I argue that rule-change 318 is illegal since it contradicts the > existing game state. Rule 316 allows for illegal rule-changes to be > discarded and not enacted. I call for this to take place. As support for > my invocation, I use PDX's original message, quoted above. If the rules prohibited or regulated changing the coordinates of a square, I'd say there was a good case for Jeff's contention. As it is, Rule 318 does not contradict the gamestate; it implicitly changes it by changing Henry's square's coordinate. Nothing in the rules prohibits that, and Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules (Rule 116).
Rich argues for ruling Invocation #2 illegal:
Date: 04 Feb 2001 15:34:24 -0500 From: rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position "Jeffrey J. Weston"writes: > The thing preventing you from completing your turn is that we > don't know about what exactly happened when proposal 318 passed. This > would be the case whether judgement was invoked or not. Nothing about our lack of knowledge impedes the completion of the acts which constitute my Turn. > > "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on > > which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of > > the turn in which Judgment was invoked." > > Be sure to note that it also applies to issues in which the > players currently disagree. I would say we certainly disagree on this > issue. The word "and" in the quoted rule is crucial. We can disagree all we like, but if the disagreement doesn't affect completion of the Turn, it's not subject to Judgment.
PDX tries to move the game along:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:56:27 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn Andre made a judgement that Henry's position is indeterminant. Thus all new players including myself have an indeterminant position as well. I'm willing to live with this, though the situation best be corrected very soon. As per 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." It says nothing about multiple invocations of judgement, merely that we need a majority to continue the game. Do you consent to start the next turn?
Ross also wants the game to move along:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:59:54 -0500 (EST) From: Ross B. SchulmanReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn I consent to start the next turn (mine) and I'll throw something in to move Henry to somewhere legal.
Henry also wants the game to move along:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:33:36 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn >I consent to start the next turn (mine) and I'll throw something in to >move Henry to somewhere legal. I consent to start the next turn.
Jeff argues the finer points of the English language:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position On 4 Feb 2001 rsholmes@mailbox.syr.edu wrote: > Nothing about our lack of knowledge impedes the completion of the acts > which constitute my Turn. The exact effects of rule 318, enacted during your turn are undetermined. One of the potential resolutions is that rule-change 318 is deemed illegal. Now, especially since there is an invocation claiming that rule-change 318 is illegal, you cannot complete phase 3 until that is resolved. > > > > "New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on > > > which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of > > > the turn in which Judgment was invoked." > > > > Be sure to note that it also applies to issues in which the > > players currently disagree. I would say we certainly disagree on this > > issue. > > The word "and" in the quoted rule is crucial. We can disagree all we > like, but if the disagreement doesn't affect completion of the Turn, > it's not subject to Judgment. The English language is quite fickle in what the word "and" means in these situations. If this were a mathmatical statement, or computer program, then we could conclude the "and" is a logical "and", requiring that both conditions are true. But, since this is English prose, another logical conclusion for the meaning of "and", is to replace it with the phrase "in addition to", such that questions which meet either condition are subject to judgement. If you still don't believe this is the case, consider the consequences of your interpretation. We would only be able to invoke judgement on things affecting the completion of the turn in which judgement was invoked. Let's say its Feyd's turn and Henry decides that there is a loophole in the rules allowing his current square to change coordinates, and he announces his coordinates have changed to (0, 0), he gains 100 points, and everyone moves according to the rules. Most likely the players would disagree with Henry's interpretation of the rules and would invoke judgement to prevent those actions. But wait! The actions don't really affect Feyd completing his turn, so the judge is powerless to do anything about it. Sound absurd? Not really. This is Nomic. There are limitless things that the players can disagree with that may or may not affect the completion of the current turn. Whether they do or not doesn't matter. All of them are equally important. Preventing the judge from dealing with these issues would be suicide for the game. I would say the spirit of the rule allows the judge to settle questions on which the players currently disagree in addition to those questions which affect the completion of the current turn.
PDX has some thoughts about who has the next turn:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:56:44 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Chris Moyer will be next. New players joined the game while still in Rich Holmes turn. The ones before your turn are Chris Moyer and PDX Nomic in that order. We both have indeterminant positions until Henry's position is established. I don't see that we have too much of a problem with this as yet. Something simple like "All players shall take on known positions on the board in accordance to rule 318 as though they were added to the game in the order in which they appear on the roster at the moment this rule is enacted." PDX --- In n_omic@y..., "Ross B. Schulman"wrote: > I consent to start the next turn (mine) and I'll throw something in to > move Henry to somewhere legal.
Jeff is not willing to give up his crusade at this time:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:53:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] I give my consent to start the next turn On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > Andre made a judgement that Henry's position is indeterminant. Thus > all new players including myself have an indeterminant position as > well. I'm willing to live with this, though the situation best be > corrected very soon. > > As per 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." It says nothing about multiple invocations of > judgement, merely that we need a majority to continue the game. > > Do you consent to start the next turn? No, I do not give my consent to start the next turn. We have two invocations that have not been judged yet, one determining the legality of rule-change 318 and whether is was even enacted in the first place. If Andre judges that rule-change 318 was never enacted in the first place, it would certainly affect upcoming turns.
PDX wishes that Jeff would just let it go:
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:17:48 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > On 4 Feb 2001 rsholmes@m... wrote: > > > Nothing about our lack of knowledge impedes the completion of the acts > > which constitute my Turn. > > The exact effects of rule 318, enacted during your turn are > undetermined. One of the potential resolutions is that rule-change 318 is > deemed illegal. Now, especially since there is an invocation claiming that > rule-change 318 is illegal, you cannot complete phase 3 until that is > resolved. You're being redundant. The invocation of judgement has already been invoked for rule #318 and a judgement has been given. It now only requires a majority of consent to continue to the next turn. We have consent from 3 of the required 5. Two more people must give consent, and we move on to the next turn. If Andre agrees with this, then you have no grounds to persist with this debate. He is the Judge. I, however, do admire your persistance. If you dissagree with this assesment, then consider the consequences. A "bad apple" could halt the game simply by continually "invoking judgement" on one nonsensicle issue after another. This is why it requires only the consent of the majority of players to continue to the next turn. > The English language is quite fickle in what the word "and" means > in these situations. If this were a mathmatical statement, or computer > program, then we could conclude the "and" is a logical "and", requiring > that both conditions are true. But, since this is English prose, another > logical conclusion for the meaning of "and", is to replace it with the > phrase "in addition to", such that questions which meet either condition > are subject to judgement. Absolutely correct! Well done. > If you still don't believe this is the case, consider the > consequences of your interpretation. We would only be able to invoke > judgement on things affecting the completion of the turn in which > judgement was invoked. Let's say its Feyd's turn and Henry decides that > there is a loophole in the rules allowing his current square to change > coordinates, and he announces his coordinates have changed to (0, 0), he > gains 100 points, and everyone moves according to the rules. Most likely > the players would disagree with Henry's interpretation of the rules and > would invoke judgement to prevent those actions. But wait! The actions > don't really affect Feyd completing his turn, so the judge is powerless to > do anything about it. Bah! That's what I was going to do...
Jeff sees some serious scamming in our immediate future:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:07:53 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Chris Moyer will be next. On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > New players joined the game while still in Rich Holmes turn. The ones > before your turn are Chris Moyer and PDX Nomic in that order. We both > have indeterminant positions until Henry's position is established. I > don't see that we have too much of a problem with this as yet. There are still more consequences to this approach. If Henry's position is undetermined, his location may be where Y = 0, and he has gained 100 points. If that is so, all players have moved as a result. Also, Chris's and PDX's positions are undetermined, so they may or may not have gained 100 points along the same method as well. So ALL players have undetermined positions, as they may or may not of moved as a result of Henry, Chris, and PDX possibly being in a position where Y = 0. Also, Henry, Chris and PDP have undetermined point scores, since they may or may not have gained the 100 points. Now fortunately none of those players have the possibility of winning the game yet, so we don't have to deal with an undetermined winner... Does this situation make anyone else cringe? > Something simple like "All players shall take on known positions on > the board in accordance to rule 318 as though they were added to the > game in the order in which they appear on the roster at the moment > this rule is enacted." I suppose something like this will work... It does take care of the undetermined positions of every player. You should also throw in definite values for Henry's, Chris's, and PDX's scores just to settle the undetermined nature of their scores. I just hope the next player doesn't rake us over a barrel by throwing in a rule change no one would vote for, except that we have to vote for it to resolve the issues at hand... What happens if the proposal solving this dilemma is voted down?
Jeff still on his crusade:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:28:19 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Judgement on Henry's position On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > You're being redundant. The invocation of judgement has already been > invoked for rule #318 and a judgement has been given. It now only > requires a majority of consent to continue to the next turn. We have > consent from 3 of the required 5. Two more people must give consent, > and we move on to the next turn. If Andre agrees with this, then you > have no grounds to persist with this debate. He is the Judge. I, > however, do admire your persistance. *sigh* Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse here... But seeing as I have nothing better to do on a lovely Sunday afternoon... The original invocation (#2) was regarding the effects of proposal 318 passing. My second invocation (#4) is regarding the legality of enacting rule-change 318 in the first place. They seem like two seperate issues to me. If the judge rules that #4 is superfluous, then so be it. However, until any judgement of any sort is made on #4, there is the potential to affect future game play. That is why I refuse to consent, and advise others to do the same. If the players do consent to move on with the next turn anyways, I will abide by that and cease further discussion on the issue. However, I will be tracking the undetermined nature of the gamestate, and will be quick to point out additional problems as they arise. > If you dissagree with this assesment, then consider the consequences. > A "bad apple" could halt the game simply by continually "invoking > judgement" on one nonsensicle issue after another. This is why it > requires only the consent of the majority of players to continue to > the next turn. Quite correct, and I wholly agree. I am not trying to be a "bad apple" with my second invocation. I was trying to force consideration of an alternate solution that would be much simpler. I wonder... If game play contiues before the remaining invocations have been judged, what happens to them?
PDX tries to assure everyone that everything will be okay, except for that bit about the pistol:
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:29:48 -0000 From: pdx_nomic@yahoo.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Chris Moyer will be next. --- In n_omic@y..., "Jeffrey J. Weston"wrote: > There are still more consequences to this approach. If Henry's > position is undetermined, his location may be where Y = 0, and he has > gained 100 points. If that is so, all players have moved as a result. > Also, Chris's and PDX's positions are undetermined, so they may or may not > have gained 100 points along the same method as well. So ALL players have > undetermined positions, as they may or may not of moved as a result of > Henry, Chris, and PDX possibly being in a position where Y = 0. Also, > Henry, Chris and PDP have undetermined point scores, since they may or may > not have gained the 100 points. Now fortunately none of those players have > the possibility of winning the game yet, so we don't have to deal with an > undetermined winner... Does this situation make anyone else cringe? Not too bad of a situation really. Simply recal that we have no idea where he is on the y-axis, thus he has an equal chance of being anywhere on the y-axis. P(Y = 0) is negligable as it is infinitely small. BTW, no insults please. :+> PDP indeed. > > Something simple like "All players shall take on known positions on > > the board in accordance to rule 318 as though they were added to the > > game in the order in which they appear on the roster at the moment > > this rule is enacted." > > I suppose something like this will work... It does take care of > the undetermined positions of every player. You should also throw in > definite values for Henry's, Chris's, and PDX's scores just to settle the > undetermined nature of their scores. No need based on my above analysis. Though it wouldn't hurt. > I just hope the next player doesn't rake us over a barrel by > throwing in a rule change no one would vote for, except that we have to > vote for it to resolve the issues at hand... What happens if the proposal > solving this dilemma is voted down? We'll deal with it when we get there. However, by looking at this with statistics, we shouldn't have too much trouble muddling through it. I'm a little suprised that you haven't pointed out the problem with Labels. "pistol" is no longer a valid label, yet 318 requires its use as a Label. Again, it's inconsistant with the game state. However, a judgement ruling to disregard that part of the rule would be consistant with the spirit of the rule. Of course, the players would prefer to follow the "letter" of the rule instead of the "spirit" of the rule. Otherwise, we would simply have moved Henry's position in accordance to the spirit of rule 318 as was originally recommended. I do prefer the idea that 318 is illegal and should be discarded. I've had my fun debating this issue and feel that I and the majority of other players would simply like to continue with the game. The game has to be fun for everyone, otherwise they won't want to play.
Jeff isn't too worried about the pistol:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:28:01 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey J. WestonReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] Re: Chris Moyer will be next. On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 pdx_nomic@yahoo.com wrote: > Not too bad of a situation really. Simply recal that we have no idea > where he is on the y-axis, thus he has an equal chance of being > anywhere on the y-axis. P(Y = 0) is negligable as it is infinitely > small. > > BTW, no insults please. :+> PDP indeed. Whoops! Sorry... I knew I would do that eventually. PDP is a common abbreviations we are using in DocNomic. My hands are just so used to typing it I guess. > I'm a little suprised that you haven't pointed out the problem with > Labels. "pistol" is no longer a valid label, yet 318 requires its use > as a Label. Again, it's inconsistant with the game state. However, a > judgement ruling to disregard that part of the rule would be > consistant with the spirit of the rule. Of course, the players would > prefer to follow the "letter" of the rule instead of the "spirit" of > the rule. Otherwise, we would simply have moved Henry's position in > accordance to the spirit of rule 318 as was originally recommended. Yeah, I did notice it. I just thought it would be easier to just ignore it though. Now that you have brought it up however... ;-> Nah... I don't want a mob coming after me trying to forcibly remove me from the game with a nasty proposal of some sort... > I do prefer the idea that 318 is illegal and should be discarded. I've > had my fun debating this issue and feel that I and the majority of > other players would simply like to continue with the game. The game > has to be fun for everyone, otherwise they won't want to play. I prefer that idea as well. Now if only we can convince Andre to issue a judgement along those lines... :) Preferably before we consent to start the next turn... Ah well. I think I'll stop beating this dead horse and go start finding some horses to beat in the N_omic Forum.
Henry sees an easy way to solve this whole mess:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:03:29 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] State collapse In an attempt to figure out what the current gamestate is (and perhaps take a small profit in the possible), I note that "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated" and that while movement of players is prohibited, alteration of coordinates is not. Therefore, I change the coordinates of the square I am on to (1,0). Empowered by rule 318, I move the other players as follows: Henry: (0,20) Feyd: (5,20) Andre: (10,20) Rich: (15,20) Chris: (20,20) PDX: (25,20) Ross: (30,20) Eric: (35,20) Jeff: (40,20) I believe this resolves all current ambiguities in the gamestate, although it will take the return of a few judgements to verify that.
Henry sums up his thoughts on all of the outstanding Invocations:
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:58:20 -0800 From: Henry TowsnerReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Current situation There are three disputes currently on the table, and having finally looked over them, I'm going to offer my opinions on them. Judgement 2: To briefly reiterate my position, I think that the gamestate is currently ambiguous, since while we know that the coordintes of the square I am on were changed to something which complies with the rules, we do not, at this time, have enough information to determine where that is. As a consequence, certain other players also have ambiguous positions. I do not believe there is anything in this ambiguity preventing the game from proceeding. Judgement 3: I see no problem with invocation 2. The initial clause describing invocation of judgement says judgement may be invoked "If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule". The later clause specifically refers to "new" judges, and is a limitation on reopening previously decided issues. As such I don't think it applies to an issue on which a judge has not already ruled. Judgement 4: Rule 316 states that "If any...rule change is found to be illegal according to the rules, that rule change [is] discarded and not enacted." Proposal 318 states that "The x coordinates range from 0 to (5*n-1), where n is the current number of Players and Reyalps." There are two possible resolutions to this: 1) Proposal 318 failed because it did not accord with the gamestate 2) Proposal 318 succeeded and altered the gamestate (with subsequent confusing effects) After some thought, I think the second version is the correct one. This seems like a somewhat philosophical point about the relationship between the rules and the rest of the gamestate. In my opinion, the rules shape the "world" and as such it exists only as defined by the rules. The rules used to say the grid was infinite, now they say it is finite. If the old clause had been left in the rules than the rule change would have failed, however since it removed the old clause, the gamestate was changed to accord with the new rules, resulting in judgement 2.
Andre isn't about to let Henry's little scam succeed:
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:52:04 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [n_omic] State collapse Henry Towsner wrote: > In an attempt to figure out what the current gamestate is > (and perhaps take a small profit in the possible), I note that > "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and > unregulated" and that while movement of players is prohibited, > alteration of coordinates is not. > > Therefore, I change the coordinates of the square I am on to > (1,0). Being as I am from Agora, my immediate reaction is: You are _allowed_ to change the coordinates of your square, but that does not mean that you are _able_ to do so, and it certainly does not mean that you can do so simply by saying that you do it.
Andre issues his second ruling:
Judgement #3
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:59:46 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Judgement on #3 I have been asked for Judgement by Richard Holmes on whether the matter in my first Judgement does affect the completion of his turn. My Judgement here is that it does affect the completion of the turn. I would like to use a broader interpretation of 'affect the completion of the turn' than Richard seems to accept. In particular, in my opinion, a matter 'affects the completion of the turn' whenever it affects the _way_ in which the turn ends, that is, the game state at the end of the turn.
Andre issues his third ruling:
Judgement #4
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:06:37 +0100 (MET) From: Andre EngelsReply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Judgement on #4 The matter regarding Invocation #4 is, whether Rule Change 318 is illegal, because it contradicts the current gamestate. My judgement is that it is not illegal. Nowhere is it stated that it is illegal for the Rules to contradict each other, or the game state. Far from it, there even exist Rules (110, 211) to deal with such a situation. Because, in my opinion, it is not illegal for a Rule to state a falsity, it is also not illegal for a Rule Change to create such a rule. Thus, there is no reason to assume that Rule Change 318 was illegal.
Feyd admits he has some real math skills:
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:19:27 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Re: Judgement change --- In n_omic@y..., pdx_nomic@y... wrote: > > Besides, I really think you should change your judement and declair > #318 to be illegal. We'll have a hell of a time educating everyone > about the finer points of mathematics. I remember tutoring students > and teaching pre-calculus; I don't care to do it over the web. > True confession time -- I gotta math minor and some grad work in math, I can keep up with the discussion. I think you would be suprised as to the amount of mathematics this group can take. But I would rather deal with "rock", "paper", "house".
Feyd invokes judgement regarding Henry's little scam:
Invocation #5
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 16:01:59 -0000 From: Nomic1@aol.com Reply-To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com To: n_omic@yahoogroups.com Subject: [n_omic] Invoke Judgement Re: State collapse Cool. I get to be a bad apple too! [[Note: I go away for a weekend and see what happens! No wonder nothing is going on in DocNomic, all the action is going on over here!.]] I invoke judgement on the following grounds: a. *IF* Henry is at an indeterminate position, there in no indication in the rules that Henry can set his own co-ordinate plane. b. The "spirit of the rules & game", as well as consensus discussion during the Great 318 Debate [[please notice the pleasing alliterative flow]] tends to indicate that coordinates do NOT just change themselves with no reason, nor by player fiat. c. Given a & b, Henry cannot define indeterminate to be (1,0). As an aside, several of us have seen a scam in here in redefining our coordinate position, rather than moving. I would strongly encourage a conservative interpretation of B. Feyd Feyd --- In n_omic@y..., Henry Towsner wrote: > In an attempt to figure out what the current gamestate is > (and perhaps take a small profit in the possible), I note that > "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and > unregulated" and that while movement of players is prohibited, > alteration of coordinates is not. > Therefore, I change the coordinates of the square I am on to > (1,0). Empowered by rule 318, I move the other players as follows: > Henry: (0,20) > Feyd: (5,20) > Andre: (10,20) > Rich: (15,20) > Chris: (20,20) > PDX: (25,20) > Ross: (30,20) > Eric: (35,20) > Jeff: (40,20) > > I believe this resolves all current ambiguities in the > gamestate, although it will take the return of a few judgements to > verify that.