that the truth of
the Riemann hypothesis is undetermined, maybe the action just fails for
lack of clarity.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>The proposal in question repealed points, and enacted Marks which were
>used for officer salaries and such.
Marks already existed, and IIRC by this point they were already used
quite a lot. The proposal (2662) merely repealed Points.
>Zefram [2] spent a few months wo
Elliott Hird wrote:
>perhaps we should platonically
>declare that all nomics are Protectorates?
We could, but it doesn't seem very useful.
>Nothing in the laws of physics gives effect to the rules of Agora.
Agora doesn't need the approval of the laws of physics. Agora is sovereign.
-zefram
mic! Here are the rules:
These rules are, of course, not "the rules" of Agora, to which CFJ
24 refers.
>4. ehird can create rules in Agora,
This mechanism is trivially ineffective in Agora, because nothing in
Agora gives effect to the rules of your nomic.
-zefram
rk, then the FLRs that you ratified preclude the
existence of any rules that you didn't list, so the only rule in existence
now would be R9998.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. All rules are amendable, but some are more amendable than others.
How can the second part self-execute?
-zefram
gain?
And then again, because they still "deregistered" (in the past).
Either that or it can't be awarded at all until the person who left
comes back, because immediately after deregistration e's not a player
and so doesn't qualify as "any player who ...".
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
>I submit a proposal, with the title "Export",
Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics?
Seems like a momentous occasion.
-zefram
ehird wrote:
>No... because you actually said that you came off hold.
Yes, I did. I was mistaken about what you were saying "don't be so
sure" about. Sorry.
-zefram
I wrote:
>Is that a threat to falsify your log?
Ah, I've looked at the context again, and this interpretation doesn't
make sense. (I thought the "don't be so sure" was replying to "e
reactivated emself".)
-zefram
ehird wrote:
>Don't be so sure...
Is that a threat to falsify your log?
-zefram
comex wrote:
>I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
-zefram
current date.
>The scam itself fails for all sorts of reasons
Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
>X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That one's definitely a date
>stamp!
Saying it doesn't make it so.
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
>Date: 30 June 1993 00:04:30 +1200
It's a pity the Truthfulness rule is gone. This would have been a
great CFJ.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>This I the a CFJ. statement: is on CFJ
Not an obvious transformation from plain English, so not a reasonable
synonym for anything. Random shuffling of words is a patently
unreasonable form of communication.
-zefram
f R104, has a special meaning, though: it refers to the period from
the inception of Agora until the first win. That's an historical usage,
based on the game structure that existed at the time.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>Anyone have the script for FLR-->SLR?
Attached.
-zefram
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use IO::Handle;
{
my $peeked_line;
sub peekline() {
unless(defined $peeked_line) {
local $/
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Aha, this was ineffective due to being sent during the discussion
>period;
Grumble. Why did you say "I need votes" when votes weren't actually valid?
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
> If you have a record of voting to lynch Pavitra, then
>please re-send it and I'll announce corrected results.
|Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:02:13 +0100
|From: Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Subject: Re: D
e rules anyway. It was a deliberately false statement,
and that *does* violate the rules.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Anything about this in particular that I could change to get your vote?
I dislike the general concept of a profusion of chambers, so no.
-zefram
arguments. As worded, neither of
>these judgements are appropriate if the panel feels that the judgement
>is appropriate but the arguments insufficient.}
Yes, this is also an intentional feature of the rule.
-zefram
Charles Reiss wrote:
>Also, there should be a strong presumption that excersizing R101
>rights is equitable in order to avoid abridging those rights in an
>equity judgment.
Aha, finally some judicial precedent on what R101 rights mean.
An excellent principle.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>A non-player, therefore, is not a party to the rules.
The rules are not presently adjudicated as a contract.
>Also, the normal meaning of the term "player" is a participant in a
>game.
Agora has a different definition.
-zefram
cally assigned a particular instant for many
legal purposes. Some day this distinction will matter, but I think in
this case the "instant" model is workable.
-zefram
ur of an identical proposal in a
few months.
-zefram
nly single proposals.
-zefram
e 402.
You'll have to repeal rule 103 as well to make the speakership behave
as a card.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Zefram, I'm wondering if the abuse modifies your general "Proposals
>should be Free" stance
Not much. I'm still firmly opposed to requiring payment to submit
proposals or get them distributed, and also opposed to tight rate
limiting and other art
statements otherwise. They create
no ambiguity as to what the subjects of the CFJ is when there is no
explicit delimitation.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
Ah, you're one of those "faith-based" politicians.
-zefram
ihope wrote:
>Now, assuming that "Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge"
>works,
I don't think it does. Ivan Hope is not actually contravening any
obligation imposed by the pledge, so e is not in violation of it.
The quoted clause is just a false statement.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>[Aside: when something is undefined, therefore ceasing to exist,
>is a thing which is later redefined under the same name the same
>thing?]
Patent titles retain their identity, though they don't cease to exist
when not specifically defined. CFJ 1525.
-zefram
have here is with statements that the rules *don't* ascribe
any significance to, because they describe impossible actions. The rules
don't distinguish between "I'm voting FOR proposal 1234." (outside the
proposal's voting period) and "I'm washing my dog." (when the rules
don't define washing or dogs).
-zefram
disclaim
any other reason for it to be false. Combining it logically with the
action statement, it is effectively a synonym for the qualifier "If
it is possible to do so,". We do allow these, and they mean that the
action occurs if it is possible. I think the qualifier is better style
than the disclaimer.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>"I hereby announce that I do X"
If this is acceptable, it is because we treat it as a (virtual)
announcement of "I do X". If it is so accepted, for the purposes of
doing X by announcement, then R2149 can also be applied to "I do X".
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>If the above statement is false,
This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
-zefram
l CFJ constitutes an unqualified allegation
of rule violation. R1504 speaks of an "allegation" internally, but
only as a way to identify the parameters of the case. For the record,
I was undecided about this issue when I drafted it.
-zefram
message with message-id
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that e
>intended to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932, while in fact he did
>not intend to appeal it
Quite possibly guilty, though tricky to establish unless e confesses.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I CFJ on this statement.
Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ,
via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true.
And it's obviously relevant.
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
>Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
>which will certainly fail;
This is a reason for the PNP's message to include a phrase such as
"if the proposal is in its voting period".
> Zefram does not update
the
rule allegedly violated, so it's now pretty clear anyway that the rule
number is not part of the action.
-zefram
CFJ.
We treat "If possible I do X" as a synonym for "I do X" iff X is in
fact possible. If it is impossible we treat it as a nullity.
I'm less happy about "I attempt to do X", but I'm willing to interpret
it as a synonym for "If possible I do X".
-zefram
as already pointed out. A deliberately false
claim to be performing an action most certainly is a lie, though.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>A person SHALL not make a public statement e believes to be false.
We tried that, in the original version of rule 2149, and eventually
rejected it when restoring the rule after the truthiness era. The problem
is that a reckless falsehood is still dishonest and problematic.
-zefram
busive. You could make yourself unpopular, especially if
you veto routinely, and might perhaps trigger attempts to reduce the
prerogative's power.
Personally I favour the abolition of all prerogatives, and of the
speakerhood. I'm not likely to have much opinion about particular
exercises of the prerogatives.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass.
What is the nature of the flaw? Does the current R2149 share it?
-zefram
uate for this particular type of lie. I'd be in favour
of a power=3 rule explicitly forbidding lying about one's identity.
-zefram
fulness and speech acts.
-zefram
irements of R478, so probably doesn't initiate
the CFJ.
Then we must consider whether it was an *attempt* to initiate a CFJ
(as it claims). This depends on what ais523 thought would happen.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is illegal.
R2149 does not forbid mistakes. It forbids lies.
-zefram
y bringing in emergent concepts that don't belong here. What you need
to explicate is how an action statement is evaluated for truthfulness,
and it's best written in such terms. How about:
A statement that someone is thereby performing an action is
false if the described action is not thereby performed.
-zefram
to do so without any
indication of one's belief. Only the most boring scams would rely on
this kind of dishonesty. Actions that are of uncertain legality can
always be preceded by "If it is possible,".
-zefram
sage can be true or false as for any other kind
of statement, and in particular it is false if the speaker does
not thereby successfully perform the action described.
-zefram
l's title at
the beginning of its body.
-zefram
es
to cause Murphy to gain a C note." would still be a lie, under that
disclaimer, if I didn't have exactly two C notes, so that the phrase
"my two C notes" has no valid referent.
Btw, I think the formulation "If possible, I do X." is preferable over
"I do X. Disclaimer: this might fail.".
-zefram
ich as
I recall was inconclusive, but "I do X" is not an imperative. "Goethe,
do X" is an imperative.
-zefram
I submit the following AI=3D3 disinterested proposal, |
Same proposal problem, and multiple incompatible statements of AI.
-zefram
the statement: retracted, or revoked::: (sc ope=FLR)
>^
I think you missed a bit that could be interpreted as "the scope of this
ratification is the Full Logical Ruleset".
-zefram
ad
as two columns that that is the only possible interpretation for Agoran
purposes.
-zefram
. I reckon anything else that you think is
in there (such as the patent title bit, which I missed) is sufficiently
unclear as to be ineffective.
-zefram
coherent parts of
the message are the large number of CFJs on "This is Agora." and the
disclaimer in the last line. I think the disclaimer, btw, nullifies
any attempts at action by announcement in the message.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>If a Gamer thinks about The Game (as this contract or the real-life version
>or just the words 'The Game'), they lose and must announce their loss to a
>public forum.
I'm immune. xkcd set me free: http://xkcd.com/391/
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>If the translation service isn't of a biological nature, is the union
>of the two a first-class person?
I can't send email without a keyboard. Is me+keyboard a first-class person?
-zefram
uot;. We should clarify that, rather than dropping
the English requirement.
-zefram
cies are designed.
You could allow fining by transferring currency to the L&FD in lieu
of destruction. That would make more currencies available for fines.
-zefram
ome point since the CFJ was initiated.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>required to show that the accused did not believe eir statement to be
>true.
I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>"Preparing for ostracism" and "One-off ostracism" were protos sent to
>the discussion forum. Proposals 5629-5630 are not by me, but were
>created by Zefram's act of distribution.
Oops. Noted in historical record.
-zefram
arding the PNP.
-zefram
Sgeo wrote:
>AI=1.7 II=1
>"Impeachment"
Is this meant to become a proposal? It's not clear.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>And I also nominate ZEFRAM, because coming out of the blue to nominate
>Pavrita is... a little suspicious.
Damn, rumbled. Yep, I'm a werewolf. In fact, I'm both werewolves.
Pavitra gave sufficient reason to suspect em of lupine tendencies.
-zefram
dilemma proposal might be sufficiently novel to garner
interest, but the other two have been done before.)
-zefram
roposal to deregister em promptly.
The last paragraph of R869 deliberately doesn't allow deregistration of
anyone who has been first-class, to avoid problems with potential scams
or screwups that withdraw legal personhood from first-class players.
-zefram
Quazie wrote:
>Proposal 'Another bribe?' AI=2 ii=1
Been done before. Boring.
-zefram
promotor
by announcement.". Specify mechanism, and avoid deeming.
>Proposal 'Homo sapiens' AI=3 ii=0
We're not speciesist here. We have precedent for a blob of (biological)
mauve goo being a player.
Also, you spelled the binomial name correctly in the title but not in
the body of the proposal. The specific epithet is never capitalised.
-zefram
;s not a binding agreement or interpretation
of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights.
-zefram
Alexander Smith wrote:
>Happy Birthday, Agora!
Late.
>Doesn't +1200 push it from midday on the 30th to midday on the 1st?
The +12:00 means that it occurs 12 hours earlier than that date occurs
in UTC.
-zefram
in UTC-5h, which is 2008-06-30 04:12:23 in UTC, which is
2008-06-30 16:12:23 in UTC+12h, which is firmly inside Agora's Birthday.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Looks like just the "Etc/GMT+-X" entries are broken:
Yes, for historical reasons the signs have often been inverted in those
filenames.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
>This strikes me as not within the spirit of the game of Werewolf. Wolves need
>to be able to lie with impunity.
See who fears information getting out. I propose to lynch Pavitra.
-zefram
s are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
|proposals are the active first-class players,
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>why?
I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not
be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded
for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would open the way for
anything to grant points.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
> You're a player, which is more than I
>can say.
Er, you just did say it.
-zefram
ty switch with values Unregistered
(default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is
an entity whose citizenship is Registered.
-zefram
s to "ehird
registers emself.". Rule 869 provides the procedure whereby a person
can register emself, and the adoption of a proposal patently isn't it.
So I think that this proposal, if adopted, would be merely making a
false statement, and would have no effect.
-zefram
cessarily make a visible contrast.
>By the way, if you have an Accept header preferring text/plain over
>text/html, you'll get
>the text version back.
Cute. Turns out Lynx rates them equally, and you're sending text/plain
in that case.
-zefram
r's automation. And proposal 4903
had AI="2 yellow smarties".
Most programming languages' numeric data types are really crap at storing
arbitrary numbers. They tend to be machine registers wearing wigs,
not the mathematical abstractions that we naively imagine.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
>I'll object, just to be silly.
Go on then.
-zefram
imited to persons.
We had a judicial decision at one point that only persons could bear
patent titles. We then amended R649 specifically to change that.
A patent title is *given* in recognition of a person's distinction,
but *bearing* it is not tied to personhood.
-zefram
Alexander Smith wrote:
>Zefram, avpx, why did you vote AGAINST ?
Should be in the rule that defines "by announcement".
-zefram
rphy, OscarMeyr, root, Goethe
> Twelve Months: Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Goethe
I have some of these. All of them, I think.
-zefram
h more interesting one than the usual "X has violated the
contract". Here the terms of the contract have been followed, and it's
the intent that has run into trouble. In drafting R2169 I intended this
sort of use, and I've been waiting for it to happen. Uncharted territory
for the Agoran courts, at last.
-zefram
ihope wrote:
>What is ISIDTID?
"I say I do, therefore I do". The cause of much philosophical debate
regarding actions that are defined only by the rules.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests
>(or -Contracts) forum?
Most of us would have to be on it, and would be uninterested in most of
the traffic. I think there should be separate fora for each contest.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>What ever happened to this proposal?
I lost it. Crap. It'll be in the next batch.
-zefram
Chester Mealer wrote:
> (g) Official Greeter, to be awarded by the IADoP, to any player who
>announces eir intent to become a greeter with Agoran consent (ratio 1).
Why do it as a patent title when we have an office mechanism?
-zefram
otivation to illegally find somebody guilty, just to get the black
>ribbon.
To which the appropriate response is to charge the judge with
inappropriate judging, convict em, and sentence em to 1 second of exile.
(Such a sentence clears ribbons and other asset holdings. And gives
the new judge a legitimate black ribbon.)
-zefram
1 - 100 of 1324 matches
Mail list logo
