Re: DIS: Econ
avpx wrote: > On Sunday 13 July 2008 09:37:16 Ben Caplan wrote: >> Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos. > > Since there has been no activity in my economics contract, I don't really > know. I'd like there to just be on contract handling these things. Perhaps we > should try to merge our currencies? IIRC, the main benefit of creating contracts using pesos (rather than defining their own currency) is a common exchange medium, which role is already filled by the RBoA to some extent. Also, the more currencies there are, the harder it is to keep up with them all.
Re: DIS: Econ
On Sunday 13 July 2008 09:37:16 Ben Caplan wrote: > Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos. Since there has been no activity in my economics contract, I don't really know. I'd like there to just be on contract handling these things. Perhaps we should try to merge our currencies? avpx
DIS: Protos on truth and identity
Proto-Proposal: But what is truth? (AI = 2, please) Zefram and Michael are co-authors of this proposal. Change the power of Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to 2, and amend it to read: A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably believes it is true, or else provides a reasonable explanation why e believes otherwise. For the purpose of this rule: a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making that statement. b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant. c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making that public statement, but violates this rule only if one believes it will definitely fail. Proto-Proposal: Identity (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) by prepending this text: Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those persons within Agora. A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false statement, and SHOULD be severely punished.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract: " g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-upgraded, land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become an upgraded version of that land. Upgraded lands shall be denoted with (u)." Add the following to the end of section 8: "An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week" Add the following to the end of Section 9: "An upgraded Mill does not go in to production the first time it is used during a week. If it is used twice within the same week, it then goes into production" --- Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following to the end of the 6th section of the AAA contract, lettering it as appropriate "A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers, in reverse order (e.g. 4321) and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-downgraded land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become a downgraded version of that land. Downgraded lands shall be denoted with a (d)." Add the following to the end of section 8: "A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks" Add the following to the end of Section 9: "A downgraded mill stays in production for twice as long" --- Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: Add a new numbered paragraph that reads as follows: "Upgrading a normal land makes it an upgraded land. Upgrading a downgraded land makes it a normal land. Downgrading a normal land makes it a downgraded land. Downgrading an upgraded land makes it a normal land."
Re: DIS: Proto: No SpeechActCrime
Goethe wrote: > H. Murphy, with respect, I request not to be a coauthor on the previous proto. Noted. The next version will include my own approach to both of the topics you raise here.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
I have many many mills, and i would like another digit ranch, specifically a 2 digit ranch. I could also take a 0 ranch. If someone wants to make a trade of one of my mills for one of the ranches I want, let me know.
DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Proto-Proposal: But what is truth? (AI = 2, please) Zefram and Goethe are co-authors of this proposal. Change the power of Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to 2, and amend it to read: A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably believes it is true, or else makes eir beliefs on the subject reasonably clear. For the purpose of this rule: a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making that statement. b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant. c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making that public statement.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Ed Murphy wrote: A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably believes it is true. For the purpose of this rule: c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if one thereby succeeds in performing that action. Surely this latter will just result in people rewriting I do X to I attempt to do X Michael.
DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote: > Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an > inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green. (R v (~I => G)) Since ~G, it follows that I (ihope127 does in fact call said CFJ). Although ~R, (false v true) evaluates to true. TRUE.
DIS: Proto: No SpeechActCrime
H. Murphy, with respect, I request not to be a coauthor on the previous proto. Proto-Proposal, AI-2: No SpeechActCrime Increase the power of R2149 to 2 and append the following paragraphs: An attempt to perform an action by announcement, made by asserting that one acts as specified, is not in itself a violation of this rule if the action fails, even if the announcer generally expects the action to fail. It is only a violation if information other than the direct assertion of action is known by the announcer to be false and is willfully stated or represented as being true in the announcement. A person willfully claiming to be someone other than eir own person, or directly or indirectly misleading Agorans into believing e is a person or persona other than emself, violates this Rule in a manner that SHOULD be subject to severe sanctions. [ In the current case, a violation would result due to the fact that the false assertion that "Tusho is a new person" was "represented" by ehird/Tusho by the change of email address along with the failure of ehird/Tusho to make eir identity known in the announcement. Otherwise, this generally firmly decriminalizes action attempts, even if the actor is trying the action based on a very weak rules interpretation that e doesn't really think would work---as long as e doesn't lie about some piece of information in doing so)! Wording improvements very welcome here. Also, finally, firmly rejects avatars. ]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Favor for sale
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As allowed by the Protection Racket agreement I create a Favor in the >> possession of the Protection Racket. I deposit this Favor in the RBOA >> in exchange for 150 Chits. > > Time to create the New Really Reformed Bank of Agora, run by someone > who's not going to devalue its currency by colluding with another > contract to dump crap currencies into the market at high exchange > rates. > It would seem to me that a Favor would have a rather high value. I thought I was being generous listing it at only 150. Consider the benefit to a person who is not a Protection Racket member...a chance to have a judicial case decided in their favor without any risk of reprisal? (it would be the Protection Racket parties held at fault). If you don't believe it is a legitimate value then feel free to propose a rate change. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Favor for sale
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As allowed by the Protection Racket agreement I create a Favor in the >> possession of the Protection Racket. I deposit this Favor in the RBOA >> in exchange for 150 Chits. > > Time to create the New Really Reformed Bank of Agora, run by someone > who's not going to devalue its currency by colluding with another > contract to dump crap currencies into the market at high exchange > rates. > if it was a crap currency then why was it immediately purchased?
DIS: Re: BUS: Favor for sale
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As allowed by the Protection Racket agreement I create a Favor in the > possession of the Protection Racket. I deposit this Favor in the RBOA > in exchange for 150 Chits. Time to create the New Really Reformed Bank of Agora, run by someone who's not going to devalue its currency by colluding with another contract to dump crap currencies into the market at high exchange rates.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As has been repeatedly pointed out, failing attempts at speech actions > can still avoid false statements, provided that the statement carries an > appropriate qualifier. Formulations such as "If possible I do X." and "I > attempt to do X." have been commonly used in situations where someone is > aware of a reason why the action might not be possible, and no objection > to this has been raised. In the specific case of registering, "I wish > to register." will cause registration if it is possible while still > being a true statement if it is not possible. "I wish to register" only works because Rule 869 says that it does. For every other action, "If possible I do X" and "I attempt to do X" do not satisfy Rule 478's criterion-- that the person performing the action announces that e performs it-- unless it can be treated as a reasonable synonym for "I do X", in which case Rule 2149 should apply. See CFJs 2069, 1996, 1971, 1609, 1307, 1302, and 1214-15. Whether statements of the form "If X, then I do Y", where X is publicly available knowledge, are effective depends on which CFJ you're using as precedent, but when X is unknown (such as if the action is possible in many ambiguous cases) it is definitely impossible to perform an action with such a conditional. If speech acts have truth values, then someone ought to sue me because I have attempted to perform more than one action in the past where I did not believe the action would be successful: I believed that the action could potentially be successful, but was probably not. Therefore I believed it to be most likely that I was lying. I would also like to note the case of Big Brother, the fictitious partnership which I claimed to be such in an email's subject title and which I claimed to register in its body. I did this specifically because I believed I could not get in trouble for making a purported statement of action, even if I believed that the statement was definitely unsuccessful. (At the time I was required as a knight to not publish statements that I believed were false or which I was reckless regarding the veracity of. I think "Big Brother hereby registers." could quite possibly fall into both categories.) I guess the latter is a boring scam, but I do hope speech acts continue to be treated more loosely than other statements. If I am doubtful about the veracity of any other statement, I can just avoid making it, or make it to the discussion forum. But if I want to perform a speech act, and I am doubtful about its veracity, I must make the statement. On the other hand, there is no need to help me if I want to attempt to perform a speech act which would result in an outright lie.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sunday 13 July 2008 06:29:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: > That being said, even > taking on a more conservative role, the fact that something like > this particular rule is pretty darn important to the tone of play > but at power-1 means a veto is particularly apt. If something of > this importance can't pass at a higher power, it shouldn't. To that end, the upcoming proposal should perhaps include a clause to power-up 2149.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: > Hmm... I seem to have a veto right now and rule 2149 is power 1. I don't > really like using vetos, but now might seem to be a good time. Would > this be massively against the Agoran Spirit if I try? Would people just > try to make it democratic? In my opinion, it's massively against the Agoran Spirit to not use the veto more often, it's a political tool. That being said, even taking on a more conservative role, the fact that something like this particular rule is pretty darn important to the tone of play but at power-1 means a veto is particularly apt. If something of this importance can't pass at a higher power, it shouldn't. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Elliott Hird wrote: >An announcement is a vessel for performing or trying to perform an action. We announce a lot of things other than actions. An announcement is a vessel for informing players about the game state. >A failing action is not an illegal lie. It doesn't have to be, as already pointed out. A deliberately false claim to be performing an action most certainly is a lie, though. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Taral wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/7/13 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably >>> believes it is true. >> This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass. > > I just think it should be worded the other way: > > A person SHALL not make a public statement e believes to be false. If a person believes neither, then either e is unsure of the statement's truth value (in which case e ought to disclaimer it) or e hasn't thought about its truth value at all (in which case e ought not to claim it).
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
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
DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
ais523 wrote: > I attempt to file a criminal CFJ against ais523 for violating rule 2149 > for lying by incorrectly saying in this message that they failed to > initiate a CFJ when they didn't, but fail. I'm interpreting this as failing due to ambiguity (Rules 1504 and 2208). Proto-Proposal: Long-term ambiguity considered harmful Create a rule titled "Long-term ambiguity considered harmful" with this text: A person acting to create an ambiguity in the gamestate SHOULD act to minimize the scope of the ambiguity. [Example: your message could have been followed by this text: "I retract any judicial cases previously initiated in this message. I initiate an inquiry case on the statement 'A criminal case was initiated in the same message in which this case was initiated.'"]
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
ais523 wrote: >I would strongly prefer it if rule 2149 was amended the other way, to >make failed attempts to perform acts legal As has been repeatedly pointed out, failing attempts at speech actions can still avoid false statements, provided that the statement carries an appropriate qualifier. Formulations such as "If possible I do X." and "I attempt to do X." have been commonly used in situations where someone is aware of a reason why the action might not be possible, and no objection to this has been raised. In the specific case of registering, "I wish to register." will cause registration if it is possible while still being a true statement if it is not possible. Furthermore *inadvertant* failures to act are not proscribed by any past, present, or proposed version of R2149. Reasonable honest errors are legal, and there is no proposal on the table to change that. > (e.g. what happens if a >contest is decontestified but the contestmaster still has to try to >award points). If the contest requires em to *attempt* to award points, e can say "If possible, I award 5 points to ais523.". This satisfies the contractual obligation without offending R2149. If the contest requires em to *actually* award points, it is impossible for em to satisfy that obligation, regardless of R2149. > I am a roleplayer, among other things, and attempting to >perform actions is very distinct from making statements This isn't a roleplaying game, and we don't have avatars. Perhaps more to the point, we don't have a GM who judges the effects of every attempt to act. In a code nomic, the next example you raised, the implementation acts much like a GM for these purposes. Agora is not like those situations. The business of Agora is conducted by free-form speech, and many things are achieved by pure speech acts. We have arranged the rules on this so that the speech that achieves the act is also a correct notification of the act. We have no dictatorial GM, but track the game state cooperatively through these notifications, and so we rightly prohibit dishonesty regarding that state. Speech acts are, in this respect, no different from any other kind of speech. >Hmm... I seem to have a veto right now and rule 2149 is power 1. I don't >really like using vetos, but now might seem to be a good time. You can't veto the continued existence of the rule as it already is, and no one is proposing a fundamental change to it, so your influence on the legality of speech acts is limited. >this be massively against the Agoran Spirit if I try? Would people just >try to make it democratic? We don't have any precedent for the use of the current veto prerogative. I believe the veto is historically related to anti-invasion preparations, and for those who remember the wars a veto on internal political grounds might seem abusive. 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
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
ais523 wrote: > I would strongly prefer it if rule 2149 was amended the other way, to > make failed attempts to perform acts legal (e.g. what happens if a > contest is decontestified but the contestmaster still has to try to > award points). Easy argument for EXCUSED for failing to award them, especially if you're making a good-faith effort to re-contestify the contest. > I am a roleplayer, among other things, and attempting to > perform actions is very distinct from making statements (speech acts are > just the method by which they're performed); likewise, in nearly all > other environments, the performing of an act has nothing to do with > making a statement. (In codenomics, for instance, there are not speech > acts, but instead all rules that allow something to be performed specify > a mechanism for doing so; even in B Nomic, some actions used to be > performed by writing specific pieces of text in public messages which > were parsed by computers.) Rule 478 explicitly defines "by announcement". Furthermore, the real point here is that a scam depending solely on saying "I do X" when it isn't successful is just as boring as a scam depending solely on saying "X is true" when it isn't.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
2008/7/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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? An announcement is a vessel for performing or trying to perform an action. A failing action is not an illegal lie.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/13 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably >> believes it is true. > > This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass. I just think it should be worded the other way: A person SHALL not make a public statement e believes to be false. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
On Sunday 13 July 2008 03:26:01 pm ais523 wrote: > Clearly, I would only initiate a criminal CFJ against myself if I > had in fact committed the crime in question; therefore, I intended > to initiate the criminal CFJ if and only if my attempt to initiate > the CFJ did not fail, like I claimed, i.e. I intended to initiate > the CFJ if and only if I initiated the CFJ. > > Oh, and this little bit of confusion is designed as an exercise to > show the absurdity of finding speech acts to be lying. Note that R2149 requires not only that you not believe your statement to be false, but that you believe it to be true. Deliberately ambiguous or paradoxical statements are punishable under Agoran perjury law.
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
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
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 14:07 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proto-Proposal: But what is truth? > > Zefram and Goethe are co-authors of this proposal. > > Amend Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to read: > > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably > believes it is true. > > For the purpose of this rule: > > a) Merely quoting a false statement does not constitute making >that statement. > > b) Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier >attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement; >the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant. > > c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if >and only if one thereby succeeds in performing that action. I would strongly prefer it if rule 2149 was amended the other way, to make failed attempts to perform acts legal (e.g. what happens if a contest is decontestified but the contestmaster still has to try to award points). I am a roleplayer, among other things, and attempting to perform actions is very distinct from making statements (speech acts are just the method by which they're performed); likewise, in nearly all other environments, the performing of an act has nothing to do with making a statement. (In codenomics, for instance, there are not speech acts, but instead all rules that allow something to be performed specify a mechanism for doing so; even in B Nomic, some actions used to be performed by writing specific pieces of text in public messages which were parsed by computers.) Hmm... I seem to have a veto right now and rule 2149 is power 1. I don't really like using vetos, but now might seem to be a good time. Would this be massively against the Agoran Spirit if I try? Would people just try to make it democratic? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
2008/7/13 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably > believes it is true. This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass.
DIS: Proto: But what is truth?
Proto-Proposal: But what is truth? Zefram and Goethe are co-authors of this proposal. Amend Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to read: A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably believes it is true. For the purpose of this rule: a) Merely quoting a false statement does not constitute making that statement. b) Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant. c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if one thereby succeeds in performing that action.
Re: DIS: Econ
Ivan Hope wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Ben Caplan wrote: >>> Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos. >> With all these various currencies, maybe we should have a common measure of >> account, and revive (for valuation purposes only) the Agoran Shequel? > > What was the Shequel? I don't think I was around that long. It wasn't adopted. IIRC, it was a proposed thematic renaming of Voting Credits (the predecessor of Notes and Ribbons).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
2008/7/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It has occurred to me that the power of R2149 makes the available penalty > somewhat inadequate for this particular type of lie. I'd be in favour > of a power=3 rule explicitly forbidding lying about one's identity. > > -zefram > I would support this wholeheartedly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
Kerim Aydin wrote: >If you really want justice, you'd admit the rules are unclear on avatars, >and make a rule to wit "masquerading as more than one individual is against >the Rules." It has occurred to me that the power of R2149 makes the available penalty somewhat inadequate for this particular type of lie. I'd be in favour of a power=3 rule explicitly forbidding lying about one's identity. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is >> illegal. > > Oh please. Using a different email address and pretending you have no > idea why anyone would suspect you were you isn't "something that goes > wrong". > > I support the appeal. Honestly, I think you're focusing on the wrong lie. The lie was not the speech act per se, but the implicit lie of appearing to be someone else in the message. It would be far more interesting to go after that one. On that, I'd like to point out that it's quite reasonable that the Agoran rejection of "avatars" is not clear to a relatively new participant, nor should it be, so there's no reason to believe e didn't honestly think it would work, and so that the act itself wasn't an *intentional* lie. If you really want justice, you'd admit the rules are unclear on avatars, and make a rule to wit "masquerading as more than one individual is against the Rules." -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
ais523 wrote: >Oh, and this little bit of confusion is designed as an exercise to show >the absurdity of finding speech acts to be lying. It's not succeeding. I see no such absurdity. Your bizarre message, while of uncertain interpretation, did not challenge my concepts of truthfulness and speech acts. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 21:11 +0100, Zefram wrote: > ais523 wrote: > >I attempt to > ... > >, but fail. > > I wonder whether this qualifies for acting by announcement. On the > face of it, this was not an announcement that ais523 did something, but > rather an announcement that e made a failed attempted to do something. > That doesn't meet the requirements 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 Clearly, I would only initiate a criminal CFJ against myself if I had in fact committed the crime in question; therefore, I intended to initiate the criminal CFJ if and only if my attempt to initiate the CFJ did not fail, like I claimed, i.e. I intended to initiate the CFJ if and only if I initiated the CFJ. Oh, and this little bit of confusion is designed as an exercise to show the absurdity of finding speech acts to be lying. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
ais523 wrote: >I attempt to ... >, but fail. I wonder whether this qualifies for acting by announcement. On the face of it, this was not an announcement that ais523 did something, but rather an announcement that e made a failed attempted to do something. That doesn't meet the requirements 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
2008/7/13 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Oh please. Using a different email address and pretending you have no > idea why anyone would suspect you were you isn't "something that goes > wrong". That is not what the CFJ is on.
DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
2008/7/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Poppycock. E said that e joined, but knew that e was not in fact joining. > I support the call for appeal of this judgement, and recommend a final > judgement of GUILTY. > > -zefram > I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is illegal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 11:49 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > It didn't have enough PLEASE statements. > - > Benjamin Schultz KE3OM > OscarMeyr Yes it did, I ran it to check. In fact it had too many at one point and I had to remove some. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 11:05 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: (snip) > > +++<]++<] // Horribly non-optimal > > > > for the win. -Goethe > > Unless anybody wants to take up my Whitespace challenge, I proclaim > Goethe the winner of this competition. Did you miss my INTERCAL submission? I'd like to point out that text processing is considerably easier in Brainfuck than in INTERCAL, as is looping 1000 times for that matter. (However, I reckon Goethe still won that if he wrote the text output bit by hand, because I had to resort to using a script to write it in the INTERCAL program.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:59 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The alleged action was lying, not saying "I join", so it's INNOCENT > that's appropriate here. Ah, quite right. Something that my proposal is intended to fix. Nevermind. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In the message in question, Defendant stated: "I join" and not "I am >> registered." As e argued, a failed action is not a false statement. I >> therefore rule INNOCENT. > > This appears to be a frequent confusion. INNOCENT means e did not > perform the action. Actions that do not violate the rule are > UNIMPUGNED. > > I intend with two support to appeal this judgement. The alleged action was lying, not saying "I join", so it's INNOCENT that's appropriate here. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taral wrote: >>This means that attempting to take actions that one does not >>necessarily believe are possible is criminally punishable. Is that >>really what we want? > > If one believes that an action is not possible, then it is dishonest > to claim to perform it That's not what I said. B(~P) and ~B(P) are different. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ais523 has pointed out an interesting hole in R2136, that a contestmaster > does not have to remain a member of the contest. Accordingly, root's as > contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf did not depend on eir being a member of the > contest. Therefore, root did not violate provision 11 of the contest, nor > R1742, and so I DRAFT rule INNOCENT. That would be UNIMPUGNED, no? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Econ
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, ihope wrote: > What was the Shequel? It was either a databashe language or the one after Epishode I.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
2008/7/13 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> It didn't have enough PLEASE statements. >> - >> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM >> OscarMeyr >> > > Pretty sure it should always work correctly (and ais523 will > know how many are needed precisely, of course...) > Too quick on the 'send' button. Note that if you have too many PLEASEs, it won't compile (too polite).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It didn't have enough PLEASE statements. > - > Benjamin Schultz KE3OM > OscarMeyr > Pretty sure it should always work correctly (and ais523 will know how many are needed precisely, of course...)
Re: DIS: Econ
On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:57 AM, ihope wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Ben Caplan wrote: Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos. With all these various currencies, maybe we should have a common measure of account, and revive (for valuation purposes only) the Agoran Shequel? What was the Shequel? I don't think I was around that long. I'm not certain it ever got past the draft stage. Or perhaps it wasn't around long enough to be memorable. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Econ
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Ben Caplan wrote: >> Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos. > > With all these various currencies, maybe we should have a common measure of > account, and revive (for valuation purposes only) the Agoran Shequel? What was the Shequel? I don't think I was around that long. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote: > Taral wrote: >> This means that attempting to take actions that one does not >> necessarily believe are possible is criminally punishable. Is that >> really what we want? > > Yes. If one believes that an action is not possible, then it is dishonest > to claim to perform it, such as by attempting to do so without any > indication of one's belief. I am still not convinced "we" want this. I am likely to vote against it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Lost message for CFJ 2053
On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Ben Caplan wrote: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Thursday 26 June 2008 01:25:40 pm tusho ? wrote: Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good, that's nice of you. I join. -- tusho ? (questionmark) Thanks. Ruling coming up. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Unless anybody wants to take up my Whitespace challenge, I proclaim Goethe the winner of this competition. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr I preferred the INTERCAL. It didn't have enough PLEASE statements. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Lost message for CFJ 2053
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:35:47 am Benjamin Schultz wrote: > I'm having trouble finding the original message from ehird / tusho > that initiated CFJ 2053, wherein e said "I register"; the agoranomic > archive doesn't want to cooperate with me today, and my scroll-fu is > coming up short. Could someone please help me out here? > > - > Benjamin Schultz KE3OM > OscarMeyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Thursday 26 June 2008 01:25:40 pm tusho ? wrote: > Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good, > that's nice of you. > > I join. > > -- > tusho ? (questionmark)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Unless anybody wants to take up my Whitespace challenge, I proclaim Goethe > the winner of this competition. > - > Benjamin Schultz KE3OM > OscarMeyr > I preferred the INTERCAL.
Re: DIS: Econ
On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Ben Caplan wrote: Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos. With all these various currencies, maybe we should have a common measure of account, and revive (for valuation purposes only) the Agoran Shequel? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:22:27 am comex wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ben Caplan > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote: > >> [More rotation.] > > > > Comments? > > Seems like a lot of work for the Disc Jockey. Probably. Note, though, that the only information actually required to be in eir report is the state and movement of respect switches.
DIS: Econ
Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos.
DIS: Lost message for CFJ 2053
I'm having trouble finding the original message from ehird / tusho that initiated CFJ 2053, wherein e said "I register"; the agoranomic archive doesn't want to cooperate with me today, and my scroll-fu is coming up short. Could someone please help me out here? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote: >> [More rotation.] > > Comments? Seems like a lot of work for the Disc Jockey.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote: > [More rotation.] Comments?
DIS: Appeal 2058a
In 2058a, I am inclined towards moving to sustain. The rule on publication does clearly specify that publication happens when a message is sent -- and this rule does need fixing so that publication happens when a message is passed out to the public forum list. I'd appreciate some feedback from my fellow panelists (avpx and S.Cat) fast, before this appeal gets put back into the queue. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:00:48 am Benjamin Schultz wrote: > The Airstrip One contract is giving contract-defined props to > players who are not parties to the contract. Is this a good idea? > Is this permissible? I don't see that it's fundamentally different from pens or chits.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, comex wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: for i in range(1000): print "I go on hold. I come off hold." for((i=0;i<1000;i++)); do echo 'I go on hold. I come off hold.'; done ++>++>++<<[->[->[->[->[-> <]<]>>+.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[->+++ +[-><]<]>>+++.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>> +++.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[-> <]<]>>+++.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>> ++.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[->< ]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>+++. [-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[->+++ +[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>++. [-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<[->[-><]<]>> +.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[-><] <]>>+++.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>+++.[-]<<+ +[->[-><]<]>>+.[-]<<++[->[->+ +++<]<]>>+.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<++[-> [-><]<]>>+++.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>+ +.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>++.[-]<<++[->[-> <]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<<+ +[->[-><]<]>>+++.[-]<<++[->[->+++ +<]<]>>.[-]<<++[->[-><]<]>>.[-]<< ++[->[-><]<]>>++.[-]<<++.[-]<]+++ +++<]++<] // Horribly non-optimal for the win. -Goethe Unless anybody wants to take up my Whitespace challenge, I proclaim Goethe the winner of this competition. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: A different kind of rotation
The Airstrip One contract is giving contract-defined props to players who are not parties to the contract. Is this a good idea? Is this permissible? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
Ed Murphy wrote: > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes, > according to some plausible interpretation of the rules, that > in doing so e is telling the truth. I think "according to some plausible interpretation of the rules" is not helpful here, and will just be grounds for more CFJs. Please be clearer on what you want to require the person to have: 0. actual belief that the statement is true 1. a plausible interpretation of the rules that would make the statement true 2. actual belief in a plausible interpretation as in 1 3. both 0 and 1 4. both 0 and 2 Also consider how much looser "plausible" is than "reasonable", and whether the interpretation must be in the person's mind at the time of making the statement. Real-life law has the concept of "reasonable belief", which is somewhat clearer and might be worth importing wholesale. >a) A public statement that one performs an action is true > if and only if the attempt is successful. You're still overcomplicating this bit, inviting dodgy interpretations, by 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
Taral wrote: >This means that attempting to take actions that one does not >necessarily believe are possible is criminally punishable. Is that >really what we want? Yes. If one believes that an action is not possible, then it is dishonest to claim to perform it, such as by attempting 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
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: But what is truth?
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >a) A public statement that one performs an action is true > if and only if the attempt is successful. This means that attempting to take actions that one does not necessarily believe are possible is criminally punishable. Is that really what we want? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
