Re: DIS: Werewolves status update
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:41:47 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra. May I suggest "no". (I posted what I think are fairly reasonable arguments why to do so some time back.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> {action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
>
> This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
It's INNOCENT if the action, "X violated Z by Y", did not occur,
UNIMPUGNED if "X violated Z by Y" is not proscribed by Z.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote: >> Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a >> land? > Goodness, never thought of that. Any input? No, but you should be able to harvest 89X1, with X as a wildcard for 0. This would be in keeping with the role of X generally...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
>
> "X did Y that violates Z" -- UNIMPUGNED
> "X did something that violates Z" -- INNOCENT(?)
Now that's just confusing. Officially the rule violated isn't even
part of the action.
{action="X did Y", rule=Z} -- UNIMPUGNED
{action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
{action="X did something that violates Z", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
Here the action is "failing to act in accordance with the Brainfuck
Golf contract", so root is INNOCENT.
In CFJ 1863, the statement was "BobTHJ violated rule 2158 by failing
to assign an appropriate judgement... by means of assigning an
inappropriate judgement instead." if it had been ruled, as I argued,
that e still had the chance to assign an appropriate judgement within
the time limit if remanded (in fact it was not, but oh well), and it
was furthermore ruled that the judgement was inappropriate (it
wasn't), BobTHJ would have been INNOCENT even if chances are he would
have eventually failed to assign an appropriate judgement, due to the
overspecificity of the statement.
What a hypothetical! But there is no reason for a prosecutor
initiating a criminal case to specify anything more than the literal
action the defendant attempted to perform, at least if e wants to find
the defendant guilty. For example, in this case, the action should
have been being the contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought I'd protoed a new judgement for "X did something that > violates Z" - OVERGENERAL, perhaps? Feel free to propose it. I though put in a proposal to require people to specify which action violates the rule... -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
Taral wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract, >> and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems >> correct here. >> >> Would it help if we just merged the two options? > > Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ: > > "X did Y that violates Z" -- UNIMPUGNED > > "X did something that violates Z" -- INNOCENT(?) I thought I'd protoed a new judgement for "X did something that violates Z" - OVERGENERAL, perhaps? Feel free to propose it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
>
>> It seems clear enough too me.
>
> For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
> pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
> (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
> FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
> PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
> higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
> Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
> reported on) for the remainder of the week.
Given two plausible interpretations, one of which matches both EVLOD's
rule-defined type and Quazie's stated intent, I agree that that
interpretation should be used.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract, > and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems > correct here. > > Would it help if we just merged the two options? Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ: "X did Y that violates Z" -- UNIMPUGNED "X did something that violates Z" -- INNOCENT(?) -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
Quazie wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice >>> (AI = 2, please) >>> >>> Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text: >>> >>> b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes to >>> require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare that case either >>> hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not so >>> declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a >>> panel to that case during this period. If the Justiciar has >>> so declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a >>> panel including (hot) or excluding (cold) the Justiciar, if >>> possible. >>> >>> Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Prerogative of Justiciar is >>> assigned to the person (if any) to whom the Prerogative of Default >>> Justice was assigned immediately before the adoption of this proposal. >>> >>> >> In the event that it is neiter hot nor cold, it is room temperature. >> What is the protocal for a room temperature appeal? I assume that it >> need not include or exclude the Justiciar, but i just want to make >> sure. >> > > Also, should this be a switch? Not unless an exemption from ongoing reporting is also added.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora report
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >> Assuming I'm a Banker Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the >> RBOA contract as follows: >> --- >> Add the following to the end for the RBOA conract: >> >> 9. Whenever a Player transfers a Mill to the Bank of Agora, and the >> Bank of Agora is not in possession of a Mill of that type, 200 chits >> are created in the possession of that player. Any Banker may Rent a >> mill in the possession of the Bank of Agora by destroying 20 chits in >> eir possession, indicating which Mill they are renting. The Banker >> may then transfer 2 crops to the RBOA, and have the RBOA Mill those >> crops as the Banker sees fit. The Banker may then transfer the milled >> crop back to emself. >> --- > > I don't like this. The price of milling should float like an exchange > rate or be determined in some auction or other style that will reflect > changing demand better. It should also be different for different > types of mills. (For example, in terms of current exchange rates, > milling 4 / 4 = 1 is considerably more valuable than anything one can > do with +, -, or * assuming you value X crops only slightly more than > 1 crops. Though the current exchange rates are probably a bad > indicator of the present value of crops.) Also the bank's milling > services should not be limited to bankers. And, well, I don't think a > 10+ week investment is very good for the bank. > > -woggle > I was just throwing out an idea to see what people thought, thats all. If you have a better scheme for this, feel free to take it and make it better. I just think that the mills would be an interesting asset to the bank, but wasn't sure how to go about it.
DIS: Werewolves status update
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora report
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Assuming I'm a Banker Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the > RBOA contract as follows: > --- > Add the following to the end for the RBOA conract: > > 9. Whenever a Player transfers a Mill to the Bank of Agora, and the > Bank of Agora is not in possession of a Mill of that type, 200 chits > are created in the possession of that player. Any Banker may Rent a > mill in the possession of the Bank of Agora by destroying 20 chits in > eir possession, indicating which Mill they are renting. The Banker > may then transfer 2 crops to the RBOA, and have the RBOA Mill those > crops as the Banker sees fit. The Banker may then transfer the milled > crop back to emself. > --- I don't like this. The price of milling should float like an exchange rate or be determined in some auction or other style that will reflect changing demand better. It should also be different for different types of mills. (For example, in terms of current exchange rates, milling 4 / 4 = 1 is considerably more valuable than anything one can do with +, -, or * assuming you value X crops only slightly more than 1 crops. Though the current exchange rates are probably a bad indicator of the present value of crops.) Also the bank's milling services should not be limited to bankers. And, well, I don't think a 10+ week investment is very good for the bank. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
> {
> vote FOR;
> vote AGAINST;
> }
> vote PRESENT;
>>
>>> It seems clear enough too me.
>>
>> For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
>> pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
>> (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
>> FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
>> PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
>> higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
>> Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
>> reported on) for the remainder of the week.
>>
>
>
> If the assessor deems it unclear that I wanted integer division, i can
> and will repost with an appropriate cast.
>
Actually, I think I'll leave it regardless. It seems like the first 4
votes aren't ambiguous, but the 5th might be. The potential ambiguity
of the 5th vote shouldn't make the first 4 ambiguous.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my > email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will > have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The > rules say that the sender is the one who announces, so if I tell my > secretary to type "I register" and press the send button, e will have > registered. But I suppose I, in dictating it to my secretary, sent the > message as well, so really, both of us will have registered, which is > Weird. Rule 2170. The message's claim as to who sent it is self-ratifying. Whoever the message claims sent it is the person who is registered, unless the claim is challenged, in which case the process of resolving the challenge of identity will sort out which of you actually registered.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote: >> >> (upgrading and downgrading lands) > > Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a > land? > - > Benjamin Schultz KE3OM > OscarMeyr > Goodness, never thought of that. Any input?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
>
>> It seems clear enough too me.
>
> For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
> pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
> (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
> FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
> PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
> higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
> Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
> reported on) for the remainder of the week.
>
If the assessor deems it unclear that I wanted integer division, i can
and will repost with an appropriate cast.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Ruling in CFJ 2023
On Jul 13, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Taral wrote: 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]> The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract, and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems correct here. Would it help if we just merged the two options? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote: (upgrading and downgrading lands) Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a land? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Quazie wrote: The proposal was an ordinary proposal. Thus, I can vote up to my evlod on it. Thus i vote an equal number of FORs and AGAINSTs and if there are any left over I vote PRESENT. Then maybe we should define SUPPOSE as exactly that simple wording. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:57:43 pm ihope wrote: > Unless the CotC did something stupid, like act on behalf of the > Justiciar to say both. Which, in the Spirit of the Game, is not at all implausible.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>>> {
>>> vote FOR;
>>> vote AGAINST;
>>> }
>>> vote PRESENT;
> It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
(5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
reported on) for the remainder of the week.
DIS: Re: BUS: Can you lie in a speech act?
On Jul 13, 2008, at 3:14 PM, 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. -- ais523 The pellet with the pestle has the vessel with the -- ah, never mind. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes >> > to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare that case either hot >> > or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not so declared, >> > then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case >> > during this period. If the Justiciar has so declared, then the >> > Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (hot) or >> > excluding (cold) the Justiciar, if possible. > > Can the Justiciar change eir mind? What happens with multiple > declarations? If there are multiple declarations, the CotC either SHALL assign a panel either excluding or including the Justiciar, or SHALL assign a panel both excluding and including in the Justiciar. In the former case, it's UNIMPUGNED either way; in the latter, it's EXCUSED either way. Unless the CotC did something stupid, like act on behalf of the Justiciar to say both. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a >> speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly >> saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is >> a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X" >> and the deregistration worked. > > "Using the mechanism defined in the above pledge, I act on behalf of > myself to deregister" is only a synonym of "I deregister" if the > pledge allowed me to act on behalf of myself, regardless of whether or > not I could have acted on behalf of myself anyway. I'm not so sure. Let's say there's two rules: -Rule A authorizes Green players to deregister by announcement. -Rule B authorizes Orange players to deregister by announcement. If a Green player says "I deregister" with no qualification, it's not Rule B that is triggered, it's Rule A, and we ignore Rule B. But if a Green person says "Using Rule B, I deregister", does it fail? Or does the qualifier get ignored as inaccurate, while the second part triggers Rule A? I think we've had a few cases where someone has said "by Rule X, I do Y" and it turns out that Rule X doesn't allow Y, but Rule Z does. One example is when I deregistered non-person partnerships last fall. We've (I think!) as a general custom allowed the action to stand, perhaps as a convenience akin to allowing voting "10x" something. This has never been tested in court. > Please don't be a jerk and rule that contracts can allow people to act > on behalf of themselves but nobody else. :-P Hmmm... ;) -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice > > (AI = 2, please) > > > > Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this > > text: > > > > b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes > > to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare that case either hot > > or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not so declared, > > then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case > > during this period. If the Justiciar has so declared, then the > > Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (hot) or > > excluding (cold) the Justiciar, if possible. > > > > Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Prerogative of Justiciar > > is assigned to the person (if any) to whom the Prerogative of > > Default Justice was assigned immediately before the adoption of > > this proposal. > > In the event that it is neiter hot nor cold, it is room temperature. > What is the protocal for a room temperature appeal? I assume that > it need not include or exclude the Justiciar, but i just want to > make sure. I think that in that case the normal protocol for panel assignment prevails. Can the Justiciar change eir mind? What happens with multiple declarations? Pavitra.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote: > By the way, I would like to point out that in Goethe's situation it > might indeed be argued that the time of the action is in fact when > _Goethe's_ action leaves _Goethe's_ TDoC. It depends on whether, even theoretically, the agreement in question allows me to contact the intermediary and change my mind. And even if the contract forbids it, what happens if we both break that contract? It's quite akin to the Distributor issue, which is not at all settled: in a way the Distributor has an unspecified contract with all of us. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text: >> >> b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes to >> require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare that case either >> hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not so >> declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a >> panel to that case during this period. If the Justiciar has >> so declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a >> panel including (hot) or excluding (cold) the Justiciar, if >> possible. >> >> Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Prerogative of Justiciar is >> assigned to the person (if any) to whom the Prerogative of Default >> Justice was assigned immediately before the adoption of this proposal. >> >> > > In the event that it is neiter hot nor cold, it is room temperature. > What is the protocal for a room temperature appeal? I assume that it > need not include or exclude the Justiciar, but i just want to make > sure. > Also, should this be a switch?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice > (AI = 2, please) > > Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text: > > b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes to > require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare that case either > hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not so > declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a > panel to that case during this period. If the Justiciar has > so declared, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a > panel including (hot) or excluding (cold) the Justiciar, if > possible. > > Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Prerogative of Justiciar is > assigned to the person (if any) to whom the Prerogative of Default > Justice was assigned immediately before the adoption of this proposal. > > In the event that it is neiter hot nor cold, it is room temperature. What is the protocal for a room temperature appeal? I assume that it need not include or exclude the Justiciar, but i just want to make sure.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:22:28 pm ihope wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I => (R ^ > > ~G)) ^ (~I => (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I. > > Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false, that expression you > devised is false for all I. The statement I actually made is true if > and only if I initiated the CFJ. I assumed ^ meant AND, which also yields ((~R ^ ~G) => ~S).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2019a assigned to Wooble, avpx, Taral
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote: > Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a > bonus. Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are theoretically supposed to be rewards, I think.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I => (R ^ ~G)) ^ > (~I => (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I. Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false, that expression you devised is false for all I. The statement I actually made is true if and only if I initiated the CFJ. I suppose you could interpret "If I do not initiate a CFJ on this sentence, then the sky as red" as also implying "If I did not initiate a CFJ on this sentence, then the sky would not be red", if you really wanted to. I'd rather you didn't. (Or I'd rather you not or don't or wouldn't or shouldn't or something.) --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Monday 14 July 2008 05:51:06 pm Ian Kelly wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Your reasoning appears circular. You have to assume the statement > to be true before you can determine that I follows from ~G. > > -root Oops. Let's try that again. Call the original statement S. [That is, let (S == (R v (~I => G))).] Since ~G, ((~I => G) => I). Then (S => (R v I)). Since ~R, it follows that ((R v I) => I). Hence (S => I). I think the sentence is effectively equivalent to "I call for judgement on this statement." The precedent of CFJ 1903 may be relevant here. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
>>> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
>>> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
>>> DECISION on it.
>>>
>>> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
>>> ---
>>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>>> {
>>> vote FOR;
>>> vote AGAINST;
>>> }
>>> vote PRESENT;
>> H. Assessor root, if I were you, I would reject this definition as too
>> complicated, especially considering that none of the votes are
>> conditional and Quazie might have without too much effort cast them
>> explicitly.
>
> It seems clear enough too me.
>
> -root
>
I'm glad, I didn't intend to do anything that spectacular, just
something more interesting than PRESENT, with the same net effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
>> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
>> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
>> DECISION on it.
>>
>> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
>> ---
>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>> {
>> vote FOR;
>> vote AGAINST;
>> }
>> vote PRESENT;
> H. Assessor root, if I were you, I would reject this definition as too
> complicated, especially considering that none of the votes are
> conditional and Quazie might have without too much effort cast them
> explicitly.
It seems clear enough too me.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2019a assigned to Wooble, avpx, Taral
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I initiate a criminal case against the CotC (Murphy) for violating >> R2019 by not assigning the Default Justice (myself) to be member of >> this appeals panel. > > Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a bonus. > > -root > Mostly just did it because I caught itand I do recommend a light sentence. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
>> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
>> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
>> DECISION on it.
>>
>> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
>> ---
>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>> {
>> vote FOR;
>> vote AGAINST;
>> }
>> vote PRESENT;
> H. Assessor root, if I were you, I would reject this definition as too
> complicated, especially considering that none of the votes are
> conditional and Quazie might have without too much effort cast them
> explicitly.
I cannot fathom the former contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf making a
reasonable case that e was unable to understand Quazie's intent here.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2019a assigned to Wooble, avpx, Taral
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate a criminal case against the CotC (Murphy) for violating > R2019 by not assigning the Default Justice (myself) to be member of > this appeals panel. Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a bonus. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Your reasoning appears circular. You have to assume the statement to >> be true before you can determine that I follows from ~G. > > To me, it seems like he just assumed ~I => G and verified that the > statement is true and I did initiate the CFJ under that assumption. My opinion is that the statement does not constitute "announcing that e performs [the action]" regardless of whether it has a true interpretation or not, and so it does not initiate a CFJ, and so it is false. This does not mean that I think that actual announcements of actions do not carry a truth value, however. As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I => (R ^ ~G)) ^ (~I => (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
>> ---
>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>> {
>> vote FOR;
>> vote AGAINST;
>> }
>> vote PRESENT;
>> ---
>
> In other words, you vote cycle [FOR, AGAINST]?
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
The proposal was an ordinary proposal. Thus, I can vote up to my
evlod on it. Thus i vote an equal number of FORs and AGAINSTs and if
there are any left over I vote PRESENT.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > > Your reasoning appears circular. You have to assume the statement to > be true before you can determine that I follows from ~G. To me, it seems like he just assumed ~I => G and verified that the statement is true and I did initiate the CFJ under that assumption. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Your reasoning appears circular. You have to assume the statement to be true before you can determine that I follows from ~G. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: It's completely logical
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. I don't believe you believe that. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
> DECISION on it.
>
> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
> ---
> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
> {
> vote FOR;
> vote AGAINST;
> }
> vote PRESENT;
H. Assessor root, if I were you, I would reject this definition as too
complicated, especially considering that none of the votes are
conditional and Quazie might have without too much effort cast them
explicitly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend to test the above but, instead of a secretary I will have a > friend send a message though my e-mail account, registering emself. I think that this would be similar to CFJ 1719. However, if you asked your friend to perform an action you dictate through eir own email account, that might be interesting (does a person have the authority to act like a SMTP server and relay messages?) Relatedly, what if the Distributor banned someone from the lists and e could not participate in the fora except by proxy? By the way, I would like to point out that in Goethe's situation it might indeed be argued that the time of the action is in fact when _Goethe's_ action leaves _Goethe's_ TDoC. If this is the case, there would be the scam analogous to if the Distributor held for a few days, but did not reject entirely, a message with the intent to ratify a fake ruleset. So perhaps the opposite is in the best interests of the game, but I'm not sure if there is precedent regarding this. Maybe with Steve's Spam Scam?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
> ---
> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
> {
> vote FOR;
> vote AGAINST;
> }
> vote PRESENT;
> ---
In other words, you vote cycle [FOR, AGAINST]?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act >> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. >> This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on >> behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. >> Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a >> while. > > I'm not a partnership, of course; I can act in other ways. > >> The situation is not as clear-cut as it looks in the rules, because >> humans don't send e-mail messages. Computers send them. I make up a >> suggested contract and you create it, I'm the author of the message, >> but you're definitely the one who performed it because you sent it. >> This applies even if you just agreed to send to the PF everything that >> I said, and possibly if you make a webform letting me send messages on >> your behalf in a webpage-- but this was ruled possible in CFJ 1719, >> especially considering the pragmatic argument that some official mail >> has always been partially authored and/or sent by computers (i.e. CotC >> notices). >> >> Then again, let's say the list receives a message purported to be sent >> by me, where I say I deregister. This might have bounced through a >> lot of SMTP servers before it got there, but you don't say that the >> SMTP server performed the action. Nor do you say my email client sent >> the message. But what if my "email client" is that you're my >> secretary, who types down what I say and presses send? Then I >> probably still sent the message. What if I'm standing in the room and >> I say "ok, you can send whatever you want as me"? You could argue >> that by CFJ 1685 the non-mindless nature of my secretary at that point >> makes the message really sent by em, but what if I say "you can copy >> that message from B and send it as me"? Even if I haven't read it? > > If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my > email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will > have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The > rules say that the sender is the one who announces, so if I tell my > secretary to type "I register" and press the send button, e will have > registered. But I suppose I, in dictating it to my secretary, sent the > message as well, so really, both of us will have registered, which is > Weird. > I intend to test the above but, instead of a secretary I will have a friend send a message though my e-mail account, registering emself.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It's a good thing we ratify things. >> >> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act >> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. >> This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on >> behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. >> Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a >> while. > > What don't I like about that precedent? It looks ok to me though I > didn't think it that it extended to allowing one person to "be" > another, just act on behalf of another. Zefram did the best job > laying out the case in CFJ 1719. Though I'll say that the invocation > of R101 in CFJ 1695 addressed broad, categorical bans not narrow and > more limited restrictions. I currently disagree with the judgement in CFJ 1695, and it was my own judgement. It has since occurred to me that if partnerships could not perform actions via the forum, then they were not players to begin with and therefore had no R101 right to participation in the fora. However, one could argue that the status quo at the time the question was raised was that partnerships were considered players, and so the R101 rights of players should have been presumed to hold for them in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, and from that viewpoint the judgement was still correct. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act > infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. > This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on > behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. > Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a > while. I'm not a partnership, of course; I can act in other ways. > The situation is not as clear-cut as it looks in the rules, because > humans don't send e-mail messages. Computers send them. I make up a > suggested contract and you create it, I'm the author of the message, > but you're definitely the one who performed it because you sent it. > This applies even if you just agreed to send to the PF everything that > I said, and possibly if you make a webform letting me send messages on > your behalf in a webpage-- but this was ruled possible in CFJ 1719, > especially considering the pragmatic argument that some official mail > has always been partially authored and/or sent by computers (i.e. CotC > notices). > > Then again, let's say the list receives a message purported to be sent > by me, where I say I deregister. This might have bounced through a > lot of SMTP servers before it got there, but you don't say that the > SMTP server performed the action. Nor do you say my email client sent > the message. But what if my "email client" is that you're my > secretary, who types down what I say and presses send? Then I > probably still sent the message. What if I'm standing in the room and > I say "ok, you can send whatever you want as me"? You could argue > that by CFJ 1685 the non-mindless nature of my secretary at that point > makes the message really sent by em, but what if I say "you can copy > that message from B and send it as me"? Even if I haven't read it? If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The rules say that the sender is the one who announces, so if I tell my secretary to type "I register" and press the send button, e will have registered. But I suppose I, in dictating it to my secretary, sent the message as well, so really, both of us will have registered, which is Weird. Of course, the Weirdness is probably moot, as I don't know of any players of Agora who use secretaries when sending messages to Agora. (If there are any of you, keep quiet.) Besides, there's likely some reasonable way to say that one or the other of us didn't actually send it. Now, if I say that someone else can send whatever they want as me, they are the only ones sending the messages; the only thing I've sent is "You can send whatever you want as me". So, if I ever say it, type it, write it, signal it, tap it, utter it, emboss it or engrave it, I've sent it; otherwise, no. > It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, > especially considering the analogy with partnerships. R101 only gives partnerships the right to participate in the fora, not arbitrary contracts, and first-class players already have a way to act, so their R101 right does not allow things to send messages on their behalf. On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a > speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly > saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is > a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X" > and the deregistration worked. "Using the mechanism defined in the above pledge, I act on behalf of myself to deregister" is only a synonym of "I deregister" if the pledge allowed me to act on behalf of myself, regardless of whether or not I could have acted on behalf of myself anyway. Please don't be a jerk and rule that contracts can allow people to act on behalf of themselves but nobody else. :-P On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We do now in some non-obvious ways. For example, I send you a message > authorizing and requiring you (via mutual contract) to do something on > my behalf. You then send a message to Agora on my behalf. Unlike the > situation when it bounces between machines, the time of action is > (arguably! this isn't tested!) when it leaves your TDOC for the forum, > not when it leaves my TDOC for yours. Now, that's an interesting case, if I write a message, send it to you, and have you send it to the public forum. One could say that I send it to the public forum once it leaves my mailbox or I click send or I finish speaking or whatever, and then you send it again when you get it to the public forum. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market change
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>
>> On Monday 14 July 2008 03:06:54 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> To pave the way for future changes as have been discussed:
>>>
>>> With the majority consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to
>>> make the following change to the Vote Market agreement:
>>> {
>>> Amend section 9 to read:
>>> {{
>>> Any party may amend this contract without three objections. Any
>>> party may act on behalf of this contract without three objections.
>>> }}
>>> }
>>
>> I consent.
>
> I consent (side note: is w/o three objections in this case limited to
> objections from members?). -Goethe
>
It doesn't look like it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a >> speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly >> saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is >> a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X" >> and the deregistration worked. >> >> -Goethe > > But the pledge obviously redefines it for this case, especially as it was > directly preceeding it. It is possible that it would have worked if it were > not > for the pledge. But that's it, it didn't redefine anything, it used the same definition as the (implicit) existing one. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote: > It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, > especially considering the analogy with partnerships. The difference comes when we insert a second decision-making entity (e.g. a thinking person with a technical domain of control and actual "choice") along the chain. We recognize that distinction, and in the past we have regulated it. We do now in some non-obvious ways. For example, I send you a message authorizing and requiring you (via mutual contract) to do something on my behalf. You then send a message to Agora on my behalf. Unlike the situation when it bounces between machines, the time of action is (arguably! this isn't tested!) when it leaves your TDOC for the forum, not when it leaves my TDOC for yours. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Monday 14 July 2008 02:29:45 pm comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that > > stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships. > > In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating the > responsibility to use email clients to a secretary or friend would > infringe my right of participation in the fora. Unless you have a software screen reader.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a > speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly > saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is > a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X" > and the deregistration worked. > > -Goethe But the pledge obviously redefines it for this case, especially as it was directly preceeding it. It is possible that it would have worked if it were not for the pledge.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's a good thing we ratify things. > > In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act > infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. > This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on > behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. > Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a > while. What don't I like about that precedent? It looks ok to me though I didn't think it that it extended to allowing one person to "be" another, just act on behalf of another. Zefram did the best job laying out the case in CFJ 1719. Though I'll say that the invocation of R101 in CFJ 1695 addressed broad, categorical bans not narrow and more limited restrictions. For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X" and the deregistration worked. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, > especially considering the analogy with partnerships. In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating the responsibility to use email clients to a secretary or friend would infringe my right of participation in the fora.
DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a good thing we ratify things. In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a while. The situation is not as clear-cut as it looks in the rules, because humans don't send e-mail messages. Computers send them. I make up a suggested contract and you create it, I'm the author of the message, but you're definitely the one who performed it because you sent it. This applies even if you just agreed to send to the PF everything that I said, and possibly if you make a webform letting me send messages on your behalf in a webpage-- but this was ruled possible in CFJ 1719, especially considering the pragmatic argument that some official mail has always been partially authored and/or sent by computers (i.e. CotC notices). Then again, let's say the list receives a message purported to be sent by me, where I say I deregister. This might have bounced through a lot of SMTP servers before it got there, but you don't say that the SMTP server performed the action. Nor do you say my email client sent the message. But what if my "email client" is that you're my secretary, who types down what I say and presses send? Then I probably still sent the message. What if I'm standing in the room and I say "ok, you can send whatever you want as me"? You could argue that by CFJ 1685 the non-mindless nature of my secretary at that point makes the message really sent by em, but what if I say "you can copy that message from B and send it as me"? Even if I haven't read it? It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
DIS: Re: BUS: welcome
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 15:11 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I become bound to the following contract:
>
> {{
> 1. The name of this contract is "Welcoming Committee". This is a
> public contract under the rules of Agora and a pledge.
> 2. Parties to this contract SHALL NOT terminate it, amend it, or
> change its name.
> }}
>
Are you trying to prevent the Welcoming Committee being set up? If so, I
doubt it will work because someone else could create another contract
with the same name.
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: We all have our ehird moments
2008/7/14 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can act
> on behalf of himself by announcement. Ivan Hope CXXVII can terminate
> this contract by announcement.}
You call this an ehird moment? Well, it starts the same, except I'd end up
deregistered anyway.
tusho
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe the power threshold for causing a message to be sent is 2. > My reasoning: it's established that a contract can allow other people > to act on behalf of its parties. As I understand it, this is implied > by the fact that if there were no such mechanisms, partnerships would > have no way to act. The rule defining partnerships is a power-2 rule. > Apart from the definition in Rule 478, "Fora", power 3, there is no > other way to send a message. Acting on behalf of another entity is different than claiming you can cause an entity to send a message that's never actually sent and never reaches players via a public forum. A message is sent by a person with a computer actually sending it. Creating an in-game fiction of "messages" as abstract entities is unnecessary and probably dangerous. Besides, the PerlNomic Partnership proves that partnerships can actually send messages without anyone acting on their behalf. If partnerships' inability to send their own messages were the only thing allowing others to act on their behalf, I'd think PNP puts the mechanisms behind other partnerships' actions on shaky footing. I think some sort of legislative backing to acting on behalf would be great (mostly because I feel that relying heavily on game custom and precedent without explicit rules creates too much of a burden on players to actually know all of the game customs and precedents; ideally someone reading the text of the rules should have a complete picture of what is and isn't legal), but I'd rather not see it function by creating the fiction that a message published by one person was actually published by another.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
2008/7/14 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird >> because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582 >> >> Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement. > > Please make it "ehird is deregistered" and wait for him to commit a > crime so we can EXILE him. ow. :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird > because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582 > > Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement. Please make it "ehird is deregistered" and wait for him to commit a crime so we can EXILE him. On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If this would be effective, this would create a whole new ugly > precedent of "This proposal says you say you do, therefore you say you > do and do". I believe the power threshold for causing a message to be sent is 2. My reasoning: it's established that a contract can allow other people to act on behalf of its parties. As I understand it, this is implied by the fact that if there were no such mechanisms, partnerships would have no way to act. The rule defining partnerships is a power-2 rule. Apart from the definition in Rule 478, "Fora", power 3, there is no other way to send a message. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: New FINE Proposal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > currency's backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has > this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a Formatting?
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent >> people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? > > Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed. I'm not arguing for it to be allowed. However, how about making it a separate thing from truth/falsity? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
2008/7/14 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So do I. ehird, that's 2 support now, you know the ##nomic meme... > -- > ais523 > Having received the neccessary support, I cause comex to stop being a dick.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 12:28 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Monday 14 July 2008 12:21:10 pm Elliott Hird wrote: > > 2008/7/14 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird > > > because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582 > > > > Stop being a dick. > > I support ehird's intent to cause comex to stop being a dick. So do I. ehird, that's 2 support now, you know the ##nomic meme... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Monday 14 July 2008 12:21:10 pm Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/7/14 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird > > because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582 > > Stop being a dick. I support ehird's intent to cause comex to stop being a dick.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
2008/7/14 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird > because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582 Stop being a dick.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement. If this would be effective, this would create a whole new ugly precedent of "This proposal says you say you do, therefore you say you do and do".
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: >>> On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. >>> >>> A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, >>> either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. >>> >>> [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a >>> power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.] >> >> Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at >> power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been >> tested? > > No, R2170 (into which the paragraph in question is protoproposed to be > inserted) is power-3. Oh I see, Murphy's version deferred the infraction to the rule defining false statements. Got it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform >> actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe >> > Details for the curious please? > A division calculation in one rule, with no rounding provision, required me to (attempt to) give out a fraction of a unit of currency. In another case, I was required to post a notice (of victory) for player B because condition A was true, knowing that the notice would not award victory because condition C prevented it. But condition C did not in itself stop my requirement to post the notice. In other words, it happens all the time. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I create a Digit Ranch (land #111) with a Seed of 1 and a WRV in the >>> possession of Quazie. >>> >> >> I rename the above land to "1 Crop" >> > While this is valid that name is already in use. Care to select another? > > BobTHJ > Note the 2 spaces. This name is different.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > > On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > >> A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly > >> or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false > >> statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. > > > > A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, > > either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. > > > > [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a > > power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.] > > Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at > power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been > tested? No, R2170 (into which the paragraph in question is protoproposed to be inserted) is power-3.
Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy Tickets
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I retract my previous claim of error, I forgot to search for other people > voting on my behalf (below). -goethe phew
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doing ehird a favor, I suppose.
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 09:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote: > > This is 6 FOR, 5 AGAINST, 1 PRESENT. > > > > Congratulations, Elliott Hird, you're a player. > > > > --Ivan Hope CXXVII > > I believe I retracted my FOR vote and voted AGAINST. Please re-check. > -Goethe Maybe, but I acted on behalf of you to retract the AGAINST and vote FOR, by paying VP on the Vote Goethe pledge. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Taral wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. >>> >>> This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent >>> people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? >> >> Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed. > > As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform > actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe > Details for the curious please?
DIS: Re: BUS: Doing ehird a favor, I suppose.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote: > This is 6 FOR, 5 AGAINST, 1 PRESENT. > > Congratulations, Elliott Hird, you're a player. > > --Ivan Hope CXXVII I believe I retracted my FOR vote and voted AGAINST. Please re-check. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Taral wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>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. >> >> This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent >> people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? > > Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed. As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: >> A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or >> indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false >> statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. > > A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, > either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. > > [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a power-3 > rule rather than a power-1 one.] Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been tested? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule.. >>> >>> Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. >>> >> >> I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else.. >> > > I'm a bit tired right now. Agora's not a good game to play while tired. Don't worry, voting on a conditional that can't be resolved without the result of the vote is very Agoran. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Doing ehird a favor, I suppose.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:17 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 11:09 -0400, ihope wrote: >> Congratulations, Elliott Hird, you're a player. >> >> --Ivan Hope CXXVII > If tusho is a player, I transfer 24 VP to tusho. > I attempt to act on behalf of tusho to cause them to transfer 24 VP to > me. (Disclaimer: I believe this second attempted action will fail; I'm > just combining two actions in such a way that I will transfer 24 VP to > tusho iff they are a player and it is not true that anyone can act on > behalf of them.) > -- > ais523 > I'm considering the transfer to ehird to be valid, but not the acting on behalf to transfer it back. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I create a Digit Ranch (land #111) with a Seed of 1 and a WRV in the >> possession of Quazie. >> > > I rename the above land to "1 Crop" > While this is valid that name is already in use. Care to select another? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA
On Monday 14 July 2008 10:30:52 am Roger Hicks wrote: > I create a Digit Ranch (land #113) with a Seed of 5 and a WRV in the > possession of Pavitra. I rename land #113 to Aphrodite's Grove.
DIS: Re: BUS: Donde esta el Assessor?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend to deputize on behalf of the Assessor to resolve the agoran > decisions on proposals 5577 through 5584. I'm a bit backed up. I was hoping to get to it tonight. -root
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Monday 14 July 2008 04:12:48 am Taral wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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. > > This feels clunky. c) The announcement of action by which a person acts by announcement is true if and only if the specified action is POSSIBLE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: And the winner is.... (Agoran Proposal Awards report)
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > What's the objective here? >>> To enable the APA to award points. >>> >>> >> It can via the PRS. > > I thought the PRS wasn't a contest yet, either. > > It will be as soon as the Assessor resolves voting on outstanding proposals. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
Taral wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>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. > > This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent > people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
Wooble wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value >> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 > > I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take > effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition > that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail > regardless of whether the rule actually passes. I suspect the intent to use the proposed method as a local definition is reasonably clear. Rule 2127's existing definition of "endorsing" only covers "endorsing another voter", so definitely doesn't apply here. Sgeo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing >>> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought >>> that it was in a rule.. >> >> Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. >> > > I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else.. Quazie has used a similar local definition in some of eir previous votes, just as some players used the de facto definition of "endorse " before that was legislated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:40:02 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value > > > > I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 > > I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take > effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a > definition that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote > should fail regardless of whether the rule actually passes. In the specific case of a definition (as opposed to a CAN), the proposal under vote may provide sufficient context for a local synonym.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or > indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false > statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
> Add the following to the end of section 8: > "An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week" > "A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks" These may stack, i.e., an upgraded Digit Ranch actually produces 3 crops per week (1 for being a Digit Ranch, and 2 for being upgraded), and a downgraded Digit Ranch produces a total of 3 crops every 2 weeks. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing >>> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought >>> that it was in a rule.. >> >> Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. >> > > I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else.. > I'm a bit tired right now. Agora's not a good game to play while tired.
Re: DIS: Econ
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Pens being a common exchange medium was pretty much the purpose of the Bank of Agora in the first place. I was also hoping the Bank would be able to "buy low, sell high" and make the value of pens go higher and higher. Unfortunately, it seems the Bankers adjusted the exchange rates so as to give them a better deal, causing the Bank to buy high, sell low instead. --Ican Hope CXVIVI
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing >> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought >> that it was in a rule.. > > Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally. > I could have sworn I saw it somewhere else..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing > it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought > that it was in a rule.. Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value >> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 > > I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take > effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition > that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail > regardless of whether the rule actually passes. > I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought that it was in a rule..
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value > I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4 I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition that would be created by a rule in a conditional vote should fail regardless of whether the rule actually passes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm bored, let's DoS stuff
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it's obfuscation you want, here's another Python version: Another variation on this that I was playing around with the other day. This one is a bit more transparent than the other one I posted, but I wanted to share it because it demonstrates how simple the DFT is in Python (the straight-forward quadratic approach, anyway). import math data = [(2488+0j), (-60+46j), (-223-75j), (-89+131j), (-130-268j), (-209+24j), (44-207j), (154-89j), (-187+78j), (-71+21j), (98+105j), (289+154j), (170-140j), (56+85j), (-98-98j), (144-38j), (144+38j), (-98+98j), (56-85j), (170+140j), (289-154j), (98-105j), (-71-21j), (-187-78j), (154+89j), (44+207j), (-209-24j), (-130+268j), (-89-131j), (-223+75j), (-60-46j)] N = len(data) q = 2j * math.pi / N c = [chr(int(round(abs(sum(x * math.e ** (q*k*n) for k,x in enumerate(data)) / N for n in xrange(N)] print ''.join(c) * 1000, -root
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5636-5639
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5636 D0 2ais523 Defining Monsterholdors PRESENT > 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value FORx4 > 5638 O1 1.7 Murphy Pragmatize initiation of equity cases FORx4 > 5639 D1 3Murphy Refactor clarity PRESENT
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Favor for sale
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you don't believe it is a legitimate value then feel free to > propose a rate change. I don't believe it's legitimate to allow (indeed, require) the Protection Racket to constantly create assets that interest a very small percentage of players, then trade them in for a ridiculously high amount of chits. Also, "without any risk of reprisal" might be a bit optimistic; I suspect that if these things start getting used regularly we'll see a rule criminalizing both sides of judicial corruption before long.
