DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2218 assigned to OscarMeyr

[Taral]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Accordingly, I instruct the parties to the Russian Roulette contract to
> modify the contract and obligations as necessary, and as soon as possible,
> to ensure that disclosing the text of the obligations to a potential new
> party to the contract does not violate the contract or obligations.

This doesn't much look like an equation.

-- 
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ok, but entering into the spirit of this argument, if one contract
>> passes a value "valid FOR vote iff secret info = true" to another contract,
>> then even *if* the conditional involves uncertainty in the Agoran
>> gamestate, the receiving contract (and its internal state) just sees "vote
>> iff Conditional" where conditionals either aren't specifically permitted
>> by the contract, or are permitted, but in this case rely on unavailable
>> information.  So why (from internal operation of werewolf) is the contract
>> not able to simply conclude "this conditional is invalid."?
>
> The receiving contract is intended to receive either "vote FOR"
> (unconditionally) or nothing at all.  Either because the contract does
> or doesn't allow the AFO to act-on-behalf in the first place, or
> because the contract doesn't exist.

But does the werewolves contract care when it determines whether a vote
is an unclear/undetermined conditional?  As a simple model, let's say
there's three entities: your contract, Agora, and Werewolves.  There's 
two models of the "gamestate split".  The first model splits gamestate
into (a) and (b) the whole way along the line:

(a)You  Vote  --> Agora courts say Vote  --> Werewolves say Vote
(b)You !Vote  --> Agora courts say !Vote --> Werewolves say !Vote

In this case, the courts can "validate" a vote that then affects
werewolves and your scam works.  The second version is:

(a)You  Vote  --> Agora courts say Vote  > Werewolves say unknown
(b)You !Vote  --> Agora courts say !Vote  /conditional therefore !vote.
  
What's to argue for the first case?  The non-legislated custom that we 
maintain "platonic gamestates" as long as possible, and the idea that 
Werewolves is "bound" by the rules, therefore splits as Agora splits.  

What's to argue for the second case?  First, Werewolves is in a sense 
"independent" in that it is a contract subjected to B as well as Agora
and therefore can apply the conditional to the condition of the Agoran
courts.  Second, the fact that case 2 can be resolved as a "conditional" 
s.t. "this vote works if Agoran courts declare it works" and such 
information is not likely to come in the voting period (the courts can 
come back UNDETERMINED - a side note is that there's nothing to compel 
Murphy to reveal information).  Third, it is a "natural" reading under 
equity so that interpretation can reasonably flex into inquiry, the 
contract has a more compelling nature to be "bound by" equity.  Most 
telling to me is that "gamestate collapse" etc. is wholly custom and not 
particularly legislated, whereas the fact that we should consider the
"natural and intended" reading in a contract is.  

Finally, inquiry or equity, when you cross a border of what is "clear" 
or "unclear", it is more "natural" in law to collapse an "uncertain 
platonic gamestate" into saying that "the gamestate is (X or Y), 
therefore the vote is unclear." rather than say "the gamestate is 
clearly (X or Y) therefore the vote is clear (X or Y)."  Further 
remember that currently, Agoran Courts don't officially "change/
collapse the gamestate"--- as long as the court result is unknown
during the "voting period", the condition remains unknown to persons
(i.e. contestants).

In a sense this is a conflict between two agoran 'customs' on 
resolving unclarity, and not a conflict between anything written in 
the rules, I'd say the combination of "good of game" and "spirit of 
equity" and "letter and spirit of what a CFJ decision is and does"
argues for the latter choice.  

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

> Also, I vote for Zefram.

This makes 5 votes for Zefram.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yet more Werewolves cleanup

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a substantive difference, or is this just a style issue?

"All townspersons" could possibly mean all of them collectively, I
think.  Or maybe not.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yet more Werewolves cleanup

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  without circularity or paradox, from information reasonably
>>  available to all townspersons.
> 
> "each townsperson"?

Is there a substantive difference, or is this just a style issue?

DIS: Re: BUS: Yet more Werewolves cleanup

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  without circularity or paradox, from information reasonably
>  available to all townspersons.

"each townsperson"?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agoran Loan Service report

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess Agora doesn't exactly have an abundance of things to buy, does
> it. Maybe I'll steal B Nomic's RPG stuff and turn it into a contest.

In theory you can buy a caste increase with note credits or even a win
with enough crops to harvest.  I don't think either will lead to a
gain of coins that can be used to repay the loan, though. Maybe
milling for profit like the PNP does would be worth taking out a loan
as seed money?

DIS: Re: BUS: Yet more Werewolves cleanup

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend (without member objection) to amend the Werewolves contract by
> appending this text to section 3:

One thing worth considering here and elsewhere: in contests where the
contestmaster is neutral, some variation of "the contestmaster is the 
interpreter of these regulations, and eir interpretation should be
considered correct and final unless e shows complete and utter reckless 
disregard and/or favoritism in their application" might go a long way
to nipping many abuses.   [I think it would be good for the courts to
assume that anyway for contests but that would be pretty activist in
the absence of legislation].  -Goethe.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agoran Loan Service report

[Warrigal]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I set the Interest Rate to 25 basis points. Are you happy yet?
>
> I just can't figure out what I might do with a loan if I were to take one.

I guess Agora doesn't exactly have an abundance of things to buy, does
it. Maybe I'll steal B Nomic's RPG stuff and turn it into a contest.

--Warrigal

DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I initiate Werewolves session #2.  The townspersons are root, Zefram,
>> Wooble, ais523, ehird, Pavitra, avpx, comex, Quazie, and 0x44; with
>> ten townspersons, there will be two werewolves.  I do not specify
>> any optional roles.
> 
> I agree to the following contract with the AFO:
> {
> The AFO CAN act on comex's behalf to vote for a person in Werewolves
> if and only if that person is a werewolf.
> comex CAN terminate this contract by announcement.
> }
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for root.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for root.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for Zefram.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for Wooble.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for ais523.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for ehird.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for Pavitra.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for avpx.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for Quazie.
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for 0x44.
> I terminate the above contract.
> I agree to the following contract:
> {
> 1. This is a pledge if and only if ehird is a werewolf.
> 2. The AFO CAN act on my behalf to vote for ehird.
> 3. comex CAN terminate this contract by announcement.
> }
> 
> The AFO acts on behalf of me to vote for ehird.
> I terminate that contract (if it exists).

These are rejected for the various reasons presented by Goethe.

> I transfer one prop from myself to Murphy for possibly having to sort this 
> out.

Would someone please transfer a prop from me to Goethe (I've
already done one this week) for coming up with various reasons
to reject these?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I'm of the view that it would be
> unacceptable for the CotC to deliberately rotate the bench whilst
> knowing there were standing players; that's effectively cheating,
> breaking the rules for an advantage. I seem to be in a minority, though;
> many nomic players seem to think it's acceptable to break the rules and
> either scam around or accept the punishment.

This debate has gone back and forth quite a lot.  It is also fundamental.
The fact that you describe two distinct camps/play styles is why the ancient 
Lindrum World split was so acrimonious all those years back (Lindrum
"cheated" but legitimized eir cheat via bug, is e a cheat to be ostrasized
or just playing the game?).  This has never been "solved."  Is it even 
solvable?  No matter how many layers of within-game scam you protect 
against, you can always pull the meta-scam above it.  We've always had 
both camps present, too... Maud was very noted and effective with eir 
"by the rules" opinions and dislike of scams in general.

Personally I can see it both ways:  As Assessor at the time, I would have 
been willing to take the equivalent of multi-month chokey to get the 
Town Fountain in place (as it is, I legally abused "timing" of proposal 
reporting but didn't commit any penalties).   Ultimately I think the
only solution is the society vs. game question... in iterated prisoner's
dilemma (i.e. a society) you cheat less often lest you get a reputation as 
a cheater (we've seen that here, if someone who has hardly scammed tried 
a single one of ehird's many, people would probably think "how clever" 
rather than "that's just ehird again").  Thinking of officer's abilities
as societal positions, the question is ultimately a political one to 
impeach or not, to trust to elect to office or not, more generally, to
enter into alliances with or not.

But also, recently, I kinda saw equity as a way to say "ok, I don't know
about within Agora or Nomic, but within these contests, we should
all meta-agree to not scam, and use equity to get that spirit across
where needed."  Still, even if 90% play "by the rules" it only takes a few 
to annoy everyone.  And that's another problem with equity... even if
90% of us "like" it, it only takes 10% who don't like the system to
keep up enough Court difficulties to make it practically unworkable
And due to the "meta" problem there's no rules fix that can prevent this---
hence me saying "equity is dead in Agora" even if the recent proposal
fails.  

-Goethe

DIS: Backed up judicial flow

[Ian Kelly]

It seems I currently have 5 cases assigned to me, 3 of which are
overdue.  I'll try to work through these tonight.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5946-5947

[Ed Murphy]

ais523 wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 18:29 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> NUM  C I AI  SUBMITTER   TITLE
> I vote as follows:
>> 5946 D 1 3.0 Murphy  Faster repair of botched AIs
> AGAINST
>> 5947 D 1 3.0 ais523  Balance of Power
> FOR

You already have (and for 5942-45 as well).  Recommend you use
http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/ to check things like this.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fourth:  why is this any harder to deal with then a simple "I vote for
>> all players who are werewolves?" or "I vote for player A if e is a
>> werewolf" which is simply discarded as unclear (I think?)  Using an
>> AFO-level of indirection doesn't alter the basic unclarity.
>
> Yes it does.  Announcements have to be clear.  They cannot contain
> overly complex conditionals, etc.  Contracts however have the power of
> the Rules within their own little gamestate, and can be as arbitrarily
> complex as desired.  

Ok, but entering into the spirit of this argument, if one contract
passes a value "valid FOR vote iff secret info = true" to another contract,
then even *if* the conditional involves uncertainty in the Agoran 
gamestate, the receiving contract (and its internal state) just sees "vote 
iff Conditional" where conditionals either aren't specifically permitted 
by the contract, or are permitted, but in this case rely on unavailable 
information.  So why (from internal operation of werewolf) is the contract 
not able to simply conclude "this conditional is invalid."?

-G.

 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 12:56 -0500, comex wrote:
> Yesterday I was playing Monopoly with my brother and he loaned me some
> money.  Later in the game he asked for it back.  The Monopoly rules
> expressly forbid official loans, so by the rules of the game he
> actually gave me mone for free; but I gave him the money back anyway,
> because to act otherwise  would be Highly Improper.
> 
> I would act differently in an Agoran Monopoly contest.

Where has this tendency come from that breaking the rules in a nomic is
acceptable? In most games, people abide by the rules out of choice; if
they didn't, you couldn't play otherwise. Even the initial Suber ruleset
has people obeying the rules (Suber rule 101; apparently, it's there so
it can be amended or repealed.)

For pragmatic reasons (people stop playing and don't do things they
should have done is the most common), Nomics normally introduce criminal
rules as well as platonic rules; Agora uses this a lot in its
pragmatisations (the CotC CAN but SHALL NOT rotate the bench when there
are standing players, for instance). I'm of the view that it would be
unacceptable for the CotC to deliberately rotate the bench whilst
knowing there were standing players; that's effectively cheating,
breaking the rules for an advantage. I seem to be in a minority, though;
many nomic players seem to think it's acceptable to break the rules and
either scam around or accept the punishment.

But really, what makes Werewolves embedded into Agora and B different
from Werewolves in RL?

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I would act differently in an Agoran Monopoly contest.

Heh, well at least we choose the same example... but isn't a self-
contained game like werewolves, that fundamentally depends on
some secret info. more like monopoly, in that this kind of move
rather spoils it? -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 07:36, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
>> Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
>
> the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
> Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim

CoE: and me (I recently joined)

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ps.  thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to
>> prevent contracts from being ruined by crap.
>
> The contract can easily specify that a vote consists of listing a
> single party's name with no conditionals without needing equity to
> sort it out.  We're nomic players, we should be able to write robust
> rulesets for contract-defined games.

And why should we be forced to waste so much time with that if we just 
want to play the contest?  That's equivalent to saying "we should be
willing to play monopoly assuming that we have to watch each other
every moment against stealing money from the bank."   The question is
whether enough players think that this to adds to the game, or whether 
this makes a good game spoiled by a few poor sports.  Well I *do* know 
Murphy appreciates the old Illuminati card game... 

But I should note that equity is not at all needed to be judge this.

Inquiry case: were those votes valid?  Precedent result:  No, the contest 
does not authorize conditional votes (the specific authorization in the 
ruleset implies its a special case for agoran decisions) and for 
contests, Agoran custom is to generally assume contestmaster leeway in 
interpreting conditionals etc. (this assumes of course that Murphy as 
contestmaster initially interprets these votes as unclear).  And finally, 
using Conditional Votes in the Rules as a guide, these votes do not use 
information reasonably available during the voting period. 

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[comex]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fourth:  why is this any harder to deal with then a simple "I vote for
> all players who are werewolves?" or "I vote for player A if e is a
> werewolf" which is simply discarded as unclear (I think?)  Using an
> AFO-level of indirection doesn't alter the basic unclarity.

Yes it does.  Announcements have to be clear.  They cannot contain
overly complex conditionals, etc.  Contracts however have the power of
the Rules within their own little gamestate, and can be as arbitrarily
complex as desired.  In CFJ 1980, I established that it is valid for
me to have a contract whose gamestate depends on whether someone is a
werewolf (and maybe even require the Accountor to report on it, but
that's a separate bug) or anything else: the bug is in the rules if
they allow undefined contract gamestate to propagate to obligations on
non-parties or the Agoran gamestate generally.  This is a test of
whether act-on-behalf clauses can depend on contract state (for the
good of the game they probably shouldn't be able to).  That CFJ also
establishes that the pledge bit probably works if not for consent
issues (certainly I consented to that contract, but it might not be
allowed to exist since nobody else agreed to it).  Which,
incidentally, my recent proto included a fix for.

> ps.  thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to
> prevent contracts from being ruined by crap.

Yesterday I was playing Monopoly with my brother and he loaned me some
money.  Later in the game he asked for it back.  The Monopoly rules
expressly forbid official loans, so by the rules of the game he
actually gave me mone for free; but I gave him the money back anyway,
because to act otherwise  would be Highly Improper.

I would act differently in an Agoran Monopoly contest.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ps.  thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to
> prevent contracts from being ruined by crap.

The contract can easily specify that a vote consists of listing a
single party's name with no conditionals without needing equity to
sort it out.  We're nomic players, we should be able to write robust
rulesets for contract-defined games.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:34 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 07:36, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> >> Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
> >
> > the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
> > Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim
> 
> CoE: and me (I recently joined)
> 
Admitted; sorry, I'm backlogged about a week of Agora email...
-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Three separate hurdles:

Fourth:  why is this any harder to deal with then a simple "I vote for
all players who are werewolves?" or "I vote for player A if e is a
werewolf" which is simply discarded as unclear (I think?)  Using an 
AFO-level of indirection doesn't alter the basic unclarity.  

ps.  thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to 
prevent contracts from being ruined by crap.

-Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Agoran Loan Service report

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I set the Interest Rate to 25 basis points. Are you happy yet?

I just can't figure out what I might do with a loan if I were to take one.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I agree to the following contract with the AFO:
> {
> The AFO CAN act on comex's behalf to vote for a person in Werewolves
> if and only if that person is a werewolf.
> comex CAN terminate this contract by announcement.
> }

Three separate hurdles:
1. By what mechanism is Murphy bound to consider any of these to be votes?
   (We've accepted "on-behalf-of" in Agora but does that automatically
   pass between contracts?)
2. If you agree to a contract *if* condition, where you yourself don't
   know the truth of the condition, have you given explicit and willful
   consent?
3. Would an equity case brought by Murphy against you within Werewolves
   find that this was unforseen and as a simple matter of equity nullify
   the votes?

-Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

[Elliott Hird]

On 12 Nov 2008, at 16:58, comex wrote:


I agree to the following contract with the AFO:



They have to be public.

Anyway, way too ambiguous to work.

--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves day phase status

[Elliott Hird]

On 12 Nov 2008, at 15:00, Geoffrey Spear wrote:


I vote for Zefram too, for the same reason.



There's also avpx and Quazie. The throwaway vote possibilities are  
endless!


P.S. You should all cross-post to the B/Agora lists to make this  
simpler.


--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

[Roger Hicks]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:36, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
>> Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
>
> the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
> Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim

This list omits Warrigal, who recently joined.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:36 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> > Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
> 
> the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
> Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim

And Warrigal too; sorry, I'm a bit backlogged on mail atm.
-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?

the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim
-- 
ais523
Notary

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves day phase status

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

> Also, are there any non-Agoran B players in this contract,

Not at this time.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves day phase status

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's also avpx and Quazie. The throwaway vote possibilities are endless!
>
> P.S. You should all cross-post to the B/Agora lists to make this simpler.

yeah but if I vote for someone different there's less chance we'll
actually lynch an inactive person and thus move on to the next round.

Also, are there any non-Agoran B players in this contract, and if so
do I really care enough to use the email that's subbed to s-b?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputization

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I already tried to pass 2234-35 to root so that they can be judged
>> together with 2172.
> 
> Well I believe it's too early for me to intend to recuse em from 2172.

It is, but I can do it.  I'll take care of it later when I have time,
and probably assign 2172 to myself (the current rotation will be done
once OscarMeyr is assigned to either 2254 or 2255).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputization

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already tried to pass 2234-35 to root so that they can be judged
> together with 2172.

Well I believe it's too early for me to intend to recuse em from 2172.

DIS: Re: BUS: deputization

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

> I intend to deputize for the CotC to recuse Murphy from CFJ 2235 with cause.

I already tried to pass 2234-35 to root so that they can be judged
together with 2172.

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

[Alexander Smith]

Goethe wrote:
> Absurd.  Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)?
> It's absolute.
Ah, I interpreted it as "While a player has not had a reasonable
chance to review a change to a contract, e is not bound to it."
Your interpretation hadn't occured to me, but it's an interesting
one...
-- 
ais523
<>

DIS: RE: [s-b] Prep for Werewolves session #2

[Alexander Smith]

Murphy wrote:
> I agree to be bound by the Werewolves contract in B Nomic.  Wooble,
> ais523, ehird, comex, and 0x44, you should do likewise.

I agree to and become bound to The Werewolves of Nomic Crossing.
-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

[Elliott Hird]

On 12 Nov 2008, at 11:56, Joshua Boehme wrote:


Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?



 plus Warrigal.

--  
ais523


(Disclaimer: One or more claims of identity in this message may be  
false.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves day phase

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The two werewolves have been informed of each other's identities.  You
>> may proceed with lynching attempts immediately.
> 
> I nominate both werewolves for lynching. :-)

Cute, but fails for multiple reasons:

  * no more nominations, you just vote
  * can only vote for one townsperson at a time
  * I interpret the voting procedure as requiring specificity