Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Farming
Charles Reiss wrote:
> Quoth the AAA:
> {{
> 12. Once per week, a Farmer CAN attempt to purchase a new Land by
> announcing the type of Land e wishes to purchase. As soon as possible
> after such an announcement, if it is permitted for em to do so, the
> SoA CAN and SHALL revoke 3 Points from that Farmer and then create a Land of
> the specified type in that Farmer's possession.
> }}
>
> - woggle
Oo, I missed that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Farming
On 3/22/09 7:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Charles Reiss wrote:
>
>> I purchase a Mill.
>>
>> - woggle
>>
> How?
>
> coppro
Quoth the AAA:
{{
12. Once per week, a Farmer CAN attempt to purchase a new Land by
announcing the type of Land e wishes to purchase. As soon as possible
after such an announcement, if it is permitted for em to do so, the
SoA CAN and SHALL revoke 3 Points from that Farmer and then create a Land of
the specified type in that Farmer's possession.
}}
- woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Farming
Charles Reiss wrote: > I purchase a Mill. > > - woggle How? coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Sowing some more chaos
Ed Murphy wrote: > CFJ: Proposal 6122 has taken effect. > > Caller's arguments: Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the > resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-ratifying > claim that Proposal 6122 has not been prevented from taking effect. Gratuitous arguments: The resolution of those proposals does constitute such a claim, however, you cannot prevent something that would never have happened in the first instance (Otherwise, I just prevented you from being attacked by a lion. You're welcome). Since the only means by which a proposal can take effect is by adoption, and it was not adopted, the proposal never would have taken effect, and therefore cannot have been prevented.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6121 - 6139
ais523 wrote: > H. CotC Murphy: you have less than a day left to assign these, and they > aren't listed in your database anywhere. Especially as proposal 6159 is > pending, this is pretty urgent; otherwise, I'll have to try to exploit > the possible dictatorship before its existence is ruled on, which will > make unclarity matters a lot worse than they already are. (Could some > people vote AGAINST it, to prevent it passing? That's the other > possibility to prevent problems here.) I seem to have missed a few e-mails, somehow. Oh dear. Anyway I've located them in the a-b archive and will get to them later tonight.
DIS: Re: BUS: re-contesting
Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I intend, without 3 objections, to flip the contestmaster of the AAA to >> Wooble. > > Having received only 1 objection, from comex, I flip the contestmaster > of the AAA to Wooble. I became a party to the AAA on March 7. I'd appreciate if you updated me appropriately.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Repealment proposals
2009/3/23 Aaron Goldfein : > Doesn't that rule serve no purpose anyway? How dare you!
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Repealment proposals
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/3/22 Alex Smith : > > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > >> The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly > >> duties. > >> Date of this message: Sun 22 Mar 09 > >> Date of last fulfilment of these duties: Sat 14 Mar 09 > >> > >> Proposal: Speaker Anarchy > >> (AI=3, Disinterested) > >> > >> Repeal Rule 104 (First Speaker). > > > > N! > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > Funny thing is, this time it was actually the dice that chose it. You > guys get this proposal now and again by people who aren't the > anarchist, right? > Doesn't that rule serve no purpose anyway?
DIS: Joining InterNomic 2
So, if I want to make a proposal about us joining IN2, how should I word it? Is referring to another nomic in the rules a good idea, or should they be kept general?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Repealment proposals
2009/3/22 Alex Smith : > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly >> duties. >> Date of this message: Sun 22 Mar 09 >> Date of last fulfilment of these duties: Sat 14 Mar 09 >> >> Proposal: Speaker Anarchy >> (AI=3, Disinterested) >> >> Repeal Rule 104 (First Speaker). > > N! > > -- > ais523 > Funny thing is, this time it was actually the dice that chose it. You guys get this proposal now and again by people who aren't the anarchist, right?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Repealment proposals
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly > duties. > Date of this message: Sun 22 Mar 09 > Date of last fulfilment of these duties: Sat 14 Mar 09 > > Proposal: Speaker Anarchy > (AI=3, Disinterested) > > Repeal Rule 104 (First Speaker). N! -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6121 - 6139
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:39 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> was using the mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the
> mechanism specified in the rule created by proposal 6130.", barring
> Murphy.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> failed because it was ambiguous which of two mechanisms were used to do
> the amendment.", barring Murphy.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> failed because it attempted to claim indirect authority from the
> non-existent Rule 6130.", barring Murphy.
>
> Arguments:
> Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
> action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
> certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
> standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
> {{{
> Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
> that change to be void and without effect.
> }}}
H. CotC Murphy: you have less than a day left to assign these, and they
aren't listed in your database anywhere. Especially as proposal 6159 is
pending, this is pretty urgent; otherwise, I'll have to try to exploit
the possible dictatorship before its existence is ruled on, which will
make unclarity matters a lot worse than they already are. (Could some
people vote AGAINST it, to prevent it passing? That's the other
possibility to prevent problems here.)
--
ais523
DIS: A legal curiosity
I CFJ the statements {Rule 105 can, in whole or in part, prevent an
instrument from taking effect} and {If a proposal is caused to take
effect without explicitly being allowed to cause rule changes, it can
cause rule changes}. After some discussion in ##nomic, it isn't really
clear whether 105 actually prevents something from taking effect, or
whether it simply prevents the action caused by it taking effect.
Noticeably, there is nothing in the rules actually letting proposals
make rules changes; merely to cause them to take effect. This leads to
some interesting conundrums.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 14:41 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Warrigal wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could > >> do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as > >> 1.) > > > > Okay, what could they do with a positive power? > > > > --Warrigal > Amend every rule with power equal to or less than theirs, create new > rules with power equal to or less than theirs... It would need rule 105 permission, but that's a lot easier to get via a scam than rule 105 permission + positive power. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
Warrigal wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could >> do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as >> 1.) > > Okay, what could they do with a positive power? > > --Warrigal Amend every rule with power equal to or less than theirs, create new rules with power equal to or less than theirs...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could > do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as > 1.) Okay, what could they do with a positive power? --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 15:39 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Silly Bribe", with adoption
> index 1.1:
>
> {Set the power of every player with at least one valid FOR vote and no
> valid AGAINST votes on this proposal to 1.05.}
>
> Don't worry, having power doesn't automatically mean that those
> players can actually do anything. It just means that substantive
> aspects of them can't be modified by power-1 proposals and rules. I
> have no idea what this would break, apart from "not all that much".
You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could
do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as
1.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
Oh, and there's also Faucet Nomic. On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Charles Walker < charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Oh. I guess it still counts as a nomic. > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > >> I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have >> exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself. >> > >
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
Oh. I guess it still counts as a nomic. On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have > exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself. >
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
I researched this Fresh Nomic a little bit and I've found that they have exactly one member who is literally playing nomic by himself.
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
Fresh Nomic, the nomic on the xkcd forums, and Blognomic. On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > c-walker wrote: > > > I'm just checking up on how things are progressing regarding joining > > InterNomic over here. Elsewhere it looks like we have 4 nomics ready to > > join (If you wait for B Nomic to catch up in around 6 days). > > Who are the other three? > >
DIS: RE: InterNomic II
C-walker wrote: > I'm just checking up on how things are progressing regarding joining > InterNomic over here. Elsewhere it looks like we have 4 nomics ready to join > (If you wait for B Nomic to catch up in around 6 days). There hasn't been much discussion on the subject, apart from a typically sardonic comment by ehird. It would take a proposal to get Agora to join, probably, and nobody's submitted one. -- ais523 Ambassador, still Speaker but probably only because there isn't a Herald <>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-proposal: Fixing a period from the 14th to the 17th century
coppro wrote:
> Looking at the archives, the only effect of this clause would be to
> cause Zefram to win, rather than awaiting his return and posting es own
> win announcement. (Is {es} the correct word there? Or would {is} or
"eir". Most Agoran-Spivak pronouns are based on conjugations of "they";
"e" is an exception.
> {eis} be better?). The other would cause you (Murphy) to be unable to
> win until you acquired another Ribbon. Now, I think you actually just
> did by winning (since I previously thought you could only be awarded a
> patent title once, though I do believe that is no longer correct).
You can get multiple copies of some patent titles, such as Champion.
(Many patent titles have rules limiting gaining them more than once,
though.)
Also, note I'm only 2 ribbons off winning, and have plans for obtaining
those 2 ribbons. (I believe Wooble is pretty close to a Win by
Renaissance too, although I'm not sure exactly how close.)
--
ais523
<>
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
c-walker wrote: > I'm just checking up on how things are progressing regarding joining > InterNomic over here. Elsewhere it looks like we have 4 nomics ready to > join (If you wait for B Nomic to catch up in around 6 days). Who are the other three?
DIS: InterNomic II
I'm just checking up on how things are progressing regarding joining InterNomic over here. Elsewhere it looks like we have 4 nomics ready to join (If you wait for B Nomic to catch up in around 6 days). C-walker
