Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 15:39 -0400, comex wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions. Are you sure that each player has satisfied this Winning Condition at most once? I seem to remember there was a legitimate duplicate win by ais523/coppro though not which method it was. There was, it was exploiting a bug in the cleanup condition for Solitude. (Nothing to do with dictatorships.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
coppro wrote: 6713 0 3.0 Murphy Green Eliminate past repetitive wins FORx12 I have you at 2 rests, giving you a voting limit of 0 here (and 4 - 6 on the others due to Chief Whip).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
Tiger wrote: I change my title to Purple if I can. You can, your last change was back in December.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: 6713 0 3.0 Murphy Green Eliminate past repetitive wins 6714 0 2.0 coppro Purple Fix Fix 6715 1 3.0 comex Purple Protect Trophies 6716 1 3.0 coppro Purple Dictatorship Scam 6717 1 3.0 coppro Purple Simplify Degrees 6718 1 2.0 coppro Purple Simplify NoVs 6719 1 2.0 coppro Purple Nonzero Fee Fix 6720 1 2.0 coppro Purple Coauthor Reward If and only if I am a player, I vote AGAINST all of the above. --Annabel. I transfer an imaginary prop from Annabel to Murphy since the former intentionally caused ambiguity the latter has to work out.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
On 04/26/2010 08:34 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: 6713 0 3.0 Murphy Green Eliminate past repetitive wins FORx12 I have you at 2 rests, giving you a voting limit of 0 here (and 4 - 6 on the others due to Chief Whip). Hrm. I have me at 1 Rest (which I gave myself), and I am certainly not Chief Whip. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Inquiry
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 14:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: Arguments: This is a classical case of the Paradox of Self-Amendment. The rule says that If any change to the gamestate would cause ... any change in the effect or attributes of this rule ... including its repeal ... it is cancelled and does not occur. but also that If this rule already fails to have its full effect due to a rule, that rule is repealed. Does this mean that the rule would cause its own repeal because it prevents itself from taking full effect? Since this clause comes later in the rule, it should take precedence (by Rule 2240), which would cause its own repeal. I remember making a similar argument in IRC; the potential rule contradicts itself as to whether or not it affects itself, and the contradiction causes it to repeal itself. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:07, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 08:52 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Registrar's Census FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (19) Nickname E-mail address Since Status --- ais523 ais...@bham.ac.uk 28 Apr 08 SA allispaul allisp...@gmail.com 26 Feb 10 A Andon aoz...@gmail.com 01 Mar 10 A BobTHJ pidge...@gmail.com 17 Jan 08 S comex com...@gmail.com 01 May 07 SA coppro ride...@gmail.com 07 Mar 09 SA ehird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com 26 Feb 09 S Epaeris hermitchipm...@gmail.com 18 Apr 10 A G. ke...@u.washington.edu 31 Oct 09 SA Ienpw III james.m.bei...@gmail.com 04 Aug 09 S Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com 27 Oct 07 SA Phoenix benuphoen...@gmail.com 17 Dec 09 S Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com 27 Jun 08 S Spitemaster benner...@gmail.com 08 Mar 10 A Taral tar...@gmail.com 28 Apr 07 S Tiger jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com 04 Feb 09 SA Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com 21 Sep 09 SA woggle woggl...@gmail.com 05 Mar 10 A Yally aarongoldf...@gmail.com 07 Feb 09 SA [...] Left in 2010: d Normish Partnership 2 r...@normish.org 12 Aug 08 17 Jan 10 a Darth Cliche kenner...@gmail.com 22 Sep 09 26 Jan 10 a Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com 27 Apr 09 26 Jan 10 a woggle woggl...@gmail.com 23 Dec 07 26 Jan 10 v Wooble geoffsp...@gmail.com 17 Nov 09 30 Jan 10 v Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com 05 Dec 09 30 Jan 10 d IBA c/o comex? 21 Aug 09 02 Mar 10 v Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com 25 Jan 08 14 Apr 10 CoE: This report neither lists me as a player nor lists the purported deregistration that would have needed to have occurred were I not a player. It is either an incorrect self-ratifying statement that I'm not a player, or an ILLEGAL report violating R2139's requirement to include the dates on which I registered and deregistered (in which case I lack the standing to make both this then-incorrect CoE and to publish an NoV.) Per the above evidence (and acting on Wooble/Annabel's request; I'll use the name Wooble in this message, as it's the name that should have been listed in the report), I NoV against Yally for violating the power-1 rule 2143 by either publishing inaccurate or misleading information about Wooble's registration status, or failing to publish full information about Wooble's registration history. (Luckily, both these are violations of the same rule, so I don't need to know which occurred; it seems reasonably obvious that at least one of them did, given that Wooble's reregistration on March 21 2010 is as far as I know uncontested, but unlisted in the report.) Evidence: On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:35:56 -0400, Wooble wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I intend, without 2 objections, to set the Interest Index of the Registrar office to 0. I register. I object. --Wooble -- ais523 A simple CoE would have sufficed. I don't see a particular need for excessive punishment for an honest mistake during an extremely busy time for me.
DIS: Re: BUS: More weirdness in the rules
ais523 wrote: I call for judgement on the statement Rule 101 is greater than rule 2029. Evidence: Excerpt from Rule 2141: Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are strictly ordered. Arguments: The power-3 rule 2141, by insisting that rules are strictly ordered, implies that it's possible to have a meaningful less-than/greater-than comparison between them. However, nothing in the ruleset seems to imply what the ordering actually /is/: precedence? power? ID number? order of enactment? something else? It's rather lucky that the relevant bit of gamestate is currently completely irrelevant, or we'd have major headaches trying to figure out just what that platonic order is. Gratuitous: Rule 2161, the only other rule to use the phrase strictly ordered, implies that the ordering is determined by ID number, which SHALL match order of ID number assignment, which in turn SHALL roughly match order of enactment (the definition of ASAP allows some variance).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
coppro wrote: On 04/26/2010 08:34 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: 6713 0 3.0 Murphy Green Eliminate past repetitive wins FORx12 I have you at 2 rests, giving you a voting limit of 0 here (and 4 - 6 on the others due to Chief Whip). Hrm. I have me at 1 Rest (which I gave myself), and I am certainly not Chief Whip. Oh dear, when did that change? I'll fix the DB later today.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: In other news, I announce the ceremonial shilling of the palace. Roll 4d6 for structural damage.
DIS: Re: BUS: Deactivations and Deregistrations
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: For each of the below statements, I perform the indicated action if and only if I am a player. I intend, without objection, to make Yally inactive. --Annabel. I object. And why? At the very least, Andon has been registered for two months and has yet to take a single game action. So the Registrar agrees that I'm a player; if I'm not, there was no action to object to.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: This NoV is invalid; by rule 2230(c) an NoV must specify one action or inaction which is illegal, and that was not clearly present in this NoV (there were two alleged actions). The action was the publication of the report.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deactivations and Deregistrations
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 21:42, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: For each of the below statements, I perform the indicated action if and only if I am a player. I intend, without objection, to make Yally inactive. --Annabel. I object. And why? At the very least, Andon has been registered for two months and has yet to take a single game action. So the Registrar agrees that I'm a player; if I'm not, there was no action to object to. No. I'm just trying to avoid the possibility that you are a player and that I am thus deactivated.
