Re: DIS: Count me in
On 18 Jun 2013 03:40, Flameshadowxeroshin flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote: I join Agora XX. So do I. -- Walker
Re: DIS: Count me in
From only having Watched with half an ear, how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right? I'm only on the discussion list currently, so I miss half the conversation of pretty much everything. -Tiger
DIS: Fwd: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
For the benefit of anyone subscribed only to agora-discussion, I am reposting the 1st report here. I did originally designate agora-business for this game, but I do now designate agora-discussion. -Dan Original Message Subject: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:19:36 -0400 From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Greetings Agorans, I have appointed myself to the Speakership of Agora's Vigintennial Blitz game (AKA Agora XX). I commit to you all that I shall make myself availble for the duties of Speaker at around 11:00 UTC every day, from the 18th to the 29th. This is the first report, containing the Initial Set of rules. It is Agora's Initial Set almost verbatim. Periods are accelerated to 24 hours. The game starts right away and ends on the Vigintennial. To further expedite things, all actions other than votes are posted directly to the mailing list, rather than distributed by the Speaker, since only voting was explicitly secret in the Initial Set (rule 207). Votes are to be emailed privately to the Speaker. I resisted the temptation to make any other changes. The other thing this report contains (rule 218) is the list of players and their scores: I am the only player, I am the Speaker, I have no points. The Initial Set does not specify how players join. Rule 116 implies this is unregulated. I hold that anyone can join by announcement. I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game (rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move. I see no reason to let this get bogged down... we may as well begin directly Proposals for new rules are invited. -- First Speaker Michael Norrish, June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, as quoted in Agora's rule 1727. May the best Nomician win, Daniel Méhkeri. The Initial Set for this game follows. The list of deviations from Agora's Initial Set are: - Rule 104: In the absence of Michael Norrish, I am the Speaker - Rule 107: proposals posted directly to the mailing list - Rule 112: the game ends at the exact moment of Agora's Vigintennial - Rule 203 omitted: see rule 112. - Rule 204: proposals posted directly to the mailing list, Speaker has 24 hours to assign it a number - Rule 205: voting period is 24 hours from its number assignment, however players can also vote before number assignment. - Rule 213: CFJs posted directly to the mailing list, Speaker has 24 hours to select a Judge - Rule 215: Judge has 24 hours to deliver a verdict, verdict posted directly to the mailing list - Rule 216: reasoning, if any, posted directly to the mailing list. -- Rule 101 (Immutable) All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 102 (Immutable) Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. History: Initial Immutable Rule 102, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 103 (Immutable) At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term player in the rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. History: Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 104 (Immutable) The Speaker for the Vigintennial game shall be Daniel Méhkeri. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 105 (Immutable) A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
DIS: Agora XX: 2nd report
Good day Agorans, This time of day (around 11:00 UTC) will be my usual reporting time. There's not much to report today. There have been no proposals. The ruleset is unchanged, I will not repeat it. There are three new Voters: omd, Flameshadowxeroshin, and Walker joined, in that order, bringing the Voter count to, well, three. Plus there's me, and I am Speaker. We all have zero points. There was one CFJ, which will be replied to separately. Impressively, at the time it was raised, there was only one Voter, and yet there still managed to be disagreement. Regards, -Dan Mehkeri
DIS: Re: BUS: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
On 17/06/2013 9:06 PM, omd wrote: Vigintennial Blitz CFJ: If a proposal purports to reward or penalize voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the voting period on that proposal, then that proposal will, if passed, be in conflict with rule 108. Arguments: Why would it? I announce that, by rule 214, I am the Judge. I deliver my judgement: FALSE (ie. that would NOT conflict with 108). Now agora.qoid.us doesn't work for me, but this does: http://web.archive.org/web/20130115221259/http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/stare.txt 108: Michael, 001: This does not forbid Rules to be explicitly dependent on circumstances before they are enacted, for example the vote on the Proposal that created the Rule. I concur with Michael. Merely depending on history, without attempting to re-write it, does not violate 108. Now 001 seems to indicate the very first CFJ from 20 years ago was about this, and I take it that omd was aware of this when he raised this current CFJ. Nice! -Dan
Re: DIS: Count me in
On 18/06/2013 4:46 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: From only having Watched with half an ear, and Listened with one eye, how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right? Yup, speed Agora, this list, and I reposted the 1st report so hopefully that's all clear now. I miss half the conversation of pretty much everything. - ... - Okay, will do. - ... - No, we have no mustard. - ... - Well, I don't know about THAT. I mean, where are we going to find a pair of pants that big?
DIS: Agora XX: Registration
I join Agora XX. Chuck
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. Chuck
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
On 18 Jun 2013, at 13:08, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” Chuck I vote in favour. I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive with 10 points. -- Walker
DIS: A, B, C, D
I am tired, and I object to my being made inactive, and I vote PRESENT on everything I can, and I register for Agora XX, and the first two actions I do only in Agora, whilst the latter I do only in Agora XX, my observation of tiredness not being counted as an action, have a nice day.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote in favor. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 Jun 2013, at 13:08, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” Chuck I vote in favour. I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive with 10 points. -- Walker
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. Chuck
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote in favor of my own proposal. Chuck I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. Chuck
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote in favor. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. Chuck
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: I vote in favor of my own proposal. I propose that a rule be enacted to read: Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately repealed. Remember that you can vote privately.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large][CotC] CFJ 3336 assigned to scshunt
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: On Jun 16, 2013, at 5:01 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: This Court intends, with two Support, to make this case Notable, suggesting Rule 1504. I support. I object. It's not the sentencing but the question of guilt; specifically on handling multiple violations. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote: CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons. Note that person is currently explicitly defined by the Power-3 Rule 2150. CFJ 1700 does not mention root's keyboard; CFJ 1685, which does, was called shortly before the rule in question was enacted.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Registration
On 18/06/2013 7:58 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote: I join Agora XX. Chuck Well, hog tie me to a TTY and set my wizard bit, look who's here! -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ
And I got the numbers wrong yet again. Oh well. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote: CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons. Note that person is currently explicitly defined by the Power-3 Rule 2150. CFJ 1700 does not mention root's keyboard; CFJ 1685, which does, was called shortly before the rule in question was enacted.
DIS: Agora XX proposals 301-304
Hello all, A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You can vote privately, as omd reminds you. Voting on these four closes in 24h. -Dan 301 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” 302 (Walker): I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive with 10 points. 303 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. 304 (omd): I propose that a rule be enacted to read: Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately repealed.
DIS: RETRY Agora XX proposals 301-304
Retrying with a reply-to header so that you'll reply to me by default. Original Message Subject: Agora XX proposals 301-304 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:28:19 -0400 From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Hello all, A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You can vote privately, as omd reminds you. Voting on these four closes in 24h. -Dan 301 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read: “Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive.” 302 (Walker): I propose that the Rule initially numbered 211 be amended by replacing a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive with 10 points. 303 (Chuck): I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable. 304 (omd): I propose that a rule be enacted to read: Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10 points they gained for voting against; then this rule is immediately repealed.
DIS: Proposal 7476
Proposal 7476 (AI=2, PF=Y0, Ordinary, Disinterested) by scshunt Staledated Amend Rule 879 to read Quorum on an Agoran Decision is the greater of one-third the number of active players and 5. The rule used to be eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision rather than active players, might that not matter? Also, what if there are fewer than 5 eligible voters? The rule used to have a clause about that.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7453-70
omd wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Voting results for Proposals 7453-70: CoE: This should be correct but I forgot to explicitly describe conditional votes, which may or may not be necessary. Admitted, they were: 7458 woggle endorse IADoP (scshunt) - PRESENT 7459 woggle endorse Assessor (Murphy) - PRESENT 7461 G. endorse Promotor - FOR 7465 woggle endorse Murphy - PRESENT 7466 woggle endorse Murphy - PRESENT 7467 G. endorse Murphy - PRESENT Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints. Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue updating the existing one?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7453-70
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints. Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue updating the existing one? While a database of proposal text + results would be handy (mostly while browsing rule history) and I would like to set one up at some point, it's not critical, because proposals are not referred to as often as CFJs and their history is not as important as rules'; and I have never actually had occasion to use yours, since as far as I can tell, it does not include proposal text (so when searching for the proposal text in list archives I may as well go to voting results and get the results there). Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether yours is updated (except insofar as it checks my errors, but I don't think it's worth duplicating recordkeeping just for that); if anyone else depends on the Assessor DB, however, please speak up so I can prioritize getting something up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7453-70
omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results would be handy (mostly
while browsing rule history) and I would like to set one up at some
point, it's not critical, because proposals are not referred to as
often as CFJs and their history is not as important as rules'; and I
have never actually had occasion to use yours, since as far as I can
tell, it does not include proposal text (so when searching for the
proposal text in list archives I may as well go to voting results and
get the results there). Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether
yours is updated (except insofar as it checks my errors, but I don't
think it's worth duplicating recordkeeping just for that); if anyone
else depends on the Assessor DB, however, please speak up so I can
prioritize getting something up.
It doesn't, it was only designed to track votes. I won't bother
updating it further, then, but I'll leave the existing data and
scripts up in case anyone decides to grab and use them (as Roujo
has done with CotC).
Because the thing naturally built up history, I added some trend
analysis reports ('Proposal count' and 'Adoption count', and 'Look
up similarities' which I think was inspired by root voting 'endorse
player who will hopefully return the favor' rather than PRESENT).
There are some leftover columns for stuff repealed years ago. There's
also a distinction between 'rejected' and 'narrowly rejected' (the
latter indicating that VI was at least half of AI); this originally
tied in with a rule clause, I kept it as an unofficial aspect of one
of the trend reports.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3344 assigned to scshunt
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3344 == CFJ 3344 == Michael Norrish CAN form a government by announcement. Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be Michael Norrish just as it might be, say, Dave Levac. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3344 assigned to scshunt
Proposal, titled Dave Forever:
{{
Append the following to the list of valid judgements in rule 591:
{
* DAVE LEVAC, never appropriate, yet always welcome.
}
}}
~ Roujo
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3344
== CFJ 3344 ==
Michael Norrish CAN form a government by announcement.
Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact
UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but
there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be
Michael Norrish just as it might be, say, Dave Levac.
-scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3344 assigned to scshunt
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be Michael Norrish just as it might be, say, Dave Levac. Don't listen to me, but it is my opinion (and just my opinion, it's not like it says this in the rules or anything) that where the text of the rules is silent, it should be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. Just a thought; feel free to ignore this. More serious arguments: what we have here is an ambiguity in the rules, and an ambiguity in the rules *never* makes UNDECIDABLE appropriate. The judge ought to weigh the evidence on both sides and decide whether TRUE or FALSE would make sense. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Hang on tight, we'll do it live.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: I assume CotC. Let's hope it works. =P Please stand by while I work through the backlog of cases. ~ Roujo Have I missed something? I thought CotC was postulated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hang on tight, we'll do it live.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Have I missed something? I thought CotC was postulated. CotC and Assessor were made Assumed when Murphy recently received a TIME OUT sentence.
