DIS: Agora XX: The Rights of the Majority
I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. -- Walker
Re: DIS: Agora XX: The Rights of the Majority
I vote for that. Now, what's Rule 324? Where can I read the Agora XX Rules? -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 24 Jun 2013 18:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. -- Walker
Re: DIS: Agora XX: The Rights of the Majority
There is a reasonably up-to-date copy at http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg30126.html Rule 324 is the transmuted version of Rule 110. -- Walker On 24 Jun 2013, at 10:38, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote: I vote for that. Now, what's Rule 324? Where can I read the Agora XX Rules? -- Steve Gardner via mobile On 24 Jun 2013 18:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. -- Walker
DIS: Re: Agora XX: Registration
Hi Steve! Chuck From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On Behalf Of Steven Gardner Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 1:52 AM To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Agora XX: Registration Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu ** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Proposals 326-329
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: 326 (Chuck): I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no other way to win.” 327 (Walker): I propose to amend Rule 310 by replacing inpermissible with impermissible. 328 (Walker): I propose to make Rule 109 mutable. 329 (Michael): I propose we repeal rule 219. [ Commentary: Paradoxes suck. ] For 326, against the rest.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement This is a CFJ.}}}
I attempt to announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement This is another
CFJ.}}}
Arguments: Clearly, just calling a CFJ by itself works. How many levels
of ISIDTID indirection are needed before announcing that you announce
something stops working?
Arguments: I would say any number of wrappers would work.
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 330
Here I just number and repeat the one new proposal. Report shortly. -Dan 330 (Walker): I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence.
DIS: Agora XX: 8th report
Good day Agorans, Since last report, voting closed on proposals 324 and 325. Proposal 324 (Chuck) passed 4:0 with Walker, Chuck, scshunt, and Roujo voting FOR. This transmutes 110. Chuck gets 10 points by rule 302. Proposal 325 (Chuck) fails 2:2 with Chuck and Roujo FOR; scshunt and Walker AGAINST. Walker ruled on scshunt's first CFJ about the ability of rules to self-repeal, affecting rules 304 and 323. The ruling was that they do so, with a caveat: It must be pointed out that this ruling is limited to allowing specific rule changes which are clearly going to happen as a result of a proposal at the time that the proposal is being voted on. These are the only rule changes which have been voted on. So, for example, a rule which makes random rule changes is at present impossible. FSX failed to rule in time on my CFJ about the validity of conditionals, affecting proposal 322. The condition in this case was false, but it would still affect whether rule 302 granted points for it. FSX loses 10 points by rule 215, and the CFJ has been re-assigned to Goethe. Steve Gardner registered, so the twelve Votes and their scores are now: omd, 66 or 68 points FSX, -10 points Walker, 92 or 102 points Chuck, 58 points ehird, 30 points Yally, 0 points. Michael, 0 points. scshunt, 6 or 8 points. Roujo, 0 points. Murphy, 0 points. Goethe, 0 points. Steve, 0 points. The uncertainty is due to the outstanding CFJ. Then there's me, I am Speaker, I have -10 points. The current ruleset is below. Voting on proposals 326-329 closes in about 11 hours, which is also when Goethe's ruling is due. Voting on proposal 330 closes in about 24 hours. Cheers, Dan Mehkeri -- 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 -- Rule 106 (Immutable) All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 107 (Immutable) Any proposed rule change must be posted to the mailing list designated by the Speaker for this purpose. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. History: Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993 Amended for Vigintennial by decree, Jun. 17 2013 -- Rule 108 (Immutable) No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive application. History: Initial Immutable Rule 108, Jun. 30 1993 --
DIS: Proposals
I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read: The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as the statement's Judge. [Proposal comment: i.e. judges now selected from active players rather than always being the Speaker.] I propose that Rule 302 be amended to read: When a proposal is adopted, each Voter who voted against it shall receive 5 points, and its author shall receive 10 points. When a proposal's voting period ends, each Voter who voted on it shall receive 5 points, unless they received points by this clause in the last 24 hours. [Proposal comment: Reward for voting.] I propose that Rule 205 be amended to read: The Speaker shall make one proposal distribution per 24 hours, numbering and publishing the text of each proposal submitted since the last distribution. This starts each such proposal's prescribed voting period, which lasts 24 hours. [Proposal comment: Fewer distributions and overlapping voting periods = more votes?] I propose that Rules 217 (game custom, spirit of the game) be made immutable. I propose that Rule 213 (judgements) be made immutable. I propose that Rule 210 (timing of rule changes) be made immutable. I propose that Rule 102 (initial mutability) be made mutable (because I would like to repeal it). I propose that Rule 111 (conflict between mutable and immutable rules) be made mutable (ditto, I would like to make numerical precedence apply to all conflicts). I propose that Rule 109 be made mutable (because I would like to make rule numbers stable rather than changing after every amendment).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3339 assigned to woggle. Good luck.
On Jun 23, 2013, at 9:33 PM, woggle wrote: I do not believe the truth value of undecidable iff not undecidable is well-defined -- especially in the presence of the implicit Liar's Paradox issue here -- so it would be most appropriate to interpret LIFF!L as also UNDECIDABLE. All right. That's an outcome I hadn't considered, but your judgement seems to be consistent under its own standards. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Jun 17, 2013 5:29 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: REGISTRAR'S REPORT CoE to this report and the one published today: Murphy is inactive. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Sensei] What's going on in Okinawa?
I notice that this report is in HTML, but does not use pre tags around the tables, so if I'm looking at the HTML version of this message, the tables don't line up correctly. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Sensei] What's going on in Okinawa?
On 24 June 2013 14:52, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: I notice that this report is in HTML, but does not use pre tags around the tables, so if I'm looking at the HTML version of this message, the tables don't line up correctly. Apologies; I meant not to send it in HTML. I'd blame Gmail, but there's a saying about a poor workman. -- Walker
DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I submit the following proposal: Enact a new Rule which reads: Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote for this Proposal. On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote: I submit the following proposal: Enact a new Rule which reads: Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Registration
On Mon, 24 Sun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. Steve Steve!! Good morning from this timezone. (Now I'd better really catch up).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 24 June 2013 12:58, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguments: I would say any number of wrappers would work.
I define f(n) to be I attempt to announce {{{, followed by f(n+1),
followed by }}}, whenever n ω, and f(ω) to be I call a CFJ on the
statement 'This is not a CFJ.', and then announce the string f(0).
e meant that any number of *fully written out* wrappers would work, silly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to more recent economies that I've seen? -- Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3337 judged FALSE by G.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 13:21 -0400, omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that
colour.
Treating as INEFFECTIVE as attempting to do something is not an action.
Long precedent and common sense is that saying I attempt to do X is
equivalent to saying I do X.
I announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement This is a CFJ.}}}
I attempt to announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement This is another
CFJ.}}}
Arguments: Clearly, just calling a CFJ by itself works. How many levels
of ISIDTID indirection are needed before announcing that you announce
something stops working?
Also, I think there's a genuine precedent somewhere that says I announce that
is pretty much a null string and nested versions of that collapse out (wish
I could remember the context, something to do with On Behalf Of stuff I think).
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to more recent economies that I've seen? Heh, I think I'll defer this one to Steve... Okay, enough deference. Short answer: stable unified system for 3+ years with multiyear investments on 4 interlinked currencies (with much active speculation), money supply and tax issues permeated elections (prices depended on balance of 4 officers' decisions), pretty much everyone played (couldn't be involved without it), spawned some very large scale deals (at least one where everyone was involved in a massive trade/ bidding coalition battle to corner a currency), spawned both secondary trading markets and tertiary investments (bonds on debts) and even (arguably) quartenary ones (obligations to create bonds or debts). Key to the last points were that they evolved more or less naturally (i.e. different people over time because it was sensible) not just for the sake of it (hey, I'm going to make a debt for a debt for a debt just because I can). Of course, I could probably summarize any 3 years of Agora like this and it would sound exciting in a compressed form... I dunno. Michael, Chuck, Steve am I just wearing rose-colored glasses here... -Goethe
Re: DIS: Agora XX: my turn to CFJ (Judge: FSX)
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322 contains a conditional: 322 (Walker): - If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to read ... Judgement: First, a conditional Rule change is not a proper rule change, so is not, as a whole, a proposal for a rule change. Second, in the text in which Walker allegedly submitted the text, it was a bullet in a long list that read as follows: - If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to read [...] I take this to mean that the rule change was submitted iff R106 was mutable at the time of this submission (I'm *specifically* allowing reasonable conditional specifying of actions in general, as it isn't forbidden). According to the Ruleset, R106 was not mutable, so this change wasn't submitted. Finally, the CFJ statement submitted was on the validity of proposal 322. This is not particularly prone to an answer (it's a malformed statement, really) so I'm not sure how to answer it. Trivially, for this malformed statement I can see about equal arguments for TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED, so hopefully this is a minor point and the arguments about 322 itself above will let us blitz on. My personal interpretation is that the statement be read as asking Is this a CFJ on the validity of proposal 322? Of course it's not, it's a CFJ asking if it's a CFJ on the validity of proposal 322. FALSE. -Goethe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 24 Jun 2013, at 16:24, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: On 19 June 2013 22:05, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 3. Massive Economic System (1999-2002); What was this like? In particular, what made it so massive compared to more recent economies that I've seen? Heh, I think I'll defer this one to Steve... Okay, enough deference. Short answer: stable unified system for 3+ years with multiyear investments on 4 interlinked currencies (with much active speculation), money supply and tax issues permeated elections (prices depended on balance of 4 officers' decisions), pretty much everyone played (couldn't be involved without it), spawned some very large scale deals (at least one where everyone was involved in a massive trade/ bidding coalition battle to corner a currency), spawned both secondary trading markets and tertiary investments (bonds on debts) and even (arguably) quartenary ones (obligations to create bonds or debts). Key to the last points were that they evolved more or less naturally (i.e. different people over time because it was sensible) not just for the sake of it (hey, I'm going to make a debt for a debt for a debt just because I can). Of course, I could probably summarize any 3 years of Agora like this and it would sound exciting in a compressed form... I dunno. Michael, Chuck, Steve am I just wearing rose-colored glasses here... -Goethe It does sound exciting, but I guess we'll see what the other ancients think. I'm amazed the game could support many different currencies and the secondary (never mind tertiary and quartenary) markets. I think that modern day Agora isn't active enough for that, but maybe if you build it, they will come. What were the currencies based on? Was it something like you can spend X to submit a proposal, Y to increase your votes, or you get X for being an officer and Y for being a judge? Or something else? Money supply and tax issues in elections are a good idea; we have the kernel of that with Budgets. It seems like making it impossible not to join in is the most important thing, not just because it 'forces' players to, but because it makes the economy interesting and worth playing if it permeates all aspects of the game. -- Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote: I'm amazed the game could support many different currencies and the secondary (never mind tertiary and quartenary) markets. I think that modern day Agora isn't active enough for that, but maybe if you build it, they will come. In Feb 2001 Agora was Slashdotted (just via high-placed comment). I think it doubled in two weeks, and peaked a little while later in the 30+ players (IIRC, maybe I'm exaggerating). The new players (like me) as a cohort basically jumped into the economy rather than going straight for ruleset changes. What were the currencies based on? Was it something like you can spend X to submit a proposal, Y to increase your votes, or you get X for being an officer and Y for being a judge? Or something else? Ok, you asked for the long dissertation (maybe this should make a thesis). - Stems were a fixed currency for basic awards, similar scale to Yaks for all salaries but fixed and untradeable. Regular taxes. - Three different non-fixed currencies, Papyrus, VEs, and Indulgences. The only way to get these currencies into supply was (about monthly) the recordkeepor for the currency would decide to auction some off, the auctions were the only way to spend Stems. So three recordkeepors, 3 types of auctions. Each recordkeepor could decide within a range how many to auction and thus regulate the supply. - Papyrus were used to make proposals Distributable. Only way. This was sort of the bread-and-butter trading currency (high turnover, constant basic value). - Indulgences were used to expunge blots (blots were the measure of rules- breaking; having blots was a losing conditions, and too many blots lowered your Voting Power). These turned out to be highly speculative, and fluctuated a lot in value (especially as blots could happen in patches, like if a bunch of players try a scam). - VEs were basically permanent +1 to your VVLDP per VE (up to max VVLDP of 5). Control strictly limited to 1 per player; when a new player joined, e was given 0.5 of the resulting VE, and the remaining 0.5 was auctioned off. Rare, valuable auctions! Took people 2+ years to slowly build up to the max 5. - Each currency could be taxed by its recordkeepor every so often, but rates within a range at recordkeepor's discretion. Tax rates were major campaign issue a couple times. So, these three tradeable currencies with supply governed in part by discretion of multiple officers conducting active auctions and in part by players' activities (are there a flurry of competing proposals coming? sell your papyri high!). Not bad. Later built-up included formal Debt handling, Bonds, a private trading company with investors. The main reason it fell apart, though, was exactly what you'd expect. Typical attrition with no new slashdotting brought us down to a more typical player participation-and-interest level, and the weight of this machinery with far lower use kinda crashed inward/decayed until it was removed. This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying general specific actions without organizing them into categories. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Star cleanups
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Amend Rule 2409 (Star Chamber) inserting - publish the list of codes (but not the corresponding options) as the second item in the bulleted list. [Allows the Assessor to know whether or not each vote cast is valid for the purposes of extending th voting period.] The ability to use invalid codes was supposed to be a feature (for bluffing or whatever purpose), but I forgot that that would affect extending the voting period. Not that important I guess.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This sort of three-fold action/house concept (Proposals, Voting, and Justice) with separate currencies was carried over into Cards, but I think over time, the paid systems have become more about buying general specific actions without organizing them into categories. Wow! More complicated than I imagined. Thanks for writing that all out. There's a nice symmetry between the three things players want to spend money on (proposal submission, expunging blots/rests, voting) and the three things we want to reward them for (proposal adoption, judging, recordkeeping). I dunno if there's something in that. If I may ask another question, what facilitated all the trading? Contracts, or an auction/ trade offer system? -- Walker
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Judicial Double Dipping
On 24 Jun 2013, at 20:36, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal and pay Y20 to increase its Distributability.
Proposal: No Judicial Double Dipping (AI=2, PF=21)
{{
Amend rule 2403 (Judicial Fees) by replacing:
As soon as possible after a player or an appeals panel judges a
judicial case within any time limits for doing so
with:
In a timely fashion after a player or an appeals panel judges a
judicial case without having previously judged the same case
and within any time limits for doing so
}}
- woggle
I proposed much the same thing earlier today.
-- Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting Simplified
On 24 Jun 2013, at 18:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: In Feb 2001 Agora was Slashdotted (just via high-placed comment). I think it doubled in two weeks, and peaked a little while later in the 30+ players (IIRC, maybe I'm exaggerating). The new players (like me) as a cohort basically jumped into the economy rather than going straight for ruleset changes. Agora needs better advertising. -- Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Star cleanups
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Amend Rule 2409 (Star Chamber) inserting - publish the list of codes (but not the corresponding options) as the second item in the bulleted list. [Allows the Assessor to know whether or not each vote cast is valid for the purposes of extending th voting period.] The ability to use invalid codes was supposed to be a feature (for bluffing or whatever purpose), but I forgot that that would affect extending the voting period. Not that important I guess. I have no issue with throwing in another code to be interpreted as PRESENT, or disabling voting period extension on Star Chamber. The current situation is bad though because only the initiator knows if the voting period is extended, and this is open to scams (especially if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the rule against that?]). -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Star cleanups
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 16:36 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: I have no issue with throwing in another code to be interpreted as PRESENT, or disabling voting period extension on Star Chamber. The current situation is bad though because only the initiator knows if the voting period is extended, and this is open to scams (especially if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the rule against that?]). Rules of the form player A can't also be player B normally collapse down to find an accomplice. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Star cleanups
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 16:36 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: I have no issue with throwing in another code to be interpreted as PRESENT, or disabling voting period extension on Star Chamber. The current situation is bad though because only the initiator knows if the voting period is extended, and this is open to scams (especially if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the rule against that?]). Rules of the form player A can't also be player B normally collapse down to find an accomplice. Indeed, but in this case an accomplice would actually result in a rules violation. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Star cleanups
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: (especially if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the rule against that?]). FWIW, as the first person to be both Promotor and Assessor as long as I can remember (mainly because Murphy's been Assessor for almost all of that time, but still), I thought about that rule, but I don't think that under the current rules there is anything particularly harmful about the initiator also being the vote collector. That's in general, not as applied to the Star Chamber - I agree there is a bug here. To answer the question, though, it was repealed by 52-pickup in 2011. (By the way, a fundamental problem with just publishing all the valid options is that it ruins the fun of seeing bizarre options trickle in, and the spam suggests the obvious solution of just using the same two codes for everyone and randomly flipping the meanings, which is even less fun! I may, however, be the only person interested in this :)
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Registration
Good to hear from you again, old friend. And to see other old-timers here, too. On 25 June 2013 00:34, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 24 Sun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. Steve Steve!! Good morning from this timezone. (Now I'd better really catch up). -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Re: Agora XX: Registration
HI Chuck! How are we all doing? On 24 June 2013 21:29, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote: Hi Steve! ** ** Chuck ** ** *From:* agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] *On Behalf Of *Steven Gardner *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 1:52 AM *To:* agora-discussion@agoranomic.org *Subject:* DIS: Agora XX: Registration ** ** Happy 20th birthday, Agora. I register as a player of Agora XX. ** ** Steve ** ** -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal 330
I vote AGAINST 330. Michael On 24/06/13 22:09, Fool wrote: Here I just number and repeat the one new proposal. Report shortly. -Dan 330 (Walker): I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Endgame XX
I propose the following rule: At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the most points wins the game. In the event of a tie, the tied player who most recently had more points than each other tied player wins.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: The Rights of the Majority
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. -- Walker Against, based on a lack of suitable replacement.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: The Rights of the Majority
Against. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence. -- Walker Against, based on a lack of suitable replacement.
Re: DIS: Agora XX: Proposal
I vote for this proposal. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote: I vote for this Proposal. On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote: I submit the following proposal: Enact a new Rule which reads: Within 24 hours of this Rule being enacted, the Speaker shall publish the names and email addresses of all registered players of Agora XX. Steve -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu ** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu ** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
